[totallackey]

Your are attempting to turn this into some sort of fight?  Why?  I'll note that you did not provide a source for your claim either.

Have a look at this:

Yes, your source addresses but one part of the distortion taking place.

Plus, we are not writing about a simple sheet of one ply glass in a fixed position, however...this is about glass (with multiple plies) that is subject to a multitude of forces, being shifted around within the frame of a supersonic plane.

And it is certainly no fight taking place as you have NO legitimate argument to present.

Where is your source?  Or by your onw rules , you are a total fail.  No?

I need a source to support the Concorde had multiple ply safety glass, the glass being fitted within the framework of the Concorde, and was subject to a variety of forces during flight?!?!?

Please write and inform everyone here you are kidding...

I mean, this has to be some kind of joke...

[Curious Squirrel]

My claim is the view is distorted.

So it would have been distorted whilst the craft was on the runway, then?

Or will someone suggest the craft was fitted with height-sensitive windows?

Of course it is distorted wherever the plane is.

WTH is your point?

I made the point above
Are you claiming that the horizon looks curved at all altitudes on Concorde? What is your evidence for that?
Are you claiming that there is something different about Concorde windows to other airline windows where that effect is not observed. If so then where is your evidence of that?

I am claiming you on the RE side have made the claim a curved horizon can be viewed at all altitudes and are the most biased presenters of a blatant falsehood in the history of humanity.

Incorrect. The claim by (most) RE supporters is that you cannot visually distinguish a curve when flying in a normal airplane. Supposedly the Concords increased cruising altitude changed this statement, and it was possible to see a curved horizon at cruising altitude. There are many reports of this from those that flew on it. Your claim has been because it is being distorted by the windows, which would be unlike other planes. Thus the inquiry, what is your evidence for your claim it was simply a problem with the windows? Do you have images or reports from people on the ground reporting distorted features around them perhaps? Or are you simply making the claim because it's the most intuitive way to dismiss the Concord claims/images?

[AATW]

I am claiming you on the RE side have made the claim a curved horizon can be viewed at all altitudes and are the most biased presenters of a blatant falsehood in the history of humanity.

OK. I don't know what you're talking about.

The claim is that a curved horizon could be observed on Concorde at its cruising altitude.
The RE claim is that this is because of the globe earth and the reason you don't see a curve on a regular airline is they don't fly high enough, Concorde did.

Your position is that the curve observed on Concorde was caused by distortion by the window. Correct?

If that is so then that raises a few questions.
1) Are you claiming that the distortion in Concorde's windows only occurred at cruising altitude? If so then why did no distortion occur when the plane was lower?
2) If the claim is that the distortion did occur at lower altitudes then do you have any evidence for that?
3) What is the difference between the windows on Concorde and other airlines which don't show horizon curvature?

These are not difficult questions.

[totallackey]

My claim is the view is distorted.

So it would have been distorted whilst the craft was on the runway, then?

Or will someone suggest the craft was fitted with height-sensitive windows?

Of course it is distorted wherever the plane is.

WTH is your point?

I made the point above
Are you claiming that the horizon looks curved at all altitudes on Concorde? What is your evidence for that?
Are you claiming that there is something different about Concorde windows to other airline windows where that effect is not observed. If so then where is your evidence of that?

I am claiming you on the RE side have made the claim a curved horizon can be viewed at all altitudes and are the most biased presenters of a blatant falsehood in the history of humanity.

Incorrect. The claim by (most) RE supporters is that you cannot visually distinguish a curve when flying in a normal airplane. Supposedly the Concords increased cruising altitude changed this statement, and it was possible to see a curved horizon at cruising altitude. There are many reports of this from those that flew on it. Your claim has been because it is being distorted by the windows, which would be unlike other planes. Thus the inquiry, what is your evidence for your claim it was simply a problem with the windows? Do you have images or reports from people on the ground reporting distorted features around them perhaps? Or are you simply making the claim because it's the most intuitive way to dismiss the Concord claims/images?

Incorrect.

There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level and those are made without any sort of dispute by RE adherents, thus constituting ipso facto support of such lies by those adhering to the RE myth.

I have made the statement that ALL GLASS placed in between any viewer and the object being viewed distort that object in some or fashion and my statement is INDISPUTABLE!

You are summarily dismissed.

[totallackey]

I am claiming you on the RE side have made the claim a curved horizon can be viewed at all altitudes and are the most biased presenters of a blatant falsehood in the history of humanity.

OK. I don't know what you're talking about.

