Uhhhh, "cut to length". So lets's go crazy and say they hack off sheets of glass a whole 10m long. That's about 33 ft. Unlikely, but hey-
So the curvature on that sheet is .008mm based on 8000 mile diameter Earth (8 micrometers or about 3 ten-thousandths of an inch).
So what is one supposed to prove?
It's more than a little ironic that clown's name is "PRAT". Sure fits!

Those believing and promoting Globe Earth virtually ALWAYS resort to ridicule and ad-hominems, rather than addressing the facts. WHY?

My point (and his point): such "curvature" of 0.008 mm in a sheet of glass (which was formed merely by liquifying it, making it perfectly flat) has never been observed, measured, or demonstrated. That is a problem for the Globe Earth model.

Are you saying such a miniscule "curvature" is beyond our means to measure? I don't believe so. And yet it has never been measured.

Why not?

No, he has a point. I don't think anyone has bothered to melt that amount of glass and measure it so precisely that they find out it has .008mm in curvature.

They haven't bothered because it's a waste of time. 

Methods of improving the surface flatness of thin glass sheets and silicon wafers
Author(s)
Akilian, Mireille


Full printable version (73.47Mb)

Other Contributors
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Mechanical Engineering.
Advisor
Mark L. Schattenburg.
Terms of use
M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
The manufacturing of high quality sheet glass has allowed for many technologies to advance to astonishing frontiers. With dimensions reaching ~ 3 x 3 m², sheet glass is pushing the envelope for producing massive size flat panel displays that can be hung on walls like paintings. Many other applications utilize sheet glass, such as the hard disk drive industry for making platters, the x-ray telescope industry for making high precision optics, and the semiconductor industry for making masks and substrates. The exceptional optical qualities of sheet glass give them a leading advantage in many technologies; however, one main impediment that remains with manufacturing larger sheets is their surface waviness. The sheets have large warps, on the order of hundreds of microns, that present many challenges in all the industries utilizing such sheets, especially in the liquid crystal display and precision optics industries. The thinner the sheets, the larger their waviness, thus placing a limit on the minimum thickness that can be used in such applications before surface distortions become unacceptable. A novel method of shaping sheet glass is presented. This method reduces the surface waviness of a glass sheet and changes its shape while it is in its hot state and without contacting its surface. A sheet of glass is inserted between two parallel porous mandrels such that it is at a predefined distance from the two. A thin layer of pressurized gas flows through each mandrel and out against the glass surfaces. The resulting viscous flow against the heated soft glass sheet changes its surface topography. By using flat mandrels and controlled pressurized gas at temperatures close to 600°C, the outcome is a flat sheet of glass with its original immaculate optical qualities. The flow in porous mandrels and the resulting pressure distribution along the surfaces of a glass sheet inserted between two porous mandrels is modeled. The design and manufacturing of an apparatus used to reduce the surface waviness of glass sheets at elevated temperatures is described.
 
(cont.) The apparatus designed addresses individual sheets; however, guidelines on how to incorporate this method of shaping glass in a continuous glass sheet manufacturing facility are provided. A method of rigidly assembling stacks of glass and silicon sheets with precision for x-ray telescope mirrors and gratings is also presented.
 
Description
Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, 2008.
 
Includes bibliographical references (p. 291-298).
 
Date issued
2008
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/46484
Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mechanical Engineering
Publisher

Sungenis has no credibility when it comes to defending anything scientific because his geocentric notions of a globe earth are almost entirely based on heliocentric Big Bang science.  Sungenis says in his book Flat Earth, Flat Wrong:

“So what kind of material substance could the firmament of the heavens be? First, let’s look at some suggestions from modern science. Interestingly enough, when modern scientists have to describe the Big Bang, they seem to be borrowing from the Bible’s description about the “stretching of the firmament,” but perhaps without even knowing it.  Stephen Hawking, no stranger to innovative ideas, describes something unusual in his 2010 book, The Grand Design. Pay special attention to Hawking’s last sentence: …during this cosmic inflation, the universe expanded by a factor of 1 ൈ 1030 in 1 ൈ 10‒35 seconds. It was as if a coin 1 centimeter in diameter suddenly blew up to ten million times the width of the Milky Way. That may seem to violate relativity, which dictates that nothing can move faster than light, but that speed limit does not apply to the expansion of space itself…physicists aren’t sure how inflation happened….But if you go far enough back in time, the universe was as small as the Planck size, a billion‐trillion‐trillionth of a centimeter.

