Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo

It it wasn't just magically 3 miles.
I explained why it is at 5 km for an observer height of 2 m.

Quote

Again, it is roughly given by d=sqrt(2*r*h).
This is based upon:
a = atan(h0/d + d/2r).

You aren’t accounting for the exponentially greater curvature, and first assume, with no evidence at all, it is a curved surface, and this is what a horizon looks like on a curved surface about three miles away.

Pure BS.
Firstly, it is NOT exponentially greater.
Even the high prophets of FE accept that at least for reasonable distances, it approximates a quadratic function, i.e. d^2/2r, i.e. 8 inches per mile squared.

And that IS in there.

The basic formula is quite simple, a=atan(h/d);
For a RE, that h is h0+d^2/2r.
Notice the term for the term for the drop is there.

Then to put it in you get:
a=atan((h0+d^2/2r)/d) = atan(h0/d + d/2r).

So yes, that curvature is there.
Stop lying.

And no, this doesn't first assume it is a curved surface. This is explaining what you should have for a curved surface, including explaining why it should have a horizon, and determining where it is.

This is in contrast to your delusional BS where the horizon magically exists at 3 miles, for no reason at all.

look completely flat over those three miles

Again, you keep saying this, but you can't explain how.
In what was does it look "completely flat"?

that’s why the whole surface IS flat up to three miles away

That is your baseless claim you are yet to substantiate in any way.

why it forms a horizon at three miles out

No, that isn't why. That is no explanation at all.

I provided an explanation which shows why the horizon should form at a particular distance.

The angle of dip decreases until a certain point after which it increases, meaning the more distant ground is blocked by the closer ground.
Simple, something you cannot refute.

You instead just assert it magically forms with no reason at all.

A curved surface can rise up if it’s almost flat over a short distance, but it wouldn’t look perfectly flat over it, because it must curve down everywhere on that surface, no matter how slight of a curve over a short distance.

i.e. there is a point beyond which it curves down too much so you can longer see the surface.
That is called the horizon.

That is how we can tell the difference between a flat surface and a round one.
A round surface produces a horizon.
A flat surface only has the horizon on the edge.

You claimed perspective ‘lost out to the curvature’ about three miles over the surface. What do you specifically mean by ‘losing out to curvature’ within three miles or so?

Exactly what I have already said.
For the formula above, there are 2 key terms:
h0/d, and d/2r.

More importantly, we can look at the derivatives:
-h0/d^2 and 1/2r.

The first term is purely due to perspective. It is what makes the ground "appear to rise".
The second term is perspective acting on the curvature. It is what makes the ground appear to go down, forming the horizon and making objects beyond the horizon get obscured from the bottom up.

Perspective is beaten when the magnitude of the second term is greater than the magnitude of the first term.
i.e. perspective wins if h0/d^2 > 1/2r.
Curvature wins (and perspective is beaten) if 1/2r > h0/d^2.

This can be rearranged do d > sqrt(2*r*h)

Again, notice that this depends no the height of the observer.
It is not just a magical 3 miles.
It is 5 km for an observer height of 2 m.

If you go higher, that better vantage point makes perspective more significant, so it can last longer.

It can only mean perspective will only act over that curved surface for a three mile distance, it cannot mean anything else.

As desperate as you are to claim that pure BS, that is pure BS.

Perspective doesn't magically stop applying.
Perspective will act forever.

The only thing it could possibly mean is the effects of curvature are greater than the effects of perspective AT THAT ELEVATION which makes the horizon form, as explained above.

Because if you claim the curve is too slight for three miles over the surface, but immediately curves enough past three miles

I don't.
It continues to curve, the entire time.
If you had an accurate theodolite and accurately measured the angle of dip, you would see it matches quite well at virtually no distance, by the time you get to 2 km, you start to see it clearly matching a RE, not a FE, until the effect of curvature, relative to the effect of perspective for a given altitude is so great that it makes the ground go back down, producing the horizon.

It is not magically flat until the horizon then drops down instantly.

Again, I gave you the formula. Stop lying about what I am claiming.

Once more, the RE model works, your delusional BS does not.
You STILL can't explain why a horizon should form in the first place.
You STILL can't explain why it should be a particular distance away.
You STILL can't explain why that distance should vary with Hight.
And you still need to reject the fact that it gets lower with increasing elevation.

its a large enough curve by that point, to remove the effects of perspective.

Not to remove it, to beat it, and for that elevation.
Go higher, and the effect of perspective increases.

Because perspective acts on FLAT or nearly flat surfaces, it stops acting on a more curved surface, because it is SPECIFICALLY a phenomenon over FLAT surfaces.

Again, PURE BS!
Perspective acts on all objects.
If your delusional BS was true it would be impossible for it to act on a plane, because that plane is not a surface.

Perspective is simple geometry.

That’s exactly what you’re saying, that when the surface curves more, perspective doesn’t act anymore

No, that is explicitly NOT what I am saying.
That is just a desperate lie you have made to attack, because you can't refute what I actually say.

We don’t have ANY specific distance of 3 miles out or 5 km out to the horizon, it is simply used as a general figure, not an exact distance to every horizon seen from the surface.

Yet there is a given distance to the horizon for any altitude.

You even claimed to have a formula for it, yet still don't provide it.

At about 5 km out, perspective has made the flat surface appear to be constantly rising up, even though it never rises at all, that is how it appears to us.

Which still doesn't provide a horizon.

The variant to what distance we can see over the flat surface is what HEIGHT ABOVE the surface we are when seeing out on it.

Yet again, no reason for why.

But we’d see a horizon much closer than 6 km away througjh a periscope that’s only a few cm above the surface or sea level, over calm flat waters, but the oceans are not calm and flat usually, so they have to raise up the periscopes high enough to see the horizon.

Again, WHY?

We know the surface is flat because horizons form constantly at all heights above the surface at the same rate.

No, we know the surface is not flat because it forms a horizon, a horizon which varies in altitude.
If the surface was flat, there wouldn't be a horizon except the edge.

And that can only happen if the entire surface is constantly uniform over it, and only a flat surface is constantly uniform.

Except you cannot explain what magic causes it to happen at all for a flat surface.
And just as importantly, I have explained how it does happen for a round surface, using basic geometry, which you have repeatedly ignored and not even attempted to refute, instead going for attacking pathetic strawmen.

A curved surface isn’t one uniform surface

This entirely depends on what you mean by uniform.
What you really mean is that it isn't flat or straight.
But that doesn't mean it isn't uniform.
If you took a perfect sphere, and then took 2 small sections of it at random, you would have no idea where they came from in the sphere, you would have no idea if they were the same part or different parts.
That is because a sphere is uniform, it has the same curvature everywhere.

The distance to any horizon is based on the height above the surface you see it at, as a constant rate of height to distance of a horizon.

Do you mean a constant ratio of height to distance? If so, no, it isn't.
Instead it is a non-linear function.
Doubling your altitude does NOT double the distance to the horizon.
Instead, you need to quadruple your altitude to double the distance.

Again, this only works if the surface is entirely flat and uniform.

Until you have an explanation for what magic causes the horizon in your flat fantasy, it doesn't work on a flat surface at all.

