What about ships on the ocean?

The surface curved downward at three miles out, and then vanished from all sight, when we see the surface from above it!


Real curves don’t stop curving downward, don’t vanish from all sight, do you get that yet?

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

No, the entire ship curves down, not just the bottom, following the curve of Earth.
Where eventually Earth blocks the view, at a distance dependent upon your height above the level of the water and the height of the feature you are trying to observe.

Where is your proof that only the bottom of a ship isn’t seen at a distance?

Have you not been paying attention? How about back here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=93119.msg2442471#msg2442471

Now care to stop lying to everyone?

How about you stop with the pathetic BS and start trying to explain?
Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't?

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

No, that is not a fact.
It is your pathetic BS you cannot justify at all.

Again, the building is a clear example of it.
It shows we can clearly resolve an object of that size at that distance, so that is NOT what is magically hiding it.

And again, if it was about that, then as you get higher, you get further from it so it should disappear sooner, the exact opposite of what happens.

So no, the fact is, a proven fact, that you are lying to us yet again; repeating the same pathetic, refuted BS.

So you can skip all the BS about parallel lines, given that is clearly NOT the answer.

Except when we rise from that same point above the surface, which you claim curved down so much to block out a ship and surface beyond it, past three miles or so….


Rising above that surface would let us see further over it, but we’d have to look down to ever see this ever curving downward surface, for any longer distances away from our viewpoint high above a ball Earth curving away from us downward.

When we see a horizon from a plane, directly across from us,
over a hundred miles away, your three mile away curve is complete bs.

Curved surfaces going downward to block out ships from all sight beyond three miles away, will always keep on curving downward, even more and more over distance.

We’d never come close to seeing the surface over hundreds of miles out, which we do see above the flat Earth.


No horizons would ever be seen across from us in a plane. Not even close to it.


Your curve that sinks away ships from all view three miles out, would curve more and more past three miles away. Rising above the curving downward surface surface wouldn’t look anything close to what we see now!

 

Perhaps your curve is a phantom curve, that appears and vanishes away at will, all over the surface of a ball Earth! A phantom horizon that is real but vanishes into thin air anytime at all!  Good to go now

Except when we rise from that same point above the surface

we are able to see further over the curve, just like we would expect for a round Earth, as has been explained to you repeatedly, with you unable to show any fault with that explanation and instead you just repeating the same pathetic BS.
This is just like poking your head around a corner, the further from the corner the more you can see.
And demonstrated graphically like this:

At the height of the blue observer, none of the black line is visible.
At the height of the purple observer, just the bottom is hidden.
At the highest height shown, none is hidden.

Compare this to your dishonest BS.
As you get higher, you get further away, and the angle becomes less optimal. So the angular size of the bottom of the boat gets smaller. This makes it even harder to see.
So in your delusional fantasy, you should be able to see less as you get higher, with more of the boat hidden.

And there you go, just focusing your entire post on spamming this already refuted BS.
Because you know you cannot explain it in your delusional fantasy.
Instead, all you can do is wilfully lie to everyone, repeating the same pathetic lies to pretend it doesn't work for the RE; even though those lies of yours have been refuted countless times.

You are absolutely pathetic.

Again, explain what magic hides the bottom in your pathetic delusional fantasy, or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.

Once more, we know it CANNOT possible be simply due to perspective/convergence, or anything like that. Because what is observed in reality doesn't match that at all.

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 15, 2025, 05:10:53 AM

Except when we rise from that same point above the surface

we are able to see further over the curve, just like we would expect for a round Earth, as has been explained to you repeatedly, with you unable to show any fault with that explanation and instead you just repeating the same pathetic BS.
This is just like poking your head around a corner, the further from the corner the more you can see.
And demonstrated graphically like this:

At the height of the blue observer, none of the black line is visible.
At the height of the purple observer, just the bottom is hidden.
At the highest height shown, none is hidden.

And your own diagram shows that we’d have to LOOK DOWNWARD to see the curving downward more and more surface!

