What about ships on the ocean?

Wrong, both the ship and the surface are still appearing to rise upward, because if it was curving downward, when the bottom of the ship cannot be seen anymore, the entire ship would be past the whole horizon at that point.

But the bottom vanishes from sight before and below the crest or top line across the horizon, because you couldn’t see there’s no bottom part of the ship unless the rest of it was curving out of view right after the bottom did.

The next big problem you have after you’ve claimed it curves down on the surface, makes it a real, physical curving downward surface, the highest point of that surface was seen before the point it curved downward.

But when you rise upward from the top of a ball, that ball you saw from its very top point on the surface, was curving down the entire surface and all things on it from all view!

What happens when you are going from the top of a ball on its surface, curving down the entire surface and the ships on it past the horizon, just three miles away?

You’ve now given me an actual distance for where your curve physically starts to go downward on the surface, so when we rise above the surface at that same point, we’d have to look downward and below us more and more right away.

Because you’d have several things that work against your view of the surface when above it..

You started from tne top point of the surface. Rising up from the top point higher and higher, above an ever more curving downward from you above the surface, would never help you see the surface curving more and more downward than before that!

A physically curving downward surface you claim cannot stop curving down after that point, beyond that distance, after it curved the entire surface and all on that surface out of all view downward below our viewpoint!

What would ever make you believe that rising above a ball, higher and higher above a ball, would look like it actually does from a plane?

There’d certainly be more of the entire surface seen from above a ball Earth, but it wouldn’t be about how much more of the surface we’d be able to see, though not nearly as much as we can now.

The question is where we’d have to look to first SEE the surface below us in a plane.

It wouldn’t be nearly like we see the flat Earth below us in planes today. Where’d we see the horizon above a ball Earth would be far below us in a plane, too.

It’s really funny when someone posts an image of a curving horizon over the Earth, when it’s shown directly across a plane window.

If there was such a real curve over the Earth as they show in their images, the surface outward would never appear to be rising up to the plane windows, then showing a curving horizon across from his window in a plane!

Wrong, both the ship and the surface are still appearing to rise upward

PROVE IT!
Stop just baselessly asserting crap and prove it.

when the bottom of the ship cannot be seen anymore, the entire ship would be past the whole horizon at that point.

As it is.
I have never seen any example where it is not.

But again, notice what you are doing?
Yet agin, instead of trying to explain what magic causes the bottom to disappear in your pathetic, delusional fantasy, you are yet again attacking the RE model.

Stop attacking the RE model, and start defending your pathetic BS.
Explain what magic hides the bottom, or admit you can't, admit you have no way to explain how the bottom is hidden in your pathetic fantasy.


Stop with all the pathetic BS and explain what magic hides the bottom, or admit you can't.

Ignoring the explanation doesn’t work for your fairy tale!

We know the curve doesn’t exist, because if a curve existed three miles away from us, sinking the entire surface downward from all sight beyond a horizon only three miles away, it would keep on curving downward, even more and more downward, beyond that distance, beyond three miles outward, beyond that horizon!

Curved surfaces don’t stop curving downward more and more, it’s impossible and cannot happen, ever!

That’s the problem you cannot answer for, what shows your claim is nonsense.

You’re claiming a curve over the Earths surface shows up and ‘beats out perspective’ about three miles away, viewed from ground, seeing a horizon three miles out from us!

After three miles out, beyond the horizon, the curve finally beats out perspective, and the surface curves entirely out of all sight, CURVING DOWNWARD OVER THE SURFACE, BEYOND THREE MILES OUT!

Ok, then what happens after that point?

Do you know that a curved surface has to keep curving downward more and more over more distance away from us?

So where did your curved surface start going visibly and physically downward? Less than 4 miles away from us, just past a horizon three miles away, right?

That’s your claim, is it not?

Except your story of a curving surface going downward to block all things out less than four miles away, has to curve more and more after that point, past four miles out! 

But it’s obviously not true, the curve would constantly curve more and more downward, beyond that point, beyond four miles away from us!

What would you see, when rising above the surface, at that same point on the ground?

