"as the curve of the earth doesn't care if their are mountains, lake, oceans"
The curve creates a "mountain" relative to a straight line plane. That's what you're seeing blocking the bottom of CN Tower.
"You understand, put a bunch of dirt of a ball, still curves about the same, right?"
You have a big eye ball compared to the ball. If your eyeball was the size of a grain of dirt, placing another grain of dirt beside it would block your view. You would be seeing a wall, i.e. 90% "curvature".
But your eyeball is nothing compared to the distances you're observing here, so your comparison is stupid.
The author is just explaining why his calculations are slightly off because he doesn't know the elevation height. Which does matter. You ever been on a mountain with telescope?
"Refraction will artificially make the horizon to appear lower than it is."
Yes, but that doesn't work in your favor. For in reducing the horizon, you elevate the object sitting behind it.
Refraction is literally the only thing that allows us to sneak past a "corner", so to speak. The "corner" is that mountain of water.
More refraction? Sun sets later.
Less refraction? Sun sets earlier.
Likewise, refraction would enable us to see the base of CN Tower better, not worse.
And if the CN tower was moving away from us, then we'd see it longer, thanks to refraction.
Alot of stuff you said, isnt worth response, like when you talk to me like a child who doesn't understand the size of the globe or how eyes work.
Please.
Refraction isn't really at play, and also, wouldn't work like you said.
This is what refraction looks like (do a google image search on "refraction boat")
Occam's razor. If it looks like it's flat, and behaves likes it's flat, it's probably flat. Keep that in mind because the CN tower base disappearing first the observation we expect, based on simple laws of linear perspective.
If I had to guess, I think you have to understand perspective better. How objects move in our vision (or a lens, same thing). It's all around us, but you may be surprised to realize how little thought you put into it. Linear perspective is so obvious it's hard to think about.
As things get father from you, they will collapse into the horizon. This has to be understood or you just won't be able to move forward.
So, the CN tower, or a boat at sea, will "disappear" bottom first, because the bottom is closest to the horizon. Just like if you are top of the tower, you can see all the way across the lake, but when you are at the base of the tower, you cannot. When you are higher, you have a longer optical range, because the horizon is lower in your view.
This is something you can visualise by laying on the a large flat area.
By moving your eyes to the ground, you are simulating a short optical range. Now, have a friend walk away from you, after about 100 feet, you will notice their feet aren't visible.
But when you stand up, you see the ground is flat.
But when you lay down, the principles of linear perspective are much more noticeable because your optical range is much shorter. Your friend isn't walking around the curve of earth, you just need to spend some time thinking about what you are observing.
If you ever took a debate class, you might remember that you don't always get to choose what side you have to argue. And that's where debate preparation matters. You aren't prepared to defend flat earth, so you aren't prepared to debunk it either
On a flat earth, objects don't disappear behind a horizon. If you move away from CN Tower, it would keep getting smaller and smaller. On a spherical earth, the CN tower would start disappearing bottom-up and getting smaller.
Perspectives don't cause things to disappear. The "mountain" growing between you and the CN tower is what is obstructing the view. The "mountain" is the curvature of the Earth.
"after about 100 feet, you will notice their feet aren't visible."
As his feet get smaller it's hard to distinguish them from the ground. Use binoculars, and you will have no problem.
All objects disappear past the visible horizon. It's a law of optics. How can we have a productive conversation of you can't admit basic laws of high school level physics.
Objects will go lower and lower until you cannot see them due to them being too small (but then use long range lense). Or, if it's a very large object, like 60km diameter like the sun and moon, then you can see it as far as your horizontal limit.
If you increase in elevation, then you can witness the sun fade away, dues to Beers law.
Just google, "sun fade away"
Sorry for not addressing the rest of your message, we can, but I think this point is more critical as it's a basic stepping stone in understanding.
A horizon only exists as block in the field of vision. For example, I can't see my neighbors house because of the fence between us. To see the house, I raise my self on a chair, and force the horizon to be LOWER.
On a flat earth, with flat topography, the horizon and the infinite point are the same thing.
Nothing would dip below the horizon, because there is no obstruction.
Perspective does not cause dipping below a horizon.
On a spherical earth we'd expect a "mountain" to form between you and an object you are moving away from. This mountain is the curvature of the eartg. The top of this mountain is called the horizon. As you move away from object, the mountain grows, obscuring the bottom of the object.
The reason I can't see Paris from my house is because of this mountain. Slice this obscuring section off the Earth, and I'll see Paris with a good enough telescope.
The curve creates a "mountain" relative to a straight line plane. That's what you're seeing blocking the bottom of CN Tower.
You have to try to understand that, it's a belief that you were taught. I was taught the same.
When I realised how dogmatic the things I "knew" about the earth and gravity and space, I began to consider the possibility that flat earth's were right.