There’d never be a horizon seen from planes above a ball Earth, just like I’ve told you many times already

And your own diagram shows that we’d have to LOOK DOWNWARD to see the curving downward more and more surface!

There’d never be a horizon seen from planes above a ball Earth, just like I’ve told you many times already

You mean like you have blatantly lied about many times before?
And had that blatant lie exposed?

Again, the important question is "HOW MUCH?"
And apparently it is a question that absolutely terrifies you, because you can never answer it.
The math is trivial (until you start factoring in refraction), and it shows from a plane you have to "look down" by less than 3ish degrees.
So still easily within view.

Again, explain what magic hides the bottom in your pathetic delusional fantasy, or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.

Once more, we know it CANNOT possible be simply due to perspective/convergence, or anything like that. Because what is observed in reality doesn't match that at all.

How did you get such a ridiculously tiny figure with such a curve as you claim to sink all from sight beyond three miles away?

A three degree dip, what a joke!!

You claim the surface curved down to make the ship vanish from all sight, past the horizon three miles away or so!

That would be the highest point you’d ever see a horizon on a ball Earth.

A ball Earth would be curving down more and more beyond that three miles out, that’s an absolute fact.

When going above the curving away surface, higher and higher above it, the lower down it would curve away from you.

Imagine going higher and higher above any size of a ball, the result is much the same thing above any ball.

What we’d really see above a ball Earth can easily be simulated. Same as any ball could be simulated to our view of it from any heights..

They know what it would really look like from a plane, and I’m sure they’ve simulated this many times already.

So they use trickery and call it a simulation of what we’d see, above a ball Earth, IS what we really do see above Earth!


They are all liars.

How did you get such a ridiculously tiny figure with such a curve as you claim to sink all from sight beyond three miles away?

From the simple math you are yet to show a fault with.

Again, you can do this as an approximation, or the full trig route.
Considering we need an angle, the full trig route is simple.
Construct a right angle triangle.
The hypotenuse goes from the centre of Earth (assumed a perfect sphere for simplicity) to the observer at some height h above the surface.
One of the other lengths goes from the centre to the surface at the horizon.
The remaining length goes from the horizon to the observer (noting this is tangent to the circle).
i.e. this:

The angle a is 90 degrees minus b.
The angle of dip is 90 degrees minus b, which is angle a.

And what is a?
Well that is given by the relationship:
cos(a)=R/(R+h)

So we can trivially work out the angle as:
a=acos(R/(R+h))
And putting in R=6371 km, and h=10 km (for a plane) we get:
a=acos(6371/6381)
=3.2 degrees.

This has been explained to you before.
You were completely incapable of showing any fault with it.
You have refused to provide any alternative.
You cannot give any number at all. You just repeatedly assert it can't be seen, which you cannot justify at all.

If you wish to claim it is not 3.2 degrees (or a number very close to it), then do the math yourself, with justification.
Stop with your pathetic lies that it must be so much lower.
If you want to say it is actually lower, then PROVIDE THE ANGLE, with justifaction!
If you can't, your words are worthless.

You have nothing except your pathetic lies and baseless assertions.

They are all liars.

The liar here is you.
Continually asserting pathetic BS while being completely incapable of justifying it, and having your pathetic BS refuted with simple math.

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

Your angle goes ever more downward as you rise above a ball Earth.

You’d have to look more and more downward to see the surface of a ball earth as you rise higher above it.

There is no trig or math or equations you can twist around that can ever change that fact.

When you see the horizon from 35000 feet directly across from you out the window, over a hundred miles away, lets go back on the ground, where you saw a ship curve down past a horizon three miles away.


Now let’s rise straight upward from that same point. Can you see the ship again yet? 

It would be seen below you above the ball, right? It can’t curve down past a horizon seeing it on the ground, across from you when you rise higher above the curving down ball!


You’d see more of the curving down surface when you rise above the ball, but you’d have to look downward to see it, and to see the ship that already curved down out of all sight three miles out.

Now rise up to 35000 feet at that same point. Now can you still see the ship by magnifying on it? Let’s say it’s large enough to be seen from such an altitude, but how far below you would it be seen from a plane?


