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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
You only proved Earth is flat to yourself, because your trained rhetoric is circular.