Although we by no means subscribe to the Big Bang theory, Hawking does tell us what modern science believes is the fundamental particle. He says it is a particle of “the Planck size.” Modern physics has come to realise that there must be a shortest length for matter—the state in which matter becomes indivisible. It is the entity of indivisibility the Greeks called the “atom.””


Sungenis doesn't subscribe to the Big Bang theory? Yet quotes Steven Hawking? Really? The voice used for Hawking (poor guy who was probably a maintained vegetable) was a raging atheist. Here are a couple of quotes from Hawking:

“I think computer viruses should count as life … I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We’ve created life in our own image.”
― Stephen Hawking

“I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful.” ― Stephen Hawking


Not important you say?  Well, let's look further.  What is the planck theory?

“A Planck particle, named after physicist Max Planck, is a hypothetical particle defined as a tiny black hole whose Compton wavelength is equal to its Schwarzschild radius.[1] Its mass is thus approximately the Planck mass, and its Compton wavelength and Schwarzschild radius are about the Planck length.[2] Planck particles are sometimes used as an exercise to define the Planck mass and Planck length.[3]They play a role in some models of the evolution of the universe during the Planck epoch.”

A quick search shows that this planck epoch is the very beginning of the Big Bang. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Cosmology

Sungenis claims he isn't a Big Banger, so why is he using Big Bangers and their theories to support his premise?

Here's another one of Sungenis' sources: George Musser, who wrote the book: In Spooky Action at a Distance. Musser sets out to answer the space time planck continuum vacuum question, offering a provocative exploration of nonlocality and a celebration of the scientists who are trying to explain it. Musser guides the reader on a journey into the lives of experimental physicists observing particles acting in tandem, astronomers finding galaxies that look statistically identical, and cosmologists hoping to unravel the paradoxes surrounding the Big Bang.



If anyone has read Sungenis' book they'd find out pretty quickly that the man relies on pagan heliocentric scientists, models and theories to support his fantasy hybrid model. Rob Skiba said of him that he was a rare person who didn't resort to name calling etc. but there's another way to insult your opponent and that is when you employ endless streams of gibberish to impress everyone into thinking you know what you're talking about. 

Wow! Do you actually believe that?

Absolutely. Promoting and defending his books and movies has become more important to him than the truth.     

Rob Skiba said of him that he was a rare person who didn't resort to name calling etc. but there's another way to insult your opponent and that is when you employ endless streams of gibberish to impress everyone into thinking you know what you're talking about. 

Well, I'll agree with Skiba on this one.  I found Sungenis' treatment of the subject to be respectful of the Flat Earthers.  He prescinded from ridicule and name-calling and gave them (i.e. us) a lot of credit, but ended up disagreeing in the end.  This I can live with and work with.  What isn't helpful to the search for truth are the gratuitous insults and name-calling, such as those in which Marion and some others indulged.  That serves no purposes whatsoever.  It just pisses off your opponents and tempts them to respond in kind.  Nothing good ever happens as a result.

Sungenis is someone I think I'd enjoy sitting down with and discussing this subject over some good beer.

I believe the feeling would be mutual.  (And, as an aside we all know, of course, that the FE folks never engage in ad-hominems and ridicule.)

Well, if the FEs do engage in such tactics, it's nearly always retaliatory, a response in kind.  I think that the vast majority of FE know that it would be some difficult programming for people to break in order to embrace or even be open to FE theory.

I don't know of any FE whose first reaction to a glober would be, "I can't believe that someone could be so idiotic as to believe that the earth is a globe."  That reaction is entirely one-sided as FE has been deliberately consigned to the realm of tin-foil hats.

But it also says something about FE that is gets such violent reactions.  If someone put up a website claiming that the earth was shaped like a donut, I think people would walk past it and move along after quickly and casually performing that circular motion of the finger around the ear, and would never think of it again.  But there are people who spend inordinate amounts of time trying to debunk flat earth.  That means that 1) there's something to it and 2) it threatens them psychologically somehow (due to the programming they've received).