The ship is always curving downward more and more in the distance. Like the whole curved surface is.

No horizon would be seen across from you at 35000 feet above a ball Earth

There is no trig or math or equations you can twist around that can ever change that fact.

Nor do I need to.
Again, the evidence YOU provided, clearly demonstrated that the horizon is BELOW level.
That it is NOT seen directly across from you, but slightly down.

how far below you would it be seen from a plane?

As per previously, 3 degrees.
The math is not hard.
Stop playing dumb.

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

Except it would NEVER even come close to being seen ‘slightly lower’ above a ball Earth at 35000 feet altitude!

You don’t get that yet?


When we see the horizon across from us, it wouldn’t matter at all if it was seen slightly lower than seen from the surface.


That’s not even close to what we’d see above a ball Earth.


Ok, we see the horizon across from us at 35000 feet, but slightly lower than before.

The horizon is 200 miles out from us.

The surface curved down out of all view about three miles away on the ground.


The surface curves down about 6 or 7 miles lower over a hundred miles of surface to this horizon.


The surface cannot curve down below all sight three miles away, and then a 7 mile downward curve over a hundred miles of surface is nowhere to be seen at all, and somehow the 7 mile curved surface appears to rise up to 35000 feet altitude!!


What a joke

Except it would NEVER even come close to being seen ‘slightly lower’ above a ball Earth at 35000 feet altitude!

You don’t get that yet?

No. I don't get your outright lie.
But I do get that it is an outright lie.

Again, do the math you worthless lying subhuman scum.
It shows it would be roughly 3 degree below level.
That is "slightly lower", especially when you don't have a reference.
And again, in your delusional fantasy it is half that.

When we see the horizon across from us

And you can talk about that when you go into your delusional fantasy.
Meanwhile, we will stick to reality, where it is lower and not directly across.

That’s not even close to what we’d see above a ball Earth.

PROVE IT!
Stop repeating the same pathetic worthless lie and PROVE IT!
Do the math.
Show how far below it should be.
Stop with the pathetic vague BS.

a 7 mile downward curve over a hundred miles of surface is nowhere to be seen at all

Again, just how are you expecting to see it?
We see a curve with the horizon.

somehow the 7 mile curved surface appears to rise up to 35000 feet altitude!!

Yet you are fine for the ground that is 7 miles below you to do just that?

What a joke

You would need to be funny to be a joke.
You are just pathetic scum.

And look, you still haven't explained what magic hides the bottom.

Again, stop with your pathetic, BS lies about the horizon.
If you want to discuss them you can go back to the previous thread where you repeatedly fled from trivial questions that demonstrated beyond any sane doubt that you were wilfully lying to everyone.

If you want to reply here, stop spamming BS and explain what magic hides the bottom or admit you can't.

You idiot, you’re including our real horizons in your garbage ‘math’!

The horizon is what we’re arguing about here! It cannot be used to make your bs math fit a ball Earth.

Try it again without the flat Earth horizons in it.


Math only works correctly with actual spheres and curvature, not illusions on the flat surface of Earth.


The true view above an actual sphere would be very different than this by far.


Where do you account for the curving down surface here we’d be above and try to see below us?

Perspective lost out at three miles of surface, past that distance the curve is ever greater downward, and we rise up above the more and more curving down surface from that point.


No wonder you want to mix in real horizons in your ‘math’ here!   No go

As in the actual math over an actual ball Earth?

It’s exactly the same math used for any sphere of any size.

Except the real math doesn’t show us what we’d actually see over a spherical surface, but it certainly could determine our angle of view on a ball Earth, but nobody’s shown that yet afaik.

It would need to be accurately simulated in what we’d see on ground and at 35000 feet above it, using actual curvature of an Earth sized sphere.

But the simulation would include a curved surface going down out of all view past the first three miles out, and a surface seen over that distance as completely flat and appearing to be rising upward, to the flat and straight across the surface horizon at the end point, and then a really sharp curve past it, removing all from our view beyond that point.

That wouldn’t work with an accurate simulation of such a sphere though.


