The very words themselves describe the subjective experience. The sun and moon don’t objectively rise and set. These actions are apparent and depend on a point of view. Ancient peoples took this appearance for an objective fact, and hypothesized that after setting the sun traveled beneath the earth by various special means to reappear at its place of rising. This was a direct objectification of the subjective appearance. As moderns, we give objective accounts of the cause of these appearances, but recognize that the appearance is an illusion, just as it is an illusion that the moon “follows along” with you when you watch it from a car window, even though this can be accounted for objectively.
Really?
Returning to the cite that provoked this exchange, from The Evolution Of Physics, you are making a distinction that has been rendered meaningless by GR.