The claim is that a curved horizon could be observed on Concorde at its cruising altitude.
The RE claim is that this is because of the globe earth and the reason you don't see a curve on a regular airline is they don't fly high enough, Concorde did.

Your position is that the curve observed on Concorde was caused by distortion by the window. Correct?

My position is there is no curvature detected because the Earth is flat.

If that is so then that raises a few questions.
1) Are you claiming that the distortion in Concorde's windows only occurred at cruising altitude? If so then why did no distortion occur when the plane was lower?
2) If the claim is that the distortion did occur at lower altitudes then do you have any evidence for that?
3) What is the difference between the windows on Concorde and other airlines which don't show horizon curvature?

These are not difficult questions.

No, they are not difficult questions.

They are moot questions.

Please refrain from posting moot questions.

[Tumeni]

My claim is the view is distorted.

So it would have been distorted whilst the craft was on the runway, then?

Or will someone suggest the craft was fitted with height-sensitive windows?

Of course it is distorted wherever the plane is.

WTH is your point?

Did anyone report "seeing the curve" from Concorde before it took off?

[alfred1]

To those who are saying that Concorde had glass windows.It did not have glass windows they windows mad from a special  type of perspex made especially for Concorde. It is more rigid than glass and less flexible. it was also heat resistant.  It had    to be to survive the heat produced from the friction caused by supersonic flight. Of course it subject to various forces in flight it was designed to withstand it. I know this because I had the job of removing the marks left by this. Also any distortion would have an effect in all directions, not just horizontally. What of the cockpit windows/ if these were distorted to any great extent it could be dangerous.
PS To say  'Concorde' seems to imply that there was only on. In fact there were several.

[AATW]

I have made the statement that ALL GLASS placed in between any viewer and the object being viewed distort that object in some or fashion and my statement is INDISPUTABLE!

Well, if you put it in CAPITALS then it must be true...
It depends what you mean by distortion. If you look out the window and then open the window you don't suddenly see a completely different scene.
There may be a refraction effect but you don't look through windows, see curved lines and then on opening the window realise that the lines are in fact straight.
That is the sort of distortion you are claiming occurred when looking through Concorde's windows.
And your evidence of that is:

There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level

Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?

[totallackey]

My claim is the view is distorted.

So it would have been distorted whilst the craft was on the runway, then?

Or will someone suggest the craft was fitted with height-sensitive windows?

Of course it is distorted wherever the plane is.

WTH is your point?

Did anyone report "seeing the curve" from Concorde before it took off?

Do you have access to a computer to research the answer to your question?

If so, I suggest you use that computer, as I find the question to be totally nonsensical and not worth the time to address.

[Theo]

You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...

The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:

If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.

Plain, pure, and simple.

Drops mic...

End of topic.

What is causing the curvature in this picture and why does it distort the horizon into a curve and not the Concord itself?

https://i.imgur.com/Nmvvw9b.jpg



I've never heard of glass with such selective properties and would love to see other examples.

[Curious Squirrel]

My claim is the view is distorted.

So it would have been distorted whilst the craft was on the runway, then?

Or will someone suggest the craft was fitted with height-sensitive windows?

Of course it is distorted wherever the plane is.

WTH is your point?

I made the point above
Are you claiming that the horizon looks curved at all altitudes on Concorde? What is your evidence for that?
Are you claiming that there is something different about Concorde windows to other airline windows where that effect is not observed. If so then where is your evidence of that?

I am claiming you on the RE side have made the claim a curved horizon can be viewed at all altitudes and are the most biased presenters of a blatant falsehood in the history of humanity.

Incorrect. The claim by (most) RE supporters is that you cannot visually distinguish a curve when flying in a normal airplane. Supposedly the Concords increased cruising altitude changed this statement, and it was possible to see a curved horizon at cruising altitude. There are many reports of this from those that flew on it. Your claim has been because it is being distorted by the windows, which would be unlike other planes. Thus the inquiry, what is your evidence for your claim it was simply a problem with the windows? Do you have images or reports from people on the ground reporting distorted features around them perhaps? Or are you simply making the claim because it's the most intuitive way to dismiss the Concord claims/images?

Incorrect.

There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level and those are made without any sort of dispute by RE adherents, thus constituting ipso facto support of such lies by those adhering to the RE myth.

I correct this mistake every time I see it made on these forums and elsewhere, namely that one can see curvature from an airplane. I also frequently see it corrected elsewhere. So you're just wrong here.

I have made the statement that ALL GLASS placed in between any viewer and the object being viewed distort that object in some or fashion and my statement is INDISPUTABLE!

You are summarily dismissed.