Only actual spheres with actual curvature can be used for it. And I’m sure it would be very odd to see how Earths surface would truly look if it were a ball

You idiot

No, that would still be you.

The horizon is what we’re arguing about here!

We are specifically arguing about what hides the bottom of distant objects.
Something you cannot explain at all.

You know you can't explain it, so you deflect with pathetic BS at all costs.

Try it again without the flat Earth horizons in it

You mean the pure BS you cannot explain at all?
The pure magic?

Why would I do it with your pathetic BS you can't explain or justify?
Why wouldn't I stick to reality, with real curves, like the RE?

The true view above an actual sphere

Is what we get on Earth.

Math only works correctly with actual spheres and curvature

So it works with Earth.

As in the actual math over an actual ball Earth?

Yes, something you refuse to provide because you know it will show you are worthless, lying subhuman scum.

it certainly could determine our angle of view on a ball Earth, but nobody’s shown that yet afaik.

There you go lying, yet again.
I have done it repeatedly.
Again, the angle of dip is given by a=acos(r/(r+h)).
This math is trivial.

Now again, stop with all the pathetic BS and explain what magic hides the bottom.
If you can't, then try being honest for once in your pathetic, dishonest, subhuman existence and admit you can't.

You idiot, you’re including our real horizons in your garbage ‘math’!

The horizon is what we’re arguing about here! It cannot be used to make your bs math fit a ball Earth.

Try it again without the flat Earth horizons in it.


Math only works correctly with actual spheres and curvature, not illusions on the flat surface of Earth.


The true view above an actual sphere would be very different than this by far.


Where do you account for the curving down surface here we’d be above and try to see below us?

Perspective lost out at three miles of surface, past that distance the curve is ever greater downward, and we rise up above the more and more curving down surface from that point.


No wonder you want to mix in real horizons in your ‘math’ here!   No go

Get a sheet of paper 8-1/2"x11"

Draw a circle that has a diameter of 7.926".

Mark a dot above the circumference of the circle to scale and a field of view that shows what you think you should see at 35000ft on a ball earth.

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

I’ve explained it to you many many times already, but every time you just keep playing the moron.

Again, it is due to perspective and vanishing point over distance, no magic at all.

Again, both the bottom of objects on the surface AND the top of the surface appear to merge together in the distance, NOT JUST THE BOTTOM OF OBJECTS ON THAT SURFACE.

The surface is not noticed like objects on it, that’s why it’s not obvious that the upper part of the surface vanishes too, at the same distance the bottom of objects vanish..

The surface is uniform all over, that’s why the top part isn’t noticed at all. 

Parallel objects or lines appear to merge with distance.

We think of them as never totally merging together up to the horizon, but they will merge as one before the horizon, if they’re inches apart the whole time.

If both parallel lines or objects are touching each other, but separate lines or objects and parallel to one another, that’s how objects and surface are, touching one another but separate the whole time.

That is, parallel lines or objects can touch one another from the start, or almost touch one another within a micron, and appear to us they’re touching.

And they appear as one before the horizon too, when close to each other from the start.

When extremely close to one another, they appear to merge as one, and no instruments can see them as separate either!

Perspective can make them appear to merge as one, and when they are very close to one another, like a few mm apart, they cannot be seen as two separate lines or objects in the distance, magnification cannot make them look separate, no matter how much magnification they have.

Let’s say we had two railroad tracks, which are already near each other, and put them within a few mm of each other, still parallel the entire distance out.

So close to one another we can’t see they’re a small distance apart, or barely see it.

We also have a powerful telescope to magnify the two tracks going out into the distance, because you believe we’ll be able to see them as two tracks the whole way out, all we need is an instrument with enough magnification, etc…

You believe we’d see thousands of miles out over a flat surface with instruments, right?

You’re completely wrong.

Instruments cannot see parallel lines a few mm apart in the distance, they’re so close together it’s hard to see they’re two separate lines when seen next to them, and they will appear to merge together before a mile , no matter how much they’re magnified with instrunents.


 






Do you understand what I’m saying here?



