[Max_Almond]

Here's footage of a drone rising from lake level to about 400 feet, shooting across about 24-30 miles of water:



The 'round earth' explanation is obvious: as altitude increases, so does the distance to the horizon, as well as the viewable amount of distant landmarks.

But what's the flat earth explanation for what we see here?

[edby]

Light curvature explains it perfectly. Light travels from the distant building, gently curving upwards. As the drone gets higher, it starts to catch that light, until eventually the whole building is visible.

[Max_Almond]

Can you provide a measurement, some evidence, a mechanism, or a diagram to demonstrate this fascinating idea?

[RonJ]

I have heard of Snell's Law, but that requires some kind of medium change.  Additionally the light will bend towards the normal.  In that case I would expect to see the opposite of what was observed.  Maybe there is a unknown Peyronies Effect on light that is illustrated in this video.  I will do some further research.

[edby]

Can you provide a measurement, some evidence, a mechanism, or a diagram to demonstrate this fascinating idea?

Absolutely.

1. (assumption) the earth is flat

2. (assumption) The footage above is inconsistent with the earth being flat, unless light is curved.

3. Therefore light is curved.

[edit] However I have worry that this conflicts with my Zetetic principles. Zeteticism says to trust primarily the way things appear, and avoid complex theories that try and explain away how things appear. But the appearance of the earth being spherical is almost palpable in that footage. It really looks spherical. So it bothers me that I am essentially making up a complex theory of light bending to explain away that appearance. What do you think?

[Max_Almond]

It really looks spherical.

I think sometimes we have to trust our God-given senses; and not only our God-given intellects and our God-given powers of discernment, etc.

[inquisitive]

Can you provide a measurement, some evidence, a mechanism, or a diagram to demonstrate this fascinating idea?

Absolutely.

1. (assumption) the earth is flat

2. (assumption) The footage above is inconsistent with the earth being flat, unless light is curved.

3. Therefore light is curved.

[edit] However I have worry that this conflicts with my Zetetic principles. Zeteticism says to trust primarily the way things appear, and avoid complex theories that try and explain away how things appear. But the appearance of the earth being spherical is almost palpable in that footage. It really looks spherical. So it bothers me that I am essentially making up a complex theory of light bending to explain away that appearance. What do you think?

However we know light does not curve.

[edby]

However we know light does not curve.

How do we know this?

[Tom Bishop]

Light is curving. We can see the inferior mirage on the surface as the drone descends.

[edby]

Light is curving. We can see the inferior marage on the surface as the drone descends.

Doesn't this conflict with all the other FE footage showing we can see buildings from a long distance. In fact, doesn't it contradict the Bishop experiment?

Or does light sometimes go straight, at other times curve?

The one way to test this would be to repeat the drone experiment over a long period of time, at different times of the day etc. Tom, repeatability is the essence of Zeteticism.

[George Jetson]

Here's footage of a drone rising from lake level to about 400 feet, shooting across about 24-30 miles of water:



The 'round earth' explanation is obvious: as altitude increases, so does the distance to the horizon, as well as the viewable amount of distant landmarks.

But what's the flat earth explanation for what we see here?

What do you think is particularly damning about this video? 

[Max_Almond]

What do you think is particularly damning about this video?

Good question.

If the earth were flat, when the drone is on the shore we would be able to see everything we see from 400 feet. The obscuration of the city skyline is caused by the curvature of the earth. Without that, there would be nothing to hide the city.

[edby]

What do you think is particularly damning about this video?

Good question.

If the earth were flat, when the drone is on the shore we would be able to see everything we see from 400 feet. The obscuration of the city skyline is caused by the curvature of the earth. Without that, there would be nothing to hide the city.

Specifically, at 0:26 you see a boat on the horizon on the left, and a building on the horizon on the right. As the footage continues to 0:32 with the drone rising, more of the building becomes visible, plus other buildings that were not previously visible, appear.

[totallackey]

Here's footage of a drone rising from lake level to about 400 feet, shooting across about 24-30 miles of water:



The 'round earth' explanation is obvious: as altitude increases, so does the distance to the horizon, as well as the viewable amount of distant landmarks.

But what's the flat earth explanation for what we see here?

Quite a bit of information missing from the video.

Type of camera, weather conditions, location, etc.

What type of explanation could you possibly expect from anyone absent information such as this?

[edby]

Quite a bit of information missing from the video.

Type of camera, weather conditions, location, etc.

What type of explanation could you possibly expect from anyone absent information such as this?

Do you think that what we see would change dramatically if that information were available?

[Bobby Shafto]

What do you think is particularly damning about this video?

Can't speak for Max, but I think there should be a difference between the way a flat earth and a globe earth would look given an ascending/descending view like that. And to me, it matches what I'd expect a convex surface to look like vice a flat surface.

I take it you disagree and that's how things would appear on a flat surface as you elevate?

Edit: Sorry for quality since I'm on a computer that has limited screen cap privileges, but this should work for illustrative purposes to show the difference between a flat and convex topology:

[edby]

Edit: Sorry for quality since I'm on a computer that has limited screen cap privileges, but this should work for illustrative purposes to show the difference between a flat and convex topology:

I am not sure this adds much, and it is slightly confusing. I liked the original ending: "I take it you disagree and that's how things would appear on a flat surface as you elevate?" which is a powerful question.

[totallackey]

Quite a bit of information missing from the video.

Type of camera, weather conditions, location, etc.

What type of explanation could you possibly expect from anyone absent information such as this?

Do you think that what we see would change dramatically if that information were available?

What each of us observes is totally dependent on a variety of issues, particular to each observer.

Do you think the particular issues I raised are of no consequence in forming an explanation?

For instance, if I observed a skinny elephant, I might ask if this observation is just a funhouse mirror at work. Or I might ask if there was no vegetation around on which the elephant could feed. Or I might ask if there was a herd of elephants on a hunger strike I did not know about...just speculatin...

[edby]

Do you think that what we see would change dramatically if that information were available?

What each of sees is totally dependent on a variety of issues, particular to each observer.

Of course, but the question is whether you think what we see would change dramatically if that information were available? What do you think. If the information were available, would that change anything dramatically, and if so, why?

[totallackey]

Do you think that what we see would change dramatically if that information were available?

What each of sees is totally dependent on a variety of issues, particular to each observer.

Of course, but the question is whether you think what we see would change dramatically if that information were available? What do you think. If the information were available, would that change anything dramatically, and if so, why?

Because of my second question...you failed to address that question.