Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #140 on: December 16, 2017, 05:20:09 AM »
I did not suggest that the railroad tracks physically met. They meet in perspective. Everything merges to perspective at the horizon.

But you have also said that a projectile fired at the horizon at sunset would hit the sun. You bounce between real physical changes and optical illusions as needed to fit your hypothesis.

Pictures like this can't happen unless the sun is actually below the level of the clouds. And no, perspective can't cause that to happen.

http://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/mt-ranier-casting-a-shadow-upward-to-clouds-sky-tacoma-washington.jpg?w=800&h=451
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Offline Roger G

  • *
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #141 on: December 16, 2017, 11:51:12 AM »
I did not suggest that the railroad tracks physically met. They meet in perspective. Everything merges to perspective at the horizon.

What you actually said was 'Lines meet in the distance. This is an empirical observation.' Now you are saying that they don't physically meet, so can I assume that you now agree that lines appearing to meet in perspective is an optical illusion?

You also stated 'Everything merges to perspective at the horizon.'  This is also incorrect as clearly shown in Tom H's sketch. Only smaller objects that the eye can no longer resolve appear to merge in perspective on the horizon. Objects that are much larger and higher will be visible far beyond the smaller objects, true in both flat and spherical earth models. The difference with a flat earth being that large objects such as mountains or large celestial objects would be visible hundreds of miles away, but clearly are not on a spherical earth.

Roger

Offline Ratboy

  • *
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #142 on: December 17, 2017, 07:53:15 PM »
I never claimed that perspective alone caused the sun to go below the horizon. The perspective angles merge in the distance, and photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once. Some of these photons are blocked out since the earth is not perfectly or mathematically flat and there are slight imperfections on the surface, as the perfect lines merge into the non-perfect earth.

Oh...my...god!

Oh...Tom - you're now proclaiming an entirely new FE theory!  Squished-up photons fighting for space!   How exciting!

I love new theories!  So much more to debunk!

Previously you'd told us that light travels in straight lines.  Just one month ago, in https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6710.msg122642#msg122642 you said:

"I have argued in favor of EA in the past when the theory was first proposed, but have since tended to prefer the theory that light travels in straight lines and that perspective is the explanation for why the view of the sun is limited..."



So...if the sun is up THERE...and the undersides of the clouds are lit...then the light cannot have followed the straight line path indicated by the blue line to get there.  It can only have followed something like the orange curve...but Tom says that light travels in straight lines...so WTF?!

In that same thread ("Re: Disproof of FET using refraction." - in which I admitted my error in assuming you were claiming that "refraction" causes sunsets) this exchange took place:

From my understanding in his other threads, 'modified' perspective simply postulates that the vanishing point occurs closer than infinity. He makes this claim (his words, not mine) because - roughly - "The Ancient Greeks never studied perspective theory for long distances, so we have no idea how it works for longer distances or if there is a vanishing point closer than at infinity." Essentially from what I've seen, he claims the horizon is due to the point at which perspective makes all lines converge into one point, and going past that somehow can make the sun appear to go behind something it's above.

Yes, this is a general summary of the argument.  The perspective lines meet at a finite distance, not an infinite distance as described by the Ancient Greeks. This describes why the sun appears to descent and meet the horizon a finite distance away, as opposed to an infinite distance away.

As for why the sun disappears from the bottom up, the explanation is that the perspective lines are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect, and there will be an area upon which something can disappear behind. It is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe that the sunset takes longer when the seas are calm compared to when they are more disturbed.

Now you're saying "I never claimed that perspective alone caused the sun to go below the horizon."...and reading CAREFULLY, you didn't say that perspective alone caused it to go BELOW the horizon...but you clearly are saying that there is also something about the earth being imperfect...um...OK...kinda.

But this phenomena of clouds being lit from below happens before the sun goes BELOW the horizon...so that's no excuse.

"The perspective angles merge in the distance, and photons from that area are increasingly trying to occupy the same space at once."

Oh boy...this is premium-grade FE bullshit!

What happens with perspective?  Well, light from widely separated points is focussed onto the retina of your eye.  Those rays of light only "merge" in the back of your eyeball...they aren't merging out someplace on the horizon!  You have that entirely backwards.  (Which probably explains why you keep failing to understand to my "Pinhole camera" diagrams...)

So any "crowding of photons" (sorry - there are physicists rolling on the floor laughing at that one!) happens inside your eye...not on the underside of a cloud or someplace out at the horizon.

Really - you'd be able to understand how light works if you concentrated only on the paths that the rays of light take - from their source - to whatever they illuminate - and from there to our eyes.

The light from the sun (which is 30 degrees up in the sky in FE reality) - have to reach the UNDERSIDE of that cloud - without bending (because you agree that doesn't happen).

HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?
I had not seen this diagram used before I drew mine.  It is pure coincidence (except that the distance makes practical sense) that I used 6000 miles for the distance to the point directly under the sun.  But in order for the angle to work, my sun has to be 20 miles up in a FE.  I am talking about my thread called "What I have seen" which is getting no debate and I am jealous. 
I see here that a claim is made that you can see farther if you go higher.  That would in part explain why I could see the sun when I went 3 miles farther and 50 feet higher.  However, other people that were lower than me could see the sun when they were out on the arctic ice and there was nothing to block the near zero degree angle of the sun.  When you have not seen the sun for months, it is a big deal and people pay attention to times and days when they can catch a glimpse.

Hmmm

Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #143 on: December 17, 2017, 08:24:33 PM »
Ratboy, i wrote a frenzy post about this:
"Sunshine on bottom of clouds" topic

Offline Ratboy

  • *
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #144 on: December 17, 2017, 09:18:03 PM »
Ratboy, i wrote a frenzy post about this:
"Sunshine on bottom of clouds" topic
People can believe that nothing is real, but every time I drop a hammer on my toe it hurts whether I believe it to be real or not.  If it hurts sometimes and does not hurt other times, I would be more inclined to believe it is all an illusion.  If I stare at the sun, I believe I will lose my sight. I am not going to risk it all being an illusion.  If I drive over this bridge with my car, it will hold me up, unless it is a government plot.  I chose to trust the government enough to cross the river. That is where I come from.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #145 on: December 17, 2017, 10:33:08 PM »
If I stare at the sun, I believe I will lose my sight.
I believe you would too, and so does the woman who suffered permanent damage to her eyesight by failing to heed the warnings about eclipse viewing:


Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Offline Roger G

  • *
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #146 on: December 17, 2017, 10:43:21 PM »
There are some fantastic and innovative theories being put forward for the sun shining on the bottom of clouds. They range from nanorobots, reflections from the sea, magic perspective, bending light etc. However I have one simplistic theory that explains the sun seeming to disappear at sunset and cast light on the bottom of the clouds. At the risk of being called stupid and suffering massive humiliation, I'll say it quietly, I feel that the answer could be that the earth is just a globe like the other planets and is rotating at 1 revolution per day.  :o

Roger

Hmmm

Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #147 on: December 17, 2017, 10:51:07 PM »


Rounder, wow, it looks both beautiful and a little scary! :o
Although i will disagree with you: i think there are people out there who can safely look at the eclipse with their naked eyes, and i think blindness from the eclipse depends on an individual self.
Yes, i could be totally wrong, but this is what i believe right now!


Roger G, how about an idea that the Earth is a spheroid but at a larger scale + continents of the Earth could be shaped differently and have different locations and scale, rather than we've been taught??
« Last Edit: December 17, 2017, 11:24:59 PM by Hmmm »

Offline Roger G

  • *
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #148 on: December 18, 2017, 01:29:00 AM »

Roger G, how about an idea that the Earth is a spheroid but at a larger scale + continents of the Earth could be shaped differently and have different locations and scale, rather than we've been taught??

Well it's an idea but why do you feel they need to be shaped differently or at a larger scale? Centuries of mapping, navigation and recently gps plotting all seem to work well to give precise locations, why would you think that things may be different?

Roger

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #149 on: December 18, 2017, 02:03:52 AM »
Although i will disagree with you: i think there are people out there who can safely look at the eclipse with their naked eyes, and i think blindness from the eclipse depends on an individual self.
Yes, i could be totally wrong, but this is what i believe right now!

Based on what?
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #150 on: December 18, 2017, 06:50:01 AM »

If you guys cannot show this then there is no reason to assume that perspective adheres to Euclid's ancient mathematical model.

What is the reason to assume that perspective adheres to your non-mathematical model?

Euclid's model works in all ways we can observe, so you retreat to observations that cannot be made like examining parallel lines at infinity. Your model works in no ways we can observe, and you can only speculate that it works as you say it does.

*

Offline Havonii

  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Rhythm of the Universe
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #151 on: December 20, 2017, 02:01:24 AM »

If you guys cannot show this then there is no reason to assume that perspective adheres to Euclid's ancient mathematical model.

What is the reason to assume that perspective adheres to your non-mathematical model?

Euclid's model works in all ways we can observe, so you retreat to observations that cannot be made like examining parallel lines at infinity. Your model works in no ways we can observe, and you can only speculate that it works as you say it does.

