Take a look at the diagram I put up and tell me how you can possibly see the downward gradient from a level stand point of the tube on that downward gradient.
That has already been explained.
YOU DON'T SEE IN 1D.
Instead you have an angular FOV.
There is a range of angles you can see.
Again, pretty simple, even a complete moron can understand it. So why do you pretend to have so much difficulty?
Again, this is easy to test for yourself, and has been shown to you.
The ruler does it the best, as it shows the further away something is, the more you see of it, and that you can see things above and below the tube.
You do not see a downward gradient from a level tube on that gradient.
Nobody but you is mentioning 1D.
Again, you are repeatedly showing 1D. It doesn't matter if you want to try to use a technicality to pretend you aren't saying it.
You are clearly showing a 1D view.
See this garbage of yours:
See how each view is just a single line?
That is you pretending people only see in a line.
If you truly accepted that we have a FOV, and wanted that to be a refutation of the RE, you would show an angular FOV, like this one:
That is why your diagram is garbage. WE DO NOT SEE IN 1D.
We have a FOV. This FOV allows us to see the hill.
And you still avoid the simple questions that show you are spouting pure BS:
Why should the RE magically have a blend from light to dark instead of a clear edge like every other ball?
What magic makes a tube magically make you see in parallel lines? And what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye?
Do you accept that looking through a level tube will allow you to see an entire house if you stand far enough away?
In the set up I gave out, you can't...but you play games. You're fooling yourself, not me.
You mean your ridiculously overcomplicated setup where you are merely trying to reduce the FOV, by making the eye 11 feet away from the end of the tube instead of ~2?
The only one playing games here is you. The only one trying to fool people here (and failing miserably) is you.
No need to use scale to understand a level tube on a downward gradient will not show that gradient beneath.
For a constant gradient, no. But you do still need to show an actual FOV, rather than just a pathetic line.
For a curve, scale is important.
How in the hell you think it can, bemuses me.
Again, already explained.
WE DON'T SEE IN 1D.
Our "FOV" is not merely a line that goes straight out.
It is a cone, or in 2D, it is the region between 2 lines.
Again, so simple a moron can understand.
Once more, here it is for a constant downwards gradient:
The FOV is made from the 2 dark red/brown lines.
Notice how it is 2 lines, rather than just a singe level line?
Notice how 1 of the downwards gradients shown enters the FOV, meaning you can see it?
Can you show anything wrong with this diagram at all?
And remember, you claim to accept that you do have a FOV, so you can't object to that without showing yourself to be a liar yet again.