A jet in the sky will simply demagnify into distance concerning the human eye. It will never offer up any theoretical horizon line because the light surrounding it is very closely the same and cannot offer discernible contrast to our view, whereas the sea certainly can or even a low-lying dense fog.
No, it will not offer any physical horizon line, until its angle of elevation puts it close to Earth.
Your BS doesn't work.
No ship or anything else travels over any horizon.
This can be observed quite easily.
Go to a large port city where the ships go out to the ocean.
Watch them leave and watch them as they go over the horizon.
The horizon is simply theoretical. It's a line we theoretically perceive from a distance because of changes in light and contrast.
Repeating the same lie will not help you.
Everything demonstrates that the horizon is physical.
That it it due to the curve of Earth, and as a ship goes over that curve, it disappears from view, from the bottom up, with Earth blocking the view.
You have nothing to suggest otherwise, nor do you have a mechanism explain how such delusional BS would work.
All you see is a ship that loses light or gains in contrast below against light above that simply offers the illusion it sinks which it certainly does not.
Again, you have no reason at all for it to sink.
If we merely lose light, it goes black.
If we lose contrast, it fades to a blur.
There is no way for it to magically appear lower.
What magic is causing the boat to appear lower?
What magic is causing the boat to appear to sink into Earth?
Of course you can but that's not a line. It's merely a contrast.
It is as much a line as any other edge of any other object.
Why should we believe your claim that it is theoretical?
The fact you try to use name-calling as some kind of addition to your argument just shows how weak you are.
So you admit you are weak based upon your repeated attempts to call people brainwashed and deluded and stupid?
Let's say you see your horizon line at 3 miles from shore. Go to that line. Did that line move farther away as soon as you set off to view it?
Course it did and your next line and next line consistently appear in your eye because of the contrast changes as you move.
Do you think you'd hit the 3-mile mark and see a line drawn in the water?
Congratulations on demonstrating Earth is round.
Take a basketball and look at it. You see the edge. Feel free to mark it with something. Then rotate it around (equivalent to you moving around).
Does your inability to see a clearly drawn line there mean the edge magically isn't physical? No.
How could that be when your (fictional) globe would only offer you a downward curve away from your level vision?
By the real globe offering a downwards curve, which when combined with perspective, causing the ground to go to a higher angle of elevation until it reaches a peak and goes to a lower angle of elevation, creating that edge (as well as countless others).
I don't claim it rises to eye level. I claim the theoretical horizon is at eye level at all times
i.e. the ground rises to eye level.
You are just trying to play semantics here.
And you claim this, even after clearly being shown to be wrong.
There's everything to suggest it. Read above my reply to smokey.
I did. Read my above refutation.
The theoretical line is only located at a distance from your standpoint at the time.
No, there is no theoretical line.
The REAL PHYSICAL horizon is located at a certain distance away from you.
If you remain in place, there is NOTHING you can do to change it.
Move forward and your horizon moves with you. Why?
Because Earth is round.
Take a flat surface, then the edge is the edge of the surface, so as you walk to the edge, that edge remains there.
Now take a hill (that goes above you), as you walk over this hill the area you can see changes, simply due to the curve of the hill blocking your view.
No it doesn't.
Wilful rejection of reality will not save you.
The fact that you can take a photo of the object, and then scale it to match the object in another photo where the bottom is missing, and clearly demonstrate that Earth is in the way of the bottom, shows that Earth is blocking the view.
You are trying to offer up a basketball without you not being on it
Your vision doesn't give a damn if you are standing on it or not.
The horizon of Earth is just as "theoretical" as the edge of the basketball.
Here's a challenge for you which I'm almost sure you won't bother with.
You mean here is a dishonest pile of BS you will use to try to reject reality.
The problem with your "challenge" is scale.
Earth has a radius of roughly 6371 km.
That means an observer with a height of 2 m is roughly 0.0000003 radii above.
Forget a basketball for now. If you take a ball with a radius of 1 m, that would mean the location you need to place the camera to get the same view is 0.0000003 m above it. That is 300 nm above it.
We do not have a camera that small.
If you want to go to an observation from the peak of Mt Everest, that is roughly 8 km high. That is 0.001 times the radius. So again going to a ball with a radius of 1 m, that works out to be 1 mm.
Earth is not a tiny ball, stop pretending it is.
I have already explained what FOV you would need to avoid seeing the horizon on a round Earth.
Here is a more honest challenge for you.
Go find a nice curving hallway, with a radius as large as possible.
Then go place a camera on the wall, as close as possible to the wall, looking parallel to a tangent to that curve.
Then see if you can see the wall in the camera.
Or even better and simpler:
Explain what magic causes the horizon on a flat surface, including explaining why objects beyond the horizon appear to sink.
I explained this to smokey. Have a read above.
No, you haven't.