3 ms·
It isn't much to ask at all, but what you describe makes little sense. 1) What's the issue with "showman pop and some water droplets"? What's the difference be
by kalenx 6y ago
It isn't much to ask at all, but what you describe makes little sense.
1) What's the issue with "showman pop and some water droplets"? What's the difference between producing 1 mL or 1 gallon of water in terms of _verification_?
2) You can verify it in various ways, including obtaining back oxygen and hydrogen from water. You can measure the weight of the water you've used (and derive the number of molecules), and the weight of the gases you obtain (and again check that it matches what you've provided).
3) Sure, your sensors (eyes, ears, etc.) are not accurate/fast enough to literally see two H2 molecules and one O2 molecule creating two H2O. If you feel that this in itself is enough to impede verification then we have an issue. You can always go back to a point where your eyes are enough to validate an hypothesis and build from there, so everything holds. But you seem to be asking that for _every_ scientific proof in our modern world, which is just mischievous.
- feralimal 6y agoI want to see a gas canister that say oxygen, that is tested and proved to be so. I want to see a gas canister that say hydrogen, that is tested and proved to be so. Then I want the gases put into some sort of container, where some sort of process is undertaken, and water is poured out. It should be straightforward, with no trickery or slight of hand trickery. It must be simple to do that surely??! Feel free to post a video.
- kalenx 6y agoIt is extremely simple to do that. But you won't accept it. You would say the gas canister containing oxygen to be "unproved", or the ignition source to be "unproved to be so", or the camera to be "unproved to truly reflect the reality", or the container in which the gases are put in "unproved to be empty". You do not really care about knowing, you care about being right. And there's nothing I can do for you on this regard.
- feralimal 6y agoSeriously, post a video of you doing that. Or someone else's. If you think I will refute it whatever the case, what can I do? I can only say that I will watch in good faith. If, as you seem to suggest, I do see issues with the video and evidence, and you don't, what does that tell you about your threshold for the acceptance of what is presented as true to you?
- kalenx 6y agoSure, here's the first youtube result I got: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQaYLbsl33g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQaYLbsl33g > I can only say that I will watch in good faith. You won't. > If, as you seem to suggest, I do see issues with the video and evidence, and you don't, what does that tell you about your threshold for the acceptance of what is presented as true to you? Of course my threshold of acceptance is lower than yours! This whole discussion, my point was that your "threshold of acceptance" is ridiculously, insanely high. For instance, I do think that the BBC guy in this video is acting in good faith. Also, given the two following hypothesis: - Thousands of people around the globe have been putting up complex magic tricks and keep the secret for more than two centuries to make me believe that a gas can burn an produce water; - Hydrogen and oxygen mixed together and ignited produce water vapor. The latter is far, far more likely than the former.
- feralimal 6y agoI watched it. Issues I have with the video you provided. I can't believe that this passes muster with you as a scientist. I can't help but notice the gas he creates at first is white in colour. In the second the gas is clear in colour. Both white and colourless gas are the same apparently. The difference in colour is not explained. In the second experiment, Brian Cox says he is using hydrogen + AIR (not oxygen). Air is apparently 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and argon + trace gases are the rest. This is to say, this is not mixing oxygen + hydrogen. So this experiment is NOT what I was asking evidence of. Finally, he creates an explosive pop and some condensation appears on the glass jar. Let's accept that this liquid is water. What's to say that the water isn't simply water that was already in vapour form in the air that condensed against the glass? And why do we need flame to ignite the gases? Is it really true that fire creates water? Is that a joke? And do we really think that the ratio of 2 particle of hydrogen to 1 of oxygen was met? It was hardly a rigorous measurement, was it? Overall, no, I did not see and experiment where pure hydrogen and pure oxygen where combined to make water. Do you think you did? To me, its all inference, hearsay and claim. If this is all the evidence you need, yes, I think your threshold is too low.