5 ms·

And for this reason ice floats on water as it’s one of those rare materials whose density decreases as it solidifies. Because ice floats and is an excellent in

And for this reason ice floats on water as it’s one of those rare materials whose density decreases as it solidifies. Because ice floats and is an excellent insulator rivers and lakes don’t completely freeze up enabling aquatic life to continue to thrive beneath while the surface remains frozen.

pyinstallwoes 2y ago
So outer space is max frozen water?
beltsazar 2y ago
If ice didn't float, life as we know it wouldn't be possible anywhere in the universe. (It doesn't exclude life that doesn't require water, though—if that's possible.)
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > If ice didn't float, life as we know it wouldn't be possible anywhere in the universe. I cheerfully propose this is evidence of a hacked universe. More specifically that there was a design flaw in the core structures and that water got tweaked as a band-aid - rather than rip the germ-code apart and rewrite it. subscript: my premise requires a fallible creator. the most interesting kind, imho
  - Shadowmist 2y ago
    water is OP
  - baq 2y ago
    if we live in a simulation, god must exist
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      What's the next level above hypervisor?
      - baq 2y ago
        it's gods all the way up
  - seadan83 2y ago
    Evidence and a clue are very different. Just because a scientific hypothesis us incorrect, or there is no explanation, does not mean that alternatives must be right. Eg: disproving darwinism does not mean creationism is correct. Just that darwinism is flawed. You have to affirmatively prove alternative theories, can't just disprove something else and claim that makes you right. Yet more, creationism is not falsifiable, that's outside the scope of science. In the realm of faith, clues are taken as evidence, and this is where I quibble with you if we are talking science fact.
    - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
      > Evidence and a clue are very different. Just because a scientific hypothesis us incorrect, or there is no explanation, Evidence, clues, hypotheses and explanations are indeed different things. > does not mean that alternatives must be right. It was a proposal. It was a cheerful proposal. A cheerful rebuttal seems to be called for, does it not?
      - seadan83 2y ago
        Given that life exists, and life requiring improbable actualities, those actualities existing are not evidence. We are very lucky, we live in a geological era at a specific location of the universe that has hit the jackpot of actualities to allow life to be sustained. I might be mildly autistic, I'm not sure how to say this more cheerfully.. but no - the fact water behaves slightly differently is not evidence for intelligent design. What's more, there can never be evidence for intelligent design because it is a non-falsifiable assertion. It is faith. This just feels familiar to the intelligent design vs evolution debate. The idea being that if 'evolution' can be shown to be false, then intelligent design is true. First, intelligent design is not science, it is faith - it cannot be shown to be false and therefore a prime requirement of a scientific hypothesis fails. Further, if evolution is false in the end, then it does not mean intelligent design is correct, it just means we have no clue - we only are left with more questions and fewer answers.
      - seadan83 2y ago
        My apologies for not rebutting your original statements as directly as I could. I am trying to understand better why your comment gave me a relatively visceral reaction. I think the reason is that it feels somewhat common to see the realm of science as complementary to religion. There is tension for sure there. As a given, religion attempts to essentially explain everything. Therefore when science begins to explain more and more, religion explains less and less. To that extent, how exactly is something working in a way we do not understand actually evidence of anything? Perhaps understanding more would finally be evidence for why exactly water freezes - but nothing more. Last point, the logic is flawed. Seemingly you are conveying an implication relationship (ie: if A, then B) - notably: because physics & chemistry were hacked, life can exist. Looking at the truth table of the implication relationship [1], the latter being true, that life exists, the relationship no longer guarantees the former proposition (that physics and chemistry were hacked) to also be true. Which means we could equally say "because so much time passed things lined up - therefore life could exist." The key is, you have to figure out why the preposition (ie: A, that physics & chemistry were hacked) is independently true of life existing. In other words, independent of life existing, you must prove that physics and chemistry were hacked in order for that to be evidence of why life exists. Otherwise, using the existence of life as evidence of a hacked chemistry & physics is circular reasoning. [1] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4254268/implication-logic-truth-table-explained https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4254268/implication...
- nick7376182 2y ago
  What's the reasoning here? You think that life would not have survived ice ages if ice didn't float? Life would probably have adapted even if the oceans froze bottom-up with deep sea "snow" no? It could even have led to a more consistent global temperature as the albedo of earth didn't change through colder periods.
- Retric 2y ago
  Ice freezing and sinking would be an issue on earth, but the habitable zone extends much closer to the sun than the earth because extremophiles can survive up to at least 122 C. Similarly a denser atmosphere more eventually distributes temperature so planets don’t actually need to have very high surface temperatures to avoid water freezing.
dev_tty01 2y ago
Yes, ice floating is super important in our system. Another biggie is the surface tension effect. Surface tension [1] plays a big part in the capillary action that allows trees to transport water and nutrients from deep in the ground up to the top of their trunk and branches. Surface tension is important throughout nature and many industrial processes as well. Water is incredible. [1] https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/38556 https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/38556
- vishnugupta 2y ago
  > Water is incredible. You could say that again! The more I observe and understand properties of water the more fascinating it gets. For example, the minutest of leakages can cause a havoc in a building. That’s why I get extremely nervous when I see damp walls. Or take flowing water. What looks like a gentle stream could easily sweep away a few tons of bus. Often times vehicle drivers misjudge this to drive through a shallow rain stream and end up in a whole lot of trouble.