 

I’ve explained it to you many many times already, but every time you just keep playing the moron.

No, you haven't.
Instead, you just keep repeating the same vague BS, which is refuted.

Again, saying it is perspective or vanishing point explains NOTHING.

Again, the fact we can zoom in and see parts roughly the same size (or smaller) than what is hidden, clearly resolved, demonstrates it is NOT perspective or vanishing point.

Perspective makes the smallest part unresolvable first. Not the LOWEST.

And again, if it was perspective, getting higher would make it worse, because you are then further away and typically at a worse angle. Yet in reality, getting higher makes it so you can see further.

Your pathetic BS doesn't work.
So the one playing the moron here is YOU!

Again, both the bottom of objects on the surface AND the top of the surface appear to merge together in the distance, NOT JUST THE BOTTOM OF OBJECTS ON THAT SURFACE.

Again, HOW?
Stop just appealing to magic and instead try to explain it.

Do you understand how perspective works at all?
Do you understand how the vanishing point works at all?

Unless you are appealing to the literal vanishing point which is infinitely far away, it is simply objects being too small to resolve.
This is something which varies with different optics.
Yet the horizon, and objects being obscured by it is not.

So if you want to appeal to perspective, stop with the pathetic vague BS, and directly explain the issue.

Not some pathetic BS of "the surface and object merge together", which is NOTHING like how perspective works, and instead clearly explain the key issues with it being perspective.
How an object that should be resolvable is magically hidden.
How different optics, with different resolution limits play no role (once it gets good enough to resolve the part of the object equal to the part hidden).
How getting higher, which makes you further away, makes more visible.

Otherwise, you aren't explaining anything; instead you are just repeating the same pathetic BS to pretend to explain because you know you have no actual explanation.

When extremely close to one another, they appear to merge as one, and no instruments can see them as separate either!

Why/how?
What magic causes this?

Again, stop with the vague BS and explain how.

Let’s say we had two railroad tracks, which are already near each other, and put them within a few mm of each other, still parallel the entire distance out.

And then zoom in with better optics and see the gap clearly resolved.

We also have a powerful telescope to magnify the two tracks going out into the distance, because you believe we’ll be able to see them as two tracks the whole way out, all we need is an instrument with enough magnification, etc…

Yes, because that is how reality works.

And there are 2 parts to it.
One part is the limit of resolution of devices.
The other is whatever device is used to obtain an image, e.g. a camera, roughly relating to zoom.

But we don't need to appeal to pathetic BS like that.
As was posted right near the start of this thread:


The sections of the building are clearly resolvable, yet they are hidden.
The fact the higher sections are resolvable indicates we have the resolving power to be able to see such a section, that perspective cannot possibly be hiding it.
So it clearly shows your claim is pure BS.

You’re completely wrong.

If I'm wrong, why does all the evidence back me up, and you can't explain anything and instead need to just continually assert vague BS with no explanation at all?
Effectively just repeating the same pathetic assertions.

Do you understand what I’m saying here?

Yes. Do you understand that I'm not stupid enough to accept your wilful lies?
Do you understand that I know you are wilfully lying to everyone?
Do you understand that perspective doesn't do what you need it to?


Just for further clarity, perspective is not some strange FE voodoo magic.
It is simple geometry.

To simplify a bit - if you are looking directly at the middle of a flat object which is perpendicular to you, it has a height (or width or whatever dimension you want) of h, and is a distance d away; then its angular size is given by 2*atan(h/2d).
So the further away it is, the smaller its angular size.
So if you want to be able to resolve 2 points separated by that distance h, you need something that can resolve that angular size.

There is no magical merging which prevents optics from resolving things.

Now stop with the pathetic BS and EXPLAIN what magic hides the bottom.
Do you understand what that word means?
EXPLAIN

Not just assert what you need to explain, instead, explain it, explain the mechanism of how it works.

Objects appear ever smaller, obviously it’s one reason, but another reason, is that the angle of view, from our position, is ever slighter and slighter outward, and that’s what you deliberately ignore, as if it didn’t exist at all!!

