You have a point, those can be used as ill defined, unsubstantiated, and misapplied excuses to explain away observations of convex curve.
If they were anything scientific in this context, they could be accounted for, because they would be quantified and well explained. But instead, they are just after the fact ad hoc additions each time, so you dismiss optical observations altogether (pseudoscience alert!).

But to be serious, those aren't problems because the onus is on the flatties to demonstrate that these are variables interfering with what we see. While observational fact shows convexity to the earth that doesn't need a hypothetical to explain.

no the optical observations are illusions at the horizon clearly that has been displayed by the boat thing or us seeing too far

😆

@jeremy

2 questions yes or no 1. when u look out at the ocean do you observe the water rising above ur feet to be at your eyeline 2. is the water really going higher than ur feet above ur eyeline

yes or no

to both please

I think my drawing depicts it good enough to explain this effect and how it reflects physical reality

ok but answer my 2 questions please

they are simple easy to answer

1. It appears to rise towards your eyeline, yes.
2. No.

ok so our first observation when we look out at the sea does not match reality

im glad u agree

idk what u were arguing about

its like pulling teeth with u sometimes lol

My drawing proves otherwise, I show an observer looking up the farther the ground extends out while it remains below their feet

Perspective, simple,

whoa ur saying our observation of the water going above our feet to meet our eyeline is correct and matches what is really h apenning ?

Yes, because of angles relative to the observer. Pay close attention to my above image.
So your point isn't really going to stand.

<:CHECK6:403540120181145611> @Vorka has been warned
```
reason: Bad word usage
```

the earth is a dinosaur

so ur saying we observe the ocean rising to our eyeline but the water isnt really going to our eyeline but the observation matches reality your contradicting yourself

what ur saying doesnt make sense

to me

Of course the observation matches reality, like my image depicts. The lines going from the stick person are the line of sight. At farther distances, the lines of sight move up in order to touch the ground further away, so they have to look up further to see the more distant ground. That means an observer will see the ground visually appear to rise. It reflects physical reality.

It is basic fact of visualizing 3D space, perspective

STFU DUMBPASS YOURE WRONG SHUT UP

we observe the water higher than our feet at our eyeline ur saying in reality the water is higher than our feet at our eyeline

their is only 2 options here the water is or isnt higher than our feet

i know why ur dancing around this but im done

!mute @Vorka

<:CHECK6:403540120181145611> **Vorka#4113** was muted
```
reason: Unspecified
```

citizen when we observe the water at the ocean going above our feet up to our eyeline does that observation match reality

is the water really going up higher than our feet when we look out

of course not so would u say that observation matches reality

good point

so right off the rip before we start talking about boats or distant skylines our first observation when we look out to sea doesnt match reality

they cherry pick what is real and what is an illusion when it comes to looking out to sea

we see too far its an illusion we see a boat go over the curve reality this guys trying to tell me the observation of us seeing the water go higher than our feet up to our eyeline is reality

I literally proved how it is possible and a necessary consequence in physical reality.
I guess you are going to ignore it...

u can try to muddy the waters but the simple fact is the observation doesnt match reality