[philman_36]

Visually, my car looks smaller, as it approaches the vanishing point.
But it isn't, in and of itself, smaller, right?
See above...forced perspective. And that isn't anywhere near the vanishing point. At the vanishing point you wouldn't be able to see it...unless you had a binoculars or a telephoto lens which would bring it back into view! Why doesn’t the sun look visibly smaller as it approaches the vanishing point, unless it remains at a nearly constant distance from the observer?
You're the answer man, you tell me what your reasoning is. I can't seem to satisfy you with anything.
Show me evidence, like I did with the encroaching darkness of the traveling sun.

You have yet to answer my question.
No answer seems to satisfy you. You don't accept perspective as an answer, you don't accept that an object reappears larger under magnification despite it being at or beyond the vanishing point, you don't accept forced perspective...I don't know what else will satisfy you.
You tell me what the answer is.

Once we deal with this issue, we can move on to others.
Please! Surely you can walk and chew gum at the same time. It seems to me that you don't want to address it.

[kosciusko51]

If I use the same method to measure the relative size of an object, I can see if the object is getting closer or farther from me.

For instance, your car picture. If you hold out your thumb directly in front of you, you have your car size relative to that forced perspective. And if you move away from your car, and again put your thumb out in front of you the same way, the relative size of the car would seem smaller.

Now, we can apply this experiment to the sun (or the moon).

If you are correct, the relative size of the sun (or moon) should be different. If I am correct, they should be the same.

Do you concur, or disagree? If you disagree, how should the experiment be performed?