Asking people to do experiments over infinite distances is also a diversionary tactic. But I see above you admit you have done no experiments yourself. This is a Religion, Rowbotham is your prophet whose writings cannot be questioned, anything which shows them to be bunk must be wrong.
If you read Earth Not a Globe you will find that Rowbotham does experiment with objects in the distance to come up with his explanation of perspective. Rowbotham explains his perspective here, here and here.
We see that Rowbotham does perform observations and trials on distant objects to come up with his explanations and conclusions accordingly.
So basically your argument is an appeal to authority, something routinely said to be a fallacy on here.
And, worse, your "authority" is someone whose ideas have not been taken seriously by science and who has been rightly been mostly forgotten by history.
His "experiments" are him just saying "this is what I saw" and then doing a little drawing. Laughable.
What experiments have YOU done? You're an empiricist, right? Why are you taking Rowbotham's word for it?
The consistent angular speed and size of the sun can be explained by a globe earth. There is no flat earth explanation for the angular velocity, and the only way to explain the size is to make up some "atmospheric magnification" effect which by amazing coincidence exactly counteracts the increasing distance of the sun and only works on the sun. It's rationalisation.
Rowbotham's perspective model is bunk. If your flat earth sun makes tighter circles in the northern hemisphere summer and bigger ones in the southern hemisphere summer as outlined in the Wiki then it would mean the sun "sets" at a much closer distance in the northern hemisphere than in the southern one. Makes no sense at all. Unless you are going to go with a bi-polar model in which case I have no idea how your sun moves. I doubt you do either.