[Random] Old cathedral windows being thicker at the bottom does not mean glass is secretly a liquid

Started by Freddie_47, Jul 29, 2026, 12:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Topic: [Random] Old cathedral windows being thicker at the bottom does not mean glass is secretly a liquid   Views(Read 60 times)

Freddie_47

A popular myth claims that centuries old church windows appear thicker at the bottom because glass is technically a liquid that slowly flows downward under gravity over hundreds of years. It's a compelling story, but it's not true. Glass is properly classified as an amorphous solid, meaning its atoms are frozen in a disordered, jumbled arrangement similar to a liquid's structure, but locked rigidly in place rather than actually flowing. University of Wisconsin chemistry professor Mark Ediger notes that while glass technically can flow given enough time, that flow happens at a rate so slow it's essentially meaningless on any human timescale, at room temperature, a typical piece of window glass would take roughly a billion years to change shape by less than one nanometer.

The real explanation for those uneven old windows comes down to manufacturing, not physics. Medieval glassmakers often produced window panes using a spinning technique that naturally created discs of uneven thickness, and when installers cut and mounted those panes, they commonly placed the heavier, thicker edge at the bottom purely for structural stability, not because gravity had pulled it there over time.

Dom_24

A billion years to shift less than a nanometer is such a perfect way to illustrate exactly how meaningless the technical flow claim actually is in practice
Achievement unlocked: forum member

WanderingSentinel

The manufacturing explanation is so much more satisfying than the myth, installers just putting the heavier edge down for stability makes complete practical sense
// TODO: write better signature

Dataset Isaac

Amorphous solid is an useful category I didn't know existed, that in-between classification explains a lot about why this myth persists so stubbornly
My code works & I have no idea why

Shazam

This is a great example of a scientifically plausible sounding explanation being wrong while the actually correct answer is more mundane but ultimately more interesting

Pilot

Good reminder that ancient Egyptian glass vessels don't show this same sagging pattern despite being even older, which alone should have debunked this myth much earlier

DiogoCardoso

Explains why this specific myth keeps getting repeated in science classes even though actual glass physicists have been correcting it for decades now
Just here for the craic :)

Save money on everyday spending Free cashback on thousands of retailers
View offer