Give me numbers then. What's the diameter of the flat earth and how far is the moon from the surface? Then we can check if it's even possible to get a 0.01 degree angle, even from edge to edge.
Visually, vision of the moon is blocked by the horizon. Physically, it is not blocked. As I said, get an optical zoom device, and you can increase you vision range.
In your mind, what is the difference between visually blocking vs physically blocking? How can you simultaneously belive that there exists an uninterrupted line of sight that light can take, but also that something blocks it along that path? That's what you're saying when you tell me that the horizon blocks it: that the light that would have otherwise reached your eyes was blocked by the horizon AKA the ground far away. It's either a clear line of sight or it isn't. It can't be both at the same time.
From your perspective, it is not a clear line of sight.
An object far enough away gets visually blocked due to how perspective works. Once the horizon has risen to eye level, that is the extent of the range of what you can see, at eye level.
I made this drawing for you to show how your vision gets physically blocked.
From your perspective, it is not a clear line of sight
For that to be the case, something must be blocking it. If there is no physical object blocking your line of sight, then it is a clear line of sight. "Horizon" and "perspective" aren't some magical concepts that allow you to sidestep the laws of physics.
An object far enough away gets visually blocked due to how perspective works
Yes that's how it works on a curved surface, where the ground itself does in fact "rise" to block your view. On a flat surface, that doesn't work. On a flat surface, parallel lines stay parallel. I'm talking about REAL parallel lines here, not your subjective interpretation of what a parallel line is. In your drawing, the lines only intersect because you drew them that way, i.e. NOT PARALLEL.
You seem to think that framing every contentious point through the eyes of a human observer gives you leeway to ignore mathematical realities. As though they can be violated just because your personal perspective disobeys them. This is akin to a baby who thinks he can't be seen by his parents when he covers his eyes. Take the observer out of your analysis and suddenly your model begins to show some very glaring inconsistencies with reality.
There is no difference between visually vs physically blocking. It's the same thing. Take the laser beam and replace it with a taut rope. A rope forming a straight lone from the top of everest to the moon. Explain how that rope can remain a straight line when the moon dips below the horizon. Forget your perspective, there is no observer here. Just a rope.
Distance that we are given from the north pole to the south pole is 12400 miles, so you can times that with two. So the diameter of the known flat earth, is around 24800 miles. While the height of the moon would be at around 3000 miles above the earth. Good luck with the checking.
I'm on mobile now but i did some calculations, i can upload pictures later.
But given those parameters, a person standing anywhere on the south pole (which i understand to be any point in the outer edge of the disc) at sea level, and a moon that is at the opposite side of the disc (~25K miles away from the person) and 3K miles above sea level, the smallest angle possible is about 6.8 degrees, not 0.01.
But that's not necessarily conclusive, we just have to figure out what it would take to obstruct this person's view of the moon in this scenario, since this is the worst case scenario (the furthest a person can be from the moon while still on the flat earth.
So what could block this guy's view of the moon? Well, if he's 6ft tall then any 7ft obstacle could do it, IF right in front of him. In the other extreme, any 3001 mile obstacle could also block his view of the moon, even if said obstacle was at the opposite side of the disc.
So what's the tallest possible obstacle? Mt Everest at 5.5 miles. Doesn't seem like much, and after some math it clearly isn't. Given the scenario above, even mount Everest itself would not be tall enough to block your view of the moon, unless it was within 45 miles of you. In other words, if you are 46 miles away from mt everest, then it won't block your view of the moon, even if the moon was as far away as could be.
Now there could be less tall obstacles than mt everest that could still block your view, provided that they are closer. But still, 45 miles is a very small area. Given these numbers, you could go to any point in the ocean that is 4 miles from any shore, and the moon would always be visible from there (because 45 miles from the shore means Everest is even farther, and you're at sea so there's nothing else out there to obstruct your view). There are hundreds of places that you could visit to test that theory. Thousands.
But even putting all this math aside, I realized that your model would also imply that the moon is always visible from the tallest point on earth. Because there's nothing blocking you. But this is clearly not the case, or at least i don't think you belive that but please tell me if I'm wrong.
Tldr i don't think your model aligns with observable reality.
Your calculations is based on a side view, not from the perspective of the person.
All parallel lines going away from you will converge to a point in the distance, where the ground meets the sky, or appears to. The horizon will rise to eye level at about 3 miles away from you, when standing on the ground. This is how perspective works.
Here is a video of p-brane explaining this to you. Watch it if you want:
THE SUN SETS JUST FINE ON A FLAT EARTH - THE MATHS ARE WRONG perspective
Why are you now bringing perspective into this? Yes there are dozens of concepts that appear to support the flat earth theory on the surface, but you don't get to jump from one to the other as they each fail under scrutiny.
I know how perspective works. Now tell me what could possibly obstruct your line of sight of the moon from atop Everest.