We do not calculate the distance to a horizon over a curved surface

Yes, we do. And it is trivial to do so. I already provided a simple formula.

When you claim that perspective makes the surface appear to rise up for about 5 km, until the curve is great enough to eliminate the effects of perspective

Again, I do not claim this. That is just your pathetic lie.

I correctly state that ignoring refraction the distance to the horizon will be roughly sqrt(2*r*h).

I correctly state that perspective continues to work after the horizon, but the effects of curvature means the ground will go to a lower angle, as we can tell from buildings and ships beyond the horizon disappearing from the bottom up.

If it curves more and more after 5 km out, perspective already lost out before then, so going up higher has a greater curve over it, after a smaller curve won over perspective already.

A smaller curve won over perspective for a lower altitude.
A greater altitude makes the effect of perspective greater, making it take more distance for curvature to win.
This has been explained to you countless times.

And our formula proves it is a uniform flat surface based on any and all heights above the surface, which proves it is a uniform, flat surface.

What formula?
You keep appealing to this magical formula which you are yet to provide.


Again, care to answer the questions that show you have been lying to everyone?
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?

Can you honestly answer any of these, or are you only capable of repeating the same pathetic lies again and again?

And no, I don't mean vaguely restate the question without answering it at all.

To answer it you need to provide an explanation with a justification.
Something you clearly can't do.

How would more height above the surface create MORE perspective?

What surface does perspective act on? How does perspective act over a curving down surface?

You clearly don’t understand how perspective works, or where it works, or where it doesn’t work at all.

When you said the surface appears to rise up about three miles out, due to perspective, you thought that perspective would have flattened out a curve, because it’s seen entirely flat over that three miles of surface, nothing of any curve seen at all.

And when we go higher above your ball, and see more of the curving downward surface, you believe perspective acts out even more than before, by flattening out even more of your curving down surface than with a smaller curved surface!

Perspective flattens out curved surfaces, the bigger a curve downward, the more flattening perspective will do!

But you say it doesn’t flatten out curves, it only looks flat, due to perspective, the non-flattening effect that makes it appear to flatten out curves!

Perspective doesn’t act over curved surfaces, slanted up or down surfaces, bumpy wavy surfaces, or any other surface but flat surfaces.

If any other surface is almost flat for a distance, perspective will act out, but less than on a truly flat surface.

Look at any truly flat surface you know is flat. It always appears to rise up, due to perspective. Imagine that flat surface being slightly curving away from you outward. It would rise up but less than it does over the flat surface.

If the surface was 10 times larger, the flat surface would keep rising up, but the curved surface would curve even more downward. Not rise at all, but curve more diownward.

Flat surfaces always rise up the same way, due to perspective always acting on them the same way.

A curved surface is the opposite. It keeps curving down, and no perspective acts at all.

What they show us is not what we’d see above a real ball that size. It’s not even possible.

Compare both surfaces at any size. Only the flat surface keeps rising up, the curved surface curves downward and keeps curving downward more and more with larger curved  surfaces

How would more height above the surface create MORE perspective?

Again, look at the formula, a=atan(h0/d + d/2r).

Notice the h term in there?
Get higher, it is going to have a more significant effect.

Even you implicitly appeal to this, with your magic perspective magically lasting longer before failing to produce a more distant horizon.

What surface does perspective act on? How does perspective act over a curving down surface?

We have been over this, perspective on everything. Not just surfaces.

Perspective is simple geometry.

Take a hypothetical straight line passing straight through your eye, level with your eye as it passes through, and going directly above some point in the distance.
Then take a line perpendicular to that original line straight down to that object in the distance. Let the length of that second line be h, the height of your eye above the object.
Let the distance along the first line, from your eye, to the second line, be d, the distance to the object.

Then by simple geometry, the angle of dip to that object is given by atan(h/d).

Notice that this is just your eye and an object.
No surface involved.

If you want to invoke a surface, than that just affects the value of h.

e.g. for a flat surface passing level some distance h0 beneath you, then h=h0, regardless of distance, and you get:
a = atan(h0/d)

For a flat surface, passing below you at a height of h0 beneath you, but at some gradient m going down, then h=h0+m*d, so you get:
a = atan(h0/d + m)

For a parabola, of the form h=h0+d^2/2r, e.g. an approximation to the round Earth, you instead get:
a=atan(h/d+d/2r)

For any generic surface, you have h as a function of d:
a=atan(h(d)/d)

Perspective works on all of them. it doesn't care about what the surface is.

The part which only holds true for flat surfaces is that the angle continually rises (or falls) approaching some fixed angle (the gradient).
Note: CONTINUALLY! i.e. it never stops.

For other surfaces, that is not necessarily true.
For example, a curved surface, like the surface of Earth, will initially have the angle rise, but eventually curvature wins and it goes back down, producing the horizon. You know, the very thing you can't explain.

You clearly don’t understand how perspective works, or where it works, or where it doesn’t work at all.

You mean I do and recognise that you are spouting pure BS.
If I didn't understand, you would be able to refute what I say instead of just saying I'm wrong.

When you said the surface appears to rise up about three miles out, due to perspective, you thought that perspective would have flattened out a curve,

No, I didn't. That is just your pathetic strawman you keep repeating because you cannot refute what I have actually said.

because it’s seen entirely flat over that three miles of surface

Again, HOW?
You keep asserting this BS, yet provide NOTHING to substantiate it at all.
You seem to think by continually repeating the same pathetic claim it will magically be true.

And when we go higher above your ball, and see more of the curving downward surface, you believe perspective acts out even more than before, by flattening out even more of your curving down surface than with a smaller curved surface!

No, I don't.
Again that is your strawman.

But you say it doesn’t flatten out curves, it only looks flat, due to perspective

No, I don't.
Try responding to what I have actually said.

Perspective doesn’t act over curved surfaces, slanted up or down surfaces, bumpy wavy surfaces, or any other surface but flat surfaces.

And if this delusional BS of yours was true, then it wouldn't act over Earth, because the surface of Earth is NOT perfectly flat, even in your delusional fantasy, it isn't.
The surface of water has ripples. You might even call it a bumpy wavy surface.

Again, what magic is magically preventing simple geometry from acting on these surfaces?

Can you present anything to justify your dishonest, delusional BS? Or are you only capable of repeating the same BS again and again in the hopes of conning people into believing it?

Look at any truly flat surface you know is flat. It always appears to rise up, due to perspective. Imagine that flat surface being slightly curving away from you outward. It would rise up but less than it does over the flat surface.

Just like we observe on Earth.

Again, the big difference?
The curved surface eventually reaches a point where it has curved too much, and it produces a horizon.
But if you then move away from it, the horizon moves further away.
Conversely, the flat surface just keeps on rising until the edge.

If the surface was 10 times larger, the flat surface would keep rising up, but the curved surface would curve even more downward. Not rise at all, but curve more diownward.

That would be if it curved 10 times as much, not simply if it was 10 times larger.
If you simply scaled the entire system, so the curve was 10 times longer, had 10 times the radius and your height above it was 10 times, then it would appear IDENTICAL, because all the geometry is the same.