Explain what you’d see, above the surface, at the same point, where you saw the horizon three miles away, where you believe that a curve on the surface showed up, over three miles of the surface, and beat out perspective finally, and curved the surface down so much, it blocked everything out of view, surface and things on it downward out of all sight??

Maybe you think you can claim all that, and not have to answer for it, address the problem with your claim!!

Everything after your claim shows it’s bs, there’s no curve at all, because real curves on real surfaces cannot stop curving downward after starting to curve down physically and visually!

From your claim, a curved surface is three miles out, and beyond three miles out, to less than four miles out, curving the entire surface down and out of all view!!

That is your claim, of a real, physically curving downward surface, from that point, that distance, and there cannot be any excuses or ignoring your claim here!!

Do you really know what your claim means, what the implications and consequences of your claim actually are? 

I’m sure you know there’s a very serious problem with your claim, that it fails miserably to work out at all?!?

Ignoring the explanation doesn’t work for your fairy tale!

We know the curve doesn’t exist, because if a curve existed three miles away from us, sinking the entire surface downward from all sight beyond a horizon only three miles away, it would keep on curving downward, even more and more downward, beyond that distance, beyond three miles outward, beyond that horizon!

That depends on how you define ‘down’.  Ignoring terrain features, all points along the curve are equidistant from the center, so the horizon and beyond don’t actually curve downward.  It’s all the same height.  It’s only downward because your point of view is farther from the center than the surface you’re standing on.

You claim the surface of Earth is curving but not curving downward at all?

Seeing the surface from ground, where it cannot be seen past a horizon three miles away, what happens to no longer see any of the surface?

If you don’t think it curves downward at all, it’s not a ball, obviously….

Ignoring the explanation doesn’t work for your fairy tale!

The explanation works just fine for a round Earth.
Your dishonest delusional BS strawman doesn't work, but that isn't reality.

Again, if you want to discuss the RE explanation, then fist admit that you have absolutely no explanation for how it could ever possibly work on a flat Earth.
Once you have done that we can move on to your blatant and wilful lies about the RE model.
Especially given you are just repeating the same pathetic, refuted BS.

Until then, explain what magic hides the curve or admit you can't.

I’m simply stating the facts and reality of how curved surfaces would look on a ball Earth.

That’s entirely based on your very own claims, that the surface curves down and out of all view three to four miles away from us seeing it on the ground.  About 5 or 6 feet above ground, soecifically.

So we can’t see anything of the surface past three to four miles out, at 5 or 6 feet above the surface.

But when we see the surface from a few inches above it, then we see a horizon is less than three miles away. Let’s say it’s only 2.5 miles away from us when looking close to the surface.

We then see a horizon is 2.5 miles away. Is that now where your curve starts going down? Just past 2.5 miles out?

When we stand up again, we can see beyond 2.5 miles out, past that horizon we saw from closer to the surface!

The fact is, horizons aren’t curves, no curve past horizons exist at all. We don’t even have to rise above the surface of Earth to prove that horizons aren’t real, aren’t curves, a 2.5 mile out curve we see near the surface, is not there when we stand up and look out over the surface again

You’d claim a 2.5 mile out horizon is where the surface curves down and out of all view!

A real curved surface that curves downward at 2.5 miles away from us, would never be seen because we stand up on that surface, past your curve 2.5 miles away, it would not stop curving down past 2.5 miles out, become flat and appear to rise up past 2.5 miles away.  Get the point yet?

If you can’t understand it’s due to perspective at this point, you never will. Or never want to believe it’s due to perspective.

You would know it’s both the top of the surface and the bottom of a ship tnat BOTH vanish from sight, except we cannot really see the top of water vanish at a distance, only the bottom of a ship can be seen from afar.

That’s why I posted the source which explains how both objects appear to merge and their top and bottom parts vanish from sight at a distance.

When you’ve seen parallel lines appear to merge together in the distance, do you think they never merge close enough to partly vanish from sight?

If the parallel lines are close to one another at first, they will appear to merge together and partly vanish on each side they are nearest the other line at a distance.

