Here is the perspective theory response:

Open topic (of course) but directed toward Tom Bishop (who asked that this be split off to a separate topic).

In answering explanations for how a full moon is possible in the globe earth model, you (Tom) said:

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

That's right Bobby. You are using the Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model as a disproof. Where did the Ancient Greeks ever demonstrate their perspective model and their concept of perspective lines that receded infinitely, linearly, and continuously into the distance?

Can you show that the perspective lines are infinite, that they don't meet, or anything else about that model?

Since the assumptions and axioms in your disproof are without evidence, it can be discarded without evidence.

I see that you are making a number of assumptions in your post. You are assuming that the sun is a literal spotlight, that perspecitve is as the Ancient Greeks describe, that the rules of Euclid have been proven to be true, that the sun and moon are increasing and decreasing their altitudes in vertical lines, among other things. You are mixing in your assumptions about the Flat Earth model with your school-taught hypothesis of a perfect universe.

A full perspective theory is still in its infancy, but right now I will point you to the "Why do we se the same face of the moon"

thread we had recently.

In the Flat Earth model, if the moon is above the altitude of the sun, the sun will see its underside. If the moon is below the altitude of the sun, the sun will see the top of the moon. Your idea of how the relation works in Ancient Greek Perspective Theory would need to be first demonstrated true, before we can say that perspective operates or scales in that manner.