I can’t say I really understand how it would work on a flat earth, but I’ll take the flat earth claim that the horizon always stays level to the eye as truth, only because I know that should not be the case on a sphere. So it ought to at least be a discriminator between a surface that curves away from the observer and one that doesn’t.
The way it would work on a flat earth is that tan(angle)=(Distance from observer to edge of earth)/(Height of observer)
As you can see, the angle would greatley depend on how close the observer is to the edge of the earth and obviously the size of the flat earth. Since there are no estimates as to the diameter of the flat earth, calculation stops here im afraid.
That's not how Samuel Rowbotham explains it (or how his disciples understand it). The best I can make out is this conventional flat earth explanation is that the horizon is an apparent one; one of perception. It's not a geometric calculation of surface shapes and sight lines. Somehow, the ground plane rises and all planes above eye level descend, meeting at an apparent vanishing point/line, the distance of which is contingent on height above the ground plane, and resolution of the image receptor (eye, camera, telescope)...all merging in something called a convergence zone of atmospheric effects and obscurants. In other words, the horizon isn't an actual calculated line. It just is, and depends on the observer and anything that might be blocking.
I don't know. That's the best I can do. But I do know that trying to explain it geometrically isn't how the flat earth defense does it.
Yes, had a look at Rowbothans theory, one primary problem is that he requires light rays to bend. Now this can happen at the boundary of two different types of material with a differing refractive index but the light ray leaving the horizon only passes through air so I think his theory needs to be revised. Because the light ray cant be bent sufficiently that means geometry can and should be used in calculation. The refractive index of air only varies between 2.5 - 2.85 at the earths most extreme temperatures. It is orders of magnitude too small with even the assumption of the most ridiculous temperature gradients.
Quote from 9 out of 10 doctors
jimbob is the best person on this site. No, seriously, jimbob is why I stay on this site. I was going to say Tom is, but OK