What you see in the distance is a compression. It's like seeing a big picture and moving back, but as you do you compress that picture to fit into your view.
This is why I used the tube to show the picture that you partly see close up can be compressed into that tube diameter to your eye, because of your eye.
Like I said with FOV. It's there but it's compressed over distance.
That's all I've been saying.
No, that is not what you have been saying.
You have stated that you can't see the ground because it is below the level of the tube. That is completely ignoring FOV/compression.
Most people have no need to discuss your idea of compression, as it is simply explained by FOV.
What you see, is because you have a FOV.
You see more of distant objects, not because they are being compressed, but because at that distance, the angular FOV you have corresponds to a greater height.
What you want to pretend is "compression", is merely the fact that we have a FOV, and see based upon angles, instead of linear dimensions.
Like shown here:
The more distant tree isn't more compressed, you just see more of it because your angular FOV corresponds to a larger linear distance at that distance.
Ahhh right, I see what you're playing at.
I'm not playing at anything. I am clearly explaining why your claims are wrong.
You totally overlook the cross hair point of vision and decide to use the FOV as if the tree in the distance stands out like a sore thumb du to it.
No, I don't.
Even that cross hair will have some angular span, and that means it will be able to obscure a larger object or a larger angular distance the further away that object is.
Let me try and make this as clear as I have done for long enough.
We were arguing vision through a simple tube with a diameter of about an inch or two.
I told you it was tunnel vision to help with the cross hair focus on any distance object and/or your theoretical horizon line.
And as I have told you, even through such a tube, YOU STILL HAVE A FOV!
Your entire argument relies upon ignoring this FOV and instead pretending that we magically see in a straight line only.
To put it in a nutshell, it's like looking at a focal point (the tree) as it shrinks (to your eye view) as you move away.
Which then allows you to see the ground, which you claim shouldn't be possible.
Let's get back to what this was really about.
Fine, lets do that.
On a RE, as humans have a FOV, when they look out level, due to how small the curvature of Earth is, they will easily be able to see Earth, rather than just sky as you claim.
It was your inability to defend your false claim that on a RE you would expect to see nothing but sky with such a view which lead you down this path of twisting and turning to try to avoid reality.
Even a simple tube, set level, will still allow you to see the RE, assuming its FOV is large enough.
But if you get high enough, you can clearly observe the horizon to be below level.
And, even if you try to set it up on a continuous downwards gradient, your ability to see the ground through the tube depends on the FOV and the gradient.
If the FOV is larger than 2 times the gradient, you can still see the gradient.
Go and do what JJA refused to do.
For what point?
For you to dismiss it as fake, like you dismiss every piece of evidence that shows you are wrong as fake?
For you to then throw in more ridiculous requirements and excuses about how you magically aren't wrong?
With you admitting you do not magically only see 1 inch of the tree, and instead you see more, your entire argument falls to pieces.
Your argument relies upon it being impossible to see anything below the level of the tube.