Message from @CryptoCypher
Discord ID: 643922038595125248
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
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*