Absolutely no trouble at all for me.
It seems like quite substantial trouble, as you still refuse to address a simple question directly, and need to dodge it as much as possible as it gets right to the heart of your contradiction.
Do you know why the tree was brought up in the first place?
To expose the insanity of your position.
But rather than accept that and admit you were wrong, you just outright contradict yourself.
Again, your entire argument is based upon not being able to see anything that is below the level of the tube.
You have explicitly confirmed this in 2 ways.
First by saying that the image provided of the tunnel vision is absolutely correct.
This was done in this post of yours:
So are you saying this:
Absolutely.
You (in the quote chain in that post) rejected the angular FOV provided by me which would allow you to see things below the level of the tube, and replaced it by this magic tunnel vision of yours.
Note that in this side view, which you agreed with absolutely, the distance between the straight line, level through the tube, and the ground, does not change, so this image is not showing any compression.
Again, you rely on this to claim you cannot see the ground, as it is below the tube.
This means it is showing what is in reality, not the visual compression you want to appeal to. If you did want to appeal to visual compression you would accept the angular FOV, or want it modified to show the visual compression. Both result in you being able to see objects below the tube.
Again, appealing to the "visual compression" would result in an image like this one:
This shows the "side" view of what you visually see.
This image makes up part of your FOV. But the tube blocks the top and bottom portion, including extending off the top and bottom of the image.
This tube appears as a region of darkness at the top and bottom.
Then as the distance from you increases, everything gets smaller.
This includes the distance to the ground. That means after enough distance horizontally, the distance from your eye line to the ground has compressed enough to fit into the tube and you can see the ground.
Because of this, a tree was brought up, as were other objects.
Where your insanity indicates that if you look at any object through a 1 inch tube, you will only see 1 inch of that distant object, regardless of how far away it is, as you can't see anything below the tube (and likewise, above or to the side, all you can see is the tiny region in that tube).
But you know that is pure insanity, so you reject it.
As soon as a tree is put in, you magically want it to change.
Now you magically want to be able to see things below the tube.
You directly contradict yourself, appealing to all sorts of nonsense.
The other reason the tree was brought up was because IT IS ON THE GROUND! If you can see all the tree, you can see the ground.
But again, you want to pretend we can't because the ground is below the tube, and instead have a magically compressed floating tree.
But you can't have it both ways. Either you can see objects below the tube, at least if it is far enough away (unless you want to add your own requirements) and thus you can see the bottom of the tree and the ground; or you can't see objects below the tube at all and thus you cannot see the bottom of the tree or the ground.
This is why I am asking such simple and direct questions, which deserve an explicit answer.
So
can you see the bottom of the tree, even though it is below the level of the tube?The only way to honestly and completely address this extremely simple question is to either:
state that because the bottom of the tree is below the level of the tube it is not visible; or
state that even though the bottom is below, you can still see it and thus can see things below the tube.