What about ships on the ocean?

The physical "height" goes down immediately.
At an increasing rate.
But the angular position depends upon your height above it.
With the distance to the horizon given (as an approximation) by d=sqrt(2*r*h).

That distance is based on what we see above Earth, not a ball Earth.

The fact is a curved surface which is able to curve everything out of sight barely past three miles away, would curve more and more downward from three miles out, so rising above the surface at the same point as before, would be lower and lower below you to see .

The angular position above a sphere which has already curved the entire surface downward below all view just three miles out, would NEVER be seen across from us above the curving downward surface.

Again, you can’t have it both ways m. If a ship and surface really do curve downward out of view three to four miles out, as you claim, then the curve must continually go ever more downward.

You are already on top of the sphere on the surface, so when you rise above the top of the sphere, it is ever lower beneath you.

A curve doesn’t stop curving downward on a sphere.

Look at any ball. Imagine you’re atop the ball, whatever size you and the ball are…

Imagine the ball is incredibly large, like your Earth ball would be.

No matter how slight the curve would be on an Earth ball, no matter how close to flat it looks  from the surface, that is the highest you could ever see it, as a sphere constantly curves downward in all directions out from your position on it, atop it.

So if a horizon seen three miles away from you on the surface was a curve, an unseen curve hidden behind the horizon (which it isn’t, as the surface is seen entirely flat and appears to keep rising upward to the horizon…

But if we go with your claim of it curving down, the entire surface curving down enough to not be seen at all, your curve is now a physical curve, that curves the entire surface and ships on it below all view..

You cannot ignore that premise, that the surface has curved the surface itself down out of all view.

Which means, if you rise above the surface at the same point, you could see further out on that surface, curving more and more downward from that point…

There would not be any more perspective beyond the curving down horizon when you rise above the surface. The higher you are above that surface, the lower below you the surface would be.

Look at any ball, put a small object on it, and view it along the surface of the ball outward to see the object.

Of course, you are always atop the ball, so the object put in its surface has to be lower than you are to see it, as you’re always atop the ball.

When you move the object further out, the bottom of it will curve downward and out of all sight with more distance out from you.

Everything must keep curving downward after the horizon three miles away, to support your claim that horizons are curves on the surface.

What do you think you’d see going above that curved surface into air? More of the surface would be seen, obviously. But where would you see the surface from above it?

No matter what ball, what size of ball it is, if it is physically curving the whole surface downward out of all view from the surface, three miles out, rising above that surface would be lower and lower below you. It is absolute fact. 

Rising above a curved surface of a ball Earth, will allow you to see further out over that surface, but to see it, beyond a three mile away horizon, it is below you and curves ever more downward on that surface,

The curve downward causes ships to vanish over a curve, which would have to keep curving ever more downward, obviously.

Try drawing what we’d see from above the surface at any and all heights above it.

Indicate where a horizon is first seen, and a curve is going downward more and more after the first three miles out..

What would a drawing of it curving downward and out of all view. Look like from above the surface, at the same point outward?

Where would you look to see that curving downward surface when above it in air.

Since you were atop the curved surface of a ball on ground, and the whole surface is curved down below all sight, that means it has to keep on curving downward, more and more over more distance outward on it!

In fact, we’d have to look more and more below us when we’re  above that curved surface.

You’ve claimed there is an actual, physical curving downward surface that you claim is what a horizon is, a real feature of a real curved surface, that really curves the surface and ships on the surface downward beyond all view just past three miles away from us on the surface.

But after that point, past a horizon three miles away, is where we rise upward above that surface, at the same point as on ground, to see what happens after the curve has now become physical and really curving downward over the surface! 

We know that after a surface has physically curved down, to the point we cannot see any of the surface beyond that point, not see objects on the surface at that point, and we know a curved surface once curving it all downward to no longer be seen from three miles away, has some features that must follow up to prove it is actually a curved surface or is not curved at all.

That there are curved surfaces which curve downward on them after a distance to make the surface beyond not seen past, objects on them not seen past, going downward over the curved surfaces of them, is nice to know, because we know what they look like from above them, and where to keep seeing the surface beyond that point!

Even though this is something so obviously known to everyone, it apparently needs to be said for the ball Earth bunch who don’t seem to know what they’ve claimed here, about why everything cannot be seen beyond a horizon three miles away. being from a curving of the surface..

Every spherical surface that cannot be seen beyond a point on it, because of it curving down to a point it cannot be seen anymore, would be exactly like you said of your curved surface, the size of that sphere is a curving down out of all view surface that’s just past three miles out on it.

That is why we can apply what we know of spheres and what we see of them after curving out of our view.

Your ball Earth curving the surface downward out of all view beyond three miles away, gives you the highest point seen of that surface on the ground, to a curve that goes downward three miles away, at that horizon we see there.

There cannot be any effects of perspective over the surface beyond that curve, three miles out, as you claimed the curve has finally ‘won out over perspective’ at three miles over the surface!

And I would agree with you on that claim, if a real curved surface has shown up and curved the rest of its surface down and out of all view from us, whatever may have been due to perspective in all or in part does not exist

Our windows in planes are not angled down to the surface below us, when we see a horizon across from us on both sides of planes at the same time.

Your surface was curving the entire surface down and out of all sight just past three miles out. Curved surfaces keep curving downward more and more, right?

Your curve would’ve gone down by about seven miles over 200 miles of surface, which is where a horizon is seen across from us in planes at 35000 feet.

Your curved surface wouldn’t be seen half that distance out from planes at that altitude.

That distance is based on what we see above Earth

So above a round Earth.
With a round Earth being able to explain that distance, and you completely incapable of providing an explanation for a flat Earth.
Instead, you need to repeatedly lie about basic geometry which can be refuted by looking around a large round corridor, or on a hill.

would be lower and lower below you to see

And the angle of dip to the horizon increases with increasing altitude. We have been over this.
You lying about it wont change it.

if you rise above the surface at the same point, you could see further out on that surface, curving more and more downward from that point…

Yes, just like I said.

