ironically enough, that's one of the arguments i used earlier

What's your counter

there isn't one, really

for him

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

You’re the one who claimed the glass curves the image, you have the burden of proof

first off, even if you don't look at the arguments that were just presented, observable evidence shows that the glass of a plane doesn't distort the image

just look outside the window

on a plane

it's a bit of a crude argument, but it works

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 ?

yes, but the burden of proof means that as the presented of an argument, you have to back up your claim with proof

thereby having the "burden of proof"

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

that's true

but you began the argument

or the debate

@CryptoCypher ok so lets say the earth is flat, why would the government want to cover it up

about that particular topic

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