Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: September 19, 2017, 09:00:51 PM »
I'm not sure what the best title for this subject is...so I went with "altered perspective".

Tom keeps on waving this video at us - so this thread is an effort to explain (and debunk) that video.

The error it makes is to double-count the "perspective" effect.

I'm going to talk at the video at specific time points into it - so I suggest you open a second browser window with the video running in it and pause at the times I indicate to read my comments:



So listen through to around 1:50 and hit Pause.

The picture he's looking at shows that the further away the object gets, the smaller the angle to the ground it gets.  This is reasonable - light travels in straight lines.  If we extended the diagram off to the right with more and more equally spaced suns, the angle would get smaller and smaller - right?

At a billion miles, the angle would be a tiny fraction of a degree - at a trillion miles, still smaller - and at INFINITY the angle would be ZERO...or as close to zero as matters (the math term is "Infinitesimal" - one divided by infinity - not strictly zero - but essentially that).

This IS the standard law of perspective.   The further two parallel train tracks lead away from you, the narrower the perceived angle between them.  But even at a billion miles, they don't quite meet.  Only infinitely far from the eye to those train tracks come together.

OK - un-pause the video...stop it again at 2:07 or so.

He just said "So the drawing is not taking the visual perspective of the observer into account".

But that's not true...as the sun moves further away, the angle decreases until (at infinity) the angle is zero.   If this isn't "perspective"...then why is that angle decreasing?

OK - un-pause again...stop again at 2:43.

So he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective.   The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world.  Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping!  Not allowed!

At 2:43, he's just added some suns moving downwards - but the sun isn't moving downwards in the real world - only in the eye of the viewer.   The original diagram is showing the path of the actual photons...the rays of light traveling from the sun to the viewer.

OK - so onwards to a picture of a wall...pause again at 3:27.

He's overlaid a side-on diagram onto a sloping wall...WTF?  How does that prove anything?  You can't just take a 2D side-on diagram and paste it onto a photograph taken at some random angle and demand that they line up perfectly!  What kind of a bullshit claim is *THAT*?

If he had blown up the diagram until it was about 20' long and 10' high, so the stick-figure's eye is level with the camera that took the photo - and pasted the giant diagram onto the wall...so both the diagram and the wall are at the same orientation...and THEN taken the photo...guess what would have happened?

Well...let's try that shall we?   It takes a bit of fancy 3D graphics work (that's what I do for a living)...but the result is this:



It's hard to reproduce the exact camera angle of the original photo - and the low-res diagram has blurred out horribly because it has to be stretched to match the perspective in the photo - but you can see that the stickman's eyeline matches the eyeline in the photo - and the sun gets closer to the horizon in the same way that the strips on the wall do.

It's not perfect...but you should be able to see what I mean.

So if you could match the camera angles in the diagram and the wall...the result would be perfect...and of course if you do the reverse - and photograph the wall side-on and lay it on top of the diagram, that would be perfect too.

So this stage in his "proof" doesn't prove a darned thing - other than that the guy who made the video is clueless.

Watch again until 3:30.

Now he's just made another mistake.  The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.



Equally spaced things should get closer and closer together with perspective...right?

Look again at the original picture of that wall:


Notice that behind the horizontal strip, there are a bunch of vertical supports, which are clearly equally spaced by whoever hung that wall?   This is VERY convenient for our proof.  (Thanks video guy!)

Suppose I put a red dot over the intersection of each vertical support and the "eye line".


And above each one, I draw green dots for the position of the sun as 1pm, 2pm, 3pm, 4pm, 5pm and 6pm...just like he tried to do.  I'm allowing the sun to move the distance between two support strips every hour - which (in the real world) is a constant speed:



What we see is that FAR from reaching the "horizon" at 6pm, the effect of perspective is shortening the *visual* distance between the consecutive sun positions...so although the sun is indeed lowering in the sky - it'll never reach it because it's moving smaller and smaller distances with each hour that passes. 

Another way to think about that is that perspective works in both the "X" and "Y" directions...but it also works in "Z":

Equally spaced pillars getting closer together as they get shorter.  The number of pillars needed before the height of the building is zero has to be infinite because every time you halve the height of the building, you double the number of columns you need:



This is WHY the FE sun can never set.

Finally. we can connect up some green lines from the eye to the sun - but the result is kinda messy:


The angle by which the sun drops towards the horizon decreases with each hour...so the sun can only reach the horizon after an INFINITE number of hours...which is to say "never".

The problem is that he's guilty of PRECISELY the thing that he falsely accuses the original diagram of.  He's using a 2D representation fo the sun on a 3D photograph of a real world thing.

You simply can't do that.