There would not be any more perspective

No, perspective is not magically and magically gets stopped.

The higher you are above that surface, the lower below you the surface would be.

Yes, just like in reality.

Now how about you stop with all this pathetic BS where you explain what we already agree upon, that a round surface allows you to see further with increasing altitude above it, with the horizon from it being observed to be lower. Just like what is seen in reality.

How about instead, you try to address the topic, what magic hides the bottom of a boat?

Notice you made absolutely no attempt to address that?

All you can do is argue against a strawman and a lie.

it apparently needs to be said for the ball Earth bunch who don’t seem to know what they’ve claimed here

You mean you are so absolutely pathetic and know you cannot actually defend your model, that you need to blatantly lie about what REers have claimed to argue against a strawman to pretend they are wrong?
And the main time you aren't doing that, you are just lying to everyone.

There cannot be any effects of perspective over the surface beyond that curve

Why?
What magic stops it?
Again, perspective, for what we are discussing is literally this:
a=atan(h/d)

Where for a flat surface, that just remains as a=atan(h0/d), while for a round surface it instead is approximated as a=atan(h0/d+d/2r).

Until you get to where this stops applying due to the approximation of drop=d^2/2r breaking down (which itself is effectively a combination of sin(x)=x and cos(x)=1-x^2/2), this holds.

It doesn't magically stop when d=sqrt(2*r*h).
Perspective continues to apply, you just might not be able to see the result.

Our windows in planes are not angled down to the surface below us

So you are saying either the plane or your eyes are so utterly crap you can't see ~3 degrees below you?

Again, you are just demonstrating how utterly pathetic and dishonest you are.
All while still refusing to explain what magic hides the bottom.



Again, all you are doing with these posts is demonstrating to everyone that you are a pathetic, desperate, lying, subhuman POS who will happily deflect from their complete inability to defend their model and instead wilfully lie to everyone and argue against strawmen.

Again, stop with all the pathetic BS and explain what magic is hiding the bottom. Once more, we know it CANNOT be perspective.

Stop with all the pathetic strawmen where you argue against no one except yourself.
Stop with all the blatant lies about the RE.
Instead, provide a clear explanation of what magic hides the bottom.

I said..

“The higher you are above that surface, the lower below you the surface would be.”

And you replied with…

“Yes, just like in reality.”

No, that’s not reality, no lower and lower surface or horizons are seen when higher and higher above Earths surface.

You’re claiming the entire surface curves out of all sight just past three miles away.

That is on what we see on the surface itself.

If it really did curve down out of all sight past three miles away, seen from the ground, that curve must keep going down more and more with more distance away.

Rising above a curved surface after the curve physically goes down enough to not even see it anymore, must keep curving ever more downward, rising above that curving downward ever more surface, can only be seen lower and lower below us when above it, that is absolute fact.

Yet we can still see the surface and the horizon directly across from us when higher and higher above the surface. It obviously cannot be seen across from us at 35000 feet above the surface if it curved downward out of all sight in just past three miles away when seen on the ground.

Their curvature calculators have the distance to the horizons listed, yet that is only because they’re horizons seen on Earth, not what we’d see of horizons above a ball Earth.

Actual curvature of actual spheres, don’t have horizons when above them, it’s just not considered what happens when above spheres, just over them on their surfaces.

If there’s a curved surface, if a curve goes downward over the surface at three miles out, or just past a horizon three miles away, when it curves completely out of all view, then it must constantly curve downward more and more from that point, past the horizon three miles away!

How would it actually look from above the surface? They always ignore that part, what we’d really see from above a ball Earth, curving down enough over three miles to not see anything of the surface past three miles away!!

The ball Earth bs story, is very difficult to support, that’s because it’s made up and is faked, a lie that cannot hold up at all as being true.

They’ve made the world believe in a grotesque lie, and all their other lies that support this first and most grotesque lie!

Imagine why you always show the Earths surface seen on ground, viewed OUTWARD over it, TOWARDS the horizon??

Are you aware that the Earths surface is seen from other viewpoints over it?

Because if you think you’ll get away with showing the same, single outward view of the surface, because that’s what you always do, always show, the one same outward viewpoint of the Earths surface, it’s not going to work out for you, or the pack of liars who duped many

How sad it is, that there’s such blind ignorance and gullibility and lack of thinking and common sense, which they’ve systematically extracted from the people of Earth, it’s hard to even believe this could happen at all!!

I said..

“The higher you are above that surface, the lower below you the surface would be.”

And you replied with…

“Yes, just like in reality.”

No, that’s not reality, no lower and lower surface or horizons are seen when higher and higher above Earths surface.

You’re claiming the entire surface curves out of all sight just past three miles away.

That is on what we see on the surface itself.

If it really did curve down out of all sight past three miles away, seen from the ground, that curve must keep going down more and more with more distance away.

Rising above a curved surface after the curve physically goes down enough to not even see it anymore, must keep curving ever more downward, rising above that curving downward ever more surface, can only be seen lower and lower below us when above it, that is absolute fact.

Yet we can still see the surface and the horizon directly across from us when higher and higher above the surface. It obviously cannot be seen across from us at 35000 feet above the surface if it curved downward out of all sight in just past three miles away when seen on the ground.

Their curvature calculators have the distance to the horizons listed, yet that is only because they’re horizons seen on Earth, not what we’d see of horizons above a ball Earth.

Actual curvature of actual spheres, don’t have horizons when above them, it’s just not considered what happens when above spheres, just over them on their surfaces.