And I took it seriously for like, 10 minutes, and I got my first A-ha moment. It took hours of research after that, as I had to completely reteach myself about what space is, what that means for evolution. I don't care about bible stuff, btw. Religions are psy ops, like a snowball thrown down a mountain, they started with mal intent, and now, these deceptions take lives of their own in the narrative.
But you can't see that point clearly unless you realise that most of the world is entirely fooled.
Good luck. Understand the basics and come back to me with questions. Ive already gotten out of the indoctrination you are pushing, so, you're wasting your time arguing with me. Science and math proves we can't be on sphere, that means none of the rest of the solor system is possible as everyone currently understands it.
This is bigger than your capacity to image at this stage in your knowledge. If you want to debate prep, you should be the one who confronts the globe theory and I'll defend it with exactly what you'd expect from a globie. I was one. A good one.
Dude. I just told you that object, like clouds, DO squish into the horizon, mathematic law. Please, stop bull shitting.
Then you pull out you long distance lense and you can see the clouds that disappeared past the horizon a moment ago when you only used your eyes.
But you are just repeating yourself, doubling down like youre certain that you are correct, because you're certain flat earth is mumbo jumbo, and ya, look at Google and flat earth, it's a fucking psy op against flat earth.
Look at fake flat earth websites like the flat earth society. Who the fuck makes a fake flat earth society website and why?
Fuck the websites, just use you observations. Learn to see clearly. You will need to do some research, in the right places, but to re not ready for guidance.
Don't waste your time debunking flat earth, try to under the how flat earther debunk the globe
Squishing to horizon is not the same as disappearing bottom up behind it.
"Then you pull out you long distance lense and you can see the clouds that disappeared past the horizon"
Refraction over the horizon. You are seeing the clouds higher than they are hence you can see them.
This is the opposite of what you must demonstrate ... the disappearence of clouds bottom up without using curvature.
On a flat earth those clouds would just become infinitesimally small.
The reason you think objects will disappear behind the horizon, bottom up, is because that is what you see in real life ... on our spherical globe. Since you think the earth is flat, that is what you assume would happen on a flat eaeth. Any experiment would then be evidence of your assumption.
But again, perspective doesn't cause objects to disappear bottom up, it only causes squishing.
The concept of perspective is easily and completely demonstratable on paper. There's no disappearence of anything.
"as the curve of the earth doesn't care if their are mountains, lake, oceans"
The curve creates a "mountain" relative to a straight line plane. That's what you're seeing blocking the bottom of CN Tower.
"You understand, put a bunch of dirt of a ball, still curves about the same, right?"
You have a big eye ball compared to the ball. If your eyeball was the size of a grain of dirt, placing another grain of dirt beside it would block your view. You would be seeing a wall, i.e. 90% "curvature".
But your eyeball is nothing compared to the distances you're observing here, so your comparison is stupid.
The author is just explaining why his calculations are slightly off because he doesn't know the elevation height. Which does matter. You ever been on a mountain with telescope?
"Refraction will artificially make the horizon to appear lower than it is."
Yes, but that doesn't work in your favor. For in reducing the horizon, you elevate the object sitting behind it.
Refraction is literally the only thing that allows us to sneak past a "corner", so to speak. The "corner" is that mountain of water.
More refraction? Sun sets later. Less refraction? Sun sets earlier.
Likewise, refraction would enable us to see the base of CN Tower better, not worse.
And if the CN tower was moving away from us, then we'd see it longer, thanks to refraction.
Alot of stuff you said, isnt worth response, like when you talk to me like a child who doesn't understand the size of the globe or how eyes work. Please.
Refraction isn't really at play, and also, wouldn't work like you said. This is what refraction looks like (do a google image search on "refraction boat")
Occam's razor. If it looks like it's flat, and behaves likes it's flat, it's probably flat. Keep that in mind because the CN tower base disappearing first the observation we expect, based on simple laws of linear perspective.
If I had to guess, I think you have to understand perspective better. How objects move in our vision (or a lens, same thing). It's all around us, but you may be surprised to realize how little thought you put into it. Linear perspective is so obvious it's hard to think about.
As things get father from you, they will collapse into the horizon. This has to be understood or you just won't be able to move forward.
So, the CN tower, or a boat at sea, will "disappear" bottom first, because the bottom is closest to the horizon. Just like if you are top of the tower, you can see all the way across the lake, but when you are at the base of the tower, you cannot. When you are higher, you have a longer optical range, because the horizon is lower in your view.
This is something you can visualise by laying on the a large flat area. By moving your eyes to the ground, you are simulating a short optical range. Now, have a friend walk away from you, after about 100 feet, you will notice their feet aren't visible.
But when you stand up, you see the ground is flat.
But when you lay down, the principles of linear perspective are much more noticeable because your optical range is much shorter. Your friend isn't walking around the curve of earth, you just need to spend some time thinking about what you are observing.