Flat surfaces always rise up the same way

And that continues forever, never producing a horizon.

A curved surface is the opposite. It keeps curving down, and no perspective acts at all.

You keep contradicting yourself.
Just above you have said it does act. But now you are saying it doesn't.
But again, you are yet to present anything to justify that BS at all.
Why does perspective magically not act.

What they show us is not what we’d see above a real ball that size. It’s not even possible.

Why?
Because you say so?
You are yet to justify your BS at all. You are yet to even attempt to.

Compare both surfaces at any size. Only the flat surface keeps rising up

That's right, the flat surface keeps rising up, FOREVER (or until the edge).
The curved surface only initially appears to rise, until it eventually reaches a "peak" after which it drops down, producing the horizon.

Again, care to answer the questions that show you have been lying to everyone?
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?

Can you honestly answer any of these, or are you only capable of repeating the same pathetic lies again and again?

That would be if it curved 10 times as much, not simply if it was 10 times larger.
If you simply scaled the entire system, so the curve was 10 times longer, had 10 times the radius and your height above it was 10 times, then it would appear IDENTICAL, because all the geometry is the same.

It’s easy for you to claim perspective works over a curved surface, so try and actually draw it, with an actual curved surface, curved lines, in all directions outward. 

It doesn’t match up with what we see on Earth, you’ll find out if you draw it out as curved.

As I told you before, look at any true flat surface, as most of them are flat.

They always appear to be rising up over them.

If the same surface was curved over it, going downward from one end of it to the far side of this surface, even with the slightest curve possible, it would not rise as high as the flat surface, no matter how close as high.

Because curved surfaces don’t work by perspective, only when a curve is so small to be nearly a flat surface, and that’s where perspective acts over a slightly curved surface.

We never have curved surfaces on floors or tables, so it’s hard to imagine what it would look like.

But if you look at your floors, or a table, it is flat, always flat or nearly flat.

If a flat floor is 300 feet long, it always appears to rise up, and the entire surface is seen, and is flat.

If there was another surface 300 feet long but was curved down over the entire surface, from your end to the other end of it, we’d see it rise up, but less and less rise up with more distance outward.

A curved surface cannot keep rising up like a flat surface does, because it keeps curving down more and more with distance.

If a table was a scaled down Earth surface of three miles long, curving it down to scale would show a slight curve over the table, going downward always more from there.

Curved surfaces go downward all over the surface.

A surface must always keep rising up over all of them at all distances, but only a flat surface will keep rising up over it, until they reach the vanishing point where they form a horizon line across the surface.

What is most important to note, is that a flat surface is seen over it as entirely flat.

A curved surface cannot be seen over it rising up and entirely flat. It curves downward over more distance of the surface, and rises less and less up to the horizon, which isn’t an actual horizon at all, it is the edge of a curve that is a physical edge of a curved surface.

Horizons are illusions on flat surfaces, not a physical line across the surface.

Perspective can only work over flat surfaces and straight lines or paths, when they work on a curved surface, it is only because there is a slight curve over it which mimics a flat surface over a small distance.

We cannot simulate perspective over curving down surfaces because it doesn’t exist on curved surfaces.

How could we see the entire surface as flat up to a horizon if it was curved at all?

Perspective cannot remove curves on a surface and make them look flat, it doesn’t work that way, nothing does.

A surface that is flat over it but slants upward from you does not have oerspective or horizons either. They rise up until too high to see beyond from the surface below.

Only straight lines appear to converge in the distance, over a flat surface. Both the lines and surface appear to rise upward to the horizon, where the lines are almost together as one line.

A plane flies level towards us, over us, and past us.

Perspective makes the plane appear lower as it comes towards us, and higher when closer to us, and highest when above us, and lower as it flies out from us.

When we cannot see the plane anymore, it appears to be very low, close to the ground in the distance.

There’s no curves in the air, the plane isn’t flying down in a curved path, and it doesn’t go out of sight beyond a curved horizon either.

It appears to fly lower and lower due to perspective once again, only in the other direction than on ground.

A flat floor appears to rise while the flat ceiling above it appears to get lower and lower over it.

Both are flat, both caused by perspective, which works in each direction.

If a plane curved down as it flew away from us into the distance, perspective wouldn’t work the same as it does now.

On a curved surface it doesn’t work at all after a small distance over it.

Perspective only makes flat surfaces rise up over them, entirely.

If you draw both surfaces seen from 30000 feet, you think they’d look the very same?

You think we’d see both surfaces over them rising up and completely flat?

You cannot have a curved surface look entirely flat and rising up to see at 30000.feet above it.

Trying to claim the surface is lower than on ground isn’t true.

How much lower is it when we see it across from us, halfway up our windows?

Halfway up windows on each side of a plane, means it is level at that height.

If it was seen halfway up one window, and lower than that on the other sides window, it would not be halfway up when level, it would be a bit lower than that, if that made any difference at all, because it wouldn’t.

See the image of a curved Earth from high above?

The surface is still rising up as before, which is impossible.

If you can see a curve across Earth from there, you’d need to look far down to see that surface by that point.

They forgot about that part, they just wanted to put in a curve on their ball Earth, but left it rising up as before.

Oops

It’s easy for you to claim perspective works over a curved surface, so try and actually draw it, with an actual curved surface, curved lines, in all directions outward.

Deal with the math first.
Deal with the simple questions first.

But another important issue here is why do you want all the lines?
You are aware Earth's surface doesn't have a nice neat set of grid lines drawn on it?

If you wanted an honest comparison, you wouldn't have lines, instead you would make it match Earth's surface, or just have smooth surfaces.

It doesn’t match up with what we see on Earth, you’ll find out if you draw it out as curved.

Again, you claim pure BS with no justification at all.
How do you know?
Have you drawn it?

As I told you before, look at any true flat surface, as most of them are flat.
They always appear to be rising up over them.

Yes, ALWAYS (well at least assuming they aren't tilting down too much)!!!!

As opposed to Earth that appears to rise initially, and then stop. Something no flat surface does.

If the same surface was curved over it, going downward from one end of it to the far side of this surface, even with the slightest curve possible, it would not rise as high as the flat surface, no matter how close as high.

And you are yet to show that Earth doesn't rise as high.

The key point is that it DOES STILL APPEAR TO RISE!
The question is how much? How different would it be?

And I have already told you that, and explained why, with you incapable of showing fault, or showing that Earth doesn't match the curve.

Because curved surfaces don’t work by perspective

Again, perspective works on everything, not just flat surfaces.
Continually repeating your pathetic BS with no justification will not make it true.

If it only worked on flat surfaces, then objects in the sky wouldn't appear to go down.

We never have curved surfaces on floors or tables, so it’s hard to imagine what it would look like.

Yet you have no problem making bold claims with absolutely no justification.

If a flat floor is 300 feet long, it always appears to rise up, and the entire surface is seen, and is flat.

Again, unlike Earth, where it appears to rise up initially, and then stops appearing to rise up; clearly demonstrating Earth isn't flat.

A curved surface cannot keep rising up like a flat surface does, because it keeps curving down more and more with distance.