If there’s a curved surface, if a curve goes downward over the surface at three miles out, or just past a horizon three miles away, when it curves completely out of all view, then it must constantly curve downward more and more from that point, past the horizon three miles away!

How would it actually look from above the surface? They always ignore that part, what we’d really see from above a ball Earth, curving down enough over three miles to not see anything of the surface past three miles away!!

The ball Earth bs story, is very difficult to support, that’s because it’s made up and is faked, a lie that cannot hold up at all as being true.

They’ve made the world believe in a grotesque lie, and all their other lies that support this first and most grotesque lie!

Imagine why you always show the Earths surface seen on ground, viewed OUTWARD over it, TOWARDS the horizon??

Are you aware that the Earths surface is seen from other viewpoints over it?

Because if you think you’ll get away with showing the same, single outward view of the surface, because that’s what you always do, always show, the one same outward viewpoint of the Earths surface, it’s not going to work out for you, or the pack of liars who duped many

How sad it is, that there’s such blind ignorance and gullibility and lack of thinking and common sense, which they’ve systematically extracted from the people of Earth, it’s hard to even believe this could happen at all!!

The higher you go above the surface, the further the horizon is from you.  It isn't a static number of 3 miles there dummy. 

The horizon is also below your straight line of sight; it never comes up to your straight line of sight.  The higher you go, the larger the gap between your straight line of site and the horizon.  This is what you would expect on a spherical earth and just so happens to match reality.

If the earth was flat, the horizon would meet your straight line of site.

I said..

A combination of arguing against yourself, and wilfully lying to everyone.
None of which got you any closer to explaining what magic is hiding the bottom

And you replied with…
“Yes, just like in reality.”

Yes. I replied honestly. Something you seem to be incapable of.
With facts which have been verified in countless ways.
This includes the pictures I had provided from flatEarth.ws.
It includes the video of Matt Parker using it to determine the radius of Earth.
It even includes the photos YOU provided to try to prove the opposite.

You have literally NOTHING to show otherwise.
And instead just have pathetic dismissal and lies.

Even the evidence YOU PROVIDED showed you are a lying POS.

How sad it is, that there’s such blind ignorance and gullibility and lack of thinking and common sense

You mean the very thing you wish to appeal to, because it is the only way you can pretend your BS is true?

Look at how you just have wilful ignorance of all the evidence that shows you are wrong, including the evidence you provided.
Wilful ignorance of the simple math that show you are lying to everyone.
And you are hoping others are gullible enough to just blindly accept your dishonest, delusional BS.

And you bring up these lies with the hope that it will distract from you complete inability to explain what magic hides the bottom.

Stop with all the pathetic BS and explain what magic hides the bottom or admit you have no explanation.

No, many many of us, me included, have seen these horizons directly across from us, countless images and videos of horizons shown from planes all show they are directly seen across from us.

What proves your claim that horizons look lower and lower when we’re higher and higher above the surface?  Nothing but some bs edited images, showing a curve on the edge of Earth!

What I’ve seen many many times, is what everyone else has seen countless times too, what countless images and videos show as what we see of horizons from planes.

I’ve told you already, how it is proven that horizons are seen directly across from us in planes at all altitudes above the surface…

These are very small windows, our view is very limited, framed and focused to a small angle outward.

It doesn’t allow us a wide view outside, but it’s good because it shows what is across from us to see.

If you don’t believe that horizons are always seen directly across from us, in planes…..

See out of two windows in a plane, if you can, first from your window, then go across to the other side of the plane right afterwards, and look out the other window.

When the plane is flying level, cruising altitude, in daylight and clear skies all around you…

What you’ll see is there are two views out each window of the plane, across from each other, with two horizons seen directly across from you, and that they are both seen halfway up both windows on each side of the plane.

And that will prove that horizons are absolutely seen across from you, and they always are, in fact.

No, many many of us, me included

Are absolutely pathetic, know your claims are pure BS and that your pathetic model can't work, so will deflect at all costs.

Enough of your BS lies about the horizon.
Enough about your BS claims about it as well.
It has nothing to do with the topic.
The topic is how your garbage model cannot explain how the bottom of ships disappear.

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

If you want to keep up your lies about the horizon, go back to the other thread on it.
And if you want to make such claims, provide evidence not worthless lies.
And don't bother with vague claims, DO THE MATH!

There’s nothing that your curve cannot do, that no other curve can ever dream of doing like your curve can achieve !

Look at the Vegas sphere, the largest ball on Earth. While it’s nowhere near as huge as an Earth ball would be, it shows better than any other ball on Earth, what happens and what we’d really see on a ball Earth.

From the Vegas ball, it’s very obvious that no matter how large a ball is, or ever could be in size, that it must always curve downward, no matter how slightly at first, even over a ball which would be 1000 x larger than an Earth ball would be, it will always curve diwnward, while it first looks to have no curve at all, or almost as being a flat surface, it will always be curved.

When you told me that it was actually curving the whole surface and the whole ship downward below all view, it must be physically curving downward from that point, and must curve downward more and more from that point.

Why do you think there’s no way to ever show a simulation of your curve?

Your curve goes downward on the Earths surface beyond the horizon three miles away, which means that’s the highest point we’d ever see of the entire surface at any height above that surface.

Another point which I didn’t yet mention about this…

I told you that over a distance of 200 miles, your curvature would go downward by about 6 or 7 miles, which is based on your claimed rate of Earths curvature, 8 inches per mile squared.

But that is the actual rate of your curvature on the actual
surface itself.

This doesn’t account for seeing the surface from high above the very surface below us.

When we see the horizon from 35000 feet above Earths surface, I’ve seen it directly across from me, halfway up my window, and seen the same thing many different times on daytime flights over the years.

It’s calculated to be a horizon of about 200 miles away or so, at that altitude seen.

