it's an attributed explanation

based on inductive data

I for example experience a linear downward acceleration

me too

But adding center of mass is the assumption

So the model is asserting two ideas into one

i dont think to call it an assumption is accurate

there is empirical evidence from satellite data

and fact that the horizon moves when you are in a car and you drive

Im coming from an emperical deduction

Thats what this exercise is

have you ever been in a car?

You don't experience a flat earth, you assume it.

You experience a locally relatively flat earth in short distances

saying the globe theory is too small to observe doesn't change the fact that we don't observe it

Is the car moving? Is it doing donuts around a track? Is my head put the window?

i mean going straight

for long distances

preferrably

Yup

have you noticed things far off in the distance you couldn't see before come into view?

because there are hills and buildings

Thats because all objects at sharp angles form into a horizon and the angle between the top and bottom of objects are not the same

Then you have obtical effects and other factors

that sounds similar, hills and buildings are larger in angle when close up

and yeah

have you noticed that objects far away near the horizon become much lower from the horizon when you get close to it?

it's not very noticeable, it supposedly happens

but there must be refraction whether it's flat or globe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyN5aLRnZ-E

here, an 8 hour long car drive

going pretty straight

you can see that objects in the horizon get closer

Refraction tends to bend down unless there are heat waves or humidity that can cause heavy miraging

what causes the refraction?

dielectric responses in materials/air

The standard refraction model basically mimics angular resolution

is the sun above or inside the atmosphere?

What causes refraction? A change in medium

from which medium to which medium?

it can be a continuously changing medium