That's right, it can't. It eventually stops appearing to rise and would appear to go down if you could keep seeing it. This produces a horizon, just like observed in reality.
You know the thing you can't explain for your flat fantasy.

If a table was a scaled down Earth surface of three miles long, curving it down to scale would show a slight curve over the table, going downward always more from there.

Again, you just provide vague BS.
Just what are you expecting to see visually?
How will this appear?
How do you expect the surface to appear?

You can't just say going downwards.

An honest way to say it is how you have basically already said, that it will initially appear to rise up, until it reaches a point where it stops appearing to rise up and then it would go down but that part is hidden from view by the closer part.

This matches what is observed in reality.

A surface must always keep rising up over all of them at all distances

Why?

until they reach the vanishing point

The vanishing point is infinitely far away. Nothing ever reaches it.
The simple way to tell that the horizon is NOT the vanishing point is that we can see things beyond the horizon, assuming they are tall enough or high enough.

Another simple way are diagrams like this:


The horizon observed on Earth is NOT the vanishing point.
It is the "edge" of a curved surface.

What is most important to note, is that a flat surface is seen over it as entirely flat.
A curved surface cannot be seen over it rising up and entirely flat.

And again, just what do you mean by seeing it as entirely flat?
What observation are you making which indicates it is flat?

It curves downward over more distance of the surface, and rises less and less up to the horizon, which isn’t an actual horizon at all, it is the edge of a curve that is a physical edge of a curved surface.

Yes, it rises less as it approaches the horizon, the point at which it stops appearing to rise, producing the horizon. An actual horizon, with an actual explanation for its existence, unlike your delusional BS.

And just like what we observe in reality.

Perspective can only work over flat surfaces and straight lines or paths

Stop repeating the same lie.
If you wish to continue to spout that BS, JUSTIFY IT!

How could we see the entire surface as flat up to a horizon if it was curved at all?

We don't.

Only straight lines appear to converge in the distance, over a flat surface.

No, lines that remain an equal distance apart appear to converge in the distance, regardless of if they are straight.

When we cannot see the plane anymore

Because Earth blocks the view.

Perspective only makes flat surfaces rise up over them, entirely.

Yet Earth does not rise up entirely.
It only does so for a certain distance, after which there is the horizon.
Again, this demonstrates Earth is not flat.

If you draw both surfaces seen from 30000 feet, you think they’d look the very same?

No, as explained repeatedly.
The round surface would have a horizon, which would appear somewhat below level, but not to the extent you would easily be able to tell by eye alone.
Conversely, the flat surface would continue to rise forever, never producing a horizon.

You think we’d see both surfaces over them rising up and completely flat?

Why do you keep repeating this shit?
Again, just how are you seeing them "completely flat"?
You just keep asserting it with no explanation at all, all because you are desperate to pretend Earth is flat.

Trying to claim the surface is lower than on ground isn’t true.

No, YOU trying to claim it is magically seen level is a blatant lie, as shown repeatedly.

How much lower is it when we see it across from us, halfway up our windows?

You mean like in the examples you provided before, where it wasn't halfway up the windows, which didn't stop you from lying to everyone and claiming it was?

Again, reality shows it drops:
https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/water-level-horizon-768x768.jpg

If you want to claim otherwise, you will need more than a shitty picture from a plane window and your lies about it.

You need something which actually provide a reference for level. Something your crap lacks, yet the pictures I provided quite clearly have.

See the image of a curved Earth from high above?
The surface is still rising up as before, which is impossible.
If you can see a curve across Earth from there, you’d need to look far down to see that surface by that point.

How far down?
Yet again, you assert pure BS with no justification at all.
Do the math.

From an altitude of 400 km, i.e. the height of the ISS, that "far down" is only a mere 20 degrees.
And on what basis do you say they aren't looking down?
NOTHING!

You just spout whatever delusional BS you can think of to pretend your delusional BS is true.
Yet you cannot justify it at all.
Likewise you need to continually flee from simple things which so clearly demonstrate that you are spouting pure BS.


Again, care to answer the questions that show you have been lying to everyone?
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?

Can you honestly answer any of these, or are you only capable of repeating the same pathetic lies again and again?

Again, just how are you seeing them "completely flat"?

Because we can SEE the entire surface up to horizons. If they were curving down we couldn’t see the entire surface. Perspective doesn’t pull them up and make them flat.

A 200 foot floor is flat and completely seen over that 200 feet as flat.

Any curve over the surface would be physically lower and not seen, perspective does not lift up curves and make them seen, nor seen as flat and rising up.

Curves do not ‘win out over perspective’, they curve down and there is no perspective anymore.

Even when you claim perspective ‘wins out over the curve’ it’s stupid. What does it ‘win out’ over? It lifts them up and makes them look flat? What else do you mean by that?

Where is your curve seen up to horizons? It’s not seen at all, and perspective doesn’t make them flatten out and rise.

What does ‘dip down’ mean? That it curves? Where does it curve there? It’s entirely flat, there is no curve at all.

You may buy their bs, believe when we see no curve on surfaces seen entirely flat, that perspective flattens and rises up curves, but reality shows it’s nonsense.

Curved surfaces go downward, and only downward.

When a curved surface is nearly flat, it appears somewhat flat, but not entirely flat, as it has a curve over it, because a curved surface the size of Earth doesn’t exist.

When you claim perspective acts over a curved surface of three miles distance, there’s no curving seen over that three miles, and if there were any curve on it, we would see it a downward edge over the surface and nothing beyond that would be seen of the surface.

Look at a table. Imagine it is five miles long. Imagine it is curved instead of flat.

Where does a curve appear over it? You see it as the size of that table from above, so where is it curved over it?



There is no way to apply perspective over a curved surface.

Try to curve a flat floor downward, and see it doesn’t keep rising over it.

Because we can SEE the entire surface up to horizons.

Exactly as we expect to do so if they were curving down, and NOT like what we would expect if they were flat.

Just what do you think you should see on a curved surface?
The surface beyond the horizon?
The surface magically stopping (producing a horizon) with a magical gap to the horizon?

Your claim makes no sense at all.

If they were curving down we couldn’t see the entire surface.

And we don't see the entire surface.
You said it yourself, we see the surface up to the horizon.

That is exactly what we expect for a round surface.
For a flat surface we expect to either not be able to see it or see it all.

If I consider the top surface of a flat table, if I am "above" that table, I can see the entire surface.
If I am below, the entire surface is hidden.

The only time I can ever see part of the surface, is when there is something blocking the view to part of it, like if I put a box on the top and look at it from above.

Now compare that to a sphere.
It doesn't matter where I am, I see part of the surface up until the horizon.

So this visual observation is clearly demonstrating it is round, not flat.

So I'll ask again, what magical observation are you making that shows the surface is flat?

Curves do not ‘win out over perspective’, they curve down and there is no perspective anymore.

Again, pure BS.
If that was the case, any ball you looked out would appear as nothing more than a point.

Even when you claim perspective ‘wins out over the curve’ it’s stupid. What does it ‘win out’ over?

I have already explained that repeatedly.
Stop playing dumb.

