lol

Which assumption is disproved exactly?

Card, do you actually understand how perspective works? In a physical sense? Yeah, tracks appear to converge and appear to rise up to eye level. But why? The problem here is that you see a phenomenon and you make faulty assumptions based on your observations, simply because you don't actually understand the phenomenon itself.
We lose resolution at greater distances, so things appear closer and closer together. However, they will ALWAYS maintain their relative position to each other. In other words, the left train track will never appear to cross over the right track. And objects that are above will never appear under the objects that are below. Perspective view cannot make the sun partially sink into the ground, it is optically impossible. There can be no horizon on a flat earth, it defies geometry. If you have an unobstructed line of sight to an object, you will always see it. It may be too small for your eyes to resolve the detail, but it will still be in your field of view.

Light travels in straight lines, so the geometry of optics for a problem like this is very, very simple. If you set up your model and you can draw a straight line from your eye to the potion of the sun that you can't see (the part that's below the ground), then you should be able to see it and your model is wrong.

Another way to convince yourself is binoculars. If you look at your converging tracks through binoculars, you will see them in greater resolution and see that they are still parallel. However, the sun will still be just as "setting", with the exact same percentage of the sun below the ground. If half of the sun has set, no optics no matter how powerful will allow you to see the half that's disappeared. Of course this isn't a good idea to experiment on with the sun (since you'll damage your eyes), but can be easily verified with a setting (or rising) moon. Even a telescope that will allow you to visually explore the moon like you are standing on its surface still won't be able to show you the portion of it that you can't see with your naked eye. Clearly 'perspective' has nothing to do with this.

If your're incapable of understanding and answering the basics of perspective, Why would you think your intellectually honest enough to understand an entire reasoning?

You must first walk before you run you're still crawling.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jan 13 2017 11:38am

means the earth flat

Unbelievably stupid beyond belief, it's kind of funny how desperate you are making conclusion that are just ridiculous while making it clear you dont understand perspective at all.
1. Lower resolution has nothing to do with parallel line appearing to converge and raise up in a depth of field 3d perspective. Way to fool yourself.
2. Of course there is a horizon , but it is your perspective horizon and it appears to rise up to your eye level - is it really up - of course not - is it the curve of the Earth, of course not.
3. Binocular do not extend your depth of field view - they just magnify (zoom in) on the x and y axis field 2 d perspective that are normally too compressed by your vision to make out.
4. When you think the sun has set, it just sky plane horizon is hidden behind your earth plane horizon because it is closer. Light does not travel for infinity and your eyes obey the laws of perspective, not your misunderstandings.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jan 13 2017 12:04pm

It means youre fuckin dumb

so if this were true, would the sun have to shrink as it approaches the horizon? if not why not? is there a model you can post that shows what you're talking about?

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 13 2017 12:29pm