Liquid oxygen is way too pretty to be as dangerous as it is
ELI5, Why is it dangerous?
On top of being dangerously cold, it’s oxygen, so it helps stuff burn easily. I might have overestimated the dangers of it, I thought I’d read that it can ignite some flammable materials on contact but I was apparently wrong. It seems like it just makes fires a lot easier to start (on account of there being a lot of oxygen in liquid oxygen)
Fun fact: this is how they separate oxygen, nitrogen, and argon from air. You cool it to a liquid, and the. Slowly heat it back up. Nitrogen boils off first around 77K, then Argon around 83K, then Oxygen at 90K.
I find this so cool, even though it’s like “oh yeah. Just like distilling alcohol or petroleum”… But… Like super cold…
someone find God and freeze him at -218°C then finally some mysteries of the universe can be settled.
You don’t actually have to chill oxygen to see it, you can also just blow bubbles underwater.
Aren’t you just seeing the lack of water rather than actually seeing the oxygen?
And what is inside the bubbles instead of water?
nitrogen – 78%
oxygen – 17%
carbon dioxide – 4%
other gases - 1%
God is everything in this photo, everything.
I feel like it’s quite the strawman or misunderstanding when people ask for material proof of God. Can you prove math using empirical verification? No. because math is not something you can empirically verify as it does not exist materially.
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see the terrible consequences of America’s opiate epidemic.
I’m going to hazard a guess that you weren’t a math or a philosophy major.
You’re telling me you have a way to scientifically prove math? Please show me how you can use the scientific method to prove math.
I mean, math is more bunch of agreements and consequences, that come from that.
I agree
I give you an orange and then i give you another orange, how many oranges do you have empirically.
I will need a research grant and 3 interns.
After extensive testing we have a 95% confidence of mean of 2.
Sure. I observe 2 oranges. I can also observe the world around me. Although observation is a part of the scientific method it is not the scientific method it self. Perhaps what I said can use more clarification, take Pythagorean theorem. This is not something which is proverable through science or observation but rather mathematically through logic. Its not something which you can put under a microscope.
Not directly since there are no perfect triangles but it ties into sine and cosine which ties into the equations that govern light. Which are always true no matter how often we measure them.
Right, so in Math we have axioms and we build upon those axioms and construct theorems which are deductively true. They are not true in the same way a scientific theory is. My point is, not everything that can be true needs empirical verification. Math is one example.
While what you say is true, tautological arguments are not useful in and of themselves. Internally consistent mathematics is not a useful construct unless we can empirically discover structures that those mathematical systems model. Einsteins theory of relativity is not impressive without the empirical discovery that the it is/was a better model than the existing Newtonian models that proceeded it.
To argue that internally consistent tautologies are true and are of equivalent usefulness is a bad faith argument that inappropriately equates two logical constructs.
I agree with what you’re saying. The reason why I said what I said originally is because there is a decent number of people who only consider science as the only way to truth. Despite logic for example being accepted and needed to do any science.
The problem is that you failed to adequately disambiguate your position from nonsense. The position you presented is a poor one and an unwelcome thing to try and defend in this community. Additionally, your presentation of the subject was combative instead of illuminating and your statement about “true things” is just a bad presentation of a thing we have excellent proofs of without the hand waving.
Frankly, it was difficult for me to differentiate your argument from a bad apologist argument.
