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