1 posted on
08/03/2008 6:56:52 PM PDT by
neverdem
To: neverdem; blam; SunkenCiv
2 posted on
08/03/2008 6:58:54 PM PDT by
Jet Jaguar
(Obama: The presumptuous democratic nominee)
To: All
3 posted on
08/03/2008 7:00:30 PM PDT by
neverdem
(I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
To: neverdem
4 posted on
08/03/2008 7:06:29 PM PDT by
ChildOfThe60s
(If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there)
To: neverdem
They can tell you what the temperature will be, 25 years from now.
They can tell you all about how the eye and ear evolved.
But glass? Well, they're not really sure about that one. No consensus yet.
5 posted on
08/03/2008 7:25:45 PM PDT by
ClearCase_guy
(Et si omnes ego non)
To: neverdem
...if cooled infinitely slowly When does one detect a drop in temperature, at the end of infinity?
To: neverdem
NYT: “It is well known that panes of stained glass in old European churches are thicker at the bottom because glass is a slow-moving liquid that flows downward over centuries. Well known, but wrong.”
Hmmm. The NY Times writer (or typist) does not cite it but the article is eerily similar to this:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html
...which is copyrighted, dated 1996, and starts out: “It is sometimes said that glass in very old churches is thicker at the bottom than at the top because glass is a liquid, and so over several centuries it has flowed towards the bottom. This is not true.”
To: neverdem
The New York Times: Outrageous liberal bias, insipid PC drivel, plus the occasional excellent science article.
8 posted on
08/03/2008 7:37:54 PM PDT by
TChad
To: neverdem
"...the arrangement of atoms and molecules in glass is indistinguishable from that of a liquid.."
I thought that glass had more short range order than liquid.
12 posted on
08/03/2008 8:07:50 PM PDT by
Paladin2
(Huma for co-president! (it ain't over 'til it's over))
To: neverdem
Thanks for the post.
David Chandler, mentioned in the article, is scary-smart.
Rumor has it that when he was at Penn, a gag greeting card was circulated with a drawing of a smug-looking dragon on the front, with the obligatory puff of smoke.
The caption on the inside read, "Ha! Ha! I'm David Chandler, and you're not."
Cheers!
15 posted on
08/03/2008 8:46:38 PM PDT by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: neverdem
19 posted on
08/03/2008 9:04:39 PM PDT by
Inyo-Mono
(If you don't want people to get your goat, don't tell them where it's tied.)
To: neverdem
22 posted on
08/03/2008 10:07:01 PM PDT by
SuziQ
To: neverdem; nomorelurker
I loved those “slow glass” sci-fi stories.
Glass fascinates me. Molten glass especially.
I occasionally play with glass in the kiln & furnace. :)
To: neverdem
Maybe the glass was thicker at the bottom by design, rather than slow flow, or by chance.
28 posted on
08/04/2008 3:58:28 AM PDT by
Fresh Wind
(Five Year Plans and New Deals, wrapped in golden chains...)
To: neverdem
It's a liquid!
I took some 3’x4’ glass window pains out of a building that we remodeled that were about 60 years old and miked them and every one of them was thicker at the bottom than at the top.
It definatly is liquid silica.
32 posted on
08/04/2008 5:00:11 AM PDT by
dalereed
(both)
To: neverdem
Some people think glass is a slow-moving liquid?
36 posted on
08/04/2008 5:58:07 AM PDT by
Impy
(Spellcheck hates Obama, you should too.)
To: neverdem
Many people tell me this is very contentious. I disagree violently with them. LOL!
38 posted on
08/04/2008 3:07:50 PM PDT by
lepton
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
To: neverdem
39 posted on
08/04/2008 3:08:36 PM PDT by
VOA
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson