On a globe earth, the horizon should FALL as one ascends. You should have to look lower and lower to see the horizon. This is never observed, at whatever altitude man tries to go. Even airplanes -- the horizon is always at eye level. It never falls down (as it should) in a globe earth situation.

Shouldn't the horizon "fall" as you say on a "flat earth" as well?

Remember, the number of scientists trying to figure out how Flat Earth works is almost non-existent. Just a few laymen (amateurs), really. So having an unresolved mystery, an unanswered question or 100 should NOT be a dealbreaker, logically speaking. It is logical to have many unanswered questions, given the resources, time, and personnel being thrown at this subject at present.

It's also quite likely that a few untrained layman/amateurs are going to come up with a lot of nonsense.

If you don't have some solid data, then how did you come to your conclusion that these few laymen/amateurs are right?

Shouldn't the horizon "fall" as you say on a "flat earth" as well?

It's also quite likely that a few untrained layman/amateurs are going to come up with a lot of nonsense.

If you don't have some solid data, then how did you come to your conclusion that these few laymen/amateurs are right?

No, it should not.

Yes, we have to use our brains and common sense. Even those not trying to deceive will make mistakes. You have to sift.

Don't project. I'm not the dogmatic one. I'm not like the fools who think "The Science is Settled (tm). NASA locuta est. Causa finita est. Science has spoken. The cause is finished." 

I'm just a man who trusts his reason, his knowledge/memory, and the evidence of his own eyes. About COVID, the moon landings, and everything else I experience/learn in this world. And I don't take anything from known liars "on authority".

It's also quite likely that a few untrained layman/amateurs are going to come up with a lot of nonsense.

The nonsense of amateurs is likely orders of magnitude less harmful than the nonsense produced by professionals. 

I'm sure it does lean a little to the side from your point of view as it moves away, but not enough to be visible. You would probably have to get hundreds of miles from the skyscraper before it was leaning so differently from you that its lean would be visible, by which time it would long since have gone out of sight.

Don't be so sure. There are some pretty tall skyscrapers and mountains. And they have been completely visible way further away than they should be. And always pointing straight up, as they should be. Someone should run the math numbers to prove it; I'm not a math guy.

In fact, it *has* to be that way. Before something will scroll completely off the "globe earth", it's going to disappear from the bottom. Something 5,000 feet tall (such things exist!) is going to take a while. And as it disappears, where is it going? Is it being sucked into the earth itself like a missile into a missile silo? No. It's obviously being pulled down, as it were, by the curve. So it should fall backwards away from you as it disappears. You won't notice this backward tilt with a 30 foot boat -- but certainly with a 5,000 foot tall skyscraper or mountain. There are some pretty tall skyscrapers these days, with 100+ stories. And they are exactly perpendicular with the earth surface.

How far away are you supposed to be able to see, on a 8,000 mile radius globe? There should be no exceptions to this.

I don't think this is true. Putting my face near the ground doesn't make it any harder for me to see distant objects. Can you explain why you think it would?

Well no, Tradman has got a point. There's an angle of resolution, if you look at a far away object which is relatively flat, it will be harder to make out with increasing distance. There's a point where you won't see it from a low angle of resolution, but will see it from a high angle.

I made a little demo for how the field of view changes with height. The ball is the viewer, the red object is being looked at. You're exposed to much more of the object when you get higher.

However, this does not prove the Earth is flat. It was just about angle of resolution. If you take a telescope, your angle of resolution will not be a problem anymore. And in practice you don't see across the complete Earth, because the far away parts of the world are always disappearing below the horizon. You can't see the skyscrapers of Manhattan from, say, Lisbon, across the Atlantic in Europe, with a telescope that can resolve details of far away celestial bodies. That makes you think

All of what you are saying proves that the earth is curved ...

Not quite. One could not see much from the mountain as the horizon drops from view at about 3 miles on a globe.  Otherwise, it isn't a globe.  Since it doesn't do that, and one can see for miles from a mountain, we know that earth is not a globe.   

These people who defend globe earth don't even know their own "scientific facts" about the earth's curvature.    On the one hand, they say the "earth is too big" to notice the curve;  on the other hand, using their own calculations, such curvature isn't seen in experiments.  It's quite the con game.

That's because the globe only exists within the sphere of the mind.