No! We are not dealing with a level tube, and you said to stick to 1 specific thing.
Then sit back and chat to someone else and leave it.
And yet again you have proven that you have no interest at all in any form of a rational discussion and just want to continually spout whatever BS you can.
Because you can't defend your claim, you want to run from it.
You also show that your previous claim was yet another blatant lie.
Remember this lie of yours:
If you want to start again and deal with one specific thing at a time instead of copy and pasting then I'll happily go over it.
You sure don't seem to want to happily go over it. You don't want to go over it at all.
So thanks for yet again showing you are the problem. You don't want to just stick to a specific thing. Instead you just want to discuss no more than 1 thing at a time, so you can continually jump between them to pretend you haven't been repeatedly refuted.
If you whish to try again, you get to start. So if you want to just focus on a specific issue, deal with the visual transition from the ground to the sky. But don't expect me to. You had your chance.
So no more just sticking to one point.
First, the horizon, there is no reason at all to produce a blur or a blend.
The RE, just like all other round objects, should produce a clear edge.
The only way for it to have a blend or the like is if the atmosphere stopped the light, or something got in the way. But that works for both a RE and a FE.
This means the RE does have a horizon.
And when you bother doing the math, it is at roughly 2.7 arc minutes below level if your eyes are 2 m above the level surface, easily visible through a level tube.
And while I am at it, no you hadn't told us that before. Instead it was pointed out that that is one possibility for a FE, where the atmosphere stops the light and you have a region of darkness. This was the first time you told us the RE should magically have this.
Now back to the tube that you wanted to change the topic to:
WHAT MAGIC STOPS THE BLUE LINE?
We know it can easily reach your eye without the tube.
We know the tube doesn't present any obstruction to the blue line.
So without anything to stop it, it should reach the eye. So again, what magic stops it?
And as there is nothing to stop it, that means you can see light coming in from below the tube. You have an angular FOV just like always.
And with this angular FOV, you can typically easily see the ground. But like as shown repeatedly, for a flat surface, that will depend on the gradient and the FOV; and for a round surface, that will depend on the FOV your height and the radius of the curve.
And the fact that you can see below the tube can also be easily established by simply looking at a distant object through the tube.
You can see things much larger than the tube, and thus you must be able to see above and below the tube.
Do you yet have any reasons for constantly calling me a liar
Yep. Already given. Take notice.
Your sole "reason" is that he proved you wrong.
But that just shows that you are wrong, not that he is a liar.
The common tactic with people like you
You mean a common tactic with people like you is to demand an experiment, only to dismiss it when it shows you are wrong and throw in more ridiculous demands, all while being completely incapable of doing the experiment yourself and providing the results.
But remember, we don't need your experiment. Simple logic shows you are wrong.
unlike your attempts to swerve.
You are the one trying to swerve.
We were meant to be discussing the edge of the RE and how it visually transitions, and you ran right away to a level tube.
You've also been told.
And you have been told that we don't see in 1D. So no, that is not what anyone other than you says.
Like I told you before, redraw your diagram, but this time with actual FOVs drawn in.
Not inside a small tube you don't.
Yes inside a level tube.
As repeatedly shown. Unless you can explain what magic stops the blue line.
Sure, it is a smaller angle than without the tube, but it is still an entire angular FOV, not 0, not a line.
I see you've went right back to the start.
No, you just haven't left the start.
You continue to make bold, insane assertions with literally nothing to back them up, and simple logic and diagrams showing you are wrong.
I always said there was a field of view
No, you repeatedly rejected it. FOV is based upon angles. You said you magically don't see in angle and instead magically see a line, as 1 inch of any object.
Is this a real argument? You realize you are forcing the round earth’s 3D system to conform to a 2D drawing, right?
If he is just trying to show a side view, that isn't a problem.