Did you see the sun go below the horizon, or did you see the sun intersect the horizon?
If you're looking out to sea on a clear day what you see is the sun slowly dropping in the sky until the bottom of it appears to touch the water and then the disc of the sun slowly sinks behind the horizon.
Now, you can say that "behind" is a rationalisation but in every other experience of observing things, that is what is happening. If you look along the top of a table and someone drops a small ball from above the far edge of the table to below it then you see the ball "set", like a sunset. Rotate the ball above the plane of the table as in your sun model and you will be able to see it all the time, it will just get bigger and smaller.
And note, a table is flat. Sunset doesn't necessarily prove a globe earth, it could occur on a flat earth. But then the sun would be below the plane of the earth and it would be dark everywhere.
Long shadows prove that the sun is physically low in the sky. Shadow length does not depend on perspective.
Please note that the concept of the horizon in perspective isn't the earth. Although the earth might ascend to meet the horizon in the distance, the horizon is not the earth.
I'm interested by this, can you explain this further? Are you saying that the earth extends further than the horizon but you can't see it? I'm not clear how that can be when you get such a sharp horizon line on a clear day.
Look out at the world and notice that perspective lines will meet in the distance. Straight lengths of railroad tracks will eventually seem to meet each other, as an example. The railroad tracks appear to meet a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.
Correct, but I've highlighted the flaw in your thinking. They only appear to meet and they do so because of the limitation in your vision. If you zoom in you will still see a gap between the tracks because there IS a gap between them.
From observations such as the above we can conclude that perspective lines will meet in the finite distance (even if the objects do not physically meet). The sun will therefore eventually meet the horizon, a finite distance away, and not an infinite distance away as predicted by some mathematical models.
Again, appear to. Not actually. All perspective does is make distant objects smaller and distances between them seem shorter. Zooming in will make them more distinct and the gaps apparent. Perspective doesn't make items "merge", but when they are far enough away they will become indistinguishable. That is a limit of your vision. So just like railway tracks if you zoomed in on a sunset you should be able to
just make out the THREE THOUSAND MILE GAP between the earth and the sun.
If you had two railway tracks 3000 miles apart are you suggesting that the gap between them would be indistinguishable at 6000 miles away?
There is no way that perspective can explain the sun intersecting the horizon. And even if you think it can somehow, long shadows at sunset prove that the sun is physically low in the sky. Shadows angle and length depend on the physical relationship between light source and object.
And if it is not crashing into the earth - I agree it isn't - then it must be going below the earth (from your point of view)
On a flat earth that would mean it would then be night everywhere, which is not what we observe.
On a spinning globe it would mean it gets dark where you are but people living further round the curve of the earth would be in daylight which is what we observe.
I don't know why you're still citing Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was translucent and whose proofs are pretty much always "This is what I saw". If a build up of waves is blocking things, I've seen you claim this to explain how distant buildings are occluded by the sea, then how does the "Bishop Experiment" work then? Why are waves not blocking your view of the distant beach? You can't have it both ways.