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

*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