SUMMARY SO FAR:
1) In order for there to be FE sunsets, there has to be some "law" of perspective that is different from the one that applies in the RE universe. The RE version of how perspective works is simply that light travels in straight lines - and all practical focussing devices are essentially like pinhole cameras. But in FE, that would prevent the sun from setting.
2) We know (and even Tom agrees) that light travels in straight lines.
3) Tom cannot accept my "pinhole camera" diagram because that would prove that sunsets cannot happen on the Flat Earth...and he cannot allow that to happen.
4) However, that diagram depends on only two things: Both of which we know from FE theory: (A) That the sun is "really" 3000 miles up and 6000 miles away at sunset - so around 30 degrees above the horizon. (B) That light travels in straight lines. Then only this "altered perspective" thing can save the FE.
5) But if we INSIST on knowing how the actual photons travel from the sun to my eye at sunset, then there is a clear problem. If the light does indeed travel in a straight line, then we can clearly demonstrate that there are no sunsets on the FE. The fact that clouds are lit from the underside at sunset backs this up and shows that this cannot be some freaky artifact of the human visual system (and cameras!).
Tom understands that he's screwed. Trust me...he knows this. So he's now got to deny one of the two fundamental premises that we've set forth:
EITHER:
* The sun is NOT 3,000 miles above the Earth
...OR...
* Light does NOT travel in straight lines.
Since he's on record as saying that he believes light travels in straight lines...all he can now do is to deny the altitude of the sun.
However, we all know the FE sun altitude.
So what's left for him? Basically to say that perspective PHYSICALLY moves the sun onto the horizon?!? This seems to kinda be what he's saying. But, no - that can't be the case - because the sun can't be in two places at once. We know for sure that it's vertically overhead 6000 miles away at noon in some other time-zone...so how can it also be PHYSICALLY on the horizon where the sunset is happening? Doesn't make sense. Also, if the sun was PHYSICALLY on the horizon, then it would set fire to the trees and there would be enormous 30 mile-wide East/West scorch marks across the earth!
So Tom is screwed folks.
He is now repeatedly evading the simple question of where the sun PHYSICALLY is located.
This is a VERY simple question - and he's gone at least four posts trying to avoid directly answering it...which must be because he knows he CANNOT say the words: "The sun is physically 3000 miles up at sunset" without triggering a bulletproof rebuttal of the Flat Earth and everything he stands for.
This is the point where the FE'ers are defeated because their leader cannot answer a simple, straight forward question for fear that he'll screw the pooch.
IN MY OPINION: If I were an FE'er...I'd be throwing Tom under the bus - saying: "Tom is wrong...the "electromagnetic accelerator" hypothesis is correct...and light doesn't travel in straight lines."
However, Tom is smart enough to understand that we RE'ers are armed to the teeth with arguments that destroy "electromagnetic accelerator" - it's TOTAL hogwash. That's (presumably) why he dropped it (along with "The Bishop experiment", "The Bishop equation" and "The Bishop constant") in favor of "alternative perspective" ideas.
So - where now FE'ers? I think you've just met your Waterloo.