Except they never tell us how these horizons could possibly be seen directly across from us at 35000 feet above a curving downward surface, saying it is 200 miles away from us, would mean about a six mile downward curvature on the surface, if it were 200 miles away from us.

But that is on the surface, not high above that surface.

There’d be far more downward than six miles of curvature from 35000 feet above the surface curving downward below us!

There’s nothing that your curve cannot do

There is plenty that it can't do, like make you intelligent or honest.

Why do you think there’s no way to ever show a simulation of your curve?

There is "no way" because you are a worthless, lying, subhuman POS.
We have already provided links to such a simulation.

What you need is a simulation, like this one:
https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth%3A+Stand%2DAlone+App

So there you go, caught out in yet another pathetic lie.

You sure do love showing everyone how much of a worthless, lying, subhuman POS you are, and that absolutely nothing you say can be trusted.

Another point which I didn’t yet mention about this…

You mean something I have already pointed out?
How the horizon in your delusional fantasy is half the distance below you that it is in reality with a round Earth.

Except they never tell us how these horizons could possibly be seen directly across from us at 35000 feet

Because they never are.
Again, notice the big problem for you, which you just pointed out?
They are already several miles below you, even if you want to pretend Earth is flat.
So how could they possibly be seen directly across from you?
Again, in your delusional fantasy, they would be around 1.5 degrees below level, not directly accross.
That is the roughly half of 3 degrees below level they are in reality.

But you were never one to let the truth get in the way of your pathetic BS.

And again, notice how you made absolutely no attempt to explain what magic hides the bottom.
Instead, you continued with your pathetic lies and deflections.

Again, stop with all the pathetic lies and BS and other deflections and explain what magic hides the bottom.
If you can't, just admit you can't.

When we see a horizon across from us at 35000 feet above the surface, it is not rising up at all, but appears to us it has risen up to 35000 feet high.

It is not impossible, we clearly see it across from us at 35000 feet above the surface.

This is not magic or impossible to see, it is simply an illusion we see that is due to perspective, same as always and not magical, the way you refer to magic, as not explained as a valid phenomenon.

What’s different about one being an illusion to you, but others cannot be illusions?

There’s many illusions of perspective that can occur, not just seeing the surface appearing to rise upward in the distance or parallel lines appearing to be converging together in the distance.

How we know if they’re illusions or are really doing what we see them as doing, requires us to see them from other viewpoints, up closer and then from further away again, from a oerpendicular viewpoint of them, and this is how we know they are simply illusions or real things we see.

As for how the bottom of a ship goes out of sight in the distance, you think it’s curving down on the surface that makes it go out of view, but you’re completely wrong.

This curve you believe is on the surface and the bottom of a ship curves down over it, but I’ve already told you that this view outward is NOT THE ONLY VIEW OF THE SHIP AND SURFACE!

When we view the ship and surface from across its path on the surface, parallel to the ships path, with multiple different viewpoints along the ships path over that surface, do you know what we would then see?

It can also be viewed by one other person following the ship parallel to its path too, or multiple fixed viewpoints on its path parallel to it.

We’d see that the surface is entirely flat, that it never appears to rise, we’d see the bottom of the ship and the entire ship along its path, see that there is no horizon at all, and no curve at all on the entire flat surface.

That is exactly what we have with this other viewpoint of the surface and ships on the surface.

There’s no great mystery or impossibility to know that Earths surface is entirely flat. Just view it from the perpendicular viewpoint of the very same surface and very same ship sailing over that same surface.
 
You certainly don’t want that viewpoint at all, do you now?

When we see a horizon across from us at 35000 feet above the surface

It is not directly across from us, but below.
Again, this is expected both for reality with a round Earth, and your delusional fantasy.

Nothing more needs to be said on this.
Stop repeating the same pathetic, refuted BS.

Instead, deal with ships on the ocean, and what magic hides the view to the bottom.

Either explain what magic hides the bottom or admit you can't.

Don't bother with pathetic lies like perspective, which we know does not explain it.

Also, don't bother with pathetic vague claims of some magical illusion.
Either explain the illusion, or don't use it.

We’d see that the surface is entirely flat

No, we wouldn't.
Again, you just assert pure BS with no explanation at all and no evidence at all.
Firstly, if you view it just from a fixed position relative to the ship, you just continue to get the same thing, which is what is expected for any smooth surface of constant curvature. That would not allow you to tell if it is flat or round (other than if you viewed it from a point where the bottom was hidden, or just the general observation of a horizon which shows it is round).

If you instead have an observer in a fixed point, then it depends on where that fixed point is, and how accurately you track it.
The simplest one is when the ship touches the horizon at the middle.
In this case you see the ship start behind the horizon, with the bottom obstructed. It then moves along rising up with less and less hidden until it is just above the horizon, with the full above water portion in view, and then it continues moving along, dropping down the other side.

For any other view, you really need to deal with the complex combination of curvature and distance to it, both of which impact the angle of elevation of the boat, and which requires you to carefully track the boat.
e.g. if it starts out at 5 km away (on the horizon), and travels in a straight line, with the distance from you to that line, measured perpendicular to the line, being ~3.54 km, and continues to the horizon at 5 km again, then the bottom of the boat, at the horizon, will be 3.96 m below you, giving an angle of dip of 0.045 degrees (compared to 0.023 degrees for your delusional fantasy). Then when it reaches its closest point at 3.54 km, it will be 2.98 m below you, with an angle of dip of 0.048 degrees (or 0.032 in your delusional fantasy). This is a change of 0.003 degrees for reality and 0.009 for your delusional fantasy.

If you can measure it that accurately, you can just measure the angle of dip to the horizon.

If instead you try to just set up a camera to take the entire FOV, then it will depend on the lens distortion of the camera, which can make a straight line appear to curve up or down.