You can prove your point with a 2D diagram - or you can prove it with a 3D photographic visualization - but the instant you mix the two - you screwed up.

So the video is at best misleading.   Clearly the guy who made it DOESN'T understand the first thing about how perspective works.

OK - watch again until 4:50.

Notice how at around 4:50 he cheats and adds more lines at the top of the screen than there really are...naughty!  And carefully STOPS drawing the lines at the bottom of the screen when they are in danger of revealing his lies.  Misleading!  Those lines at the top of the screen that are almost vertical...those don't happen in the real world do they?

So the video whitters on and at 5:25, he's back with his incorrect diagram of the sun's motion.

And out at 5:46, he again accuses someone of using non perspective lines on a perspective drawing - while, ironically, his own screwup of PRECISELY THAT is in the background!  Love it!

This explanation gets to crazy levels of insanity by 6:36 in the video as he overlays his 2D side-view drawing onto a perspective drawing and tries to extract information from that!

So...RE-BUNKED!  (is that even a word?)

« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 09:21:31 PM by 3DGeek »
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2017, 01:23:54 AM »
What a great analysis, 3D! I've always thought this was common sense, but flerfers should be grateful that you went through all this work to explain it so thoroughly.

Can't wait to read Tom's comments :)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6504
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2017, 01:36:09 AM »
Quote
He just said "So the drawing is not taking the visual perspective of the observer into account".

But that's not true...as the sun moves further away, the angle decreases until (at infinity) the angle is zero.   If this isn't "perspective"...then why is that angle decreasing?

The drawing is not taking visual perspective into account. For instance, the entire concept of a Vanishing Point does not exist in that model. The model says that perspective lines can never meet. However, the Vanishing Point does exist; illustrating that this model is clearly lacking in several aspects of perspective and is not an accurate representation.

Quote
So he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective.   The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world.  Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping!  Not allowed!

Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2017, 01:44:32 AM »
Quote
So he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective.   The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world.  Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping!  Not allowed!

Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!
Which is exactly where it occurs. But you can still have an object vanish before such a location due to the fact things shrink as they get further away.

At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? Where's the equation? For all intents and purposes it doesn't appear to be anywhere measurable. Disregarding that you're somewhat misusing the term of course.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6504
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2017, 02:20:24 AM »
Quote
So he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective.   The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world.  Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping!  Not allowed!

Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!
Which is exactly where it occurs. But you can still have an object vanish before such a location due to the fact things shrink as they get further away.

At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? Where's the equation? For all intents and purposes it doesn't appear to be anywhere measurable. Disregarding that you're somewhat misusing the term of course.

The Vanishing Point is not an infinite distance away. Are the railroad tracks in a railroad perspective scene an infinite distance away when they hit the horizon? Clearly not.

Under that model it is impossible for anything to intersect with a horizon. If that model were true a horizon should not exist and things should not meet it. However, a horizon does exist, and things are seen to intersect with a horizon in reality, showing that the model is not accurate.

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2017, 02:24:45 AM »
Quote
So he's just added a SECOND 'layer' of perspective.   The diagram (which for some reason he can't understand...just like Tom in fact) works perfectly well to reproduce what we see in the real world.  Adding ANOTHER layer of "perspective" is double-dipping!  Not allowed!

Again; incorrect. It does not reproduce what is seen in the real world. At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in that model? At infinity!
Which is exactly where it occurs. But you can still have an object vanish before such a location due to the fact things shrink as they get further away.

At what distance does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? Where's the equation? For all intents and purposes it doesn't appear to be anywhere measurable. Disregarding that you're somewhat misusing the term of course.

The Vanishing Point is not an infinite distance away. Are the railroad tracks in a railroad perspective scene an infinite distance away when they hit the horizon? Clearly not.

Under that model it is impossible for anything to intersect with a horizon. If that model were true a horizon should not exist and things should not meet it. However, a horizon does exist, and things are seen to intersect with a horizon in reality, showing that the model is not accurate.
At what point does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? What is your equation to find the vanishing point?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6504
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2017, 02:26:29 AM »
At what point does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? What is your equation to find the vanishing point?

I don't have that equation. The fact that the horizon exists and that model says that the horizon does not exist is a simple enough demonstration that the model is inaccurate to reality.

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2017, 02:31:51 AM »
At what point does the Vanishing Point occur in reality? What is your equation to find the vanishing point?

I don't have that equation. The fact that the horizon exists and that model says that the horizon does not exist is a simple enough demonstration that the model is inaccurate to reality.
That model isn't about the horizon. The horizon is an illusion of the eye. The model shows where the sun actually is. 20 degrees above the horizontal. Which means you need to figure out how perspective can not only account for that, but why it affects everything else too. Perspective is an artist tool, as is the vanishing point. Neither exist as physical realities.

