what do you think is a logical explanation if Earth isn't curved?
That's your problem. The logical explanation (which considers all the other evidence) is that Earth is curved.
The other option is that the sun goes below the clouds, which goes against the modern FE models.
If this was caused by curvature it would happen all the time and everywhere. But this is not the case here. To deem this as actually prove of curvature is intellectual dishonesty.
Light going upwards at sunset does happen everywhere where the sun isn't setting behind mountains.
The weather based part of this is that it needs clouds above, and wont happen in clear skies because then you won't have an object there to be nicely illuminated.
The location based part of this is the mountain which is needed to cast the shadow upwards.
But if you like, you can go to a beach, find a nice vertical wall with a view to the sunrise or sunset, and then place a stick perpendicular to the wall, preferably nice an high.
Then observe the shadow at sunrise and sunset.
You will notice that as the sun rises, the shadow starts out going upwards and then drops down.
At sunset the opposite happens.
In either case, the shadow is upwards when the sun is very low in the sky.
This makes perfect sense for a RE, but is incompatible with the FE model of the sun always above Earth.
Bending of light.
What is causing the light to bend?
Why does it consistently happen at sunrise and sunset?
If it was a weather phenomenon, then the setting of the sun and this upwards light would be far more chaotic, with the sun rising and setting at wildly different times throughout the day, with no simple pattern, and would frequently be visible at night, all over Earth, and sometimes not visible during the day.
Instead, other than some minor variation, it follows quite a predictable pattern, rising and setting as expected for a RE.
there is no proof the Suns light doesn't bend through atmosphere from that far away at sun set.
That isn't a simple explanation, that is appealing to wilful ignorance.
We understand the properties of light, it will bend, downwards.
Are you still going to use MT Rainier as actually proof Earth curves?
Unless you can provide an explanation that is consistent with a FE and physics, yes.
This post is in reply to most arguments above.
You already admitted you were wrong.
Why post the same lie again?
That is not possible on a FE.
If Earth was flat, the lower section of the building should still be clearly visible.
This is only possible on a RE.
The best you can try and argue is that Earth is larger than people claim.
But you ignore 2 key points.
One is refraction.
The value that is hidden which is calculated from Earth's actual radius will be larger than that actually hidden due to curvature.
The other is what you have already admitted, that 1800 archaic units is the drop due to curvature not the amount hidden.
It would only apply if the camera was at sea level, which goes directly against the caption of the video which states that it was taken from atop a dune.
EDIT: the numbers below are wrong as I forget to factor in the elevation of the lake surface (roughly 577 feet). This will significantly increase the amount hidden, but large portions of the city should still be visible.The dunes go to roughly 800 archaic units.
That means the horizon is sqrt(800*12/8)=35 archaic units away.
That means it is only 17 archaic units from the horizon to Chicago.
That means that only 17*17*8/12=192 archaic units should be hidden of the buildings.
Even being more generous and having the observer at only 500 archaic units, you only get 417 archaic units hidden.
The top of the buildings is 1451 archaic units.
So that means there is nothing wrong with this photo with a RE.But like I said, it shouldn't happen on a FE.
And notice there is a horizon
Yes, exactly as you would expect for a RE.
The curve you are trying to see would be mostly hidden by the horizon.