And we can't forget the Law of Observation - our mere presence in observing the universe changes the way it behaves and is perceived.

Atoms and particles are all possibility until we look at them. What if the Earth is actually infinitely stretched in all directions, as the atoms take the attributes of waves?, but as soon as we observe the Earth it appears to us as a single possibility, as we see it, and becomes round again?

*

Offline Wise as Anything

  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • I’ve been all around the world
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #152 on: December 20, 2017, 04:02:49 AM »
Explain how a sun 3000 miles up can cast a shadow of Mt Rainer onto a layer of clouds?? This mean the light HAS to be BELOW the level of the mountain. Try to create a shadow on your ceiling with a light shining down or even level - you can not do it without angling the light source up.



This is proof! Can we put the matter to rest?

As we have discussed in this thread, the sunset creates a band of darkness which originates from the horizon. If the sun is at the horizon at sea level in that picture, it is looking up at the mountain in the foreground, and therefore a shadow is created.

As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.

The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

You can learn more about how perspective works by reading Earth Not a Globe.

No, a lamp post that is taller than your hand can never be looking up at your hand no matter how far off into the distance it is. This is truly mind boggling logic. Reminds me of something I read in a Harry Potter book.

Are you suggesting that the lamp post on the horizon has in fact gotten smaller due to its distance from you? If this is the case, what would happen to a man who happens to be standing beside that post? I ask this because he will not observe himself shrinking as he walks away from you, however, according to this theory, I will see him shrink and he will be looking up at me.

Can I get a definitive answer to this question: Does perspective literally alter the size of objects according to flat Earth theory?
The calculator doesn't always make 180 degree triangles.

Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #153 on: December 20, 2017, 02:52:09 PM »
Can I get a definitive answer to this question: Does perspective literally alter the size of objects according to flat Earth theory?
I'm hoping we can get a clear and precise answer to this as well. Unfortunately the track record on this is not good. Every time it's brought up Tom swears up and down perspective doesn't alter anything physically. But then you get comments like the one he made above, where it requires a physical alteration of space in order for his statement to be true. This is something we can even measure!

If I lay down on the ground, and my buddy gets up on a table. I can most certainly find a place within 10 feet where I can hold my hand up and out (no higher than 3 feet off the ground as that's how long my arms are) where from my perspective I'm holding my hand above his head (where his head is 10 feet off the ground). Tom claims that my friend has to look 'up' in order to see my hand. How can that be possible? We know this doesn't happen in the real world. FE perspective debunked. Unless I'm missing something here.

*

Offline Tom Haws

  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Not Flat, Round, Ellipsoid, or Geoid. Just Earth.
    • View Profile
    • Tom Haws Interesting Random Discoveries
Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #154 on: December 20, 2017, 03:57:45 PM »
I can most certainly find a place within 10 feet where I can hold my hand up and out (no higher than 3 feet off the ground as that's how long my arms are) where from my perspective I'm holding my hand above his head (where his head is 10 feet off the ground). Tom claims that my friend has to look 'up' in order to see my hand. How can that be possible? We know this doesn't happen in the real world. FE perspective debunked. Unless I'm missing something here.

TB, this sounds crystal clear to me. Is there something we are missing? Lie on the ground. Stretch out your hand "above" your friend on the table. From your perspective, your hand is higher than your friend. Your friend then has to look up to see your hand?
Civil Engineer (professional mapper)

Thanks to Tom Bishop for his courtesy.

No flat map can predict commercial airline flight times among New York, Paris, Cape Town, & Buenos Aires.

The FAQ Sun animation does not work with sundials. And it has the equinox sun set toward Seattle (well N of NW) at my house in Mesa, AZ.

Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #155 on: December 20, 2017, 04:21:58 PM »
I can most certainly find a place within 10 feet where I can hold my hand up and out (no higher than 3 feet off the ground as that's how long my arms are) where from my perspective I'm holding my hand above his head (where his head is 10 feet off the ground). Tom claims that my friend has to look 'up' in order to see my hand. How can that be possible? We know this doesn't happen in the real world. FE perspective debunked. Unless I'm missing something here.

TB, this sounds crystal clear to me. Is there something we are missing? Lie on the ground. Stretch out your hand "above" your friend on the table. From your perspective, your hand is higher than your friend. Your friend then has to look up to see your hand?
So, looking over this again might be missing the 'horizon' bit. But not sure how that makes a difference. Place us 3 miles apart. Distance means I probably only need to go up 2 feet to have my hand 'over' his head. My hand is now 2 feet up compared to his 10 foot high head. How can he possibly need to be looking 'up' to see my hand?

