"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.

"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.

And if the CN tower was moving away from us, then we'd see it longer, thanks to refraction.

"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 at the horizon.

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.

And if the CN tower was moving away from us, then we'd see it longer, thanks to refraction.

"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 at the horizon.

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.

And if the CN tower was moving away from us, then we'd see it longer, thanks to refraction.

"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. If your eye was the size of a grain, placing another grain beside it would block your view.

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."

False. It will do the opposite. The viewed height would be higher than actual height.

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.

You got it 100% backwards.

"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. If your eye was the size of a grain, placing another grain beside it would block your view.

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."

False. It will do the opposite. The viewed height would be higher than actual height.

Refraction is literally the only thing that allows us to sneak past a "corner", so to speak.

More refraction? Sun sets later. Less refraction? Sun sets earlier.