If there's no proof then I have every right to reject it or at the very least, question it.
The problem is that there is proof, and you just reject it without cause.
You have shown you are not willing to accept ANYTHING anyone provides you which shows you are wrong.
If someone provides any evidence that shows you are wrong, you will just dismiss it as fake.
So asking for proof is an exercise in dishonesty.
So why do you continue to do it?
I should reject what I see to be real in favour of something that has no proof to counteract it, other than magical mysteries?
No, you should reject those magical mysteries you foolishly believe in, in favour of something with plenty of evidence to support which you dismiss due to your irrational hatred of it.
Flat seas/waters that can be measured with lasers and levels
You mean water which has been repeatedly observed to be curved, and only consistent with flat when the experimental error is so large that you can't tell the difference.
Curved seas, which clearly show a downwards curve, such as due to the existence of the horizon, and how objects behave near and beyond the horizon, where objects more distant than the horizon are obscured from the bottom up by the horizon and Earth, with more of the object obscured the further away it is; with these distant objects appearing lower, as if they have sunk into the water due to the downwards curve.
Just like the observations of the OP.
You know, those points you are yet to actually address and explain just how it magically works on a FE.
The fact you're flying over water on a clear day and seeing horizon with every forward movement should really tell you that your horizon changes with every millimetre of that movement.
Just like you would expect for a RE.
Your theoretical horizon is just an ongoing convergence of light shades, not any defined line of reality.
And we are not discussing a theoretical horizon. We are discussing a real horizon, the real horizon observed in reality, which is clearly observed a finite distance away.
The fact you are seeing a real horizon instead of just a theoretical one should tell you that you are NOT flying over a flat area, and that instead the surface you are flying over is curved.
What does that mean?
It means you are setting up yet another pathetic strawman to attack the RE.
Other than a round object, that strawman of yours in no way represents the RE model you hate so much.
Again, flat and level are not the same thing.
For your wood plane, that depends on the size of the ball and the size of the plane.
This wood plane is not magically kept flat. Instead it uses the material as a guide.
If you have appropriately scaled, it will follow the curve of the ball.
But the plane in your example isn't remaining level, it is travelling in a straight line.
If you had a plane which magically flew in a straight line, it would go to space in short order.
But back in reality, planes typically fly level, which means they remain roughly the same altitude above Earth and thus follow the curvature.
Stop pretending level and flat are the same thing.
It means you get zero horizon, at all because your Earth would never converge with the sky. It would be sky only.
You have spouted that pathetic lie countless times, and continually refused to justify it.
Again, a simple observation of a ball shows that we would have a horizon on a RE.
Simple math shows that when you are close to the surface, that horizon will appear quite close to eye level.
You are yet to refute any of that. So stop spouting the same pathetic lies.