If you were honest and your position was actually based upon evidence and logic, you would have no issue with this legitimate math and would have provided your own to show just how massive the tilt is.

There is no legitimate math for something that does not exist.

Yes, there is.

This is actually one way to demonstrate something cannot exist.

You do the math and reach a contradiction in the math, and show that the premise must be false.

Again, if you were honest, you would provide the math to show this.

But because you are just lying and know the math shows you are wrong, you look for any excuse you can to dodge it.

Just like you continue to dodge the simple questions that show beyond any doubt that you are wrong:

Again, If you have a tube, 1 inch in a diameter and 10 inches long, with this tube level and you looking through the tube with your eye at the midpoint of the tube's height and directly against the end of the tube, how far below the tube can an object at 1 mile distance be, in order to still be visible through the tube?

Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if the base of the tree is 6 ft below the level of the tube?

Again, what magic prevents us from seeing the RE through a level tube?

You can't use legitimate maths for what you people are arguing.

What do you consider to be "legitimate maths"?

Calculations that show a reality, not just calculations that show a pretence of reality.

And what do you consider to be "a reality"?

What is actually reality, with a RE, or your delusional claims with no justifications at all?

Because that insignificant tilt you keep on claiming is massive is part of reality.

That is legitimate math that shows reality quite clearly, and in doing so shows you are wrong.

The whole purpose of your global working, with a turbine (as an instance) supposedly dropping behind your so called curve would mean it has to tilt away from your vision over distance.

Only be an insignificant amount.

Again, it is the drop that hides it, not the tilt.

That drop is large compared to the turbine, but insignificant compared to Earth.

The tilt is insignificant.

If your ship was to supposedly fall over the curve, the last thing you would see before it was lost to your so called curve, would be the stern, not the mast, if your ship started to disappear like you lot think it does, behind your curve.

Again, stop pretending Earth is a tiny ball you can hold in your hands.

Again, the math shows quite clearly that you are wrong.

The same applies to your turbine.

If the turbine and blades were as sunk as it shows, over a short distance, it would show turbine blades tilted right back, not upright like we're shown.

Again, the math shows that that claim of yours is pure BS.

The math shows quite clearly that the tilt back would be insignificant.

If you wish to keep asserting the same pathetic lie you need to justify it. Not just by repeating it and similar claims, but actually justifying it.

Again, do the math or draw a to scale diagram.

The only way we would see what we see are for two reasons.

1. They suddenly sink into the sea, which we know does not happen.

Or Earth is round, and the base is hidden by the curve, which we both know is the actual reason.

No FE nonsense required.

You could give me the math/calculations for the starship enterprise by looking it up, if I asked you how it would work.

It doesn't matter if you want to accept the fact that the RE is a reality and show math which clearly shows your prior claims are pure BS, or if you want to pretend the RE is fantasy and pretend there is a massive tilt.

If your claims were true, you would be able to show math to justify them.

For example, you can do the math to show Voyager should be able to cross the entire Milky Way Galaxy in less than 10 years, showing the 70 year premise of the show is pure BS.