Your playing the complete moron role, once again.

Do you think perspective and vanishing point aren’t known to exist on Earth?

When we draw or sketch or paint or use computers to draw them as simulations, to indicate what we could see, on Earth from the surface, they always show the flat surface and straight lines on each end of the drawing, or scene of it, as our viewing of it would be, to depict it as distances on Earth would look to us, if really there on Earth to see it!

Drawing or simulating things both at near and far away distances, as on Earth would look like, only work when they reflect the true Earth, and it’s true surface, because it doesn’t look real or genuine or accurate with any other surface but a flat surface, which is obviously flat and drawn as flat, to reflect genuine distances out on Earth, it’s always a flat surface and straight lines out on each side, converging together in the middle, and surface and lines rising upward in the distance, up to the horizon, a straight line going completely across it end to end, and no more seen beyond it unless any tall enough top seen past horizons.

No curves drawn or simulated at all, it is always a flat surface, and straight lines outward and one straight line across at the horizon, because it’s the real, flat surface of Earth.

another reason, is that the angle of view, from our position, is ever slighter and slighter outward, and that’s what you deliberately ignore, as if it didn’t exist at all!!

And there you go with more pathetic vague BS.
Just what do you mean by that?
What do you mean by slighter outward?
It makes no sense at all.

Your playing the complete moron role, once again.

No, that would still be you.
Just spouting crap like a complete imbecile that doesn't understand anything, being entirely incapable of explaining anything.

Do you think perspective and vanishing point aren’t known to exist on Earth?

They are known to exist and behave in a very particular way.
That does not do what you need it to.

When we draw or sketch or paint or use computers to draw them as simulations

Using just perspective for a simple drawing which gives us what would be expected on a flat surface, where objects just shrink with the bottom never hidden.

Or you can use a more accurate simulation which also accounts for the curve and has the bottom hidden.

Drawing or simulating things both at near and far away distances, as on Earth would look like, only work when they reflect the true Earth

And the only time that happens is either when the curve isn't significant enough to make a difference, or when you include the curve.

Again, the very point of this discussion, you can't make the bottom hidden without including the curve.

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

And again, explain does not mean just spout pathetic vague crap.

The bottom of a ship or highrise building, followed by the part right above the bottom, the bottom half of the ship or highrise, and up until nothing is seen of them??

Why do you keep on harping over and over again about only one area of things that aren’t seen at a long distance? 

If you were right about it curving the bottom of a ship or highrise, the rest of it would curve out of view at a longer distance from it!


In fact, the rest of it would vanish faster than the bottom does, with a greater curve over more distance away!

Does that happen? No

See what happens to objects that go over a real curved surface on a ball.

All you need is a small object to put on a ball, in full view of it at first, move it out until the bottom curves out of view….

The rest of it will also soon curve down and out of view, until all of it curves out of view.

After you claimed the bottom of it curved down and out of sight, barely more than three miles away, that’s your starting point of a curve, or you don’t have a clue about it.

An object that is on an actually curved surface, which will curve down at the bottom part first, will curve the rest of it down right after that, it curves all of it out of sight too.
 

Actual curved surfaces that curve the bottom parts of objects on them, at one point out on them, don’t stop curving down, only more curving down in fact!

Why do you keep on harping over and over again about only one area of things that aren’t seen at a long distance?

I have explained this to you repeatedly.
This does one very crucial thing. It shows the object is near enough and the optics are good enough for you to resolve the object, and small parts of it.

e.g. in this case:

We can clearly see the building.
We can clearly see sections of it.
And we can clearly see that these sections are resolvable, yet some are hidden even though they are resolvable.

If we didn't have the other parts of the building still visible and resolvable it raises the question of if any of it would be resolvable.
Lying scum like you would be able to hide behind lies like claiming perspective means you can't resolve it.

But these images clearly demonstrate your claim to be a lie.
We clearly can see the building.
We clearly can resolve sections of it.
And we can clearly see that sections which should be resolvable are not visible.
That means it isn't perspective hiding the bottom of the object, it is the curvature of Earth.