To get the kind of view you are appealing to, you need an orthogonal view, where you are so far away from Earth, you are in space.
And we have those views, which clearly show Earth is round, so you dismiss them as fake.

You have literally NOTHING to show Earth is flat.
Meanwhile, the simple observation of the bottom of a distant object being hidden from view, obstructed by the horizon, clearly demonstrates beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.
You refuse to provide an explanation for this, because you know the FE has no explanation.
So instead, you act like the lying, subhuman POS you are, continually attacking the RE with dishonest, pathetic BS; as you know that is your only hope to pretend you are correct.

There’s no great mystery or impossibility to know that Earths surface is entirely flat.

Given you keep asserting this same pathetic BS that it is flat, yet provide no observation or explanation of how that observation makes it flat, it most certainly is impossible.
Given the fact that flat surfaces do not have horizons except the edge of the surface, while curved surfaces do, and we observe horizons in reality, it most certainly is impossible.
Given the fact that flat surfaces cannot obstruct the view to objects above them, while round surfaces can, and we observe this obstruction in reality, it most certainly is impossible.

Just view it from the perpendicular viewpoint of the very same surface

We have been over this before.

The original view is the horizon shown in purple.
The path of the ship is the grey line.
You are trying to appeal to seeing this grey line, from perpendicular to it.
But the view you are trying to use is the blue circle, which has the grey line hidden by the horizon.
To actually view the grey line from perpendicular to it, you need to be basically perpendicular to all of it.
Taking this grey line to be a distance of 10 km, so from the original observer, to the horizon, a distance of 5 km, and an equal distance on the other side; and taking "basically perpendicular" to mean to within 0.1 degree, you need to be 2865 km away
i.e. from space.
We have these views from space.
These views clearly show Earth to be round.
So you need to dismiss them as fake.

You certainly don’t want that viewpoint at all, do you now?
So stop dishonestly appealing to it as if it supports you when it does not.

Again, stop with all the pathetic, dishonest BS, and explain what magic is hiding the bottom.
If you can't, admit you have no explanation and that it is clear evidence that Earth is round.

It is not directly across from us, but below.
Again, this is expected both for reality with a round Earth, and your delusional fantasy.

Wrong.

Your ball Earth supposedly curved downward after just 3 miles away, making the entire surface and all things on the surface vanish from sight at that distance.

That view is on ground, on top of the ball Earth at its highest point to you seeing the entire surface vanish from sight down a curve just past three miles away.

If you rise above that same point above a ball Earth, you’re now even higher
The horizon must be further and further down as you rise higher and higher above the top of a ball Earth, the curve only becomes greater and greater downward over more and more distance over that curved surface.

Trying to claim it is lower than seen from ground, would happen the very moment you rise above that surface.

Look at any ball, imagine you’re atop it, a tiny microscopic speck upon a massive ball.

Look at the Vegas sphere, the biggest ball on Earth today. See the guy who went on top of it, shown from the side of the ball.

Imagine he’s a tiny microscopic speck and the ball is 10000 times larger than it is.

The surface of that massive ball would be much flatter over a certain distance, of course.

But it would not be flat at all, it would curve, ever so slightly over a certain distance, but curve down constantly.

In fact, you claim that it curves downward below all view after a horizon just three miles away, so it doesn’t matter how flat you say it would look from ground, from Earth’s surface, from a model or drawing of it, the surface must be down enough to not be seen 4 miles away from us, nor any ships or objects on that surface 4 miles away.

What would that look like on a drawing? How come your side has never drawn it? 

From the side view, that is.

A drawing of a person atop the ball Earth from the side view, across the surface with a person atop the ball.

You claim the horizon, seen from ground, three miles away, is where the curve ‘finally beat out over perspective!’

At that point, and ever after that point, three miles away from us, the curve must always  beat out perspective, as it must curve more and more after three miles away, that would be absolute fact, and there is no possible excuse to say the curve beat out perspective after three miles away, and will curve more and more after three miles, where it beat out over perspective, that can make perspective beat out greater and greater curves over the rest of that surface!!!

Why would you ever try changing your argument, telling two entirely conflicting stories? 

The curve beats out perspective in just 4 miles away, the entire surface has curved out of all sight downward, the curve wins from that point onward, the rest of the surface, the whole distance past three miles over it, can still have some effects of perspective, that’s true.

That’s not what you referred to by claiming the curve ‘won out over perspective’, in fact, right?

When you claimed the curve ‘won out over perspective’, you meant the curve on the surface ‘beat out perspective’, it’s effects making the surface appear to rise upward, for the first three miles outward from us, seeing it on the ground, stopped after three miles away, the effects of a rising up surface seen for three miles out, were due to perspective, whatever it’s other effects are, like parallel lines appearing to converge together in the distance, or like things appear to be smaller and smaller in the distance, etc..   Those are not the effects of perspective you were referring to here, saying perspective lost out to the curvature of the surface, so you can drop this bs about how there’s always perspective!

Not the specific effects of perspective you said ‘lost out to the curvature’!

Only a liar says such bs, gives two conflicting claims for one argument

Wrong.

Repeating the same pathetic refuted BS wont help your case.
Especially not when you just keep repeating the same pathetic vague crap.

If you wish to spout such crap, then DO THE MATH!
Because the math shows you are wilfully lying to everyone.
If you weren't you would have done the math by now to show the problem.
But you know you can't, because you know the math shows you are lying to everyone.

So stop with all the pathetic BS.

Do you know the only thing which can help your case now?
EXPLAIN WHAT MAGIC HIDES THE BOTTOM!

The bottom of a ship isn’t curving down at all, it is an effect of perspective, nothing magical at all, not as you refer to it as a made up claim of fiction and fairy tales…That’s all your claims are, a massive fairy tale story.


What is the approximate distance away from view that the bottom of a ship is no longer seen?