This entire thing is coming back to the theodolite, and the FE requirement that the dip angle doesn't exist. Despite every instrument we have telling us it does. The ONLY thing that claims there isn't one, is EnaG/the human eye, and we have (presently) only the first source to corroborate the second claim. If the horizon doesn't rise to eye level, the entirety of FE perspective is thrown out I think. Anyone on the coast able to attempt to falsify the Theodolite experiment? If a dip angle can be proven to exist, Tom's leg to stand on is thrown out, and perspective cannot function in the way FE needs it to.

*

Offline Havonii

  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Rhythm of the Universe
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #156 on: December 20, 2017, 06:58:55 PM »
I can most certainly find a place within 10 feet where I can hold my hand up and out (no higher than 3 feet off the ground as that's how long my arms are) where from my perspective I'm holding my hand above his head (where his head is 10 feet off the ground). Tom claims that my friend has to look 'up' in order to see my hand. How can that be possible? We know this doesn't happen in the real world. FE perspective debunked. Unless I'm missing something here.

TB, this sounds crystal clear to me. Is there something we are missing? Lie on the ground. Stretch out your hand "above" your friend on the table. From your perspective, your hand is higher than your friend. Your friend then has to look up to see your hand?
So, looking over this again might be missing the 'horizon' bit. But not sure how that makes a difference. Place us 3 miles apart. Distance means I probably only need to go up 2 feet to have my hand 'over' his head. My hand is now 2 feet up compared to his 10 foot high head. How can he possibly need to be looking 'up' to see my hand?

This entire thing is coming back to the theodolite, and the FE requirement that the dip angle doesn't exist. Despite every instrument we have telling us it does. The ONLY thing that claims there isn't one, is EnaG/the human eye, and we have (presently) only the first source to corroborate the second claim. If the horizon doesn't rise to eye level, the entirety of FE perspective is thrown out I think. Anyone on the coast able to attempt to falsify the Theodolite experiment? If a dip angle can be proven to exist, Tom's leg to stand on is thrown out, and perspective cannot function in the way FE needs it to.

But you need to remember, just as Zetetic science is proven wrong in something, does not mean that it gives that theory up, it only means that it will pursue means to correct it that correlate to the main theory- hence only making the the original theory stronger with updated and new theory.

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #157 on: December 20, 2017, 07:22:42 PM »
I can most certainly find a place within 10 feet where I can hold my hand up and out (no higher than 3 feet off the ground as that's how long my arms are) where from my perspective I'm holding my hand above his head (where his head is 10 feet off the ground). Tom claims that my friend has to look 'up' in order to see my hand. How can that be possible? We know this doesn't happen in the real world. FE perspective debunked. Unless I'm missing something here.

TB, this sounds crystal clear to me. Is there something we are missing? Lie on the ground. Stretch out your hand "above" your friend on the table. From your perspective, your hand is higher than your friend. Your friend then has to look up to see your hand?
So, looking over this again might be missing the 'horizon' bit. But not sure how that makes a difference. Place us 3 miles apart. Distance means I probably only need to go up 2 feet to have my hand 'over' his head. My hand is now 2 feet up compared to his 10 foot high head. How can he possibly need to be looking 'up' to see my hand?

This entire thing is coming back to the theodolite, and the FE requirement that the dip angle doesn't exist. Despite every instrument we have telling us it does. The ONLY thing that claims there isn't one, is EnaG/the human eye, and we have (presently) only the first source to corroborate the second claim. If the horizon doesn't rise to eye level, the entirety of FE perspective is thrown out I think. Anyone on the coast able to attempt to falsify the Theodolite experiment? If a dip angle can be proven to exist, Tom's leg to stand on is thrown out, and perspective cannot function in the way FE needs it to.

But you need to remember, just as Zetetic science is proven wrong in something, does not mean that it gives that theory up, it only means that it will pursue means to correct it that correlate to the main theory- hence only making the the original theory stronger with updated and new theory.

you're describing a confirmation bias machine - the 'main theory' that the Earth is flat fails to predict basically everything that can be observed about the shape of the Earth, but it is never given up. each argument against it has an ad hoc rationalization for why it actually does work shut up, and these are all shit as well, but nothing is ever allowed to touch the 'original theory.'

Tom's explanation of 'band of darkness' is shit, doesn't explain the picture at all, and on top of everything else makes no sense. It's an attempt to rationalize a photo that cleanly shows that the Earth is round into a theory that says it is flat, which it is not, so the rationalization is wrong. Proving the rationalization wrong makes the main theory stronger? That's the backfire effect in action, I guess.

