re: #214 whitebeach

You have empirical evidence, then, that this is not the case?

aside from the time i sat staring at a stained glass window for 600 years, there’s this:

EVEN so rational a subject as science has its myths. And like the more
traditional sort, scientific myths are often used to illustrate a
general truth. One myth which weaves its way from textbook to textbook
is that the reason the glass in old windows (especially medieval church
windows) is thicker at the bottom than at the top is because
glass, despite its apparent solidity, is actually a liquid. Given enough
time, therefore, it will flow from the top of a window pane to the
bottom, accumulating there as a perceptible bulge.
In the abstruse world of physics, glass is indeed classified as a liquid
(albeit a supercooled and therefore not very mobile one). The myth of
the ancient window pane has therefore been thought of as a good way to
show students that the everyday meaning of the word “liquid” is not
completely subverted by thinking of glass as a liquid too.
Putting the myth to the test, several researchers have recently made a
stab at calculating how fast glass actually flows. Unfortunately for the
textbooks, the latest estimate, made by Yvonne Stokes of the University
of Adelaide, and which will be reported in the Proceedings of the Royal
Society next month, is that it would take over 10 million years for a window
pane to flow perceptibly.

thefoa.org