Let’s say the bottom of a ship is seen for the first 2.5 miles out, or 2.8 miles out, or 2.0 miles out…..

Whatever you believe the distance is, we’ll say it is that distance…

Of course, it is less than three miles out, where the horizon is, since we can see that the bottom is no longer seen…

So that’s where the curve physically starts out, to curve down physically, make the bottom of ships curve down below all view, from a real, physical curve of the surface….

What happens if we look out over the same surface, but see it much lower to the ground, than standing up on the ground, 5 or 6 feet above it?

Why don’t you ever mention that we can see the Earths surface from much much lower to the ground than from 5 or 6 feet above the surface, where we always look at it, take images of it from that same height, or higher up than that?

Because it certainly can and has and will always be seen from much lower than 5 or 6 feet above the surface, not just that height or higher up above the surface.

Do you know why it’s not ever mentioned by your pack of liars, and use stupid excuses about it?

When the surface of Earth, the same surfaces of Earth we have countless images of, seen countless times from the ground, is seen very close above the surface, as close as possible, it is even closer to see it ever lower and lower today, than ever before, and will be ever lower to see in future.

How would this be so secretive, so ignored, so avoided and never looked into or studied and documented as it’s certainly a valid and real thing, what we can easily do as any other thing is…

Your claim is that the horizon seen from ground, about three miles away from us, is really there on the surface, three miles away from us, and is a curve on the surface, hidden on the other side of horizons on the surface, just past them!!

But when we look out over the surface from a couple of inches, laying on the side of our faces to the ground, witn an unobstructed clear view outward over the very same surfaces of Earth, we will see that there is a much different view of the surface than we are all so used to seeing, and it is very revealing.

The horizon is not three miles away anymore, it is much much closer than three miles away, the lower we see it above the surface…

As one example, not close to the lowest it can be seen from above ground, we can see it ourselves with our own eyes, a couple inches above ground.

Taking account of any problems of distortion, etc, in being so close to the surface, making sure the view is clear and unobstructed by anything that could be blocking out the viewing of the entire visible surface possible to be seen from that height above the surface…

Look at your longest floor, unobstructed in view from one end to the other end, or any long floor you can see to the far end of, or longer than that…

Go to a college or pro football or soccer field which uses artificial turf, or a huge newly built warehouse with concrete flooring, or any large flat surface or floor, it’ll prove you wrong, and the whole story as pure bs, with it.

What you’re all claiming is that horizons are not illusions of perspective, that they are real, and that they are curves on the surface of Earth, and that they cannot and will not be seen on any flat surface at all, because they are curving down features of a curved surface of Earth!

Except that real features on a real surface, no matter what surface or what size it is, always are there, always seen, always exist, always are at the same places on the surfaces…

Real features don’t vanish or move positions on surfaces, they don’t change or hide or appear to change or hide or move from one position to another position or positions, they remain at one position or area and always do!

Horizons appear and vanish and appear elsewhere and vanish again, and always do…

Real features and real curves on real surfaces don’t move or vanish from positions on surfaces, that’s what makes horizons as illusions, not real features on the surface of Earth, not what would happen with real curves on a real ball surface!

From a fraction above Earths surface, with a tiny scope camera upon the surface, with a clear and unobstructed view out over the surface, free from any distortion or other issues….

We’d see horizons a mile or half mile away from us!

And the bottom of a ship would vanish in half the distance we saw before, standing five or six feet above the surface, the very same surface!

What possibly could have made your real feature three miles away from us, vanish from all sight when we saw it only a mile away from us at a lower viewpoint above the same surface?

How could the bottom of a ship which went out of sight at 2.5 miles away all the time, now vanish from sight in half a mile here??

Nothing of a curve, nothing of a curved surface, nothing of a real feature are horizons, they are simply illusions, due to a phenomenon called perspective, which always occur on flat surfaces, long enough to form a horizon on them.

The only problem is that a true horizon, the illusory feature of a flat surface, must be very long flat surface to ever form a horizon.

Curved surfaces don’t have actual horizons, they are illusions, not real features of surfaces.

You can't see the bottom of a distant object on a flat floor because of the way objects shrink with distance and how perspective makes them appear to disappear from the bottom up, which is often a misunderstanding of the curvature of the Earth

A ball Earth source said the above, ironically enough!

Whoever wrote this, probably knew this claim is easily proven false. Just see an object on a long flat surface far away from you, and the bottom cannot be seen of the object, even if it’s not long enough to form a horizon over it!

The bottom of a ship isn’t curving down at all, it is an effect of perspective, nothing magical at all

Until you have an actual explanation it is pure magic.

What is the approximate distance away from view that the bottom of a ship is no longer seen?

That depends on your altitude.
Something that also makes absolutely no sense in your delusional fantasy.

We can see it until it reaches the horizon.
After that it starts to disappear from the bottom up.

Let’s say the bottom of a ship is seen for the first 2.5 miles out
..
Of course, it is less than three miles out

No, it is not.
You have just baselessly asserted crap with no justification at all.
All so you can pretend reality is wrong.

the curve

Unless you want to say your flat Earth is curved, stop appealing to any curve.
You are meant to be explaining how it works in your delusional fantasy; not reality with a round Earth.

If you want to say it can't happen with a round Earth then first admit you have absolutely no explanation for how it could ever possibly work in your delusional fantasy.

None of your pathetic, already refuted garbage will save you.

Whoever wrote this, probably knew this claim is easily proven false. Just see an object on a long flat surface far away from you

Where you can easily see the bottom, all the way down to where it meets the surface, and more surface beyond it.
A flat surface NEVER blocks the view.
You would have to be lying scum to claim otherwise.

EXPLAIN WHAT MAGIC HIDES THE BOTTOM!

If you can't, then admit you can't.

Anything else is just you demonstrating you are worthless, lying, subhuman scum that knows your pathetic BS has no chance of working so you are trying to deflect at all costs.

