I think I have what I need to disprove it now

You cant disprove it

Its the way it works

<:lul:484994724118134784>

Ok then let's do the math

The given information is two separate facts that you have given thus far

First, the angle between the top of the object and the bottom needs to be less than 0.02 degrees in order for it to be unresolvable

No it is .02 degrees

Second, objects disappear from view at a distance of three miles

I said objects 5 feet high disappear

That's fine

Equal or less than

A 6 foot man at 3 miles you would still see his head

Mmhmm

His legs and body would blend in with the horizon

Gibson_1952_The_perceived_slant_of_visual_surfaces--optical_and_geographical.pdf

Fair enough

Gibson_1952_The_perceived_slant_of_visual_surfaces--optical_and_geographical.pdf

This guy was a globe earther im pretty sure but knew how optics worked

Hold on bud I'm not finished yet

You have to debunk james gibson

So we would have something like this?

Not me

With 15840 feet equal to three miles

And the eye level of the observer at 6 ft

I dunno what you are trying to work out

Observer 5 feet

Fine I'll change it

Observer 5 feet. 15000 feet..5 feet gone

Ok but this is the information that was given, yea?

Thats with 20/20 vision

🤔

The object would be gone from view at three miles away

We good so far?

Thats what it seems to be when tested at the beach

Ok I'll keep going then

At about 3 miles 5 foot objects are gone

K keep goin. Dont forget to read James gibson

Gnite

Ok just a sec I'm doing the math