The change in the d/2r term beats the change in the h/d term.

i.e. h/d^2 < 1/2r.

Where is your curve seen up to horizons?

By the ground appearing slightly lower than it would otherwise, in a way you will not be able to tell without actually measuring it carefully with an appropriate measuring device.

The important point here is the horizon, the easy way to tell a flat surface and a round surface apart.

It’s entirely flat, there is no curve at all.

That is your entirely baseless claim you are yet to justify.
The closest you have come to a justification is a clear demonstration that you are lying to everyone and that this observation shows it is not flat.

You may buy their bs

I'm not buying your BS.

because a curved surface the size of Earth doesn’t exist.

Except as Earth.

if there were any curve on it, we would see it a downward edge over the surface and nothing beyond that would be seen of the surface.

i.e. you would see the horizon?
i.e. you would see what is observed on Earth?

Look at a table. Imagine it is five miles long. Imagine it is curved instead of flat.

Where does a curve appear over it? You see it as the size of that table from above, so where is it curved over it?

If by "curve appear" you mean "a downwards edge over the surface and nothing beyond that would be seen", that would depend on the rate of curvature and how high above it you are.

There is no way to apply perspective over a curved surface.

Repeating the same lie wont help you.
I have already shown how it can apply over a curved surface.

In the general form:
a=atan(h(d)/d)
For an approximation for the RE, a=atan(h0/d + d/2r).

That is perspective applying.

Try to curve a flat floor downward, and see it doesn’t keep rising over it.

I know it doesn't, just like Earth doesn't.
Instead, they both reach a point where you "would see it a downward edge over the surface and nothing beyond that would be seen of the surface".
That point is known as the horizon.
With flat surfaces not having this feature.

Again, you are just showing EARTH IS ROUND!

If Earth was flat, it would continue to rise. It would keep rising.
There would be no horizon.

Again, care to answer the questions that show you have been lying to everyone?
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?

Can you honestly answer any of these, or are you only capable of repeating the same pathetic lies again and again?

Conversely, the flat surface would continue to rise forever, never producing a horizon.

You cannot see thousands of miles over a flat surface, unless it keeps rising up TO be able to see the whole surface thousands of miles away, don’t you understand that?

You claim we’d see a flat surface thousands of miles away, over the whole surface of thousands of miles long, just like we see the whole surface three miles away from ground, or 150 miles of surface from 30000 feet above it, if it was flat….

On ground, we see three miles away, and the whole surface over that three miles.

The surface which is below us, lower than us, when near to us, will appear to be rising up higher and higher when further away from us.

A flat surface would rise up over it, but you claim it would appear to rise forever and ever, and not form a horizon at all, just keep on rising up and up.

You think we’d see the whole flat surface, which you say keeps rising and rising up forever?

If it keeps rising, it’d rise thousands of miles higher and higher over ten thousand miles away, in order for us to see that whole surface of ten thousand miles distance over it, right?

So it would have to rise up so high over thousands of miles, TO thousands of miles above us, above the surface, to see the entire surface over thousands of miles!

When we see how high the surface appears to be at just three or so miles away, a flat surface is that same or more height seen from three miles away, so if we assume that’s what we’d see over three miles on a flat surface, what height woukd it appear to be from twice that distance, over six miles away, and still see over the whole six miles of surface?

It would have to rise up twice as high as before, at three miles out.

You claim it ‘dips’ downward before three miles out, yet we still can see the whole surface, but it’s rising lesser at that point, you believe.

The problem you have, is that the surface must rise twice as high over six miles out, as it was at three miles out, to still see the whole surface as before at three miles out, or not much less than that.

The angle over more distance out on the surface, must stay the same, appear the same, rise up the same, to view this entire surface, but it soon would rise up too high above you to ever see anything BUT the surface blanketing the skies above you, and never see anything more of the surface, rising out of your view.

Or if you believe it would keep rising up, just lesser and lesser than over three miles out, that’s nonsense too.

The less it would appear to rise after three miles out, makes the angle too sharp with more distance over the surface for any to see the entire surface at all.

Can you see over the whole rooftop of a high rise building from the ground, at any distance you are from it?

Can you see over the roof of a two story house from the ground, at any distance from it on the same ground?

If the roofs of those buildings were over a flat and ever rising up surface, that’s what you’d see of it, in the distance, nothing more beyond a distance out on it.

When we look up to the top edge of a high rise, do you believe it’s a horizon?

An edge is where we see horizons, you claim, so the top edges of buildings are also horizons to you, any physical solid edge on anything blocked out of our view beyond any edge, is a horizon!!!

Ouch

You cannot see thousands of miles over a flat surface, unless it keeps rising up TO be able to see the whole surface thousands of miles away, don’t you understand that?

By "rising up" do you mean physically rising, or just having the angle of elevation higher?
If the former, no you don't. If the latter, yes, I know.

Either way, WE DON'T SEE THAT!

On ground, we see three miles away, and the whole surface over that three miles.

Yes, until the curvature becomes too significant for your altitude, and you can see no more.

Again, the RE model trivially explains why it is that distance.
But all you can do is say it is that, with no explanation at all.

If it keeps rising, it’d rise thousands of miles higher and higher over ten thousand miles away, in order for us to see that whole surface of ten thousand miles distance over it, right?

Do you understand the difference between the physical height and the angle?
The ground is not physically rising, just the angle. As already explained to you countless times.

It would have to rise up twice as high as before, at three miles out.

You can just use basic geometry, no need for convoluted BS.

You claim it ‘dips’ downward before three miles out, yet we still can see the whole surface, but it’s rising lesser at that point, you believe.

Again, we CANNOT see the whole surface.
We see up to the point where the curve blocks the view. A distance which is dependent on your height.

The problem you have, is that the surface must rise twice as high over six miles out, as it was at three miles out, to still see the whole surface as before at three miles out, or not much less than that.

Again, this is basic geometry, not hard to understand.
What observe in reality matches what is expected for a round surface and what is seen for small round surfaces.
What we observe does NOT match a flat surface.

The angle over more distance out on the surface, must stay the same, appear the same, rise up the same

Why?
That already doesn't happen with the small amount of surface we do see.
Say you are standing with your eyes 2 m above the surface.
The first 2 meters has an angular size of 45 degrees.
If your BS was true, you would only be able to see 4 m in front of you.

Or if you believe it would keep rising up, just lesser and lesser than over three miles out, that’s nonsense too.

No, that isn't nonsense. It is basic geometry. Something you cannot refute and you need to keep fleeing from.

The less it would appear to rise after three miles out, makes the angle too sharp

Unless you use a better tool, which does NOTHING to the position of the horizon, and that certainly cannot explain why the horizon appears below eye level.

Can you see over the whole rooftop of a high rise building from the ground

This is an entirely dishonest comparison and you know it.
As I would be below the roof, then no I can't see any of it.

But if I am above it, then I can see it all.

Again, do you understand the difference between it physically rising, and the angle making it "appear higher"?
Because this kind of BS indicates you either have no idea what you are talking about, or you are knowingly lying.
Which is it?