So once again. Where is your proof/evidence that this all works the way you say it should and has to in order for your sun to set? Remember, the sun/moon can't be pointed to for your evidence here.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6504
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2017, 02:46:31 AM »
That model isn't about the horizon. The horizon is an illusion of the eye. The model shows where the sun actually is. 20 degrees above the horizontal. Which means you need to figure out how perspective can not only account for that, but why it affects everything else too. Perspective is an artist tool, as is the vanishing point. Neither exist as physical realities.

So once again. Where is your proof/evidence that this all works the way you say it should and has to in order for your sun to set? Remember, the sun/moon can't be pointed to for your evidence here.

The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.

If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6504
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2017, 03:26:44 AM »
The OP also gives a critique about the constant speed of the sun across the sky not being possible:

Quote
Finally. we can connect up some green lines from the eye to the sun - but the result is kinda messy:


The angle by which the sun drops towards the horizon decreases with each hour...so the sun can only reach the horizon after an INFINITE number of hours...which is to say "never".

Consider that the vertical planks would also eventually merge together and into each other just like the horizontal planks do. The horizontal planks get so close together that they become one. The vertical planks would also merge into each other if they continued upwards far enough.

Therefore, if the sun is sufficiently far away to where the vertical planks are merged together, the distance the sun has to travel between states becomes constant. The horizontal dividers of different perceived lengths between the vertical planks that hold them together no longer exist.

The above phenomenon of greater consistent speed with increased altitude exists in reality. It is widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance  (what is basically seen in the above picture).

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have taken the perspective lines to the limits of their convergence. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 03:49:58 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2017, 03:51:53 AM »
The OP also gives a critique about the constant speed of the sun across the sky not being possible:

Quote
Finally. we can connect up some green lines from the eye to the sun - but the result is kinda messy:


The angle by which the sun drops towards the horizon decreases with each hour...so the sun can only reach the horizon after an INFINITE number of hours...which is to say "never".

Consider that the vertical planks would also eventually merge together and into each other just like the horizontal planks do. The horizontal planks get so close together that they become one. The vertical planks would also merge into each other if they continued upwards far enough.

Therefore, if the sun is sufficiently far away to where the vertical planks are merged together, the distance the sun has to travel between states becomes constant. The horizontal dividers of different perceived lengths between the vertical planks that hold them together no longer exist.

The above phenomenon of greater consistent speed with increased altitude exists in reality. It is widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance  (what is basically seen in the above picture).

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have taken the perspective lines to the limits of their convergence. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.
All proven false by observations and measurements from multiple locations and times of day.

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2017, 04:12:26 AM »
The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.

If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.

This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?

How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6504
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2017, 04:19:30 AM »
All proven false by observations and measurements from multiple locations and times of day.

Who proved false the observation that high flying planes that fly over you move more consistently across the sky than very low planes that fly over you?

The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.

If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.

This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?

How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?

In the side-view model that we are being told is "correct" the concept of a horizon cannot exist. It is impossible for there to be a horizon. Nothing can ever touch it to create one.

Since we know that there is a horizon we know that that side-view model presented is inaccurate. Thus it cannot be used to tell us where the sun should or should not be. It is clearly missing elements.

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2017, 04:19:51 AM »
The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.

If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.

This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?

How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?

In the side-view model we are being told is "correct" the concept of a horizon cannot exist. It is impossible for there to be a horizon.

Since we know that there is a horizon we know that the side-view model presented is inaccurate and thus cannot be used to tell us where the sun should or should not be. It is clearly missing elements.
You've basically just stated math doesn't apply to your reality. I feel like I should be more shocked than I am.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6504
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2017, 04:23:29 AM »
You've basically just stated math doesn't apply to your reality. I feel like I should be more shocked than I am.

Mathematics only reflects the model it is trying to describe. If the model is wrong, the math is wrong.

In order for 2 + 2 to equal 4, certain assumptions about the underlying model must be true. In some models 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2017, 04:24:34 AM »

This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?

How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?

In the side-view model that we are being told is "correct" the concept of a horizon cannot exist. It is impossible for there to be a horizon. Nothing can ever touch it to create one.

Since we know that there is a horizon we know that that side-view model presented is inaccurate. Thus it cannot be used to tell us where the sun should or should not be. It is clearly missing elements.

I'm not asking the question of a side view model or whatever was in that video. I'm asking about (1) your description of a sharp horizon, and (2) how the vanishing point exists in relation to the horizon, in your understanding.

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2017, 05:09:22 AM »
You've basically just stated math doesn't apply to your reality. I feel like I should be more shocked than I am.

