Passage Discussion

[ganbayou]

Is this no argument, explanatory passage?

1P: Old thought
2P: Why the old believe may be false
3P More details about how old theory can be false
4P: Actual explanation

Is it like this?
So if we ask what the tone of the passage is, it would be...against old theory and support the new one?

[ohthatpatrick]

Correct! The author never weighs in on this Scale, but the scale is basically between

"Glass bulges at the bottom because it flows downward like a viscous liquid"
(many people / persistent belief)
vs.
"Glass bulges at the bottom of old windows because the process they used to make the windows created a bulging part, and the window mounters just chose to mount the bulging part at the bottom for better stability"
(glass researchers / E.D.Z.)

P1 - Background of Myth and Explanation of How it Came to Be

P2 - New study debunks the myth by showing that the flow of glass would take trillions of years to be observably bulging

P3 - There are some details that affect the rate of flow, but still, we know the flow of glass is not why these bulge

P4 - The reason some of these windows bulge is just a symptom of the old way we used to make glass

[seychelles1718]

I have a hard time understanding the last sentence of the last paragraph: "Cooled below the lower end of this range, molten glass retains an amorphous atomic structure, but it takes on the physical properties of a solid."

So as I understand, glass BELOW the transition temperature should be solid but why does the sentence above say "molten" glass? I believe "molten" refers to "liquified." I was so confused about the 1st paragraph because of the last sentence...

[ohthatpatrick]

It really does seem like unforgivably bad writing.

It's trying to say we
START with molten (liquid) glass
THEN cool it below the lower end of the transition temp
FINALLY it still has amorphous atomic structure (like its old days as a liquid) but now has the physical properties of a solid

... which means we would no longer CALL it "molten" glass, so why are you using the PRESENT TENSE, author?!

It seems like the intended meaning is,
cooled below the lower end of this range, [what-once-was-molten-glass] now retains an amorphous atomic structure ... yada yada

[syp]

I had a really tough time with this passage. To clarify my understanding, do lines 10-19 explain the erroneous justification as to why people believed atoms in glass are not arranged in a fixed crystal structure? Or are these lines something we take as fact on the side of the researchers? I am having trouble discerning which side of the scale it is on. Also, what passages are similar to this in topic/difficulty? Thank you.

[ohthatpatrick]

The purpose of this passage is to CLARIFY A MISCONCEPTION.

"THE FACT": the atoms in glass are not arranged in a fixed crystal structure.

"THE MISUNDERSTANDING / MISCONCEPTION": window glass flows slowly downward like a very viscous liquid, and that's why you see old windows have ripples or bulge at the bottom.

"THE REALITY": yes, glass flows slowly downward like a VERY viscous liquid, but only if you heat it above 350 degrees Celsius (which is not the average indoor temperature of a cathedral)!

And even if you DID heat it up that much, it still flows so slowly that it would take a trillion years before it would bulge the way old windows do.

Old windows bulge because of the process that was used to make them.

=================================

The two most recent comps for this challenging read are
PT81: noninferential access to our own thoughts
PT71: explaining mirrors (line of sight vs. point of view)