The ground does rise to eye level. Look at the horizon. The ground there is higher than the ground beneath your feet.
It does rise. Not to eye level, but close enough that it is hard to notice. But there is a measurable dip and that dip increases with altitude.
I never understand why you guys, who say you place so much importance on empirical measurements, don't just do some proper experiments.
There are some instructions here if you want to have a go:
https://www.metabunk.org/a-diy-theodolite-for-measuring-the-dip-of-the-horizon.t8617/And actually, there would actually be a dip even if the earth was flat. Here is a brilliant diagram to show why:
On a spherical earth the curve dips away from you, so you can only see as far as that. That is why the horizon gets further away with height and the angle of dip gets larger. The higher you are the further you can see round the curve.
This diagram is clearly exaggerated, in real life the earth is much bigger and the curve much more subtle which is why the angle is hard to notice - but it is measurable.
On a flat earth the same is true. I've assumed you can only see a finite distance but even if you could see all the way to the edge of the earth you'd still be looking down at an angle because your eye, the ground and the limit of your vision (or "the edge") form a triangle. Again, the higher you are the larger angle that would be.
This is one of those strange flat earth "proofs" because
a) It's not true, and demonstrably not true.
b) A dip of horizon does not prove a flat earth or a globe, you'd get a dip either way.
I think I've finally understood what your fundamental mistake is around all this. You don't understand what the horizon IS.
I'll add this to the growing list of things I've realised you don't understand.
The horizon is simply the line between the earth and the sky. If it was "where perspective lines meet" then it would all merge into a dot.
Why would vertical perspective lines meet and not horizontal ones? .
And if sunset is just perspective lines meeting then you wouldn't see the sun slowly sinking behind the horizon with a consistent angular velocity. If an aircraft goes over your head and away from you it seems to get slower as it gets further away. The sun doesn't, it has a consistent angular velocity because the earth rotates at a consistent speed. And sunset happens quicker the closer to the equator you get for the same reason, that's where the circumference is biggest so that's where the speed is biggest.
When train tracks appear to (note the appear to) merge it is simply a limit of your visual acuity. Things which are close together can become hard to distinguish at a distance. They don't really merge together though and one certainly doesn't appear to sink into the other.
I'll do another diagram about waves blocking things out later but basically, unless the waves are higher than your viewing position then they wouldn't block out anything higher than that. If you're looking out to sea then there is nothing physically blocking out photons from a sun 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high.
If light is coming from the horizon, it is approaching horizontally, and therefore shadows will be created as appropriate.
Correct. For the wrong reason, but you are actually correct. The light is approaching horizontally, hence the long shadows.
Now all you need to do is explain how light from a sun 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high can be doing that. (Spoiler: it can't).
Horizontal means: "parallel to the plane of the horizon; at right angles to the vertical". So light coming at me horizontally is either:
1) Coming from a light source which is physically at the same level of my eye or
2) Bending somehow so it appears to be.
Pick one. Those are the only two options.
Actually it was conventional astronomy sources which made observations such as stars occulting the moon. Rowbotham just quoted them.
“During a partial solar eclipse the sun's outline has many times been seen through the body of the moon. But those who have been taught to believe that the moon is a solid opaque sphere, are ever ready with ‘explanations,’ often of the most inconsistent character, rather than acknowledge the simple fact of semi-transparency. Not only has this been proved by the visibility of the sun's outline through segments, and sometimes the very centre of the moon, but often, at new moon, the outline of the whole, and even the several shades of light on the opposite and illuminated part have been distinctly seen. In other words we are often able to see through the dark side of the moon's body to light on the other side.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham
He's not quoting anyone there. And I thought he was concerned with empirical observations? Here he's what, just taking someone's word for it?
Like all his "proofs", he is just saying "this is what has been observed". That isn't a proof.