And you're insane to think they should.  If the diameter of Earth in a photo is 1000 pixels, a satellite would occupy around one one-thousandth of the length of a pixel for a satellite 40 feet in length (and that's a larger satellite; many satellites are a couple feet long or less.

And that's just speaking about length in pixels.  Taking into account height, you're looking at around one one-millionth of the total area of a pixel (i.e. 1/1000 x 1/1000 = 1/1,000,000).

Note: No, the horizon doesn't rise to eye level.  Actually, at any height above h=0, the horizon is never at eye level.  You can calculate, measure, and perceive a line of sight above the horizon.  While flying in a jet liner, for example, the horizon would be about 3 degrees below your line of sight.

Just because you look at the horizon doesn't mean it's at eye level in the way that you're suggesting.  You're just...looking at it, and those 3 degrees won't make much of a perceptual difference.

Several pages back, I did the actual math as to why, for example, you can clearly see the Chicago skyline at a distance of some ~60 miles.  When you take into account the curvature of light at the horizon, only some ~30-something feet of the skyline will be obfuscated by the curvature of the earth.  At a distance of 60 miles, the effect of light's curvature is so great that you can simply pretend a 500 foot-tall building is something like ~6 times it's actual height.  In other words, it's like a 500 foot-tall building is actually 3,000 feet tall, and you're observing that 3000 foot-tall building at a distance of 60 miles, which you would clearly see.

The math used by flat earthers to say "you shouldn't see the skyline at a distance of 60 miles" is flawed as hell as the other factors not taken into account perfectly explain why we see what we see.  Educate yourself, do the math yourself, and be amazed at the round earth.

(For some explanation, light bends about 0.5 degrees of arc at the horizon whereas a 500 foot-tall building occupies only about 0.08 degrees of arc at a distance of 60 miles, or 1/6th as much.  This means you can account for the bending of light by imagining the building is 6 times taller than it is and then calculating how much you would expect to see due to curvature.  For taller buildings which occupy more perceptual scope, it would be less than 6 times; for shorter buildings, it would be more than 6 times.)

Here:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg12645979#msg12645979

I can't enter the premises of the White House without being met by force, either.  Doesn't mean the Earth is flat. I don't know what would possess someone to think that just because you can't go somewhere except under certain circumstances that it necessarily means the earth is flat.  You should see the obvious logical disconnect, there.  The gap is wider than the plane for the flight you can book to actually go there.

But the fact that there are *authorized* flights that will take you directly over and beyond the South Pole creates some serious problems for the flat earth map, wouldn't you agree?  Regular people like you and me do it all the time.

Edit:  A better question you should be asking might be, "Why can I book a flight and travel over and beyond the South Pole if flat earthers claim this is impossible?"

Lmao, oh so this is "confirmed" now?  Hilarious.

Google --> search "fly over Antarctica" --> http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au --> book flight --> fly over South Pole --> lol

This "sophomoric" assumption is sophomoric because you need to know its implications.  Could you enlighten me as to why it's not an issue? 

Makes sense, considering Taiwan is ~2,000 miles closer to Anchorage than Los Angeles on a globe. 

Yes, we regulate cars heavily.  We check for adequate vision, administer written and road tests, impose restrictions for criminals or the disabled, etc.  And we still have tons of DUIs and related accidents/deaths. 

1) A couple pages ago, I did the math showing why we see what we see at the horizon, accounting for both curvature and for the near 0.5 degree arc of light refraction at the horizon.  The vanishing point garbage is nonsense, and easily disproved by a simple picture of a sun setting thousands (millions) of miles behind a ship disappearing over the horizon.

2) At any altitude above the ground, the horizon is *never* at eye-level.  You can calculate, measure, and observe the horizon below eye-level.  I think you're confusing "eye-level" with "looking at the horizon."

3) The horizon is curved at sea-level.  You can measure this; it just looks very flat, and because of earth's size, this is what we expect. It's *not*, however, "perfectly flat."  Again, we can measure this. 

4) The horizon line you see is also not "hundreds of miles."  Not even close.  We can measure this.

The Earth *does* exert more gravitational pull, hence why the Moon is in orbit around the Earth, and why the oceans stay on earth rather than flying towards the Moon or something.  While the oceans don't fly towards the moon, the moon's gravitational pull *does* attract the oceans towards it as it orbits around the Earth.  This creates a little bulge in the ocean that we call the tide.  Why is the bulge small?  As you pointed out, the Earth is far more massive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

I guess if by "hiding" you mean "we've been aware of this for more than 80 years," then I guess.