Look at parallel lines almost touching when near you. You’ll see they are merging and each one partly vanishes at a distance, just like the ship and surface do at a distance.

If both are not too close to one another when near you, an instrument can magnify the two parts which vanished from sight again.

But if they’re almost touching when near you, no instrument can see the parts that vanished away at a distance

Your lack of understanding perspective is stunning to behold.

A horizon seen 2.5 miles away isn’t there when you stand up on the same surface. Now a horizon is three miles away!

Horizon was seen, then vanished from sight! How real is that to you?

The first horizon vanished away, so did the second horizon vanish away! They all vanish away, they are simply illusions, which don’t really exist at all, and they always vanish from all sight, too

Lie down on the surface to see a horizon closer than three miles away, it vanishes when you stand up and look again, but now the horizon is three miles away instead of only 2.5 miles away. It always goes further and further away from us when higher above the surface. Never a curve seen at all, only flat surfaces stretching out ever longer and longer out are seen

You claim the surface of Earth is curving but not curving downward at all?

Seeing the surface from ground, where it cannot be seen past a horizon three miles away, what happens to no longer see any of the surface?

If you don’t think it curves downward at all, it’s not a ball, obviously….

It may curve downward from your perspective, but every point on the surface of a ball is at the same level (distance from the center).  I’m not sure why that concept is so difficult for you to grasp.

Sorry, but you’re not making any sense here.

Are you on top of a ball, a big ball? Yes you are.

When do you see nothing more of the ball? About 3 or 4 miles away from you, yes?

Why don’t you see past three or four miles away on a ball?

Because you’re always on the top of a ball, and a ball will always be curving down from wherever you are on top of a ball.

So perhaps you can’t see past three or four miles out on the ball because it curved downward below your view of it?

Balls have been known to curve down more and more with more distance over them!

So perhaps you can’t see past three or four miles out on the ball because it curved downward below your view of it?

Balls have been known to curve down more and more with more distance over them!

People have been known to see more of the curve when they are farther away from the surface of the ball.

I’m simply stating the facts and reality of how curved surfaces would look on a ball Earth.

No, you aren't.
You are wilfully lying to people, spouting already refuted crap, all to pretend the RE can't work, to deflect from your complete inability to explain how it could ever work for a flat Earth.

You know there is absolutely no explanation you can provide that would actually work on a flat Earth, so you are desperate to deflect at all costs; including repeating the same already refuted BS again and again where you "attack" the RE with blatant lies.
Again, the math shows you are pathetic, desperate, dishonest, lying, subhuman scum.

Again, the math you cannot refute at all shows the distance to the horizon, for a RE, as an approximation is given by sqrt(2*r*h).
You have done NOTHING to refute that, and instead just continually the same pathetic BS which has been refuted countless times.

So grow up, stop with all the pathetic BS and explain what magic hides the bottom.
Again, if you want to discuss the RE model, first admit you have no explanation at all for the FE model.

If you can’t understand it’s due to perspective at this point, you never will.

I can't "understand" it, because your claim is pure BS.

Perspective doesn't magically hide the bottom.
It doesn't magically make things appear to sink.

If you want to claim it is perspective, you will need to explain HOW, not just repeatedly assert the same pathetic BS.

You would know it’s both the top of the surface and the bottom of a ship tnat BOTH vanish from sight

Only after enough distance, or with crappy enough resolution.
When resolved well, at the appropriate distance, we can clearly see the top, clearly make it out, showing perspective is not hiding it; but the bottom remains hidden.
That is what you need to address.

Posting crap about not being able to resolve the object at all will not help you, as it is not addressing the issue.

That’s why I posted the source which explains how both objects appear to merge and their top and bottom parts vanish from sight at a distance.

i.e. you posted that crap because you know you cannot explain the issue that is actually being discussed, an object, clearly resolvable, yet having the bottom hidden as if it has sunk into Earth.

When you’ve seen parallel lines appear to merge together in the distance

And notice the key here?
They appear to merge.

