...perhaps slightly tilted ever so slightly so that it sees the horizon where the tracks meet...
No cheating. Mirror must be parallel. No tilting "so that it sees the horizon."
Do it. You're an empiricist. Not a "stands to reason" rationalist. Make sure your "stands to reason" approach isn't incorporating a flaw, like trying to tilt the mirror so that it "sees the horizon."
Since these are facts that we all agree with, then I don't believe that this is an experiment that needs to be conducted.
What? We don't agree. Fundamentally, we don't. Perspective doesn't make a light source higher than an object illuminate the bottom of a lower object. Perspective doesn't alter the physical geometry. Perspective is perceptual. You are trying to rationalize a way for perceptual fact to account for a physical impossibility. We can just keep gainsaying each other, or you can demonstrate how you are right. I'd love to see it.
But no tilting of the mirror. That's not demonstrating how perspective is accomplishing the impossible.
There is no controversy with these assertions. We are putting empirical facts together, not hypothetical facts together. If you do see me claim something hypothetical, let me know.
See above.
If you don't tilt the mirror then you won't see the horizon.
Uh, yeah. You don't see it IN THE MIRROR. That's the point. Perspective does not make the higher sun reflect its light on the bottom of lower clouds. The sun has to be actually lower than the clouds.
If the mirror is perfectly horizontal then you will always only see the ground when you look up at it.
That's the problem, isn't it? That's the flaw in explaining the phenomenon as a consequence of perspective. It doesn't work.
Recall that the analogy this comes from was the light reflecting off of the clouds; which can reflect light like mirrors, but are not mirrors positioned perfectly horizontal.
Whoa there, partner. You were the one who interjected the mirror analogy. Now, you see the problem with that and so you want to try to cheat to position the "mirror" in a way that salvages the analogy but violates the explanatory power of "perspective?" I've already given you leniency on allowing that perspective is the reason the sun can reach the horizon at all. Perspective can't do that either but I gave you that one. Now, you want to help perspective even more my tilting the mirror?
The clouds can see the horizon, and can receive its reddish light. Higher clouds will be higher in altitude and will be seeing the sun higher above the horizon where the light isn't as reddish. I don't see where the "needing to be perfectly horizontal" piece comes in.
And I don't understand why you don't understand. What part of the clouds are "seeing" the sun light? The bottom of the clouds, right? Now, you're adding the required element that the bottom of the clouds be inclined toward the sun and THAT'S why they're illuminated that way?
So the picture I posted?
That's happening not because of any perspective rationalization because that cloud ceiling is higher over Ocotillo to the east and then slopes lower as they extend toward the west? If they were horizontal, they wouldn't reflect the sun light, correct? At least not on a flat earth. Is it the tilting and not perspective that explains that phenomenon?
The same reasoning applies if you have a mirror over your head. If it is facing horizontal it will only show the ground. If it is slightly tilted then it will be possible to see a plane in the distance that is much higher in altitude than the mirror. Should that observation be a shock or a mystery? It is none more shocking than seeing a plane apparently below your kitchen ceiling when looking out your kitchen window.
No. That observation wouldn't be a shock. But that's a different explanation from the perspective one you tried to foster here. Requiring that the cloud bottoms be tilted to satisfy the mirror analogy renders perspective void.