An edge is where we see horizons, you claim, so the top edges of buildings are also horizons to you, any physical solid edge on anything blocked out of our view beyond any edge, is a horizon!!!

Ouch

Yes, "ouch". It shows how the horizon matches an edge, making it consistent with what is expected for the RE, and nothing like what is expected for a flat Earth.

Now again, care to stop with all the pathetic BS and answer the questions which clearly demonstrate that you have been lying to everyone?
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?

Can you honestly answer any of these, or are you only capable of repeating the same pathetic lies again and again?

With two 40 foot long floors, one flat, one curved at a single rate….

The flat floor stays flat from one end out to the other end.

The curved floor curves down from one end out to the other end.

If the curved floor curves down too much to not see the other end of it 20 feet away, is that what you call a horizon?

Horizons are anywhere on a ball where it curves down out of sight?

That’s what you’re saying here, right?

If you stand on top of the Vegas sphere, you’ll see a horizon form on it about 40 feet away? Or whatever the distance is, that’s where a horizon is seen on the Vegas sphere?

If the curved floor curves down too much to not see the other end of it 20 feet away, is that what you call a horizon?

Yes, that is how the horizon works on a round Earth.

And guess what, if it does curve down too much, then you can get higher and see further around it.
Basic geometry.

Conversely, the flat floor you can see all the way to the end. No horizon forms.

If you stand on top of the Vegas sphere, you’ll see a horizon form on it about 40 feet away? Or whatever the distance is, that’s where a horizon is seen on the Vegas sphere?

I have already explained how far away it should be.

If you are close enough to the surface, such that the height above it is insignificant compared to the size, then you can approximate the distance to the horizon as:
d = sqrt(2*r*h).

If you are higher, such that the small x approximation for cosine:
cos(x) = 1-x^2/2
starts to break down and produce a significant error, you need a more complete formula:
d = r*acos(r/(r+h)), noting angles need to be expressed in radians.

You can also go the other way around. To see a horizon at a certain distance, you need to be at a height of h, given by the approximation:
h = d^2/2r
or the full form:
h=r*(1/cos(d/r)-1) (again, angles in radians)

For the sphere, with a width of 516 ft at its widest point, taking that to be the diameter gives a radius of 258 ft

Using the approximation, that would give a distance of roughly 3.1 ft

So if you stand on top of the sphere, with an eye height roughly 3.1 ft above the centre, you will get a horizon forming at roughly 40 ft away, and an angle of dip of roughly 8.9 degrees.



We can also make a simple comparison to Earth, with its radius of 6371 km.
That would be equivalent to seeing the horizon roughly 1000 km away from an altitude of roughly 80 km.


And notice what you still fail to do? Provide any reason why the horizon should form on a flat Earth, or any justification for the distance to it.

Again:
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?

Horizons have nothing to do with curved edges on balls.

They are not edges, not real, they are illusions of perspective over flat surfaces, which always appear to rise up to horizons, and always seen as flat up to horizons.

Spheres are entirely curved and never flat, never appear to keep rising up over a more and more curved downward surface

When you claimed a curve ‘lost out’ to perspective until three miles over the surface, it curves down MORE after three miles out, and perspective lost out to a smaller curve three miles out, the curve is greater and greater from there, your excuse is toast.

Horizons have nothing to do with curved edges on balls.

Again, what did you say?

That a curved surface only rises up until a point, after which it curves away and isn't seen.
That sure sounds like a horizon.

So no, the horizon has EVERYTHING to do with curved edges on balls.

If you want to claim otherwise, answer the questions you keep running from.

They are not edges, not real, they are illusions of perspective over flat surfaces

Then why do they function nothing like illusions and instead act just like we would expect for a real physical edge?

Spheres are entirely curved and never flat

Which is why the horizon forms.

When you claimed a curve ‘lost out’ to perspective until three miles over the surface, it curves down MORE after three miles out, and perspective lost out to a smaller curve three miles out, the curve is greater and greater from there, your excuse is toast.

You have had that BS refuted repeatedly.
All you can do it just keep repeating it, showing everyone how pathetic and dishonest you are.

Now again, care to stop with all the pathetic BS and answer the questions which clearly demonstrate that you have been lying to everyone?
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?

Can you honestly answer any of these, or are you only capable of repeating the same pathetic lies again and again?

It’s obvious that you don’t understand that an ever greater curve forms on your ball Earth.

On top of any ball, no matter how large it is, you are atop that ball, and everywhere around you is lower than you are.

That’s where you are highest on a bsll.

If a large enough ball, it seems like a flat surface over a short distance over it.

That is the only part of it which appears to rise up, similar to a flat surface does, but less than a flat surface does, even there.

But when higher above that ball, there is a big difference seen above a curved surface, which is that the surface doesn’t rise up anymore.

The horizons are further away, but don’t rise up anymore, they go lower and lower when higher above the ball, until no more horizons exist at all.

Horizons form over flat surfaces, and nearly flat surfaces.  Not over curved surfaces.

Perspective doesn’t magically raise up curved surfaces from under a ball, sorry to burst your fairy tale story, but it’s nonsense.

There’s no dip. A dip is diwnward, it doesn’t go diwnward on the surface anywhere at all.

It rises up less than before which is a slighter less upward slant or rising upward on it.

We’d not see the surface if it dipped downward. A descent is a downward dip, a curve is a downward dip.The surface id stil rising up, not dipping downward.

Sorry, still no imaginary curve here. No dip downward on the surface either.

More distance of both surfaces are seen from higher above them both, but the only surface appearing to keep rising up is not a curved surface, it is the flat surface which does.

They are completely different surfaces, they look completely different and will never look the same surface.

You cannot cut up a horizon as an edge on a ball. Horizons aren’t edges of balls, you can put anywhere you want on a ball.

Going higher above a ball isn’t known from the real world, so it’s hard to imagine what we’d see above an Earth sized ball.

But we know for absolute fact, that you cannot see the surface rise up as you rise above a ball, any ball of any size.

A ball can look nearly like a flat surface at a short distance, but it cannot rise up higher than on ground, because if it did appear to keep rising up, from higher above it, that wouldn’t be a ball.  No matter how big a ball it is, a curving down surface cannot rise up when you are higher than the top of the ball. It’s physically impossible.

It’s obvious that you don’t understand that an ever greater curve forms on your ball Earth.

It is obvious that I understand the basic geometry of the situation, as I have repeatedly explained it to you, including providing the math; with you instead repeating the same stupid crap which can easily be refuted by going to a curved hallway and seeing how your view changes as you move away from the wall, or just going to the top of a rounded hill.\

On top of any ball, no matter how large it is, you are atop that ball, and everywhere around you is lower than you are.

Likewise, in your delusional FE fantasy, ignoring mountains or the like, everywhere is lower than you.

If a large enough ball, it seems like a flat surface over a short distance over it.

Only to a fool like you that is desperate for it to appear flat.

At best, an honest person would instead convey it as not being able to tell.
That is NOT saying it is flat.

That is the only part of it which appears to rise up, similar to a flat surface does, but less than a flat surface does, even there.

Again, the simple math shows you are wrong.

Even if you had a tiny ball, like a basketball, and were directly overhead, part of it would still rise up.

