OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:
![](https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)
But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?
Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water. Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Wow...
For your information and for others who might be curious...
The bottom of any object is that which is closest to ground level...
It stands to reason, ipso facto, that portion would appear to sink into the ground as it receded from view due to more dense air at ground level.
Wow is right. Ipso facto I think not.
It all depends on the atmospheric environment that is present. There is looming, sinking, inferior/superior mirages, etc. All of which can cause different optical effects some of which cause the exact opposite of sinking into the ground as it recedes. And in some cases still, there are no optical effects present all. Like a nice crisp sunset that simply slides under the horizon, no sinking due to denser air, just setting completely and rising again at my back some 12 hours later.
![](https://i.imgur.com/unsf6Wm.gif)
So your ipso facto is neither here nor there.
Au contraire...
The air is always more dense at ground level.
You are decidedly incorrect. The air is not always more dense at ground level.
Do a little research and try and get some facts on your side before you pop in with absolutes that are anything but.
Funny, I found absolute bupkus supporting your statement and everything supporting mine.
The air is always more dense at ground level.
As always from you, just your incorrect opinion, never evidence. Try again.
Anybody and everybody can get online and look for any evidence indicating the air is somehow less dense at ground level, including you.
I will save them some time...
There is none.
I made a statement of fact.
My statement is supported by every reference I have ever read.
You got something different?
Pony up.
Further, every object, starting from the bottom, eventually disappears from view, just like I wrote.
Correct, like a sunset. Slipping down beneath the horizon. Then 12 or so hours later, it rises up behind me top first. Go figure. The same doesn't seem to work on a flat plane.
![](https://i.imgur.com/leVAoy4.gif)
Also correct for an object circling high overhead can appear/disappear from view.
You want to post a graphic analysis composed by some jackwagon who thinks he/she possesses the ability to detail the operations of an environment they categorically dismiss as possible; all in the expectation that should be accepted as a gospel rendition of what it would look like?
Sorry Copernicus...not gonna fly...