They don't disappear from one side to the other.

e.g. If I look at railway tracks going off into the distance, I can still clearly see the left and right tracks, as the angular separation between them gets smaller and smaller, until they either go around a curve and get hidden from view, or the distnace is large enough that I can't resolve them as 2 distinct tracks. However, at that point I can bring out something like a camera with a decent zoom lens, and use that to view them and they appear separate again.

Do you know what I never see?
The tracks disappearing from the left to the right, where the right track is clearly resolvable, along with some of the separation between the tracks, while the left track is mysteriously missing.

Again, perspective doesn't magically selectively hide the bottom of the objects.

I'm not asking you why the object gets too small to resolve, or why it can't be resolved with enough distance and poor enough optics.
We are specifically talking about the situation where the object is clearly resolvable yet the bottom is hidden.
And perspective can never explain that.

Likewise, perspective can never explain why no better optics can bring the hidden portion back into view.

Your lack of understanding perspective is stunning to behold.

You mean my good understanding of perspective which allows to me to easily see through your pathetic BS and call you out on it?


Now again, stop with all the pathetic BS and explain what magic hides the bottom.

Not just pathetic vague crap of things appearing to merge, but what makes an object, which is clearly resolvable, have the bottom appear to be obstructed by Earth.

Can you answer that?
If not, stop with all the pathetic BS and just admit it. Try to be honest for once in your pathetic existence.

However, at that point I can bring out something like a camera with a decent zoom lens, and use that to view them and they appear separate again.

No, when both lines or objects are parallel and very close to one another, say only an inch apart, close to you, they will not be seen apart in the distance, no instrument will see them apart anymore…

The bottom of a ship is on the water, touching it atop the surface, right?

Now if we have two parallel posts touching one another, separate and parallel posts, touching one another, but still are two separate objects, not joined as one post at all…

That’s exactly the same way the bottom of a ship is on the top of the water, just going across from one another into the distance instead of outward from one another into the distance. 

Do you understand what I’m saying here?

Imagine two straight lines touching one another at their edges, running out parallel into the distance.  They are always two separate lines, parallel to one another….

When they’re seen two or more miles away from you, would you still see they are two separate lines? Even with an instrument? No, you’d never see they are two separate lines completely as before when they’re near you…

Here’s the most important part of it….We have to mark the parallel posts or lines in two colors, say white with a thin red strip along their edges…

Their red strips will remain fully seen out one edge, the edge not touching the other line, but the other edges in red touching one another won’t be seen anymore, as they will appear to merge as one, and the red will not be seen anymore, and no instrument will make the red edges seen at all either.

Remember here, we’re looking outward at two separate objects, or an object and a surface it is on, they are touching one another, not apart from one another…

That’s how parallel lines or objects would have to be, touching one another, running out parallel from one another into the distance…..


And they would appear to vanish along one side, the side they are touching each other…

It’s that simple, it’s caused by perspective, you can prove it with this same test…

No, when both lines or objects are parallel and very close to one another, say only an inch apart, close to you, they will not be seen apart in the distance, no instrument will see them apart anymore…

Again, the issue is NOT our ability to resolve them.
The issue is how it magically vanishes from one side. Especially while they are still resolvable.
Something you are yet to even attempt to explain.

The bottom of a ship is on the water

The SHIP is on the water.
No need to specifically single out the bottom as if it is magically a separate object.

Do you understand what I’m saying here?

I understand you are desperately grasping at whatever pathetic BS you can to avoid admitting the fact you can't explain what hides the bottom.

Imagine two straight lines touching one another at their edges, running out parallel into the distance.

Then they aren't 2 straight lines.
Why not try it more honestly.
Imagine 2 rectangular prisms, touching each other on one face, going off into the distance.
Also for added fun lets add equally spaced straight lines also parallel to the face that is touching.

What we observe is all the spacing between those lines appears to shrink.
At no point does one rectangle start to magically hide the other.
Yet that magic is exactly what you need.

We have to mark the parallel posts or lines in two colors, say white with a thin red strip along their edges…

And if you want to do that, make sure you do it on both sides, and then explain how the red strip on the outside edges are clearly visible and resolvable while the inside are not.

the other edges in red touching one another won’t be seen anymore, as they will appear to merge as one, and the red will not be seen anymore

Are you a complete imbecile?
If they merge as one, why would the red magically vanish?

