Message from @CryptoCypher
Discord ID: 643926020424204289
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
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
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
Testing
it's not the same material, it's not going to give an equivalency at all
Ugg
Glass doesn't deform from pressure
It shatters
they don't use glass in fuselage windows
it's plexiglass
because glass would shatter
obviously
Then why would you use a source talking about deformations in the structure of glass
and it's lighter