Tom, you are using two arguments to justify your conclusion.
Argument 1 will be labelled in blue,
argument 2 will be in red.(1)Two lines angled towards each other must touch, that is logically sound, and (2)the lines are seen to touch, which places the concept in reality as well.
...
(2)If they appear to touch, they touch, okay? The human eye can see a single photon in a dark room. That is very good resolution. If the tracks are appearing to merge at a point then it means that black photons are arriving side by side without any gap. There is no "almost" touching. The gap is gone.
Argument 1, by itself, was already shown to be bad logic by my "crossover" example. You are using argument 2 to justify argument 1, which is fine, but that means if there is a problem with argument 2,
both arguments have to be tossed out.
And there most certainly
is a problem argument 2. It assumes we have perfect vision. That is possibly the dumbest assumption I have ever seen anyone make on this website, which is impressive considering the trolls that come by. Do you
really think your eyes are good enough to see any arbitrarily small detail? Can you see a hair from 100 meters away? 1000 meters? 10000000 meters? Lol.
The correct way to determine the angle of the sun is to make our determinations based on reality, not theoretical mathematics which lack a dimension. Take a protractor. When the sun is overhead at noontime the sun is at 90 degrees and at sunset the sun is at 0 degrees. There are your angles for the sun. It's quite simple.
Good grief, are you purposely misunderstanding the point of the question?
Yes, the sun is at 0 degrees at sunset and 90 degrees when directly overhead. Thanks for stating the obvious. The
point is to be able to figure out our distance from the sun based on the sun's height and angle. We can do this easily using trigonometry, or an orthographic diagram. And the angles/distances that we calculate agree with reality for any testable distance. Your only argument is that the math doesn't work (which it does, for testable distances) or that it doesn't work for long distances that are conveniently too long to test.
So, if the math doesn't work, what is the
correct way to determine the distance of the sun based on its angle and height? Or, alternatively, what is the correct way to determine its angle based on its distance and height? The person in the video clearly attempts to do this with his orthographic diagram overlayed with perspective lines. However, his lines seemed arbitrary and his reasoning was vague. So, what is the correct way to do it? Show us. Use these numbers:
Object A is 500 meters away from you on the ground. Object B is 50 meters directly over object A. What is the angle between object A and B from your perspective?