If you can see the red on the other edge, then you should be able to see the red on the inner edge.

It’s that simple, it’s caused by perspective, you can prove it with this same test…

You mean your test where you wilfully lie about the results and yet again appeal to magic?

Again, perspective is just an appeal to angular resolution and the limits of it.
We can resolve the objects, that is not what is causing them to be hidden.
Stop lying.

No, if both objects are very near one another, or touching one another throughout the way out, each one’s edges touching the other one will eventually seem to merge as one, and both of their edges will seem to vanish from all sight.

Instruments don’t make their edges appear again from magnifying it closer and closer.

Same as instruments can’t see beyond a horizon either.

While a horizon doesn’t really exist, it is only an illusion, it does act on the physical world we see , which is odd, yet true.

Horizons can’t block out things past them on a flat surface, they are still seen with enough magnification used!!!

Except it’s not about them still being there on a flat surface anymore.

It’s about the ever lesser angle outward over more distance, which is about perspective, that makes all things vanish from all view.

What can’t be seen if it’s still there in the distance with enough magnification? When it is physically beyond all view of it being seen out in the distance. The illusion acts as if it were physical, but it’s the angle of view over distance which blocks everything past a given point outward.

No, if both objects are very near one another, or touching one another throughout the way out, each one’s edges touching the other one will eventually seem to merge as one, and both of their edges will seem to vanish from all sight.

Again, repeating the same pathetic crap wont help you.

What you are appealing to is the limit of angular resolution.
This intrinsically depends on the instrument.
And if they are going to disappear, then that applies to all things that size at that distance (unless it is bright enough to remain visible).

Again, what we are discussing are times when the object is still clearly resolvable, yet the bottom is missing.
So this BS of yours wont help.

While a horizon doesn’t really exist

All the evidence shows it does exist, as a physical edge of Earth we cannot see past.
That is the only explanation which actually works.

it is only an illusion

Yet you can't explain it at all.
Instead, you just continually repeat the same refuted BS.

It’s about the ever lesser angle outward over more distance, which is about perspective, that makes all things vanish from all view.

Again, that is saying the angular size of it gets less than the angular resolution of whatever optics are being used to view it.
But if you switch to different optics with better resolution, you can bring it back into view.

And again, this can NEVER explain something which is hidden which clearly should be resolvable, e.g. when a similar sized part of the object is still clearly resolvable.

So no, this is NOT about perspective, or how the angular size of an object decreases with distance, as it can't explain why the bottom is hidden.

When it is physically beyond all view of it being seen out in the distance. The illusion acts as if it were physical

Or, you are wilfully lying to everyone. This isn't a magic illusion. And instead it is Earth physically blocking the view.
That makes far more sense.

 

All the evidence shows it does exist, as a physical edge of Earth we cannot see past.
That is the only explanation which actually works.

No, it obviously doesn’t work at all.


A horizon is seen from the ground about three miles out, from 5 to 6 feet above ground viewing out over the surface.

Before the horizon is seen, up to that point, it is seen as entirely FLAT, appearing to rise upward in the distance, before the horizon.

You claim it’s due to perspective, somehow magically flattening out a curved surface into a flat surface, appearing to rise upward and flat, for the first 2.7 or so miles out!  After it goes out to three miles, a horizon is formed on the entirely flat surface which appears to be rising upward over it at the same time!!

That’s where the curved surface starts to curve down, physically and visibly, blocking out everything past three miles out, past the horizon three miles out!!!

Brilliant argument you’ve got here! The curved surface beats out perspective beyond three miles away, the horizon  is a physical feature on the surface, three miles out from us, the horizon is a real and physical curving feature on the Earths surface!!

That’s your story, and it’s complete garbage, proven as complete garbage!

We can simply look outward over the surface from very close above the ground, say about an inch or two above the very same surface and same point!!

We are still on the ground, as before, when seeing a horizon three miles out from us!

