Uh-oh Spaghetti-O.
He is doing the exact same thing that we have been doing here. The exact same thing you are so desperate to denounce.
1. Measure the altitude (angle) of the sun from a first person perspective.
2. Draw a side view diagram of the measured angles.
3. Measure the distances in the side view diagram. (Or just calculate them with math. Both will give the same answer.)
Sometimes we reverse the process, and go from distance to angle, instead of angle to distance. We can do it either way though. Both ways prove the absurdity of a 3000 mile high sun. (Or less than 700 miles, according to Rowbotham.)
We've already established that the angles in a side view are different than the angles that are observed. Recall this image where the angles changed when they were turned:
Remember that? The angles changed from 41 degrees, to 51 degrees, to 71 degrees, as well as changed in height. Then in the second image you provided the angles stayed the same between orientations. How is it that the angles change in the first image, but not in the second? See below:
How is this possible? In the side view orientation the angles are 11 degrees, 14 degrees, and 20 degrees, and in the first person view the angles are 11 degrees, 14 degrees, and 20 degrees.
You obviously got it completely wrong, and are missing something, such as certain elements of perspective, when you translated the scene.
Goodness, you are super confused about this subject. The first person perspective of the angle is not even illustrated in the first image. In Rowbotham's example, the angle does not change between the first person perspective and the side view either.
Rowbotham is taking the first person angles (which are not the same as the side view angles, remember)
Except they ARE the same angle in Rowbotham's diagram. Read it and weep.
and illustrating those collected angles on paper, working solely with those values in a non-hypothetical side view.
BY DRAWING A SIDE VIEW DIAGRAM, WHICH HAS THE EXACT SAME ANGLES AS MEASURED FROM THE FIRST PERSON PERSPECTIVE. You literally JUST argued that the angles should be different in this same post. Did you not notice that the angles Rowbotham draws in his side view are the same angles he measured from the first person perspective?
This is not the same as illustrating hypothetical side view angles from the start and forcing it into a half-thought-out first person view. The angles Rowbotham collected and represented are, in fact, much more empirical, as they are more directly correlated to reality.
Normally, we have been starting with the hypothetical distances (according to the flat earth model), calculating the expected angle, and then comparing that with the measured angle. This is the reverse of what Rowbotham is doing, but we can just as easily do it in the same order as Rowbotham, if you think it will make a difference. Here you go:
Yesterday, the sun made an angle of 1 degree with the horizon just before sunset. This is the same type of
measurable, first person perspective angle that Rowbotham starts out with. (It actually got even smaller than that, obviously, but we will start with 1 degree.) We will also assume that the sun is 3000 miles high, like in the flat earth model. From there, we can calculate the distance to the sun. We can draw a side view diagram like Rowbotham, or just use trigonometry. Both give the same answer.
3000 miles / tan(1 degree) = 172,000 miles. So apparently, if the sun is indeed 3000 miles high, it should also be 172,000 miles away when it is only 1 degree from the horizon. This is WAAAAY bigger than the earth. Therefore, the sun probably isn't 3000 miles high. This is the EXACT same process that Rowbotham uses, in the EXACT same order.
By all means, continue arguing. It is quite entertaining to watch you desperately defend Rowbotham and denounce us at the same time, when we are using the EXACT same process. I can only imagine how uncomfortable the cognitive dissonance must be getting.