And just like I said, you just ignore it.
Again, see this diagram:
It clearly shows the problem.
Again, what magic stops the blue line?
Until you have an answer, you have been proven wrong.
The fact you continue to ignore it rather than even trying to respond shows that.
Now grow up and either answer the question or admit you have no answer and have been shown that you are wrong.
There is no problem. You made a diagram making out the blue line has meaning.
There is a massive problem for you, which you are yet to address.
All you can do is continually ignore the problem and pretend I am saying or doing things I aren't. You have no actual criticism against his disproof of your nonsense.
This shows what happens when you have a simple tube without a lens.
This shows how the tube restricts your FOV.
Each of the thick coloured lines has a very significant meaning, showing a possible path of light.
We can easily see that the orange line must pass through the wall of the tube in order to reach your eye. Assuming the tube is opaque this means the beam of light represented by the orange line cannot reach your eye and instead it will be blocked by the wall of the tube.
Conversely, we can easily see how the red, green and blue lines do not intersect the wall.
There is nothing in their way to stop them, nor is there a lens to deflect them and thus they can reach the eye.
The red lines are the limit, the edge of the FOV you have through a tube.
This means you FOV is the region bounded by the 2 red lines.
The blue line is in that region. Again, there is nothing to stop light travelling along it from reaching your eye.
This means that light can travel from below the level of the tube and go up and into your eye. This can allow you to see the ground, even when looking level, even on some downwards slopes, depending on the FOV of the tube and the gradient of the slope.
It does if you're using a scope. A telescope or your naked eye. Are you?
No, it is a simple tube.
Again, if you would like an example with a scope, then an extreme example would be this:
Notice the lens shown in grey which bends the light?
That is what you need for your nonsense to be correct.
I have also stated you have to be looking level through a crosshair not angled down from the top of the back of the tube to the bottom of the front.
It is quite clear that in this diagram the eye is centred.
It is looking directly level.
But because it has a FOV it also sees above and below level.
What you claim to see is in your mind, unless you are using naked eye or telescope.
So which is it?
Neither.
It is simply that you are wrong, and you are looking for whatever excuse you can to dismiss this logical proof that you are wrong, when you have no criticism of it at all and thus need to invent criticism when it clearly has no place.
Everyone can see that this diagram has a tube, and thus it is not merely the naked eye.
Everyone can see that there is no lens, and thus it is not a scope.
Yet you play dumb and act like both could be the case.
You play dumb and pretend that the lines have no meaning, when they have been explained to you repeatedly.
You play dumb and pretend that the eye isn't looking level, and instead want to pretend it is somehow looking from the top of the tube when the image clearly has it in the middle.
There is no twisting or trickery by me.
The only attempts at that are by you, trying to use whatever dishonest BS you can to dismiss the fact that you are wrong.
And you have no criticism of it. The only "criticism" you provide is of your strawmen.
The valid criticism you could make against this requires you to explain what magic stops the light indicated by the blue line from reaching the eye.
Without such criticism, you are wrong.
So there you have it, simple proof that you are wrong with no twisting or trickery (except the attempts by you) and which you cannot criticise.
You are wrong. It's time for you to grow up, accept that you are wrong, and move on.