So if your claim of a real, physical feature of a horizon at three miles out from us, seen from the ground, is actually true, that means a horizon is found three miles out, and always exists three miles out on the surface, no matter how high we are ABOVE the surface, no matter how LOW we are above the surface, a horizon physically exists as a curve on Earths surface!!

It’s easily shown as garbage, it stinks to high heaven!

There’s a horizon on the surface only 2 miles away, another horizon seen 2.3 miles away, another seen at 2.5 miles away, and many more horizons at other distances away from us…

They are not real physical features on the surface, like a real edge of a table is, like a real curve over a real ball is, which do exist as physical features on them, which are always seen and are there, don’t vanish from sight at other viewpoints of them!

Real curves always exist, always seen, always at the same position and points, they never vanish away from sight, they’re not illusions, they are real, and physically exists as real!!

Horizons are gone from all view, physically not there, visibly not there, when we rise upward from the surface, go near the surface, when we first see them, is not seen higher up or lower down, they always vanish from one point away from us, and reappear at other points away from us, its like they aren’t real features at all!!!!

The view from above any size of ball, can easily be shown in a simulation. It’s obviously been done, many times. Not for a huge ball like Earth would be, usually. But it’s been done for sure.

For making a valid and genuine simulation of it, they cannot use the actual Earth seen from above, they must have an actual sphere as a model to derive the earth ball from

No, it obviously doesn’t work at all.

Again, if you want to lie about the RE model, first admit you can't explain it in your pathetic fantasy.

The view from above any size of ball, can easily be shown in a simulation.

Yes, it can be, and has been, and you have even been provided links which you proceed to ignore.
This shows how reality matches the RE, not the FE.

A key distinction is how the RE hides the bottom of objects while the FE doesn't.


Again, what magic hides the bottom? You still can't answer.
Until you do, the RE is the only thing that can explain it.
So your lies about other aspects of the RE model will do nothing.

So again, either explain what magic hides the bottom or admit you can't.

The real view of Earth from high above it cannot be used or a model or example or any part of a valid and genuine simulation, you idiot!

Amazing, using the real view above Earth, a ball Earth they knew it was! And they simulated it and the ball worked out great!!

Imbecile

The real view of Earth from high above it cannot be used or a model or example or any part of a valid and genuine simulation, you idiot!

No, the real view is what you compare to the model or simulation, you idiot.
And when we do this, we get it matching a round Earth, not a flat Earth.

Again, one simple example showing a difference is how the bottom of distant objects are obstructed.
For a flat Earth simulation, it is not. You can see the bottom, assuming you have good enough resolution/magnfication.
But for a round Earth, the bottom is hidden by the curve, but rising up allows you to see more of it.
And in reality, the bottom is hidden, but rising up allows you to see more of it.

Again, reality matches a round Earth, not a flat Earth.

Again, if you want reality to match a flat Earth you need to explain what magic hides the bottom.
So stop with all the pathetic BS and either explain what magic hides the bottom or admit you can't.

The bottom of a ship curves downward on the surface, that’s what you’re claiming here, right?

A real, physical curve on the surface goes downward over three miles distance, to curve down the bottom of a ship, before reaching out to the horizon, which is a real, physical feature on the surface and is a curve on the surface too!!

Where is your proof that only the bottom of a ship isn’t seen at a distance? How can you claim the top area of the water is still seen at all?

The fact is, a proven fact, that both of them, which are touching one another along the edges, one atop the other, its bottom touching on the top of the other, merge as one, layered as one thing, but are two things all along..

Again, if we have two parallel lines or objects, going out into the distance, we always see them as separate lines or objects, when close to us, right?


But what if the parallel lines or objects are touching one another in the middle, when close to us?

Which means, the parallel lines or objects touch one another all the time, and they cannot appear to converge any further together in the distance, they already touch each other from the start!

What happens when we see two parallel lines or objects touching one another all the time?

How would we see the parallel lines out in the distance, when they cannot appear to converge together anymore at all?

They cannot appear separate and apart from one another, touching each other along the middle, yet they are indeed two parallel lines or objects, same as any other would be!!

That’s what you’re trying to ignore here, that the ship is directly on the water, touching it, as both touch one another all the time