Sorry, but I was already working on this before you posted, so it isn't responsive to that last post.
But here are my numbers, with a 3D modeling of what I think is the DET mechanism from projection of the sun over the earth:
I'll let you absorb that for a bit. I'm taking information from timeanddate.com for the location of the sun over earth at my time of sunrise, solar noon and sunset today (7/28/2018). And distances to those points come from Google. The elevation of the sun at solar noon is from Stellarium. And the relative bearing (azimuth) is manual measured on the bearing lines to sunrise and sunset on the north polar equidistant azimuthal map I used for the northern hemiplane.
I calculated the height of the sun based on the distance to its zenith at my solar noon and the elevation angle of the sun at that point from my location.
As the spotlight rotates clockwise from solar noon to sunset, that sun projection will move westward, with slant distance increasing as the azimuth also changes CW. At sunset, the ground distance from me to sun's zenith calculates to around 6200 miles and with sun appearing to set on a map-measured 313° bearing line.
So, despite actually being 3900-4000 miles above the earth, the sun (you say) will appear to intersect with the earth due to Perspective because the distance (6200 miles) is so great. This, even though astronomically (via trig calculation) the angle of sun elevation should be 32°. The difference between 0° and 32° is too great for "Perspective" to overcome as an explanatory too.
The measured azimuths of sunrise and sunset are off too from predicted/observed. Sunrises are now happening in San Diego in the mid-60s degrees azimuth and sunsets approaching 290°, not 42° and 313° respectively. My manual measurements can't be more than 3-5° margin for error.
Too many things are off. Is it the map? Is it the distances provided by Google? The zenith locations of the sun from TimeandDate? The angle of elevation at solar noon of the sun by Stellarium? Am I missing something about DET that makes straight line paths for space on/above the hemiplane or Euclidean geometry for calculating angles and distance flawed? I apprehend (if not comprehend) that's there's a flow of space (aether) occuring, but it's not impacting our ability to measure and observe from locations on the earth's surface to the projections on the dome, is it? We all share the same reference frame and can agree on time/space dimensions within the boundaries of the dome and the earth's surface, correct?
This is my problem. I get the notion of the spotlight sun rotating and how that is projected above us to present a sun that circles above the earth. But it ultimately has the same geometry problems of the TFES "orthodox" flat earth model in that it doesn't present a sun (or moon) that I can watch and compare with others, or that's been modeled and patterned for years, including reliable tools like TimeandDate, Stellarium, etc. I've never caught any of these in a mistake.
How a celestial body many miles above a flat earth can ever decline to a 0 degree elevation within the confines of the distances of that flat earth is beyond me, and "distance" due to perspective doesn't work as an explanation. You'd need
millions (
oops; exaggeration) hundreds of thousands of miles of distance to work the sun down to an angular elevation of 1°. It can't reach the "vanishing point" on a horizon without some other "bendy light" kind of explanation.
And if the sun IS at 20-30° above the horizon, but it's just out of view because it's spot light has rotated away, its projection should still be angled in a such a way that I should be able to see it in the distance, with enough magnification and assuming no extinction, diffusion or opaqueness in the atmoplane.
I think the numbers are critical to testing the model, else you're just making assertions that unverifiable. It makes no sense to me that the rotation of a spot light sun is simultaneously the reason for the sun appearing to set behind a horizon line AND for the light pattern of the spot to pass away from a vantage point. Those two aspects do not coincide logically to me, nor if I try to visualize it in a model.