Also a good argument to counter the "why is it thicker at the bottem then?" point - if you were incapable of producing perfectly flat glass, just as they were back then, and you wanted to put this glass into a window - which side would you have pointing up?
> I was made aware of the fallacy of the glass flows myth many years ago by the late great glass chemist, Nick Labino. Nick offered this simple analogy, "...if the windows found in early Colonial American homes were thicker at the bottom than the top because of "flow" then the glass found in Egyptian Tombs should be a puddle."
> Many years ago, Dr. Chuck Kurkjian told me that an acquaintance of his had estimated how fast—actually, how slowly—glasses would flow. The calculation showed that if a plate of glass a meter tall and a centimeter thick was placed in an upright position at room temperature, the time required for the glass to flow down so as to thicken 10 angstrom units at the bottom (a change the size of only a few atoms) would theoretically be about the same as the age of the universe: close to ten billion years.
Which is obviously completely reasonable in retrospect.
I guess my point was that it's just as likely for a teacher to accidentally feed you misinformation as it is for KA. More likely even, given that KA is transparent and open for scrutinization.
