You would need math to back up your argument

In most cases to deal with physics

@AstralSentient so tell me, what's providing the infinite source of energy that allows UA

I'm rather curious

97 its clear he knows nothing about what he is talking about lol

I am simply stating it follows from the equivalence principle as a valid model of local gravity. I originally brought it up because you mentioned GR's predictions in terms flat vs globe earth

You didnt even know what the principle was how can you even bring that up

Then are you asserting that UA is right or wrong?

I don't think the earth is a flat disc accelerating up, so no

In your context

so we all agree gravity is untestable and it doesnt really exist in the way they say it does

Goes back to this btw;
*As a mathematical model it can predict things that align with the globe model
But when it comes to FE it doesn't*

i would love to hear what 97 has to say about bots going over the curve and the palces we can see too far for globe math like chicago from michigan

boats

Perspective for the former and rayleigh scattering plus atmospheric extinction for the latter

Perhaps they could give a refreshed perspective on it, I would like to hear it as well

cause a lot of people in here tell me their is no other reason for the boats disappearing other than they are going over the curve

Could you define perspective further please and how it works in the mentioned scenario?

the farther u look the more information gets squeezed into a smaller place maybe

There are other possibilities no doubt, but each would to be considered on its own merit

Optics

Angular size and resolution are important

Indio made a good vid about it

Ah yes, I recall

so their is other possibilities than the boat is going over a curve ok

Do you think we could get a nice predictable relationship with how ships are obscured by optics vs the globe model to compare to real life observation?

well first of all the water rises up to ur eyesight thats not really happenning

the water is under ur feet

not over ur neck

Maybe

We could test both in principle

Steve Torrence had some models on it

im glad 97 showed up it was a nice change of pace

Hopefully they stick around

Found it;
https://youtu.be/nK-WJwVGh8k

It also can explain in quantified terms why the horizon rises to eye level on a flat plane.

Reduced to these simple relations;
o= d (tan [theta])
d= o / (tan [theta])
d is distance, o is observer height
Top is obstruction bottom is horizon distance

We got something to work from at least

Oh, and theta for angular resolution

Earth is flat lol

no its a gloooobe