You can't have an object hidden by curvature without seeing this curvature it's impossible you should be able to repeat this on a small scale.
That is your baseless claim you are yet to substantiate. Prove it.
But do you know what you have shown quite well?
You can't have the bottom of an object hidden on a flat surface.
I will show you objects disappearing bottom up on a flat surface I just need to get a long enough flat surface.
Then go get one. Until you do, don't try claiming the bottom can be obscured, when there is literally nothing to block the path of the light.
You can't see more of the table when the camera is low the car looks like it is at the ends of the table, of course you can still see the car because it's such a short distance....
I didn't say you can see more.
I said you can see the same.
You can see to the end of the table.
When the camera is low, you can still see table beyond the car.
For example, here is where I think the camera is the lowest:
The black line is where the wheels of the car is. The purple line is the edge of the table (or slightly below).
Notice how the edge of the table is beyond the car?
where have I lied?
In several different ways.
One is by repeating the same lie that you should see obvious curvature for an object to be partially hidden.
Do you think that basketball can no longer obscure an object just because it now "looks flat"?
This is especially dishonest as you claim the same could magically happen on a flat surface. So what should prevent it on a round surface?
Another is where you falsely claim the car appears to be at the end of the table.
But the far more significant one is your repeatedly claim that we can replicate what we see over the ocean with a flat surface.
A key part you are yet to show is the bottom of an object being obscured while the top is clearly visible, such that it appears that the object has sunk into the ocean.
Until you provide such a demonstration every time you repeat that it can be done on a flat surface you are lying.
if its possible then you should be able to show me how this works on a small scale.
We have explained why that is hard.
You are TINY compared to Earth.
Why do you keep ignoring that?
This just further shows your dishonesty as you are trying to pretend Earth is a tiny ball where the curvature would be obvious.
Just because objects get obscured doesn't mean it's a curvature do you believe everything you see with your eyes ? Do you not believe your eyes can be tricked?
No we don't. But you certainly seem to, believing your eyes are perfect and capable of telling if something is flat or curved just by looking at it.
Or is it just easier for you to see something disappear and say it's curvature and leave it at that?
It isn't a matter of it being hard or difficult.
It is a matter of what actually makes sense.
For a flat object, there is nothing to obstruct the view so you should be able to see the bottom.
Yes, eventually it will be too small to resolve, but while you can resolve it, you can see the bottom.
It will not just magically have the bottom obscured.
But for a round object, the object itself physically obstructs the path of light.
Is it too hard to actually think about it and figure out what actually is happening because I know some people don't like to use their brains so they take the most simple answer.
Yes, you do know yourself quite well.
Try using your brain and explaining what is stopping the light on a FE to make the bottom disappear while the top is still visible.
Try using your brain and realising that something taking up less of your vertical FOV doesn't mean you can see less of it.
Try using your brain and realising you are tiny rather than taking the simple answer of Earth is flat as the reason why you cannot see obvious curvature.
long enough distance and they would merge with the ground
Long enough distance and they shrink to an unresolvable point which cannot be distinguished from the ground.
It is not long enough distance and the bottom magically vanishes.
that video with the car shows is on a flat earth you also see further as you go higher
No, it doesn't. That is your false claim you have not substantiated.
They use a featureless table, and quite low resolution, to try to hide the fact that you can still see the end of the table.
With such a featureless table it is unclear just what portion you can see to.
But because the end appears so much shorter, due to perspective making things far away smaller, you falsely conclude you can't see the end.
But if you marked the end such that it is clear where it is, you would then clearly recognise that you can see the end of the table.
Objects do get smaller on earth just like the bottles would I will show you the experiment when I can.
And this just further shows your dishonesty.
This is not the issue we are objecting to.
We are not claiming that objects magically don't get smaller.
So you repeatedly focusing on this rather than the actual issue to pretend there isn't a problem for the FE is extremely dishonest.
You are setting up a strawman to refute rather than dealing with the actual issue.
Once more, the issue is that the bottom of clearly resolvable objects are obscured, as if the object has sunk into the ocean.
For example, the image of toronto's skyline, where it appears the majority of the buildings are underwater, with only the tops of the tallest buildings visible. It was even animated to show a scaled down version of a much closer view to show where the bottom of the objects should be, clearly showing it is BELOW the horizon.
Or the images of the turbine showing how the blades appear to be going into the water, even though they should be quite well above it.
So don't bother wasting everyone's time by showing things getting smaller. All that will show is your dishonesty.
What you need to show is the bottom of an object being hidden by a flat surface where it is physically impossible for the path of the light to be obstructed to hide the bottom; and the object appearing to sink into that flat surface.
I'm quite confident you cannot do that as it is physically impossible.