I’ve asked you over and over again to show me what we’d actually SEE over a flat surface that always appears to rise upward…
And I have explained, long before you asked.
I also asked you plenty of simple questions you keep ignoring.
We start from the visible height of the surface three miles out.
Again, simple geometry, do the math.
a=atan(h/d).
So lets say you have an observer height of 2 m.
And lets not use your silly archaic units and instead use sane people units, km.
And lets not jump straight to 5 km. Instead, lets do it incrementally.
First, we start with the ground directly below as, with an angle of 90 degrees.
Then 1 m out it is at 63 degrees, a change of 63 degrees.
After 2 m, it is at 45 degrees, a change of 18 degrees.
At 100 m, it is at 1.15 degrees, a change of roughly 43.85 degrees.
At 1 km, it is at 0.115 degrees, a change of roughly 1.031 degrees.
At 4 km, it is at 0.0286 degrees, a change of 0.0859 degrees.
At 5 km, it is at 0.0229 degrees, a change of 0.0057 degrees.
At 10 km, it is at 0.0115 degrees, a change of 0.0115 degrees.
At 100 km, it is at 0.0011 degrees, a change of 0.0103 degrees.
Why can we see from 4 to 5 km, when that is only 0.0057 degrees, but we can't see from 5 km to 10 km, or from 10 km to 100 km, much larger changes at 0.0115 degrees and 0.0103 degrees?
Your BS makes no sense.
Again, this directly relates to the questions you keep on avoiding, because you have no answer, because they demonstrate your claims are pure BS.
Why does the horizon form at 5 km?
Why does it vary with altitude?
What is this magical formula you claim you have?
Why does the angle of dip increase with increasing altitude?
That’s the only reason we CAN see over the whole surface for three miles out, because it appears to rise upward
And it would continue to do so.
If it rises up less and less after three miles out, the angle of it becomes ever sharper and thinner to see from our position.
Yes, thinner, but still able to be seen.
Remember that I mentioned what we can see over the rooftop of a high rise?
Yes, because of the change in orientation.
You go from the near vertical wall, to a near horizontal roof.
You don't need to a skyrise for that.
Just pick up a dice.
Hold the dice so the top surface is level and above your head but in front of you a bit.
Notice that you can see the side facing you, but not the top.
Nothing like what you are trying to demonstrate.
What you would need is the top of the wall of the skyscraper to be magically invisible.
Imagine the rooftop of a highrise is the flat surface a thousand miles out from you.
No.
Why would I do that?
The rooftop of the highrise is PHYSICALLY above me.
Your allegedly flat surface a thousand miles out is PHYSICALLY below me.
It would NOT appear to rise upwards to that hight.
The wall of the skyscraper blocks my view to the roof.
There is NOTHING to block my view to that flat surface.
You are yet again appealing to dishonest BS.
Do you get the point now?
I have gotten the point from the start, you have no way to explain your BS so you will appeal to any dishonest BS you can to pretend your BS works.
And this is why you refuse to answer the questions, because they reveal your dishonest BS.
And importantly, your BS has no ability to explain why things appear to sink into the ground/ocean.
That is when we can easily resolve them, yet simple extrapolation of the visible portion shows the bottom to be below the horizon, and well below.
The physical surface and the actual angle of the surface doesn’t rise upward over a flat surface, but it appears to us that it IS rising upward.
Pure dishonest BS.
The physical surface doesn't rise, but the angle certainly does.
Again, simple to demonstrate with math or a diagram:

Can you honestly tell me, that the angle from directly down to those red lines is not increasing as the point on the ground gets further away?
Because that is what you need for that statement of yours to be true.
That somehow all those red lines actually overlap and there is no difference in angle.
And anyone can see that claim of yours is pure BS.
It isn’t about the physical surface being flat, or the true angle of the surface being lower than us, the only thing that matters is what we see, not what is true or real or physically there.
i.e. you don't give a damn about the truth.
You don't care that what we see clearly shows Earth is round.
You will reject it all and pretend Earth is flat and just falsely claim that what we see will magically be what is expected for a flat surface, with no explanation or basis at all.
Flat surfaces will always form a horizon
No, they wont.
They never will as there is no reason for it.
we’ve already removed the physical reality when we see it rising up despite the physical reality.
No, we haven't.
That "apparent" rising is simply the physical angle. Something you need to keep running from.
You want perspective to make the surface appear to rise, but a hidden curve instantly pops up
No, a curve which is there the entire time. Initially having a negligible effect, but with that effect getting large and larger with more distance until it beats out the effect of perspective alone resulting in the angle going back down, creating a horizon.
An actual coherent explanation which you are unable to show any fault with.
And again, also shown with a simple diagram:

Notice how now, as you go further from the red line, the purple lines get a greater angular separation, but only to the point they are tangent to the circle. After that they start going back down.
perspective made it look flat for three miles over it!
No, perspective did not make it look flat.
You keep spouting this BS, but you cannot justify it at all.
The curve comes in at the horizon, but still isn’t seen as a curve! It never is seen at all!
It is, with objects beyond the horizon appearing lower and lower, appearing to sink into the ground.
Again, you cannot explain just how you expect to see this curve in a manner you can defend.