If you ever took a debate class, you might remember that you don't always get to choose what side you have to argue. And that's where debate preparation matters. You aren't prepared to defend flat earth, so you aren't prepared to debunk it either
On a flat earth, objects don't disappear behind a horizon. If you move away from CN Tower, it would keep getting smaller and smaller. On a spherical earth, the CN tower would start disappearing bottom-up and getting smaller.
Perspectives don't cause things to disappear. The "mountain" growing between you and the CN tower is what is obstructing the view. The "mountain" is the curvature of the Earth.
"after about 100 feet, you will notice their feet aren't visible."
As his feet get smaller it's hard to distinguish them from the ground. Use binoculars, and you will have no problem.
All objects disappear past the visible horizon. It's a law of optics. How can we have a productive conversation of you can't admit basic laws of high school level physics.
Objects will go lower and lower until you cannot see them due to them being too small (but then use long range lense). Or, if it's a very large object, like 60km diameter like the sun and moon, then you can see it as far as your horizontal limit.
If you increase in elevation, then you can witness the sun fade away, dues to Beers law.
Just google, "sun fade away"
Sorry for not addressing the rest of your message, we can, but I think this point is more critical as it's a basic stepping stone in understanding.
A horizon only exists as block in the field of vision. For example, I can't see my neighbors house because of the fence between us. To see the house, I raise my self on a chair, and force the horizon to be LOWER.
On a flat earth, with flat topography, the horizon and the infinite point are the same thing.
Nothing would dip below the horizon, because there is no obstruction.
Perspective does not cause dipping below a horizon.
On a spherical earth we'd expect a "mountain" to form between you and an object you are moving away from. This mountain is the curvature of the eartg. The top of this mountain is called the horizon. As you move away from object, the mountain grows, obscuring the bottom of the object.
The reason I can't see Paris from my house is because of this mountain. Slice this obscuring section off the Earth, and I'll see Paris with a good enough telescope.
I love the point you made at the bottom. Use binoculars and the boat that went past the horizon, comes back into view
Flat.
Literally doesn't. You saw a picture of CN Tower already using optical enhacement. There is no return of its base.
You can't see past the mountain of water between you and CN Tower.
Only refraction can help, but it's very slight.
This is a dogmatic statement.
You have to try to understand that, it's a belief that you were taught. I was taught the same.
When I realised how dogmatic the things I "knew" about the earth and gravity and space, I began to consider the possibility that flat earth's were right.
And I took it seriously for like, 10 minutes, and I got my first A-ha moment. It took hours of research after that, as I had to completely reteach myself about what space is, what that means for evolution. I don't care about bible stuff, btw. Religions are psy ops, like a snowball thrown down a mountain, they started with mal intent, and now, these deceptions take lives of their own in the narrative.
But you can't see that point clearly unless you realise that most of the world is entirely fooled.
Good luck. Understand the basics and come back to me with questions. Ive already gotten out of the indoctrination you are pushing, so, you're wasting your time arguing with me. Science and math proves we can't be on sphere, that means none of the rest of the solor system is possible as everyone currently understands it.
This is bigger than your capacity to image at this stage in your knowledge. If you want to debate prep, you should be the one who confronts the globe theory and I'll defend it with exactly what you'd expect from a globie. I was one. A good one.
It's not belief. It's observation.
Perspective doesn't cause dipping below horizon.
If you get far enough away, things get squished into the horizon, which make them hard to see, but they don't disappear below.
This flat earth stuff is just rhetorical mumbo jumbo.
Dude. I just told you that object, like clouds, DO squish into the horizon, mathematic law. Please, stop bull shitting.
Then you pull out you long distance lense and you can see the clouds that disappeared past the horizon a moment ago when you only used your eyes.
But you are just repeating yourself, doubling down like youre certain that you are correct, because you're certain flat earth is mumbo jumbo, and ya, look at Google and flat earth, it's a fucking psy op against flat earth.
Look at fake flat earth websites like the flat earth society. Who the fuck makes a fake flat earth society website and why?
Fuck the websites, just use you observations. Learn to see clearly. You will need to do some research, in the right places, but to re not ready for guidance.
Don't waste your time debunking flat earth, try to under the how flat earther debunk the globe
Squishing to horizon is not the same as disappearing bottom up behind it.
"Then you pull out you long distance lense and you can see the clouds that disappeared past the horizon"
Refraction over the horizon. You are seeing the clouds higher than they are hence you can see them.
This is the opposite of what you must demonstrate ... the disappearence of clouds bottom up without using curvature.
On a flat earth those clouds would just become infinitesimally small.
The reason you think objects will disappear behind the horizon, bottom up, is because that is what you see in real life ... on our spherical globe. Since you think the earth is flat, that is what you assume would happen on a flat eaeth. Any experiment would then be evidence of your assumption.
But again, perspective doesn't cause objects to disappear bottom up, it only causes squishing.
The concept of perspective is easily and completely demonstratable on paper. There's no disappearence of anything.