At sunset the light rays travel from the horizon to the observer.
Nobody denies that - we all see it happen with our own eyes every day.
I *REALLY* do want to understand what you're trying to convey - and it's not happening.
OK - let's forget all of my diagrams - let's just use words and start with the simplest question of all. The scenario is thus:
STEP 1: A photon (a small packet of light)
undeniably leaves the Sun. Which FET says is around 3,000 miles above the ground...someplace...I don't even care where that is for now.
STEP 2: It travels rapidly to some other part of the world where there is currently a sunset happening...
undeniably.
STEP 3: Finally,
undeniably the photon smacks into either a building, a tree or rock or...whatever.
It seems that none of these three things can be denied...right? If you DO wish to deny one of them, please tell us which one is incorrect and we can discuss that point until I understand what you're trying to explain to me.
So all I'm asking is for someone to tell me the route the photon took from point A (the Sun) to point B (it's ultimate destination).
That's it!
If the photon travels in a straight line between point A and point B - that's good, we agree. But if perspective is bending the path of the photon - bouncing the light off of the stratosphere, folding the light beam - tying the light into pretzels - that's fine - just tell me the path the photon traveled along to get from the sun to the point where it lights something up. If you truly don't know - then that's OK too - just tell us.
The diagram theory you are referencing is not considered because it is an invalid model which does not account for several elements of perspective that work to orient the position of bodies around you.
I dispute that - but perhaps there is some confusion of language or something. Let's set that aside and pretend for now that I agree with you. But at least answer the question above so we know we're talking about the same things here.
The phenomenon of perspective squishes everything to the horizon; and trying to represent it on a small scene a few inches across is invalid without artificially doing things like ascending the lands and creating a vanishing point in order to give a proper depiction of perspective.
Again, I dispute that - but again, let us assume for now that you're right so you can cleanly and clearly answer the question above without further distractions.