like whats the reason

thereby burdening you with the necessity of backing up your argument with proof

@Santa Phil well, one reason would be the $50 Milllion dollars a day that NASA gets from tax payers! that's a pretty good reason isn't it? there's plenty more though

But it is on some aircrafts, especially on the former Concorde flights

but they don't get that money for the earth being round

*this was a bad argument to start*

not at all

God that was too dumb and before it’s time, it’s a metal death trap imo

Crypto how did the experiment go

let me continue to read

go do some research or something

What are you reading

stuff

Ahh

Well the windows from end is concave, and the other is convex

I’ve seen windows be flat before, or at least appear flat

Not from the outside, mind you

When light enters the convex side it bends x degrees in one direction, when it exits through the concave side the light bends x degrees but in the opposite direction

Meaning that the net changein angle is 0

Note there can be magnification , but that is a linear transformation

Which doesn't distort

guess we can lay that argument to one side then

So the view from airplanes is legitimate

So there is a curve

Does a flat Earth predict that curve?

`. Chemically toughened glass. Annealed glass immersed in a bath of molten salt resulting
in an ion exchange between the salt and the glass. The composition of the salt is such that this
ion exchange causes the surface of the glass to be distorted (by expansion), thus putting the
surface in a state of compression. ` ... `c. Creep. The change in dimension of a material under load over a period of time, not
including the initial instantaneous elastic deformation. The time dependent part of strain
resulting from an applied stress. ` ... https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_25_775-1.pdf

Okay?

That talks about the formation of glass

it talks also about distortion

Not the way light flows through it

Yes

Of the glass

Not the properties of it's optics

also need to factor in the change in pressure within the fuselage as the aircraft changes altitude, the windows need to flex as a result of this change in pressure, obviously, any flex to the window will naturally cause changes to the shape of it

next...

On the orders of micromillimeter s

And it would flex uniformly from the concave to the convex side

ok, so now you're making claims, you're going to need to validate

Okay hold up

You saying

That deformation of the shape when it's formed means that it's optical properties change

you're saying they don't! can you validate that claim, seeing as the burden of proof is now on you!

what I quoted as well as the link to my source suggests the claim I made above to be true

so...

you now have the burden of proof

The arrival as before mentioned speaks of the mechanical properties if the glass, it speaks nothing of it's optical properties

Which is what we are debating

So not only are you moving the goal post, you are inaccurate ly extroplating what the arrival says to apply to optical properties

Arrival*

Article*

prove me wrong then, don't just claim it! you've made numerous claims already without substantiating a single one of them. I've clearly put in some time and effort to source some material to support my claims, you should really be doing the same, else this is all one-sided, you expect proof, I delivered. You make claims but don't back them up in any way.

So back them up!

*he did though*

he's made claims @TheBiscuitMuncher but hasn't substantiated

*the proof is trivial and left to the user*

he explained

his explanation is not proof, back it up with real proof! we can all sit here making claims til we're blue in the face, unless he can back them up with something tangible, they remain nothing but claims. So get to it

But in all seriousness even a quick look at optics on Wikipedia will tell you this

wikipedia, such a credible source! go find a real source

Or actually for scientific and mathematical pages it's very accurate

that's debatable

People are constantly fixing it and checking sources

come on, go find a real source

Okay

Any book on optics used for any college class in the past half century

go retrieve it!

I could have turned to you before and said "search google for XYZ" tada, proof! I didn't, you wouldn't accept that from me, why should I be expected to accept that of you? Now, go put in the leg work and find me the proof to your claims

https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwinjpy0z-XlAhViGH0KHfmVDlYYABAAGgJwdg&ae=1&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAESQOD2443ZXloR7IXsIOxSBsbXS2X77g6yIiX7Qe5yDL5H5kxXniawSbKlKVfhp_SiVjgzHWGX8rH40a_dERS_-m0&sig=AOD64_17wBY7lzVbEKFHqq1cWBlQ9xzPfg&q&adurl=http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie%3DUTF8%26keywords%3Dintroduction%2Bto%2Bmodern%2Boptics%26index%3Daps%26tag%3Dhydsma-20%26ref%3Dpd_sl_2jr0rvtaee_e%26adgrpid%3D55037435974%26hvpone%3D%26hvptwo%3D%26hvadid%3D274706076173%26hvpos%3D1t1%26hvnetw%3Dg%26hvrand%3D12491416335119315815%26hvqmt%3De%26hvdev%3Dm%26hvdvcmdl%3D%26hvlocint%3D%26hvlocphy%3D1022588%26hvtargid%3Dkwd-300800383885%26hydadcr%3D29884_10734838%26gclid%3DCjwKCAiAzanuBRAZEiwA5yf4uqdlHPVfCNM_gbl09ShWtfBHwvJpYWerAVujVYa0hGdUbZYWc02vlxoCQXcQAvD_BwE&ved=2ahUKEwigt5G0z-XlAhV0FTQIHVMGDcUQ0Qx6BAgSEAE

google search results, do not qualify

sift through it

That’s a huge link

It's in that book

find the proof

Yeah

Lemme delete it

Proof for what exactly

your claims

about how the change in shape of a fuselage window do not introduce distortion

Okay

Get a piece of plastic wrap

wrong type of material

Put it in a box

not a good enough substitute

It's translucent and deforms with change in pressurr

not the same at all

That's the properties we are stesting

Testing

it's not the same material, it's not going to give an equivalency at all

Ugg

Glass doesn't deform from pressure

It shatters

they don't use glass in fuselage windows

it's plexiglass

because glass would shatter

obviously

Then why would you use a source talking about deformations in the structure of glass

and it's lighter

As proof

I wasn't looking for glass

You just disporovved one of your previous points

I was looking for fuselage windows

I never claimed glass

it would seem however that you've been thinking glass this whole time and you're now realising it isn't

seemingly invalidating your own claims in the process too

IT said GLASS

And my claims apply to any transparent material

I use using glass as an example

in one of the two examples cited, yes!

And youve said glass as well

You only posted 1

there were two within the quoted section

first one of which was talking about glass

second of which didn't specify the material

`c. Creep. The change in dimension of a material under load over a period of time, not
including the initial instantaneous elastic deformation. The time dependent part of strain
resulting from an applied stress.`

we can safely assume that isn't glass though

for the fact that glass shatters

Where is the link for that source

hold on

I think I still have that tab open

page 2, section 4

Of what?

the pdf I linked to with the quote above

Your moving the goal post and it's driving me nuts

which goal post have I moved?

I had to prove their was no non linear deformation of the light

Now I have to prove that under static stress

If the deformation was enough to cause a sigficant and acknowledgable deformation to the light you would have died flying the airplane

I wouldn't say that was moving the goal posts tbh. there's the issue of the shape of the windows but additionally there's the stresses involved with the changes of internal air pressure to compensate for the changes to the external air pressure. it's not moving goal posts so much as the fact that there's other factors which need to be included

The other factors are negligible

And are therefore ignored

the document cited mentions the stresses as well as the myriad materials selected for the inclusion within the aircraft. but you do need to show proof of this neglibility

If they weren't negligible they would've included them in this beautiful source of you

Yours

as well as the proof to your claim that it doesn't cause distortion

I told you a simple experiment you could peform

That is proof

it has been said by others, possibly yourself, that curvature has been witnessed through aircraft windows, so, we need to establish whether that's as a result of these windows or as a result of actual earth curvature

your simple experiment uses the wrong materials and that wouldn't be very scientific

I was debating laws of optics

sure, but in any case, you haven't substantiated that

nor have you disproved that the curvature witnessed isn't the result of these windows

The light going through the window experiences a linear deformation

so you keep saying

without substantiating

You know what a linear transformation deformation is right?

Right?

Just send all flat earthers to space to prove it once and for all

it's where light passes through, it's transformed then deformed and presumably should result in lack of distortion

@positivity globe believers are the ones that believe space is real! send them all up there to prove the globe

Exactly

Therefore

No distortion

Means the earth is curved

well, so you claim! but again, you haven't backed up any of your claims! we've been over this countless times, I made claims, found documents, cited them, linked them and resulted in backing up some of my claims as well as providing other points which need to be considered, none of which you even mentioned or included within any of the explanations you provided, none of which substantiated. so sure, you make the claimm of linear transformation deformation, but you haven't backed that up, nor have you been able to prove that the air pressure change, and change in shape to the window doesn't cause distortion through the window. This is just one of many points that can be debated about flat earth, but I know this isn't a spinning ball we're all on.. This one small piece we're debating is just that: small! I know we're not on a spinning ball, so, with that in mind, any claims to curvature through an aircraft window, is not proof of earth curve, but proof of distortiion

Permissions are not properly configured.

Please check https://biblebot.xyz/permissions for more information.

That's enough out of you, BibleBot.

lol biblebot

The view has a curve

Not cause by the window

that's yet to be proven

Okay

Only fish eye lenses can cause that sort of distion

The window isn't in the shape of a fish eye lense

again though, that is yet to be proven. Anyway, it's been a great debate, I've got to crack on with some other tasks which I've been destracted from. rather than disappearing without saying a word, I'll actually thank you for the discussion and leave it at that for now! 🙂

Good, civil debate. 👌

hitler did nothing wrong

mhm thats a dusty convo

!mute @AustinBullet Troll

Guy I have a confession

!mute @cameron

!unmute @cameron

Guys Im one of you why did you mute me 😢

youre not muted

I was though

obvious troll is obvious

im giving him the benefit of the doubt for now

Hello

Im not a troll, I want to find out about the flat earth and find myself

Why do I have this nickname

@cameron look into a mirror, and behold! Yourself a fraction of time ago!

😜

Wow man that really spoke to me

Damn

Please can you remove this nickname I don’t know why do I had this

🙏

@Петро what name do you want?

Ross please

Thanks

Can you change my name please sir x

The earth is as flat as your wife’s chest

But my wife’s breasts are large, round and robust

I was not talk you mens

Sorry

Yeah I thought so

🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

Please sir calm down

Yes

no, and @cameron if you say anything else sexual, ill mute you

Ross was being sexual and annoyed me

I was incredibly offended

im sure you were so offended

dont forget, youre being watched

Being watched IRL?

And yes i was offended

My wife’s body is not here to be judged

Sorry

Okay, please do not do it again

<:weebsout:626260754638831639>

I love this emoji

*cries in weeb*

lol

this is the civil debate chat?

no you dont

I respectfully agree

doesnt look like it

whe

i

talk

like

this

im

obviously

trolling

alright

pls rich

pls rob

try running the command again, but this time actually mention someone to steal from

pls rob tr42h7 bo11

You stole almost half! 💰
Your payout was **2,010** coins.

hehe

pls dep max

**2635** coins deposited

pls bal

pls beg

**Mr. Beast** has donated 63 coins to @TheDoggo®, and a :bread: **Fresh Bread**

Permissions are not properly configured.

Please check https://biblebot.xyz/permissions for more information.

pls search

**STREET** You got caught jaywalking, now you paid a fine of 59 coins

pls pm

**__What type of meme do you want to post?__**
`d` ■ **Dank meme**
`e` ■ **Edgy meme**
`n` ■ **Normie Meme**
`s` ■ **Spoopy Meme**
`r` ■ **Repost meme**

s

Your posted meme got **198 upvotes**. You get 98 coins

pls bal