Okay so basic trig and spatial recognition

We agree on the formula to calculate the rate at which the surface should curve; there’s no disagreement there, as there’s plenty of calculators online available to do exactly that

So my big issue with it is I can go see for myself with my own eyes that I can see distant objects that are too far

I’ve seen the videos of the refraction due to temperature and it does distort the image to the observer, matching up with my decades of lived experience, but despite the minor refractions it isn’t remotely close enough to explain the observed evidence

Lines of perspective on a planar surface

Inverse square law

We use “their own math” to disprove the existence of surface curvature and this is where I’m struggling to figure out how this part is difficult

People say “check the math” and so we did, and that made us flat earthers

I hope it's at least clear that I'm earnestly looking for the truth and that maintaining the integrity of our communities is important to me, and I wouldn't want to deter people with well poisoning nonsense on purpose

Okay so basic trig and spatial recognition

We agree on the formula to calculate the rate at which the surface should curve; there’s no disagreement there as there’s plenty of calculators online available to do exactly that

So my big issue with it is I can go see for myself with my own eyes that I can see distant objects that are too far

I’ve seen the videos of the refraction due to temperature and it does distort the image to the observer, matching up with my decades of loved experience, it despite the minor refractions it isn’t remotely close enough to explain the observed evidence

Lines of perspective on a planar surface

Inverse square law

We use “their own math” to disprove the existence of surface curvature and this is where I’m struggling to figure out how this part is difficult

People say “check the math” and so we did, and that made us flat earthers