Hey guys.
Just looking for some feedback, why is this most evidently incorrect, what am i not seeing.
As has discussed previously,
You don't know where the photo was taken, what the photo was of, nor how far away the city is, nor the altitude of the camera.
Without those key details (which you need to able to justify, especially after your previous claims of not knowing and giving impossible distances), you cannot claim missing curvature.
But what is apparent is the bottom of the buildings are missing.
You have a skyline which shows only the tall buildings, showing curvature.
This pic shows the missing curvature. It is from Dominican Republic, i believe S.E. part of the island from about Batey el Soco harbour looking west 40 to 50 miles to Santo Domingo at highrises (building cluster in middle of pic) less than 400 feet tall - you can see half or more of the buildiings.
Yet previously, you claimed this was just off the coast of Saona Island.
And as discussed previously, this would put land in the way.
Isn't it much more plausible for you to have left El-Soco Harbour, and looked towards San Pedro De Macoris?
So the short version of my thinking is that the curvature happens over the head of each individual.
This cannot explain why things appear to sink.
This spherical effect to looking at the sky, i believe, maybe demonstrated by the moon terminator illusion
This "spherical effect" is merely a statement that our eyes work based upon angles, and yet we as humans naturally use the ground as a reference.
It does nothing to explain why the bottom of objects would appear to sink.
Seems they say - 1 "this is because students learn planar geometry first"... ok why cant you lay a plane on the triangle that make the sun / moon / observer, and 2 "this is an axiom..." (?).
I don't see anything on it being an axiom.
I also don't see them say it is based upon learning planar geometry first.
Care to link to the page?
And you can construct a triangle.
Some people have even done this with balls and string.
You can stand in the right spot and see the moon and sun align with the balls, and see the string going the same way the moon is appearing to point, and then stepping back, and seeing quite clearly it is a straight line.
The illusion results from taking this spherical view, and projecting it onto a flat plane.
This necessarily distorts at least some lines, so what is a straight line, appears as a curve.
So i believe the ancients used to say the sky is spherical - what is the direct evidence that the curvature of the angle to heavenly bodies moving throught the sky is not happening in the sky and instead it is the earth they are going around.
They had a celestial sphere which would rotate around Earth.
This is nothing like what you are suggesting.
They did not claim this sky being spherical magically hid things from view.
Instead, they had things like the sun moved along the celestial sphere and went below Earth, with Earth still blocking the view.
our most talented scientists could not understand it.
Or most talented scientists accept that Earth is round, which is what all the evidence shows, and is entirely compatible with the world without needing to resort to extra nonsense to try to make it work.
That is my thinking, believing we have turned away from the truth time and time again, with corrupted motives and bandaid solutions, coming to this point in the world.
Now, can you recognise that that can describe FEers quite well?
That they step away from the truth (that Earth is round) and try to come up with band aids to ty to save the idea of a flat Earth?
That perhaps it is time for flat Earthers to step back from all those band aids, evaluate the world as it is, and accept that it is round?
But it just seems like a simple solution, so what is the evidence against this. That there is a approx spherical curvature above each individual that matches the approx supposed diameter of earth.
The fundamental issue is how does this work?
How does this produce the results that are observed?
How doe the "curvature of the sky" result in distant objects appearing to sink such that they disappear from the bottom up?
Are you trying to say that light itself bends?
Then for this to work, you would expect the same results on a round Earth and a flat Earth. That means the claims of being able to see a distant shore or missing curvature argue equally against the RE and this idea. Likewise, the idea of being able to see level objects in a straight line would also go against both.
So the question then becomes what evidence is there that Earth is flat or round, because the visual evidence would either match both, or contradict both.
The logical place to turn would be mapping, where the surface of Earth is mapped independent from the sky or light.
But the distances for that show Earth is round. And an example of the practical utility of that are all the different flight paths which only make sense on a round Earth. You can pick a certain version of a flat Earth and make most flights make sense, but some will not. The only way for them all to make sense is with a round Earth.