Give me numbers then. What's the diameter of the flat earth and how far is the moon from the surface? Then we can check if it's even possible to get a 0.01 degree angle, even from edge to edge.
Reply limit reached, so I guess I answer here.
Visually, vision of the moon is blocked by the horizon. Physically, it is not blocked. As I said, get an optical zoom device, and you can increase you vision range.
In your mind, what is the difference between visually blocking vs physically blocking? How can you simultaneously belive that there exists an uninterrupted line of sight that light can take, but also that something blocks it along that path? That's what you're saying when you tell me that the horizon blocks it: that the light that would have otherwise reached your eyes was blocked by the horizon AKA the ground far away. It's either a clear line of sight or it isn't. It can't be both at the same time.
From your perspective, it is not a clear line of sight.
An object far enough away gets visually blocked due to how perspective works. Once the horizon has risen to eye level, that is the extent of the range of what you can see, at eye level.
I made this drawing for you to show how your vision gets physically blocked.
https://ibb.co/mhyv2Jt
For that to be the case, something must be blocking it. If there is no physical object blocking your line of sight, then it is a clear line of sight. "Horizon" and "perspective" aren't some magical concepts that allow you to sidestep the laws of physics.
Yes that's how it works on a curved surface, where the ground itself does in fact "rise" to block your view. On a flat surface, that doesn't work. On a flat surface, parallel lines stay parallel. I'm talking about REAL parallel lines here, not your subjective interpretation of what a parallel line is. In your drawing, the lines only intersect because you drew them that way, i.e. NOT PARALLEL.
You seem to think that framing every contentious point through the eyes of a human observer gives you leeway to ignore mathematical realities. As though they can be violated just because your personal perspective disobeys them. This is akin to a baby who thinks he can't be seen by his parents when he covers his eyes. Take the observer out of your analysis and suddenly your model begins to show some very glaring inconsistencies with reality.
There is no difference between visually vs physically blocking. It's the same thing. Take the laser beam and replace it with a taut rope. A rope forming a straight lone from the top of everest to the moon. Explain how that rope can remain a straight line when the moon dips below the horizon. Forget your perspective, there is no observer here. Just a rope.
Distance that we are given from the north pole to the south pole is 12400 miles, so you can times that with two. So the diameter of the known flat earth, is around 24800 miles. While the height of the moon would be at around 3000 miles above the earth. Good luck with the checking.
I'm on mobile now but i did some calculations, i can upload pictures later.
But given those parameters, a person standing anywhere on the south pole (which i understand to be any point in the outer edge of the disc) at sea level, and a moon that is at the opposite side of the disc (~25K miles away from the person) and 3K miles above sea level, the smallest angle possible is about 6.8 degrees, not 0.01.
But that's not necessarily conclusive, we just have to figure out what it would take to obstruct this person's view of the moon in this scenario, since this is the worst case scenario (the furthest a person can be from the moon while still on the flat earth.
So what could block this guy's view of the moon? Well, if he's 6ft tall then any 7ft obstacle could do it, IF right in front of him. In the other extreme, any 3001 mile obstacle could also block his view of the moon, even if said obstacle was at the opposite side of the disc.
So what's the tallest possible obstacle? Mt Everest at 5.5 miles. Doesn't seem like much, and after some math it clearly isn't. Given the scenario above, even mount Everest itself would not be tall enough to block your view of the moon, unless it was within 45 miles of you. In other words, if you are 46 miles away from mt everest, then it won't block your view of the moon, even if the moon was as far away as could be.
Now there could be less tall obstacles than mt everest that could still block your view, provided that they are closer. But still, 45 miles is a very small area. Given these numbers, you could go to any point in the ocean that is 4 miles from any shore, and the moon would always be visible from there (because 45 miles from the shore means Everest is even farther, and you're at sea so there's nothing else out there to obstruct your view). There are hundreds of places that you could visit to test that theory. Thousands.
But even putting all this math aside, I realized that your model would also imply that the moon is always visible from the tallest point on earth. Because there's nothing blocking you. But this is clearly not the case, or at least i don't think you belive that but please tell me if I'm wrong.
Tldr i don't think your model aligns with observable reality.
Your calculations is based on a side view, not from the perspective of the person.
All parallel lines going away from you will converge to a point in the distance, where the ground meets the sky, or appears to. The horizon will rise to eye level at about 3 miles away from you, when standing on the ground. This is how perspective works.
Here is a video of p-brane explaining this to you. Watch it if you want:
THE SUN SETS JUST FINE ON A FLAT EARTH - THE MATHS ARE WRONG perspective
https://youtu.be/W0Gx1vD1CRE
Why are you now bringing perspective into this? Yes there are dozens of concepts that appear to support the flat earth theory on the surface, but you don't get to jump from one to the other as they each fail under scrutiny.
I know how perspective works. Now tell me what could possibly obstruct your line of sight of the moon from atop Everest.