All caps, clearly you're right. /s

[TomInAustin]

There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level and those are made without any sort of dispute by RE adherents, thus constituting ipso facto support of such lies by those adhering to the RE myth.

I have made the statement that ALL GLASS placed in between any viewer and the object being viewed distort that object in some or fashion and my statement is INDISPUTABLE!

You are summarily dismissed.

Links?  I have never seen a RE'er claim you could see curvature from any altitude.  But I'm not saying there are not nuts.  I could refer to flat-earthers on youtube who think that Obama is a shape-shifting alien lizard but I give you credit for not being of that ilk.

[totallackey]

You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...

The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:

If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.

Plain, pure, and simple.

Drops mic...

End of topic.

What is causing the curvature in this picture and why does it distort the horizon into a curve and not the Concord itself?

https://i.imgur.com/Nmvvw9b.jpg



I've never heard of glass with such selective properties and would love to see other examples.

First, I believe we are writing about the surface of the Earth, not the tops of clouds.

But let us simply state your pretty picture is altogether a 100 percent complete and accurate rendering. If that is case, then you can further state we live on a ball much less than the stated figure...

So take your picture back and come back when you have something not distorted much like this one, also presented in support of the ball earth myth:


The camera causes your distorted picture.

As for your claim to have never heard of glass causing distortion?

That is just pure bupkus and I am surprised you would resort to such tactics here. /sarcasm

[totallackey]

I correct this mistake every time I see it made on these forums and elsewhere, namely that one can see curvature from an airplane. I also frequently see it corrected elsewhere. So you're just wrong here.

Since you have written this, then you can provide those posts.

This is also in support of my stance these types of claims do exist.

All caps, clearly you're right. /s

Thanks for finally admitting I am correct.

The idea you want to attribute my being correct to my use of ALL CAPS is in error though and you clearly need to bone up on the issue of correlation =/=causation.

[Tumeni]

First, I believe we are writing about the surface of the Earth, not the tops of clouds.

So... if you're asserting that the curve in the pic is the tops of clouds which are not following the curve (or flat) of the Earth, then ... is it mere coincidence that the photo happened to be taken in front of a 'cloud bump' ?


The camera causes your distorted picture.

Which bit of the Red Bull picture is 'distorted'? I see no distortion in either of the cameras above the horizon line. If the horizon has been distorted by the glass, wouldn't everything else be distorted too?

[Theo]

You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...

The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:

If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.

Plain, pure, and simple.

Drops mic...

End of topic.

What is causing the curvature in this picture and why does it distort the horizon into a curve and not the Concord itself?

https://i.imgur.com/Nmvvw9b.jpg



I've never heard of glass with such selective properties and would love to see other examples.

First, I believe we are writing about the surface of the Earth, not the tops of clouds.

But let us simply state your pretty picture is altogether a 100 percent complete and accurate rendering. If that is case, then you can further state we live on a ball much less than the stated figure...

So take your picture back and come back when you have something not distorted much like this one, also presented in support of the ball earth myth:


The camera causes your distorted picture.

As for your claim to have never heard of glass causing distortion?

That is just pure bupkus and I am surprised you would resort to such tactics here. /sarcasm

Your image shows so much distortion on the edges that even the small camera body is curved!

The image I provided has the horizon in the center where ALL lenses have the least distortion and the Concord below center where barrel effects, if any, should show up.  Yet the Concord is not distorted.

Are you actually claiming that this image was taken with a camera lens that distorts the center of an image and yet leaves the edges not distorted?

Is this magic lens altitude sensitive like Concord windows and only distorts at altitudes where curvature is apparent to the naked eye or does it also work the same way on ground?

Please provide an example of this type of camera lens or a diagram of how it works, I really would like to purchase one.

[totallackey]

Please provide an example of this type of camera lens or a diagram of how it works, I really would like to purchase one.

Deal!

Once you have posted a picture of curvature of the surface of the Earth I will get right back with you!

[Tumeni]

Here's the uncropped version of the Red Bull picture.

Clear distortion at top and bottom, but the horizon is in the centre...

[Tumeni]

Deal! Once you have posted a picture of curvature of the surface of the Earth I will get right back with you!

[BillO]

I need a source to support the Concorde had multiple ply safety glass, the glass being fitted within the framework of the Concorde, and was subject to a variety of forces during flight?!?!?

Please write and inform everyone here you are kidding...

I mean, this has to be some kind of joke...

No, you need a source for this:

You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...

The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:

If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.

Plain, pure, and simple.

Drops mic...

End of topic.

I think yo know that too, so I sure you are being purposefully obtuse, because the other excuse would not be very flattering.