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...
Right?! How cool is it that we can literally chill the atmospheric soup that we all stroll around in, then separate that into its components.
We can also prove its existence scientifically. We can detect by testing for it. We can chemically react it with other elements. There are lots of things we can't see with our eyes but we know exist through scientific study.
So far no test for god has been developed. We just have an old book that claims bats are birds to go by.
"I've begun worshipping the sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, and a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to 'God' are all answered at about the same 50% rate."
Joe bless you.
I really like that scene in DS9 where someone is getting indignant that a race worships some aliens who live in a wormhole and they point out that they know they exist. What use is a god that you can't see?
I almost buy the philosophical argument that there must be a first mover, but I can't understand the incredible leap of faith people make to have such specific beliefs. Like how did we get to the point of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" and prosperity doctrine wackiness?
Honestly, the first mover argument just looks like "turtles all the way down" to me. It explains nothing, because it doesn't even care to explain this first mover. It's just one more turtle.
Hence, if the correct answer is "we don't know", we don't need the leap of faith to a first mover we know nothing about, we can just say "we don't know" and they don't either.
I thought god was discovered to be a particle in 2012 and he wasn't very happy with being seen, since he disappeared immediately and turned a lot of his followers into fascists.
You don't actually have to chill oxygen to see it, you can also just blow bubbles underwater.
Mostly nitrogen though.
You could use a tank of pure oxygen to blow bubbles 😜
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)
someone find God and freeze him at -218°C then finally some mysteries of the universe can be settled.
This got me an idea. Maybe oxygen is god.
Assuming that God isn't physical and is only real, since we create it in our minds.
Than god can be oxygen since it is necessary for us to live and therefore create god.
This is a very weird way to explain god.
Hydrogen, more likely. After all that was the first macroscopic atom in this universe, and on a long enough timeline, hydrogen starts to philosophize about itself. That's literally what we are doing.
If God was unmeasurable, then God could exist.
That's why I am technically Agnostic. But in my heart I know, God was invented by humanity because we are scared and don't like to not have an answers.
🎶 you are the air I breathe🎶 -hillsong united
high concentrations of it makes nearly anything in its presence catch fire.
The Bible attributes the same property to the abrahamic god. Maybe someone confused oxygen with a deity?
The funny thing is that we actually see oxygen, but as a gas it's so dispersed that it's almost fully transparent.
In theory, if you could press enough air into a tight enough volume (like, say, 1 cubic meter of air into a 1 cubic centimeter), you'd get a similar result.
I mean, the reason the sky is blue is due to the atmosphere's effects on light and the fact that it's not fully transparent.
Earth's atmosphere is also the reason why we see some stars flickering. The light of the star is constant, but our atmosphere creates diffusion, so some of the photons don't reach our retinas. Technically, if you and your next door neighbor look at the same star, it's flickering for both of you, but the flickering is not synchronous since position of observation matters.
If you did pack all that oxygen that right, wouldn’t the temperature also drop to about a similar level?
bruh this facebook-ass meme
Maybe they just haven't cooled him down enough
God is so hot right now.
I imagine Rick, pranking Morty by telling him he froze God to -218.8 C and thus accidentally killed him.
Maybe we can see God if we make him cold enough... 🤔
you can see god if you make yourself cold enough..
I don't know man, he gives little kids cancer, if that isn't cold I don't know what is.
It's a small jar of the sky.
God is all around you, he created everything! So you can witness him by his works!
-- some religious, science denying person... Probably.
Science man is the devil!
Odin promised to eliminate all ice giants.
Jesus promised to eliminate all sin.
There is still sin in the world, but there are no ice giants.
You best put your finest Viking helmet on and bow down in worship. Not the one with horns either because that's not historically accurate and Odin will absolutely smite you for that.
Lord, please deliver a Dallas victory over Philly. For the lawls. In Mike Ditkas name I pray, hut hut.
Pretty sure god likes negative temperatures about as much as you do?
God is everything in this photo, everything.
Therefore, I am God
I am at your mercy, my Lord!
Indeed
God is a metaphysic like math. He doesn't exist, but influences people lives all the same.
Math and the concept of god are not in the same vein at all.
Religion, and the concept of god, is entirely fabricated by human minds
Non-human animals can count
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20121128-animals-that-can-count
There is no evidence that they pray to any deity
Religion and science are looking at reality from two entirely different perspectives. Neither can see the whole, so neither is "correct" in their own views 100% of the time.
It's like the blind men and the elephant. Neither is 100% correct, but also neither is 100% wrong. They are both useful tools that can allow us to find out what the truth is, provided that is the original purpose.
Please provide evidence for your claim.
I believe history would be that evidence. Since Asura-Mazda to the present day, almost all societies have believed in a god of some form. Whether that god exists or not is functionally irrelevant. The fact that humans seem to base their societies on an external power does seem significant to me. Where you follow Asura-Mazda, YHWY, Jehova, Allah, Baha, or any other God seems to work for us, until we run into some sort of other belief system, but the basics are all the same. We need to focus on our similarities, instead of our differences. All people have the same basic goals and ideals. We've all been working for hundreds of thousands of years to make it so our children will all have a good life.
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 mean, math is more bunch of agreements and consequences, that come from that.
I agree
Geometry is not a thing?
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.
You can empirically prove math like you'd empirically prove other things - make predictions based on math and test these predictions. But it seems like you are expecting these proofs to be like mathematical proofs - uncompromising logic that leaves no room for getting false positives by chance. They won't. They'll be like all other empirical proofs - "mere" scientific theories that must forever live with the possibility - however improbable - that the universe somehow aligned to make all the predictions come true even though the hypothesis they were derived from is wrong.
But this is not a property of the math we were trying to prove. This is just the nature of the empirical proofs. Implying, based on that, that math is less verifiable than all the physical observable things (like frozen oxygen) is ridiculous - the proofs for these things suffer from the exact same problem!
The (poorly) argued point they are trying to make is the distinction between the empirically identified congruences between the math and the internally consistent tautological truth of the math itself.
The reason I bring this up is your point about math modeling empirical evidence is an important distinction. Where their argument truly breaks down is the idea that all internally consistent tautologies are of equal value to us as humans. This is obviously false.
And frankly, their other argument about this showing that true things exist without empirical proof is offensively stupid since we already have much better proofs demonstrating that true things exist without proof.
.jpg){kind=link}