The fact you do not see it as a tiny point demonstrates this.

But when higher above that ball, there is a big difference seen above a curved surface, which is that the surface doesn’t rise up anymore.

Yet you cannot explain what magic stops it.

Again, a=atan(h/d).
That is the basis of it all.
For a flat Earth, that will just be a=atan(h0/d), as the height never changes.
For a round Earth, it will be a=atan(h0/d+d/2r).
Because the Earth curves down.

That means it will still appear to rise.
Again, the distinction between a flat surface and a round surface is that a flat surface continues to rise forever, while a round surface stops.

The horizons are further away, but don’t rise up anymore, they go lower and lower when higher above the ball, until no more horizons exist at all.

Again, the ground DOES still appear to rise, until it reaches the horizon, with the horizon getting further away, and lower down.
The horizon will always exist.
Just what do you think the alternative is?

Horizons form over flat surfaces

No, they don't.

That is the one type of surface which CANNOT produce a horizon.

The surface needs to curve to produce the horizon.

Again, we can test this on the small scale.
Curved surface have horizons, flat surfaces do not.

Perspective doesn’t magically raise up curved surfaces

No, it just follows basic geometry, geometry you cannot refute.

Seriously the only "argument" you have is that perspective is pure magic and only works when FEers say it should.
You cannot explain or justify your BS at all.

There’s no dip. A dip is diwnward, it doesn’t go diwnward on the surface anywhere at all.

There is, as explained before.

Go stand and look at the ground 1 m in front of your feet.
Do you need to look down for that?
That means it has an angle of dip.

We’d not see the surface if it dipped downward.

Again, it is an angle of dip.

But again, why?
You just assert pure BS with no justification at all.

If that was the case, if you stood on a mountain, you shouldn't see the surface, because it has dipped.
You should never be able to see a valley, because it dips.

Your BS is trivial to refute with countless observations from reality.

The surface id stil rising up, not dipping downward.

No, the surface is going down, as clearly shown by the horizon.

It just "appears to rise", i.e. the angle to the surface gets higher. But only until the horizon.

Again, do you understand the difference between the angular position, or

Sorry, still no imaginary curve here.

That's right, just the real one which explains the horizon; something you still can't explain.

They are completely different surfaces, they look completely different and will never look the same surface.

And the most fundamental difference:
A flat surface does not have a horizon, a curved one does.

Reality matches a curved surface.

You cannot cut up a horizon as an edge on a ball.

Then why is it trivial to pick up a ball, and see the horizon on it?

Going higher above a ball isn’t known from the real world

Yes it is, from looking at balls from different distances, and looking at curved hallways.

But we know for absolute fact, that you cannot see the surface rise up as you rise above a ball, any ball of any size.

So you claim it isn't known from the real world, yet now claim as an absolute fact something you just claimed you don't know?

Again, you demonstrate just how dishonest and desperate you are.

Again, the math shows you are wrong.

It’s physically impossible.

How about instead of repeatedly asserting the same pathetic refuted BS you try justifying it, with the math.
Or even just try to show a fault with the math I provided.

Again, it is basic geometry that you are failing.

Now again, care to stop with all the pathetic BS and answer the questions which clearly demonstrate that you have been lying to everyone?
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?

Can you honestly answer any of these, or are you only capable of repeating the same pathetic lies again and again?

Circles are physically impossible?

Why would a surface thats curving downward and away from us more and more somehow still keep rising up to see it from planes?

Why would there be a constant rate of altitude above Earths surface to the distance of horizons? 

Not on a constantly more curved surface, which is certainly not the same surface over all distances, nothing of it is uniform over it, the curve is greater over more distance.

Do you have a point of no horizon on Earth ball? 

How does perspective get beaten by a small curve of three miles long, jump back to life again to defeat much bigger curves than a tiny curve which ‘won over perspective’ already?

Being higher above the surface will certainly allow us to see more of SOME surfaces, and more of a curved Earth surface would be seen, that’s true, but you can’t use it as an excuse for the rising up horizon over HUNDREDS of miles your curve would be at that point!

Your excuse is so ridiculous it breaks into pure gibberish.

Where’d the curve go, say perspective rose from the ashes, and whipped a far larger curve than it lost out to before!!

You think any physical edge on a surface that’s not seen beyond an edge is a horizon?

If you do, where do we see this physical edge?

If it’s a real edge, it doesn’t vanish away.

It is either a real and physically existing edge or curve which id seen as really there, or it is not real, if it’s not seen there.

Perspective doesn’t make physical edges vanish from all sight, nothing does, it’s either there to be seen as a real edge, or it doesn’t exist at all.

A cross view of a horizon, up to it and past it, does not show any physical curve or edge on the surface anywhere at all.

Real curves are seen on a real ball, they don’t vanish from sight!

If the horizon was a physical curve or edge or dip on the surface of Earth, it would and must be seen as really there as a curve or edge or dip.

When the surface appears to be rising upward, how do we know it is NOT rising at all?

Because we also see this very same surface from another viewpoint or viewpoints, right?

So if we know the surface is NOT rising at all, what do we see it as?

Do we see it curving down?

No, we don’t see any curves on it.

We see the ACTUAL surface, and we see it IS flat throughout it.

We wouldn’t know the surface is NOT rising up or is curving down or anything about it from that single viewpoint of it.

Again, when we see the same surface from other viewpoints, that’s how we can see and know what the true surface is.

And it’s always seen and known as a flat, never rising up or curving down surface.

The cross-section views of anything, any object, any surface, show us a 3 dimensional view of them.

And spheres or curved surfaces, if they ARE real, will be seen as real things.

Horizons aren’t circles, nor squares or any other shape.

If you were in the middle of a large square, you’d see it around as a circle, but it’s actually a square, not a circle at all.

Horizons aren’t physical edges on surfaces, you can’t see a real edge on a horizon at all.

Because horizons are illusory edges on a flat surface, or a nearly flat surface.

Saying horizons are real curves or edges or dips on the surface is complete bs. There’s no real curve or edge or dip seen at all on horizons.

Perspective makes visual illusions that aren’t real, aren’t true, don’t exist at all in reality.

Yes, it would appear to rise up over a distance on a curved surface, because it is nearly flat over a small distance on curved surfaces if large enough.

Do you think they keep on being nearly flat over more of the ball?

Why do you think it would rise up in the first place? Because it’s curving downward?

Get a clue

Why would a surface thats curving downward and away from us more and more somehow still keep rising up to see it from planes?

Perspective. Ever head of it?
Again: a=atan(h/d)=atan(h0/d+d/r).

For a plane, it is only going to be a few degrees below level. Still easily visible.

Why would there be a constant rate of altitude above Earths surface to the distance of horizons?

There isn't.
It is NOT a linear function.
You can check this yourself with plenty of sources which you will probably dismiss as a lie.

Why don't you try providing this magical formula you claim exists?

Do you have a point of no horizon on Earth ball?

Do you mean is there a point where the horizon is 0 distance away? Yes, when your head is level with the surface.

How does perspective get beaten by a small curve of three miles long, jump back to life again to defeat much bigger curves than a tiny curve which ‘won over perspective’ already?

