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

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

next...

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