You’ve been told and told repeatedly, shown this and other sources, explaining this is due to perspective, and this source also mentioned it’s wrongly attributed to curvature, just like you do, but you’re stuck in pure denial, oblivious to the facts, blind to the sources explaining what causes it, that it is not from a curve.

It is absolute fact, absolutely proven with tests, known and understood by multiple different sources, of various fields of science and perspective and it’s applications in the real world…

And this is much easier to show and prove happens to the bottoms of objects on long flat surfaces seen in the far distance, because it happens before any horizon would form, if any could form on it.

How could it have curved down the bottom of a ship, when the rest of the ship is still appearing to rise upward, let alone curve downward with the bottom part you claim happens to it?

Your curve is truly amazing and unlike any other curve on Earth or imagined or drawn or in fairy tales, except in yours of course.

The bottom of ships are curved downward, on a surface which always appears to be rising upward, before and during and after the bottom of the ship appears to be rising upward! The rest of the ships don’t curve our sink downward while the bottom part curves downward at all!

Illusions are based on visual perceptions seen over distances, on only a flat surface, math and geometry don’t work for illusions of perspective and sight over distances outward over flat surfaces, because first of all, geometry takes in ALL angles of viewing things, not just the same one like your side always does.

So don’t talk about geometry when you choose to ignore the other viewpoints of the surface, which would be done with geometry, you arrogant dumbass

You’ve been told and told repeatedly, shown this and other sources, explaining this is due to perspective

No, I haven't.
You have NEVER explained.
Instead you just continually assert.

Boldly claiming it is perspective does not make it perspective.
Explaining how perspective can make objects too small to be resolved appear as an unresolved point, or indistinguishable from the surroundings does not explain it either.

I have explained why that doesn't work.
Because we can have sections that clearly should be resolvable, yet are still hidden.
As well as the fact that getting higher increases the distance to it and makes the angle to it worse, meaning it should disappear earlier, yet allows us to see it from further away.
So it clearly isn't perspective.

So stop just asserting crap.

If you want to say it is, provide the math that shows it.

And this is much easier to show and prove happens to the bottoms of objects on long flat surfaces seen in the far distance, because it happens before any horizon would form, if any could form on it.

Yet you never did. I wonder why?
Is it because you know it will show you can always see the bottom?

How could it have curved down the bottom of a ship, when the rest of the ship is still appearing to rise upward, let alone curve downward with the bottom part you claim happens to it?

Do you have any evidence at all to show that is the case?
No.
Instead, like always you just keep asserting crap because this pathetic BS to be true to pretend reality is wrong.

Illusions

Can be explained.
They aren't just appealed to as an illusion and left at that is if merely invoking the word illusion explains everything.

Now stop with all the pathetic and explain what magic hides the bottom or admit you can't.

Illusions aren’t real or physically existing things, they are things that we see but aren’t true as seen, math and equations and geometry don’t explain things that don’t exist, only things that DO exist.

You can derive some sort of ‘illusional angle we view things as’ but it’s not real math or geometry.

They have to be seen from across them in a perpendicular view of them, which is not seen as an illusion like they are outward to them over a distance.

Why do you always ignore there is a perpendicular view of the same surface over the same distance as the first view?

Because it destroys your made up bs ball Earth story instantly of course!

Curving surfaces are never flat or straight across or horizontal on them anywhere.

There’s no possible way to determine what a large surface is from one view looking over it to the other end or as much as you can see of it.


This would be completely stupid. Imagine having a huge sheet of metal in front of you. The end can’t be seen at all. How could you know if it curved down or slanted down or went straight down at a 90 degree angle as a square?

You couldn’t ever know what the surface is from one viewpoint outward over it.

That’s why we have to view it across from it, perpendicular to the entire sheet end to end, to see what the sheet is doing!

These liars have made you into a complete moron, who has no clue how to know what Earths surface really is! 

Look at it from across it, at multiple points over it, parallel to your first line of view outward over it.

Mechanical engineers, architects, surveyors, and so on, know and do this every time in their fields. Surfaces and objects are two or three dimensional things, they have to be seen from all viewpoint to know what they are.

Illusions aren’t

I don't give a damn what you want to say they are or aren't.
What I want is an explanation.

Illusions can be explained.

math and equations and geometry don’t explain things that don’t exist, only things that DO exist.

So what you are saying is objects "appearing to rise" with increasing distance is NOT an illusion, because it can easily be explained by math and geometry?

Thanks for yet again confirming to everyone you are a worthless, lying, subhuman POS with no morals at all.

Again, deriving the angle is trivial.
For a flat surface, the angle of dip to any point on the surface is given by a=atan(h/d).
It is really trivial.

Now again, stop with all the pathetic BS and explain what magic is hiding the bottom, including the math associated with it.

If you can't, just admit you can't.

Here’s two different sources explaining how math is a concept because actual math doesn’t work with perspective being an illusory phenomenon,
That means math and geometry are concepts here

The mathematical concept behind distant objects vanishing, particularly at the bottom, is linear perspective, which creates the illusion of depth on a flat surface. Parallel lines, such as the bottom edges of buildings, are projected to a single point on the horizon line called a vanishing point. As an object moves farther away, its top and bottom appear to move closer together and eventually merge at this point, a phenomenon also described as diminution of size or foreshortening.

https://www.sfu.ca/~rpyke/perspective.pdf

I’ve shown you sources explaining why the bottom of objects vanish over distance because of perspective, nothing to do with your made up curved surface. 

As an object moves farther away, its top and bottom appear to move closer together and eventually merge at this point, a phenomenon also described as diminution of size or foreshortening

I’ve shown you sources explaining why the bottom of objects vanish over distance because of perspective, nothing to do with your made up curved surface. 