The real question you should be asking is why do you keep harping on about this?
Is it so you can wilfully lie to everyone with the statements you have followed with?
Or is it so you can avoid admitting you have no explanation at all for what magic hides the bottom?

If you were right about it curving the bottom of a ship or highrise, the rest of it would curve out of view at a longer distance from it!

And it does.
Again, look at the image.
We see more and more be obstructed from view.
Lying about reality wont change that.

An object that is on an actually curved surface, which will curve down at the bottom part first, will curve the rest of it down right after that, it curves all of it out of sight too.

What on Earth makes you think that complete BS?
So you are saying it wouldn't matter if an object is 1 m tall or 100 km tall, right after the bottom disappears the entire rest of it should?
You are truly delusional if you think that.

Actual curved surfaces that curve the bottom parts of objects on them, at one point out on them, don’t stop curving down, only more curving down in fact!

Yes, just like Earth.


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

Once more, we know it isn't perspective.
We know it isn't magic angles.

We know that if Earth was flat, we should clearly be able to resolve these objects, including the missing portion of them, yet they are hidden, as if the object has sunk into Earth.
WHY?

The curvature of the round Earth explains it, but you have nothing.

You keep saying the bottoms vanish, not all of it, until I pointed it out to you!

Because it’s only the very bottoms that aren’t seen, BEFORE reaching the top of the horizon, right?

Absolutely true, only the very bottom part vanishes, not the rest of it at that point!

If it was a real curved surface, the bottom part vanishes at the highest point seen of that curved surface!

Look at any object on a curved surface of a ball, after its bottom part has curved down and out of all view!

The rest of the object will also curve down and out of all view, at that same point!

At that point, when the bottom curves downward, over a curved surface, there’s no more surface beyond there to see! 

This clearly does not happen with objects going over real curved surfaces, or any example of it!

The bottom part vanishes at the highest point seen of a curved surface, THAT would be where any horizon would be, where it curves downward and a ship curves out of all view, bottom to top of it right there

Ships don’t keep appearing to rise up after the bottom curves down and out of all view!

Only the very bottom part vanishes from sight, as the ship is seen still rising upward on the surface, BEFORE IT REACHES THE TOP OF THE HORIZON!

That’s clearly impossible to happen on a real curved surface, any and all curved surfaces cannot do such a thing as that!

Do you have no clue what we’d see if this really WAS a curved surface?

You can argue that the whole ship curves out of sight right after the bottom part does, but you’re obviously wrong about that.

Because we can still see the rest of the ship rising upward to the horizon after its bottom ‘curves downward out of view’, you claim!!

Curved surfaces that curve down the bottom of a ship, or any object on it, don’t keep rising upward on the rest of a ship or any object on it!!!

Please show me any example of an object curving down at its bottom on a curved surface, while somehow the rest of it appears to be rising upward on the surface, moving towards the crest of the horizon!!


Have you ever seen that happen?


Get a ball, put a small object on it.  View the surface of the ball as you’d view Earths surface outward to a ship sailing out to the horizon.

Move the object fully seen closer to you on the ball, outward over the curved surface until the bottom of it curves down below your view..

Then what happens as it keeps moving out? It all curves down and out of sight!

None of it keeps rising upward, or appears to, after the bottom curves down below your view!

The size of a ball, an Earth size
ball, or even bigger than that would be, after curving down the bottom of objects, out of all sight, would all do the same thing as any size of ball, after it starts to curve downward and objects on it start curving downward over it, at the bottom, and all of it curves down at that point, nothing seen of surface or objects beyond that point!

If the bottom of a highrise building isn’t seen from miles away, it’s curved downward on the surface?

What is seen from further away of the highrise?

Why doesn’t curvature make the rest curve down and out of sight?  Only at the bottoms of things curving down and out of sight? That’s your bs argument?

After the bottom of a ship or highrise isn’t seen at a distance, the rest of the ship keeps appearing to rise up to the top of a horizon, while its bottom has curved downward out of view, which means it has split into two pieces, one piece curving downward, the other piece still appearing to rise up and is still seen!!!