Mathematics only reflects the model it is trying to describe. If the model is wrong, the math is wrong.

In order for 2 + 2 to equal 4, certain assumptions about the underlying model must be true. In some models 2 + 2 does not equal 4.
You're making assumptions that don't work based on wildly misunderstood idea of perspective somehow affecting the real world. It doesn't. Perspective is a visual tool to transcribe 3D space into a 2D view/plane. That's it. It doesn't affect the world, it doesn't work like that. Vanishing point is the same thing. It's an art construct to create a 3D effect.

The model of the world doesn't need to take into account perspective, unless perspective physically affects the world. It doesn't. Ergo, you need to show how perspective can make the sun's rays come in from 0 degrees, instead of 20 degrees. Oh wait, it doesn't physically affect the world. So it can't. But it's ok, I'm sure you'll come back saying I don't know what I'm talking about, because you need this to work in order to hang onto this idea that is all that's holding together your fragile ego.

Unless of course your claim is that perspective physically affects the world somehow. Or that you have evidence it's not simply a product of attempting to visualize a 3D world in 2D. In which case, let's see it. Put it forward. Because so far nothing shows that.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6504
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2017, 05:33:08 AM »
The model of the world doesn't need to take into account perspective, unless perspective physically affects the world.

Actually, it does. The horizon exists. Therefore any model you put forward as "correct" must make the existence of a horizon possible. The horizon cannot exist in that model put forward. Therefore the model should not be used. The impossibility of a horizon shows that the model cannot be relied upon to tell us what should or should not happen.

Quote
Unless of course your claim is that perspective physically affects the world somehow. Or that you have evidence it's not simply a product of attempting to visualize a 3D world in 2D. In which case, let's see it. Put it forward. Because so far nothing shows that.

Perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, your determination of relative position, not the position of a body.

Perspective is not merely an "art concept". The horizon is seen in the real world; it's not purely artistic.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 05:37:30 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2017, 05:51:22 AM »

Actually, it does. The horizon exists. Therefore any model you put forward as "correct" must make the existence of a horizon possible. The horizon cannot exist in that model put forward. Therefore the model should not be used. The impossibility of a horizon shows that the model cannot be relied upon to tell us what should or should not happen.
The horizon doesn't exists as a physical place. It's simply the limit of our vision due to the fact that the earth is a sphere. It's fully accounted for by the existing models of perspective and can be easily represented in a side view. (I'm with a phone right now, but I can easily do it later*). It's high school drawing theory, really.
* EDIT: actually, the diagram on Wikipedia is perfectly fine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#/media/File%3AHorizons.svg
The relative article explains also clearly the rest of your doubts


Perspective affects the orientation of bodies around you, your determination of relative position, not the position of a body.
you keep saying this, without understanding the consequences. But perhaps we can go a different route. How does vision works, Tom?
« Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 06:04:39 AM by Ga_x2 »

Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2017, 06:41:46 AM »
All proven false by observations and measurements from multiple locations and times of day.

Who proved false the observation that high flying planes that fly over you move more consistently across the sky than very low planes that fly over you?

The model says that the horizon does not exist. But the horizon does exist. Overhead planes can descend into the horizon. Railroad tracks can recede into the horizon. There is a sharp line where the horizon is. None of this is possible in the model presented.

If the model cannot accurately represent reality then it should not be used to tell us how we should see the sun.

This sounds like you are describing the horizon as if it's a physical entity. It's just the place where you can't see past. Am I'm missing something here?

How does this vanishing point relate to the horizon? Do you think it is closer than the horizon or further? Above or at the horizon?

In the side-view model that we are being told is "correct" the concept of a horizon cannot exist. It is impossible for there to be a horizon. Nothing can ever touch it to create one.

Since we know that there is a horizon we know that that side-view model presented is inaccurate. Thus it cannot be used to tell us where the sun should or should not be. It is clearly missing elements.

There is nothing wrong with the side view! Imagine you're in a town near the equator, a bit north of it, sitting in a chair facing south all day: the sun passes in an arc from east to west over the course of the day. According the FET, the sun should be seen moving in a straight line across the sky (or in a weird triangular path according to some of your videos) and magically disappearing out of view in a way that no one has ever documented or even seen (because it's not bright enough or something and ummm... perspective!). Yet this does not explain why we see only half the sun during sunset and sunrise.

Also, as others have mentioned, a horizon is something we see as the result of Earth's curvature. It's not an actual place, but a result of having depth of vision and living in a 3D world. The side view has a horizon too, just like any other view around the globe: it is always around you, wherever you are on our beautiful planet. This can only happen if you are standing on a giant sphere.