Quote

As an object moves farther away, its top and bottom appear to move closer together and eventually merge at this point, a phenomenon also described as diminution of size or foreshortening

I don’t think that says what you think it says.

Here’s two different sources

No, that is an entirely worthless and unreferenced quote, and a link to a source which doesn't support your claims at all.

Instead, it describes how perspective works, with the angular size of objects shrinking with increasing distance.
At no point does this source say the bottom magically vanishes.

Your worthless quote still doesn't explain it.

I’ve shown you sources explaining why the bottom of objects vanish over distance because of perspective

No, you haven't.
You have provided a source explaining perspective which doesn't even come close to explaining why the bottom vanishes.

Instead, you are just looking for whatever pathetic excuses you can come up with to avoid admitting you have no explanation.

Even the line you literally just used still doesn't explain it and instead indicates objects shrink until they become an unresolvable point. That is not saying the bottom is magically hidden.

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

Again, this needs to be magic which hides the bottom based upon distance, regardless of what optics are used, with this portion that is hidden being of a sufficient size to be clearly resolvable.

Perspective cannot do that, no matter how much you lie about it.

Not just the bottom of the ship vanishes from sight, the top part of the surface BELOW THE SHIP vanishes out of sight too!

They both appear to merge together as one, and then are both out of all sight, at the same time and distance out from your viewpoint!

You keep asking me why the bottom of a ship vanishes from all sight, how can this happen on a flat surface, what ‘magic’ is doing such a thing?!?

Why don’t you ever mention why the bottom of a ship vanishes while the ship and surface are still appearing to rise upward at the same time???

How does a curved surface become a fairy tale story here??!!

Think how stupid your argument is…
 
Let’s demonstrate what happens when an object on a ball curves and curves downward, starting at the bottom parts of them…

When you’re claiming the Earth ball curves down the entire surface and all objects on the surface at that point of distance out from us, it can now work with almost any other ball, just as long as it fits what you’ve claimed about it to that point….

After you’ve claimed the ball curved down the surface and objects on this surface, out of all sight….

How can we show what happens afterwards,

The ball curved down the entire surface and all objects on the ball!!

Really? Ok, and what was the distance over that ball, when it curved out of all sight?

Just three or four miles away from us, the curve goes down so much it cannot be seen at all, nor anything on it seen anymore past this curved surface!

Then what was the distance over the ball, when the curve started to go downward and block it all out from view, until everything was out of all view?

The entire distance from being fully seen, to nothing at all seen, takes about 1 or 2 miles of distance on the surface, in all!!

The curve didn’t act out as a curving down blocking out things or parts of things for the first two to three miles over it as yet, because of perspective, over the first couple miles or so, until the curve was built up enough to show up and beat our perspective at about three miles out, where the curve kicked ass from that point, curving the entire surface and everything on it down from all sight, in the next mile or two!

There’s your story, to that point, obviously.

A curve isn’t seen or acting out at all on the surface anywhere at all for the first two and a half miles out on it, being entirely seen as a flat surface is not caused by any perspective, that’s for sure.

Assume that shit is possible, anyway, but then it’s even worse from there!

After you’ve claimed the first couple miles out are not curving at all, it’s flat and we all see it’s completely flat, appearing to be rising upward, that’s the part caused by perspective, over a long flat surface, and we can see it’s a flat surface throughout that distance over it, both of them features of a flat surface seen outward in the distance, and that’s what we depict on drawings of perspective acting on the surface of Earth, and any other example of it in our world.

When you’re bleating on and on about how the horizons only happen on a curved surface, a feature of curved surfaces, not possible to form on a flat surface…..you’re simply all a joke!

You lost your curve, lost your real horizon, three miles away, after we saw it was there, when we were on the surface of Earth!!

You claimed the surface curved down just beyond the horizon three miles away, out of all soght!

How would anyone of you spewing about that, ever try to draw what you’re claiming to be happening here?

What would it look like, in a drawing of your claim here???

Nobody will ever try drawing it out! It’d look really effin stupid and funny in a drawing of it!

Horizons aren’t real, aren’t curves on the surface of Earth, because they’re not found to exist when we are above the surface, no curve, no horizon, nothing but a flat surface, longer than we first saw on the ground! Rising up as before, only further out on the surface than on the ground.

Do you really believe that’s how a ball Earth would look?

We’ve not ever seen or thought about what such a completely different surface would actually look like, from the ground, or above the surface higher and higher above it…

What would be certainly known about this surface, being a spheroid in shape, is more and more dramatically different when rising above it higher and higher, the lower and lower down below we’d have to look to even see the surface of Earth, because that’s how it’d be when rising above any ball, a very unique view to ours for sure!

Not just the bottom of the ship vanishes from sight, the top part of the surface BELOW THE SHIP vanishes out of sight too!

Yes, just like we expect for a round Earth, and completely inexplicable for a flat Earth, as nothing is blocking the view.

They both appear to merge together as one

No, they don't.
We see the bottom cut off from view, while it should still be clearly resolvable.
Lying wont save you.

And even if that claim was true, that is still just a BS vague claim, not an explanation.

Why don’t you ever mention why the bottom of a ship vanishes while the ship and surface are still appearing to rise upward at the same time???

Because that is just your pathetic fantasy.
Back in reality, the ship is visible until the horizon. Then once it passes the horizon the ship appears to sink into Earth, disappearing from the bottom up.
No part of the ship is "appearing to rise" at that point.

Now again, stop with all the pathetic BS, which serves as nothing more than a pathetic distraction from your complete inability to defend your BS, and explain what magic is hiding the bottom.

If you want to discuss if a round Earth can explain it, first admit you can't.

Just look at how utterly pathetic and desperate you are, spouting so much baseless crap, all to avoid admitting you have no explanation at all for what magic hides the bottom.

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