Why can't you type out a complete thought? You stated: "light converges with vertical at infinity." There is no point to me responding to that until you clarify specifically what you mean. Use an example if needed.
OK, my example is the graph y=1/x. This converges with the vertical y axis at infinity. This is what light does.
As for the second part, you are suggesting that light is bending in certain directions, which means all vision becomes relative. There is no up and down...it's all space -- if light can bend down, it can also bend up. So, I drew an analogy. If the Earth is flat and after a certain distance light begins to bend upwards (horizon illusion), then it would also be expected that all line of sight situations would become unstable. Obviously, in actuality, that's not the case.
Vision is relative to the Earth. There is up and down; they're often referred to as 'up' and 'down'. As we've established, under the Bendy Light Theory, light bends up.
it would also be expected that all line of sight situations would become unstable. Obviously, in actuality, that's not the case.
Again, what?
Ok, so let's get on the same page for a moment. Every scenario needs three things: A light source, an object and an observer. Is your claim that light always bends up from the object and away from the observer at a certain distance? The curve of the light away from the observer would essentially explain why things disappear from view after a certain distance. That is your answer for how a horizon happens, correct?
Yes.
I wrote this in a different thread, but I'll post it here as a response:
Let's take a simple scenario: a sail boat (object), a person (observer) and the Sun (light source). As the sailboat leaves the shore, it sinks below view and eventually cannot be seen. "Bendy light" uses two things to explain that act: first, light always bends away from the observer, so after a certain distance it cannot be seen; second, light bend upward around the object, explaining the sinking illusion. I'm fine with that...you can even change the scenario, if you take a lake with a 15 miles radius, a person standing at any position around the lake could not see an object in the center, the reasoning for that, as explained by "Bendy light" is that since light is always bending away from the observer, it is essentially acting as a trick mirror. Fine. Any time you present a scenario with an object, observer and light source, that explanation seems to fit. Granted, it doesn't explain why light bends upward or away from the observer, but we'll leave that alone for now -- the why is irrelevant as long as it works.
Here is the issue: if the object and the light source are the same thing, the theory falls apart. The simplest example of that is the setting (or rising) Sun. If light is always bending away from the observer (and back around the object moving away from the observer) than it would mean in this scenario that light is curving back towards the light source (the Sun). If light ever curved back toward a light source, you could not see anything, as the light would never reach your eyes.
Note: All this explanation does is explain why "Bendy light" is false under your terms. It would also be easy to exploit the aspect of the theory involving light bending upwards at all. I just don't see a point in even touching that...yet.