*

Offline Havonii

  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Rhythm of the Universe
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #158 on: December 20, 2017, 07:35:19 PM »
Quote
you're describing a confirmation bias machine - the 'main theory' that the Earth is flat fails to predict basically everything that can be observed about the shape of the Earth, but it is never given up. each argument against it has an ad hoc rationalization for why it actually does work shut up, and these are all shit as well, but nothing is ever allowed to touch the 'original theory.'

Tom's explanation of 'band of darkness' is shit, doesn't explain the picture at all, and on top of everything else makes no sense. It's an attempt to rationalize a photo that cleanly shows that the Earth is round into a theory that says it is flat, which it is not, so the rationalization is wrong. Proving the rationalization wrong makes the main theory stronger? That's the backfire effect in action, I guess.

Exactly, the irrational theory and philosophical reasoning for the Flat Earth rhetoric, are why their side is so persistent and unfairly weighed against proper communication  and evidence based explanation.

*

Offline Tom Haws

  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Not Flat, Round, Ellipsoid, or Geoid. Just Earth.
    • View Profile
    • Tom Haws Interesting Random Discoveries
Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #159 on: December 20, 2017, 08:37:52 PM »
I can most certainly find a place within 10 feet where I can hold my hand up and out (no higher than 3 feet off the ground as that's how long my arms are) where from my perspective I'm holding my hand above his head (where his head is 10 feet off the ground). Tom claims that my friend has to look 'up' in order to see my hand. How can that be possible? We know this doesn't happen in the real world. FE perspective debunked. Unless I'm missing something here.

TB, this sounds crystal clear to me. Is there something we are missing? Lie on the ground. Stretch out your hand "above" your friend on the table. From your perspective, your hand is higher than your friend. Your friend then has to look up to see your hand?
So, looking over this again might be missing the 'horizon' bit. But not sure how that makes a difference. Place us 3 miles apart. Distance means I probably only need to go up 2 feet to have my hand 'over' his head. My hand is now 2 feet up compared to his 10 foot high head. How can he possibly need to be looking 'up' to see my hand?

This entire thing is coming back to the theodolite, and the FE requirement that the dip angle doesn't exist. Despite every instrument we have telling us it does. The ONLY thing that claims there isn't one, is EnaG/the human eye, and we have (presently) only the first source to corroborate the second claim. If the horizon doesn't rise to eye level, the entirety of FE perspective is thrown out I think. Anyone on the coast able to attempt to falsify the Theodolite experiment? If a dip angle can be proven to exist, Tom's leg to stand on is thrown out, and perspective cannot function in the way FE needs it to.

But you need to remember, just as Zetetic science is proven wrong in something, does not mean that it gives that theory up, it only means that it will pursue means to correct it that correlate to the main theory- hence only making the the original theory stronger with updated and new theory.

Well put. And it's important to clarify that I, for one, am not here for TB or any other Flat Earther. I am here for the highly suggestible newcomers who need well-reasoned refutations of the FES concoctions.

You are sitting on your porch, watching a plane fly into the distance. The plane is at an altitude of 5,000 feet at all times. Your porch has a 3.5 foot high fence/deck railing along its perimeter. Your house is located just a little above sea level, looking into a flat horizon. As you sit you can see a bright sky above and you can see the horizon below the top level of your deck railing and between the slits.

It is possible for the receding plane to start off overhead, and as time progresses, eventually appear below the top of the 3.5 foot high deck railing as it approaches the horizon. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?

This example above should show how silly the question is; and how the result is clearly due to perspective. You may as well be curious how you can raise your hands above the level of any clouds you see in the distance and be lost in wonder how your 5 foot tall hands can seem to get above clouds which are thousands of feet high in the distance, because this scenario would be as equally confounding, based on your understanding of the world.

TB, I want to go back to this important post of yours. I have a few questions:

1. Which question are you saying is silly?
2. The railing is higher than your eyes, as implied by your saying "you can see the horizon below" it?

Before you answer, I can confirm that any object whatsoever that goes far enough away will be seen below the railing. Even the entire universe, if seen far enough away, would be below that railing if the railing is "above" (toward your forehead from) your eye level. This is due to the contrived positions of your eyes and the railing and the shrinking angle of view that is occupied by receding objects. It's not due to any actual shrinking or deflection of those objects or your line of sight. Do we agree or disagree?
Civil Engineer (professional mapper)

Thanks to Tom Bishop for his courtesy.

No flat map can predict commercial airline flight times among New York, Paris, Cape Town, & Buenos Aires.

The FAQ Sun animation does not work with sundials. And it has the equinox sun set toward Seattle (well N of NW) at my house in Mesa, AZ.