Still fleeing from your lies about planes I see.
I shall just take that as an admission of defeat and that you fully accept you were blatantly lying to everyone and that you know planes do not need to magically descend to stay level over a round Earth, and that if you ever bring it up again, I can just quote this, as your admission of defeat and show that you are lying yet again.
So please tell me that perspective doesn’t magically make the surface and objects on the surface appear to rise, because it’s absolute fact, yes?
Why? I never said that.
I said perspective doesn't magically hide the bottom of objects.
Over a flat surface, perspective will make things below your eye level appear higher, with the angle of dip decreasing with increasing distance, but NEVER going above eye level.
Likewise, it will make things above your eye level appear lower, but again, NEVER going below eye level.
This means if there is some distant object, with nothing in front of it (just the ground/sea), then it will NEVER be hidden as there is nothing to obstruct the view.
This is clearly ‘magic’, yet it happens in reality, the real world.
No, that is not magic. That is how perspective works.
The MAGIC is having an object above eye level magically appear below eye level, as no amount of perspective can ever do that.
And there is no need for magic when you accept Earth is round.
You’re completely wrong to claim that perspective makes things look less and less higher with more distance, it makes things look more and more higher with more distance.
Look at a ship going outward from you on the ocean, from close in, to a half mile out, to a mile out, and two miles out, and see how high it looks at each point.
No, you are wrong.
It entirely depends on if the object is above or below you.
Perspective makes it shrink and get closer to the centre of your vision (shrinking the gap between the centre of your vision and it).
If you have a very tall ship, such that when standing close you need to look up to see the top, then as it goes into the distance the top appears to go down.
It seems more and more higher with more and more distance away, a sharper rise with more distance away from you.
No, that is a blatant lie.
It is a shallower rise with more distance.
Again, the angle of elevation is a fairly simple trig relationship.
tan(a)=h/d.
With increasing d, a gets smaller (in magnitude, so if it is below you it gets larger).
At a small distance, a small change in distance results in a large change in angle. e.g. if you have something 1 m below you, and you move it from directly in front of your face to 1 m away, it goes from -90 degrees to -45 degrees.
But if you move it to 2 m away, it only goes to -26.6 degrees.
If you move it to 10 m, it goes to -5.7.
If you move it to 11 m it goes to -5.19.
If you move it to 100 m it goes to -0.572.
If you move it to 101 m it goes to -0.567.
As it gets further, the same change in distance results in a smaller change in angle.
This has been shown to you repeatedly.
Again:
The sharper rise will eventually end with a horizon
The point where the curvature starts winning.
The point that clearly shows that Earth is round.
If Earth was flat, this would NEVER happen.
If Earth was flat, the "horizon" would need to be the edge of Earth.
The vanishing point is infinitely far away.
You require pure magic, where perspective magically stops and reverses.
Remember what you said, perspective makes things (below you) appear higher.
Yet to form the horizon with perspective alone, you need perspective to magically stop.
To magically make it so the ground further out doesn't get higher.
To have things above the ground appear to sink, you need to go one step further and have perspective magically reverse, to have the ground which should be appearing to get higher instead appear to go down.
So what causes this magical reversal?
There is no explanation from perspective, but plenty from curvature.
The only way we can compare what both surfaces look like, is by having both surfaces, one flat, one curved as you claim it to be, and then we can compare them both, which would settle the debate right away, and prove which is true, flat or ball Earth.
And we do, with simple tables, were if we are above it we can see everything above the table, with nothing magically hiding it from view.
But with a ball, we see that initially perspective wins, with the ground appearing to rise, until it goes too far and appears to sink.
So debate settled, Earth is round?
The problem is you refuse all those observations, and instead want to only ever use observations where the curvature of Earth is enough to cause the bottom of objects to be obscured.
Something which requires the magical reversal of perspective to magically change when it magically occurs to perfectly match the RE.
But the problem is, you think everything is curved, without ever seeing or measuring a curve
No. I accept Earth is curved, from seeing this curve, this curve which has been measured countless times by so many people.
You just reject that curve, because you are desperate for Earth to be flat.
If it’s so slight of a curve, it cannot be a sharp curve that makes objects vanish from sight from a 1/4 mile section of the surface, because it was always higher and higher up, to see it, with more distance away from us, while the surface was always flat, never curving at all, which would show objects less and less rising up with more distance away.
That is how objects WOULD look on a curved surface, with more distance away from us.
What are you trying to say there?
That over a flat surface, objects would rise less? If so, that is the complete opposite of what is expected.
But initially they are the same.
The math is really quite simple, as shown above.
A curved surface cannot look higher and higher with an ever sharper curve with more distance away from us, it would always sink down more and more.
Yes, it can.
As shown by the math above.
As I have asked you before, why should perspective magically stop working for a sphere?
All it takes to show your claim is pure BS is to look at a ball.
Go find a ball, put it on the ground, mark the top most point of it, then go stand up near it (so it is below you) and look down at it.
Even better if you can line yourself up directly above the top.
According to your delusional BS, you should see the point at the top, and no further. Everything beyond that should be magically hidden from sight. But that is clearly BS.
You can also do the same by standing on the top of a hill, or the top of a ramp.
If your dishonest, delusional BS was true, if you were standing at the top of a ramp, the ramp should be invisible, with no way for you to see it.
But it is trivial to see, showing your claim is pure BS.
Standing on a large ball, there will be a point where your eye is tangent to it. You can look down further, and see ground that is closer. Again, this trivially shows your claim is pure BS.