Here's the thing:  I understand the logic to the idea that you absolutely need to see something for yourself in order to believe it.  But you should also understand the logic behind the requirement for internal consistency of a model in order for that model to be valid in the first place.

Flat earth modeling is done from observations of isolated events, after which explanations are given to these events that completely contradict other explanations; moreover, they (if they're especially ambitious) try to cherry-pick little snippets of physics or mathematics to support their models and either butcher them completely, or fail to synthesize them with all other knowledge of these fields.  This should be evident when the only thing that appears to be a real consensus among all flat earthers is the map.  Everything else is more-or-less up for grabs.

The problem with relying upon simple explanations to our observations is when we can use experiments or concrete mathematics to disprove them.  For example, the simplest explanation to a mirage is that the mirage is actually there, i.e. we see it, therefore it is there.  But mirages are explained through a deeper understanding of light, temperature gradients, angle of perception, etc.  Aiming for a simple explanation is fine, but that explanation must account for all of the data.  In another example, if we were the size of bacteria and were standing on a basketball, the horizon of the basketball would certainly appear flat, but that doesn't make it so.

We have millions upon millions of very, very intelligent people who either study in fields or work in industries relevant to information regarding a spherical earth.   In contrast, we have a few bloggers and YouTubers who virtually never demonstrate through trigonometry, geometry, physics, experimentation, etc., but rather only observation and weak thought-experiments who contend that all of the stuff they don't understand is wrong.  Now *that* should be suspicious!

You don't know a single thing about trigonometry, geometry, mathematics, perspective, line of sight, or anything actually relevant to anything, do you?

Here's what you did, and by now I'm virtually 100% convinced of it:  1)  You heard all of this flat earth crap, 2) you have no background in any of this stuff, so you just heard more and more of it and started to take other flat earthers' word for it, 3) found more and more flat earthers' who also don't have a clue about anything just spewing this easily refutable garbage, and 4) never at any point bothered to research any of it for yourself to find out if it was actually true.  

At 35,000 feet the angular difference to the horizon on a spherical earth is about 3%.  Stop spreading this crap.

In either case, the stars are there.  We know they are there because we have both seen them.  What exactly are you thinking about when you look at that rocket video?  Do you think the stars are no longer there or something?  There's nothing suspicious about this whatsoever.  It's an amateur launching a rocket, and stars aren't captured on video; this is not only what we expect to happen, but it's consistent with all other similar videos in which a large body (e.g. the earth/moon) would reflect enough light so as to wash out the rest of the stars, like if you're standing on the moon.

You're making this up as you go, I understand that.  The Earth has a MyPillow®.

Or...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejection_charge

Edited this:

I'm not sure what your frame of reference is from where you're looking.  Pollution could certainly have an effect, but if you're looking up at the sky from near a streetlight or something, then that streetlight will still cause light pollution even if it's just a single one.  To that extent, it depends how close you are to it.

Did you look at the photos to the right in the "light pollution" link?  Look at the photo comparing a rural town to a metropolis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution

If there was a metropolitan blackout, you would see the stars just fine.  If light pollution didn't exist, you would see all the stars during the daytime (from the sun, not from cities).

As far as satellites, geostationary orbit is 1) about 22,236 miles above earth, and 2) above the equator.  All geostationary satellites orbit in a ring around the equator.  So, not only is this rocket more than 22,000 miles away from those satellites in terms of altitude, it is also x miles away from the equator depending on where this guy was when he launched the rocket.

Again, I ask the question, you expect to see satellites in that video, which are probably ~25,000-30,000 miles away from a moving, wobbly camera, which are so tiny, and whose light would also be washed out from the light pollution of the earth?  Seriously...think about this!

Lmfao, oh yeah dude, I totally need to find a camera that can survive an impact at several times the speed of sound and keep filming.  That totally makes complete sense.

Yes stars emit light, but that light is not going to be registered by the camera when it's being washed out by the light of the Earth which is thousands of times brighter by comparison.  Like I suggested, see how many stars you see around a full moon.  You won't, because the light from the moon washes out the light from the stars.  Or, go near a metropolis and see how many stars you can see with all of the light pollution, and then compare that to when you're out in the country.

You actually expect to see satellites?  Why?  Satellites are tiny little things flying at >17,000 mph in orbit 1.91 mi/s in geostationary orbit.  They occupy such a tiny volume and are flying around so fast (compared to that rocket which is going virtually straight up)...you actually expect to see them? Are you kidding?