[AATW]

I don't want to speak for him regarding the reason (as stated before, I have a hunch his views differ from mine). In the EA model, the effect is identical - you could draw the Earth's surface as straight, and your line of sight as curved, but the semantics behind the diagrams would be identical.

Right. Agreed. I suspect his diagram would be different but unless he provides one there's no point in pursuing it. So here's a question, if I may. In the Wiki page about zeteticism it says:

Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out. For example, in questioning the shape of the Earth the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed testing that hypothesis; he skips that step and devises an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth, and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment

https://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism

So what does an observation of a sinking ship tell you? The RE proponent would say "Aha! You see? That demonstrates the sea is curving away from us". But if EA gives you an identical result on a FE then...well now what? The observation doesn't actually tell you anything about the shape of the earth. So what can we conclude from that observation about the shape of the earth?

[Pete Svarrior]

So what can we conclude from that observation about the shape of the earth?

For that observation alone, it would seem to me that the simplest explanation is that the Earth is round. My second choice would be that it's inconclusive, but that requires additional interpretation as you've done above.

[Iceman]

What specifically has Tumeni been wrong about here? I'm starting to see that the issue relates to the differences in what the horizon is perceived as in FE vs. RE, but it shouldn't affect what Tumeni has said.

The start of the whole 'beyond the horizon' talk came after jack stated that the horizon was just the point where we cant see things anymore (oversimplified paraphrase there)

The follow up replies asked what about things that we see that are further than [the RE] horizon.

The implication of Jack's statement is that the horizon, in a FE context, is essentially a 2D plane, where some combination of perspective, angular resolution, air density, EA - whatever.

This is why the examples of sinking ships and city skylines were introduced. If you can only see the upper third of a building, boat mast or other physical features, the RE view is that the lower portion is hidden by the curvature of the earth (the pink line in Pete's version of the diagram). But we still see the upper portion because its tall enough to not be hidden. This means were seeing something we would argue is demonstrably further away than the horizon, which is, for all intents and purposes, a 1-dimensional line on the earth's surface.

Since its viewed as evidence for seeing curvature at ~5 ft of elevation, it's in the right thread here, weve just gone off the rails discussing the wrong aspects of the claims that have been brought forward.

[Pete Svarrior]

What specifically has Tumeni been wrong about here?

It's time to can that angle of discussion. Tumeni tried changing the meaning of the word "beyond" as used in this conversation. The meaning has been clarified again and again and again and again, both with written descriptions and diagrams. Restating it for the 20th time won't help.

It is eminently clear what was meant, despite Tumeni's efforts. It's time to move on.

[jack44556677]

Wow, I feel a bit like urkel.  Did I do that?

... but I/we can see things BEYOND the horizon. How could we do that, if it's at the limit of our vision?

Having read this whole thread, I am still not certain if this is (as pete concludes) a troll or not.  It certainly did spawn a tremendous amount of much ado about nothing - however that happens naturally!  It is not unclear that I meant beyond the horizon AT the horizon, and yet - I still find this question valid - but perhaps I'm getting punkd

Anyhow, I already gave the answer - just the reverse of it.  The line of sight that I described when explaining why you see farther at altitude, is the same line of sight to the distant tall object (just in reverse)!  I will draw a diagram if you still require clarification.