Biggest common misinformation on the net?

The conext is iffy. Having NEVER had an MOT could do, depending on the the nature of the claim. Technically an MOT is only valid on the day it's issued so the rest of the year you "dont have an MOT".

Don't you have to have one less than a year old when and if you have an accident?
 
Ever seen an old cathedral with stained glass? It's considerably and visibly thicker at the bottom, and falling out of the lead lining at the top because of it's "liquid" state. In the very loosest term of the word liquid though of course. I'm sure modern glass is probably less so, but certainly glass of old would shift over long periods of time. :)

Writing in the American Journal of Physics, physicist Edgar D. Zanotto states "...the predicted relaxation time for GeO2 at room temperature is 1032 years. Hence, the relaxation period (characteristic flow time) of cathedral glasses would be even longer" (Am. J. Phys, 66(5):392-5, May 1998). In layperson's terms, he wrote that glass at room temperature is very strongly on the solid side of the spectrum from solids to liquids.

Evidence against glass flow

If medieval glass has flowed perceptibly, then ancient Roman and Egyptian objects should have flowed proportionately more—but this is not observed.

If glass flows at a rate that allows changes to be seen with the naked eye after centuries, then changes in optical telescope mirrors should be observable (by interferometry) in a matter of days—but this also is not observed. Similarly, it should not be possible to see Newton's rings between decade-old fragments of window glass—but this can in fact be quite easily done.

Likewise, precision optical lenses and mirrors used in microscopes and telescopes should gradually deform and lose focus. This is also not observed.

And

The notion that glass flows over time is just the mistaken thinking of someone who was unaware that medieval glass blowers had not developed a way of making very flat glass of even thickness. The method they had of making flat sheets of glass was very crude by comparison to later methods: you blew the best sphere you could, and then spun it by rolling the blow tube with the hot glass sphere at the end on an elevated rail letting the sphere flatten into a disc as you rolled. The only flat glass they could produce was in disc form, and there's nothing remotely resembling precision in the uniformity of the thickness of these discs. Any piece you cut from such a disc is going to be visibly thicker on one end than another.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=106653

The cathedral argument seems to be ages old [haha] and a misconception.
 
I've always wonder if you filled a pool with it, you could manage to run across it :p

Yes as long as you hit it with some force and don't stop moving...

EDIT: Both Braniac and Mythbusters have demonstrated this...one with custard and one with cornflower and water.
 
Yes as long as you hit it with some force and don't stop moving...

EDIT: Both Braniac and Mythbusters have demonstrated this...one with custard and one with cornflower and water.

cool would have thought it wouldn't have worked with any depth as only the top would solidify and then you'd just sink on that little platform. Awesome though I want to try t :p
 
Glass is a solid in everyday terms. ITs a solid according to how you define solids at shool and with logic, in that it holds its shape and yes, if u get hit in the face with it, it hurts.

But at atomic technical i have no friends scientists level, its technically not a solid. Wether this makes it a liquid is up for debate though.
 
Just remember that a couple of hundred years ago they thought that Heat was a fifth element called Caloric. So maybe we will find out that our current glass theory is wrong sometime in the future

Maybe, but at the moment there is no evidence for it at all. Here's another quote, a little long but worth reading.

For definitive evidence that glass has not flowed in old windows we must examine the oldest examples. Early glass used to make bottles and windows was usually formed by adding soda and lime to silicates. Sometimes potash was added instead. Usually there were other impurities which made it softer than modern soda-lime glass. Other compounds were often added to give colour or to improve its properties. The Romans were making glass objects of this sort in the 1st century AD, and despite being very delicate, some examples remain--such as the elaborately decorated Portland Vase kept at the British Museum. Roman glassware provides some of the best available evidence that types of soda-lime glass are not fluid, even after nearly 2000 years. The oldest remaining examples of stained glass windows that remain in place have lasted since the 12th century. The oldest of all are the five figures in the clerestory of Augsburg Cathedral in Germany, which are dated to between 1050 to 1150. Many other early examples are found in France and England including the magnificent North Rose window of Notre Dame, Paris dating from 1250.

There have been many claims (especially by tour guides) that such glass is deformed because the glass has flowed slowly over the centuries. This has become a persistent myth, but close inspection shows that characteristic signs of flow, such as flowing around, and out of the frame, are not present. The deformations are more consistent with imperfections of the methods used to make panes of glass at the time. In some cases gaps appear between glass panes and their frames, but this is due to deformations in the lead framework rather than the glass. Other examples of rippling in windows of old homes can be accounted for because the glass was imperfectly flattened by rolling before the float glass process came into use.

It is difficult to verify with absolute certainty that no examples of glass flow exist, because there are almost always no records of the original state. In rare cases stained glass windows are found to contain lead which would lower the viscosity and make them heavier. Could these examples deform under their own weight? Only careful study and analysis can answer this question. Robert Brill of the Corning glass museum has been studying antique glass for over 30 years. He has examined many examples of glass from old buildings, measuring their material properties and chemical composition. He has taken a special interest in the glass flow myth and has always looked for evidence for and against. In his opinion, the notion that glass in Mediaeval stained glass windows has flowed over the centuries is untrue and, he says, examples of sagging and ripples in old windows are also most likely physical characteristics resulting from the manufacturing process. Other experts who have made similar studies agree. Theoretical analysis based on measured glass viscosities shows that glass should not deform significantly even over many centuries, and a clear link is found between types of deformation in the glass and the way it was produced.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html

I don't see how one can argue against the fact that the earliest examples of glass have not 'flowed' in any way.
 
Ever seen an old cathedral with stained glass? It's considerably and visibly thicker at the bottom, and falling out of the lead lining at the top because of it's "liquid" state. In the very loosest term of the word liquid though of course. I'm sure modern glass is probably less so, but certainly glass of old would shift over long periods of time. :)

myth - not true.
 
You mean as in when it's heated to the point it will flow?

In that case steel is a liquid because it will flow....

sorry im not getting my point across, i dont mean melt (as it losses its shape then) but when the electrons start to "flow" if you know what i mean?
 
Can we end the glass argument? It's a solid, specifically an amorphous solid.

yes, stop arguing people - its a solid by EVERY definition of the word - just because its in a supercooled liquid energy-well doesn't mean its not a solid, it just isn't a crystalline solid, its an amorphous one.
 
Back
Top Bottom