we haven't! to measure the distance we either need to know the size, or the distance, we don't know the distance without knowing the size! do you see the predicament?

of course you do

because if you know the size, you can calculate the distance!

it doesn't matter what my level of indoctrination is, it's irrelevant

whatever, we'll agree to disagree

but maths alone isn't proof of a lot, it can verify things, sure. But maths can't tell me what you had for dinner yesterday or what time you emptied your bladder

maths is just another language, used as a way to explain things that words alone can't always convey. But back to the point, maths alone is not enough to tell you this world is a globe. You need other things too. so, are we going to get back to you providing proof for curvature or rotation? or is this just going to be another pointless conversation, another opportunity for a globe supporter to think they're right, so they can massage their ego?

LMAO

@🎃Oakheart🎃 not only that, but sailors have used sextants for a very long time, navigating by the stars, to this day, sailors can use those same star charts used back then, confirming the stars haven't changed

oops

nonsense

gravity doesn't do anything! it is just a name given to an observation! at least for the observations that can be made here on this flat plane. As for the claims of gravity causing planets and moons to orbit, it's not been proven or demonstrated to be true

as for explaining why things fall, the best alternative explanation is: density and buoyancy

@Drewski4343 awaiting your immediate attempt at a debunk

@Drewski4343 that's simply because there is nothing to hold up the weight of the falling object. Similarly how outside of the vacuum chamber, the air density is too thin to support the weight of the falling object!!!

density and buoyancy, The air is thin, the object is dense!

nothing is forcing anything

the explanation has been given and rephrased for you, it's simple to understand, yet you're seemingly struggling to grasp the concept.

apparently not

when you let something go, something that has greater density than the medium which surrounds it. Do you really expect it to float there and do nothing? does that really sound realistic to you? clearly it's not going to go up, if it's to do anything, other than to go down. Come on man, use that head of yours

an object with greater density than the medium which surrounds it, won't float. As for your water explanation, that's dependent on the buoyancy of the object. I'm not contradicting anything, that's how buoyancy works. you seem to be selectively ignoring the density here

scroll back up, re-read the explanation given to your previous attempt at explaining away the difference of how a vacuum chamber is different to an object outside of a vacuum chamber! I can see you're so keen to be right, but you seem to be cog dis on the subject entirely, you clearly don't understand it as well as you're trying to make it sound like you do

indeed it is! well done! 👍

what is there to hold the object up?

can you answer it or not? it's not a deflect! it's a valid question, can you answer it or not?

that's your answer! there is "nothing" to hold it up

why must you insist that there needs to be a force? just because you're still stuck on globe physics, doesn't mean those alleged forces carry over to a flat model. your questions, pertaining to why it falls, etc... and alternative explanations to "gravity" have been answered, you seem unsatisfied. This conversation is clearly going nowhere, you're struggling to grasp it, despite it's utter simplicity, I really don't know what else to tell you tbh

not at all, it satisfies the questions you posed

lol

all the globe stuff is just claims

they've proven that things fall when they let them go. They haven't proven that it's a force acting on the falling object. Only that the object falls and that at different heights the velocity at which it falls changes.

oko

I'm not a believer in the globe model

if the globe model was a sure thing and if it held up to scrutiny (which it doesn't) there would be no division or debates regarding the shape of this place we all call home

if we really do live on a spinning ball, why is it we can see further than we're supposed to be able to? like, significantly so? why is it that NASA is provably faking all the things they show us regarding ISS and moon landings? Why is it there's still no real tangible proof of curvature or rotation. If we really do live on a spinning ball, we would have these proofs already and we wouldn't be here debating it

there is significantly more proof of a flat earth than a globe

photos taken from an airplane, are taken through the windows which are curved to align with the shape of the fuselage (for aerodynamic purposes) so, the image taken through those windows is distorted and not proof of curvature

@catman prove it!

@RadRhys curved glass is much like a lense, I presume you're familiar with lenses, you should know that lenses cause distortion, surely this isn't new information to you. Now, the burden of proof is on @catman to prove his claim

my claim isn't false, if you're seeing curvature through a glass window of an aircraft, that right there is the proof. there is no curve

trying to verify your claims right now, seeing as you haven't substantiated it

well, whilst I try to verify @catman claim, I'll either prove he's right and debunk myself, or I'll prove him wrong and verify my claim, won't I @RadRhys ?

but the claim was made by somebody here that curvature was witnessed through the window of an aircraft, so there's that FYI

@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

not at all

let me continue to read

go do some research or something

stuff

`. 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

it talks also about distortion

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...

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

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

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's made claims @TheBiscuitMuncher but hasn't substantiated

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

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

that's debatable

come on, go find a real source

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

google search results, do not qualify

sift through it

find the proof

your claims

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

wrong type of material

not a good enough substitute

not the same at all

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

they don't use glass in fuselage windows

it's plexiglass

because glass would shatter

obviously

and it's lighter

I wasn't looking for glass

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

in one of the two examples cited, yes!

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

hold on

I think I still have that tab open

page 2, section 4

the pdf I linked to with the quote above

which goal post have I moved?

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 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

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