Earth is a most unique and strange ball, it curves part of objects on their bottoms, leaving the upper part intact and uncurved! Amazing indeed!!

Curved surfaces that curve down objects, curve them down from the bottom up, you have that part correct.


You don’t have anything after that part correct at all though.


Curved surfaces that curve away objects from view, starting at their bottoms, keep curving down the rest of objects, and nothing is seen beyond that curve. There’s no rising up of part of objects after the bottom curves down. No horizon the parts of objects rise up to.

It’s really that stupid a story, a pile of crap.

You keep saying the bottoms vanish, not all of it, until I pointed it out to you!

No, I don't.
I said the bottom vanishes first, and then as you go further more is hidden, as you go higher less is hidden.

But because you have no refutation, you pull this pathetic, dishonest BS.

Stop with all the pathetic BS and explain what magic hides the bottom.

Because it’s only the very bottoms that aren’t seen, BEFORE reaching the top of the horizon

No, the entire object is seen until it reaches the horizon.
Then as it goes past the horizon, more and more vanishes, with it disappearing from the bottom up as it appears to sink into Earth due to following the curve of Earth.

The rest of the object will also curve down and out of all view, at that same point!

No, it won't.
Lying wont save you.

It is simple geometry.

Firstly, assuming a perfect sphere of radius r, with an observer height of o, you get a distance to the horizon as an approximation:
dh=sqrt(2*r*o)

Then the amount hidden, is the drop past the horizon, i.e,
h=ds^2/(2*r)
where ds=d-dh

So right at the horizon, there is a height of 0 hidden. Then as it gets further and further away, more and more is hidden, until all of it is.

This is what is expected for a round Earth, and it is what happens in reality.

Again:

Ships don’t keep appearing to rise up after the bottom curves down and out of all view!

And they don't in reality. Instead, they appear to sink into Earth, disappearing from the bottom up.

And do you know a simple way to tell your claim is pure BS?
The angular size of the ship needs to get smaller, and the bottom of it is bound to the horizon, it doesn't magically float above.
And the horizon is below eye level, and even if I discarded that reality and accepted your pathetic BS it would be eye level.
So there is way possible for it to continue to go up while it appears to shrink.
You can consider any part of the ship, and consider the angular separation between it and the horizon.
This MUST get smaller, and so the point MUST get lower.

Care to stop lying to everyone?

I know you need to lie to pretend your BS works and the RE doesn't, but that isn't a reason to do so.

Only the very bottom part vanishes from sight, as the ship is seen still rising upward on the surface, BEFORE IT REACHES THE TOP OF THE HORIZON!

Lying wont save you.

You can argue that the whole ship curves out of sight right after the bottom part does

And why would I lie like that, when it is not what happens in reality, nor what is expected for a curved Earth?

Because we can still see the rest of the ship rising upward to the horizon after its bottom ‘curves downward out of view’, you claim!!

Where?
Do you have any evidence of this at all?

We see the ship have the bottom disappear once it is beyond the horizon, and it goes down, not up.
Again, lying wont save you.

Please show me any example

Why don't you provide the example, instead of just baselessly asserting it magically happens?

Or better yet, stop with all the BS and explain what magic hides the bottom or admit you can't.

If the bottom of a highrise building isn’t seen from miles away, it’s curved downward on the surface?

What is seen from further away of the highrise?

Why doesn’t curvature make the rest curve down and out of sight?  Only at the bottoms of things curving down and out of sight? That’s your bs argument?

We see more hidden, until it is all hidden.
Again:


So no, that isn't my argument, it is your pathetic strawman where you wilfully lie about my claims and reality.

After the bottom of a ship or highrise isn’t seen at a distance, the rest of the ship keeps appearing to rise up

No, it doesn't.
Again, if you wish to assert such blatant BS, PROVE IT!

Provide an example.
Make sure your example includes a reference for level.

You don’t have anything after that part correct at all though.

Yet you can't demonstrate a single fault and instead repeatedly lie to everyone.

It’s really that stupid a story, a pile of crap.

There you go projecting again.

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