[WellRoundedIndividual]

Tom, we get it. You like perspective. But again, perspective has absolutely nothing to do with the sun's ability to cast a shadow. Physical location of the sun is the only thing that matters. No one, literally no one, in this thread besides you is talking about perspective lines. Stop derailing the thread.

[stack]

Perspective lines meeting is observed. Look at a long straight line of railroad scene. The tracks appear to meet to perspective. There is zero evidence for your infinitely receding perspective lines idea.

Last time I looked, railroad tracks weren't 3000 miles high up in the sky and 32 miles wide.

Perspective is out in this scenario. Literally irrelevant. Dig a little deeper and find something else. In the mean time, a 3000 mile high sun can't magically cast a shadow from a mountain up on to the highest mountain on the planet.

Again, if you would like to diagram how it could on a flat earth, 3000 mile altitude sun, please do so. Looking forward to it.

[AATW]

Perspective lines meeting is observed. Look at a long straight line of railroad scene. The tracks appear to meet to perspective. There is zero evidence for your infinitely receding perspective lines idea.

Again, this is nothing to do with perspective. Shadow angle relies on the physical relationship between the light source and the object which the shadow is cast of.
Please show a diagram demonstrating how you think an object which is physically above you can appear to be below you by perspective.

If "the horizon rises to eye level" (which has shown to be false multiple ways) and the sun "descends to eye level" by perspective (which it doesn't) and they thus merge, causing sunset, then if you're standing on Mount Rainier the shadow would surely be pointing directly behind you, not pointing upwards as in the famous picture.

Or is your claim that the photo only works because it's taken from ground level so from that perspective the sun does appear below the mountain so the shadow points upwards?
If so you are basically claiming that the angle of the shadow depends on where you are, if you're at ground level the sun appears to be below the mountain so the shadow points upwards and hits the clouds and if you're on the mountain then the sun appears level with the top of the mountain so the shadow is directly behind you?
It can't be both, the shadow points where it points.

I'd love to see a diagram of what you think is going on in the famous Rainier photo.

My advice, look into EA more - it has its problems but it works a lot better at explaining certain things than this botched model of perspective does.

[manicminer]

Can I just pop into the mix of this discussion a related question about the Sun.  If FE theorists are so convinced that the Sun is rotating over their Earth 3000 miles above it what is making it rotate and holding it up? And indeed keeping it conveniently fixed above the centre point of the Earth?

[totallackey]

Can I just pop into the mix of this discussion a related question about the Sun.  If FE theorists are so convinced that the Sun is rotating over their Earth 3000 miles above it what is making it rotate and holding it up? And indeed keeping it conveniently fixed above the centre point of the Earth?

Do you mean revolving?

[manicminer]

The Sun is said to be rotating (following a circular path) about a fixed point centric with and above (3000 miles) the centre point of the Earth is it not?   Or have I got that wrong?

[Curious Squirrel]

Can I just pop into the mix of this discussion a related question about the Sun.  If FE theorists are so convinced that the Sun is rotating over their Earth 3000 miles above it what is making it rotate and holding it up? And indeed keeping it conveniently fixed above the centre point of the Earth?

Do you mean revolving?

Means the same thing.

Manic, I believe that is generally regarded as unknown. I'd suspect some put it up to the Aether, and other's attribute it to 'celestial gears'. The most interesting suggestion I've ever seen is the idea there's literal poles coming up out of the North Pole that the moon and sun are on that carry them around.

[manicminer]

So in other words just something completely made up in order to make something else they believe remotely credible. I am surprised totallackey hasn't come back to me yet with an answer after posting so quickly after me asking the question.  Perhaps he has gone away to 'research' it.
 
FE people are very quick to challenge us about providing evidence about everything that challenges the FE theory yet when we ask them to provide the simplest explanations about their ideas, often nothing comes back.

The most interesting suggestion I've ever seen is the idea there's literal poles coming up out of the North Pole that the moon and sun are on that carry them around

Classic example of my point.  So who put this 'pole' there and what makes it rotate, revolve, go round or however I should put it?  In the 21st century the most ridiculous thing in my view is that we are actually discussing such things! Poles stuck in the ground...Really?

Going back to this directional thing with sunlight.   Sunlight doesn't shine 'down' as such. Sunlight is emitted from the Sun into space in all directions. Some of that light happens to travel out into the direction of the Earth.

We live on the surface of the Earth and have arbitrarily called the ground down and the sky up. Since the Sun always appears in the sky above our heads, we say the Sun is shining 'down' on us.  Some of that light is reflected back in to the atmosphere (about 39% overall on average - its called albedo) so some times the clouds are illuminated from their base by reflected sunlight off the surface.   End of.