I don't understand why you're trying to mix EAT with the theory it's directly opposing. Would you care to clarify what you're trying to achieve by this?
Why? I asked you to elaborate on your low-content "no" post and you ignored it.
But okay. I'm not trying to mix anything. I'm trying to integrate what I'm reading and hearing from all of you into something that makes sense. I've spent more time than I am comfortable admitting trying to verify that the horizon is always at eye-level. It's in your wiki. Not one flat earth proponent has stepped forward to say "yeah, I see your point." So it seems rather axiomatic for flat earth that the horizon rises to eye level, does it not?
But now, I'm not supposed to consider it fundamental to flat earth when considering the plausibility of EA as an explanation for the appearance of the angle of the sun above the horizon?
Besides, that was for Tom who DOES try to have his Rowbotham perspective/eye-level horizon cake and EAT it too. (see what I did there?) He's mixing them, so take it up with him. Don't act condescendingly confused if I point out the disparity.
Also, while it's no secret that I disagree with Tom most of the time, Parsifal and I are saying exactly the same things, just approaching the subject from slightly different perspectives. Your confusion stems from the fact that you fail to adjust for *all* light curving.
You are, eh?
When I posted this, which was derivative of one Parsifal posted:
You, when asked how you would fix it, said "The dotted line would overlap the solid line, and the Sun would appear to be exactly where it is."
That's not even what Parsifal is saying. And when I said
this diagram was being used to depict why the sun appears not "exactly where it is" but lower and lower on the horizon, you simply said, "no." I don't even know if you know what you're agreeing with.
You've got both EAT and Horizon at Eye Level on your wiki. If they are contradictory, perhaps it would make sense to clarify that rather than present them as potentially compatible and get pissy when critics interpret it that way.
Now that I understand where Parsifal is coming from, and that he is refuting Tom Bishop, I can "fix" the diagram:
So now, the dotted lines are where we perceive the sun and the horizon, but they aren't really there. The sun is always high on its plane and the horizon doesn't actually dip. They just look the way they do because of curving light.
Yikes.