As already explained, increasing your altitude.
Again: a=atan(h/d)=atan(h0/d+d/r).

Stop playing dumb when your BS has already been refuted.

Being higher above the surface will certainly allow us to see more of SOME surfaces, and more of a curved Earth surface would be seen, that’s true

i.e. you know you are lying to everyone.

HUNDREDS of miles your curve would be at that point

What point?
Are you yet again appealing to a fantasy view that you don't have any evidence of existing?

Your excuse is so ridiculous it breaks into pure gibberish.

That would be you.
Doing whatever you can to avoid admitting a flat surface doesn't have a horizon except the edge, where you should be able to see to the edge regardless of where you are, with nothing blocking the view; with all the evidence showing Earth is round.

You think any physical edge on a surface that’s not seen beyond an edge is a horizon?

Yes.

If you do, where do we see this physical edge?

The horizon. You can even walk up to it and see it.

If it’s a real edge, it doesn’t vanish away.

And it doesn't.
I have never walked to the horizon and seen the ground magically vanish.

A cross view of a horizon, up to it and past it, does not show any physical curve or edge on the surface anywhere at all.

Yes, it does. But you need to be very far away to get that view.
Otherwise, you are instead seeing a different view, with the view you want blocked from view by the horizon you can see.

Remember:


The line you are trying to see is the grey line, but instead you see the blue circle.

You have had this BS refuted before. Repeating it just shows how desperate you are.

When the surface appears to be rising upward, how do we know it is NOT rising at all?

You can use basic geometry and measure the angle.
Or use other devices to measure it.
Seeing it from other angles is not always enough.

Do we see it curving down?

Yes. As shown by the horizon.

We see the ACTUAL surface, and we see it IS flat throughout it.

No, we don't.
You are yet to provide a single observation which is indicating it is flat.
You just continually assert that out of desperation.

Again, when we see the same surface from other viewpoints, that’s how we can see and know what the true surface is.

And in doing so, we see that is clearly a curve which we can look around by moving around or moving away (i.e. up).
This clearly demonstrates it is round.
If it was flat, that wouldn't happen.
That how we can trivially see and know it is curved and not flat.

The cross-section views of anything, any object, any surface, show us a 3 dimensional view of them.

Like the horizon, a cross section of a sphere, producing a circle.
NOT a cross section of a plane.

And views from further away, clearly showing Earth as round.

Horizons aren’t circles

Lying wont save you.

If you were in the middle of a large square, you’d see it around as a circle

No, you wouldn't.
You would be able to see the corners. You would be able to look at a line and follow it to the corner.
Go draw a square on the ground and stand in it, and see if you can spot the corners.

Horizons aren’t physical edges on surfaces

They are. You not liking that and wanting to appeal to pure magic because you can't defend your dishonest, delusional BS doesn't change that.

Saying horizons are real curves or edges or dips on the surface is complete bs.

Then why does it explain what is observed so well?

Do you think they keep on being nearly flat over more of the ball?

You do that.

Why do you think it would rise up in the first place?

It doesn't physically rise up. I have told you countless times there is a difference between the physical height and the angular position.
You seem to want to pretend they are the same.
The angular position is simple geometry, as explained to you repeatedly.
Again: a=atan(h/d)=atan(h0/d+d/r).

Plot that and you see it initially begins to rise, but then stops and goes back down.
Just like reality.

Now again, care to stop with all the pathetic BS and answer the questions which clearly demonstrate that you have been lying to everyone?
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?

Can you honestly answer any of these, or are you only capable of repeating the same pathetic lies again and again?

The distance out to all horizons is a constant rate based on our height above the surface, it is not a variable rate, it is a single constant rate.  The only way we can have a constant rate to all horizons at any height above a surface, must be, can ONLY be over a constant and uniform surface, and the only surface that is constant and uniform over it is a flat surface. Which it is, and can only be a flat surface to have a constant rate to all horizons of all distances out at all heights above that surface.

As I’ve already told you, this cannot happen over a curved surface, or any other surface because all of them are not constant and uniform over them. They change and vary over those surfaces, are not uniform and constantly the same over them.

You keep on saying that horizons are lower at higher altitudes above Earth, which is complete bs.

You just believe any image that shows a lower horizon as valid and as proof of a ball Earth.

That’s why we can easily prove it’s always the same apparent height at all altitudes when we see them from plane windows on each side of the plane. Any idiot can twist or tweak an image to make a lower horizon in it. So what?

It has to be seen from both opposite sides of a plane at the same time, to know if it’s a level view of a horizon on both sides.

When we see both sides of both horizons at the same height in both windows at the same time, which it usually is in planes which mostly fly level, that is the true apparent height of horizons at all altitudes. And it’s always seen  halfway up our windows, just like it does when we measure for level with instruments. We could draw a straight line across plane windows at the exact middle of them, and it would be seen at that line in all planes at any altitude when flying level.

Look at all the videos showing horizons out plane windows over the entire flight, you’ll see it’s always halfway up the windows when it flies kevel. Same as any image from plane windows to horizons.

The next time you’re on a flight in daylight, and it’s clear to see horizons out the windows, notice the height up the window they are.

They usually only fly level at cruising altitude, but also fly level at lower altitudes too. 

Make sure to look out from both sides of the plane moments apart from each other, if you can. You might see out both sides anyway from your seat, I’ve seen both sides from my seat in smaller planes.


The height of a horizon never changes, never is lower at all.

If Earth were a ball, the horizon you believe is a bit lower, would be much lower than that, and would always be seen lower as you rise up higher above the ball.

Every instrument on planes also measure and confirm they are flying level as well, of course. The height of both horizons on each side of the plane will be seen halfway up both windows, confirming again it it level and always halfway up the windows at all heights above the surface.

And all your tricks won’t save this bs story.

Horizons are purely illusions that form on a rising up surface that is ALSO an illusion, and both are illusions of perspective.

The illusion of a rising surface is where and why the illusion of a horizon is on its peak height that never exists at all.

A curved surface is not seen as entirely flat as it appears to rise up to the horizon. The entire surface up to a horizon IS flat, and is SEEN as flat. Perspective doesn’t make a curved surface look entirely flat, it makes flat surfaces appear to rise, but not the surface itself change shapes from curved to flat or flat to curved. It does not ‘win out’ over a curve by flattening it out and seen as entirely flat, that’s absurd and pure nonsense.

Show a curved surface that looks entirely flat, it’d be miraculous to see!

It is a constant single rate to all horizons from any height above the surface. It does not account for any curvature at all, which it must if there was curvature on Earths surface.

The higher above a curved surface would show ever lower horizons on the distance.

So do you really believe that we don’t see horizons halfway up our plane windows when at 30000 feet?

I’ve filmed them from those altitudes and they certainly are seen halfway up my windows, and halfway up windows on the other side of the planes too.

Don’t try giving me this bs lie that I’ve seen myself, that many have seen many times themselves, that they show images and videos of online, you lie as if it’s second nature to you, but your bs just shows what you really are, and it’s only going to bite you in the ass on judgement day, no avoiding your sins on earth.