pyinstallwoes 2y ago

So outer space is max frozen water?

beltsazar 2y ago

If ice didn't float, life as we know it wouldn't be possible anywhere in the universe. (It doesn't exclude life that doesn't require water, though—if that's possible.)

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> If ice didn't float, life as we know it wouldn't be possible anywhere in the universe. I cheerfully propose this is evidence of a hacked universe. More specifically that there was a design flaw in the core structures and that water got tweaked as a band-aid - rather than rip the germ-code apart and rewrite it. subscript: my premise requires a fallible creator. the most interesting kind, imho
- Shadowmist 2y ago
  water is OP
- baq 2y ago
  if we live in a simulation, god must exist
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    What's the next level above hypervisor?
    - baq 2y ago
      it's gods all the way up
- seadan83 2y ago
  Evidence and a clue are very different. Just because a scientific hypothesis us incorrect, or there is no explanation, does not mean that alternatives must be right. Eg: disproving darwinism does not mean creationism is correct. Just that darwinism is flawed. You have to affirmatively prove alternative theories, can't just disprove something else and claim that makes you right. Yet more, creationism is not falsifiable, that's outside the scope of science. In the realm of faith, clues are taken as evidence, and this is where I quibble with you if we are talking science fact.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > Evidence and a clue are very different. Just because a scientific hypothesis us incorrect, or there is no explanation, Evidence, clues, hypotheses and explanations are indeed different things. > does not mean that alternatives must be right. It was a proposal. It was a cheerful proposal. A cheerful rebuttal seems to be called for, does it not?
    - seadan83 2y ago
      Given that life exists, and life requiring improbable actualities, those actualities existing are not evidence. We are very lucky, we live in a geological era at a specific location of the universe that has hit the jackpot of actualities to allow life to be sustained. I might be mildly autistic, I'm not sure how to say this more cheerfully.. but no - the fact water behaves slightly differently is not evidence for intelligent design. What's more, there can never be evidence for intelligent design because it is a non-falsifiable assertion. It is faith. This just feels familiar to the intelligent design vs evolution debate. The idea being that if 'evolution' can be shown to be false, then intelligent design is true. First, intelligent design is not science, it is faith - it cannot be shown to be false and therefore a prime requirement of a scientific hypothesis fails. Further, if evolution is false in the end, then it does not mean intelligent design is correct, it just means we have no clue - we only are left with more questions and fewer answers.
    - seadan83 2y ago
      My apologies for not rebutting your original statements as directly as I could. I am trying to understand better why your comment gave me a relatively visceral reaction. I think the reason is that it feels somewhat common to see the realm of science as complementary to religion. There is tension for sure there. As a given, religion attempts to essentially explain everything. Therefore when science begins to explain more and more, religion explains less and less. To that extent, how exactly is something working in a way we do not understand actually evidence of anything? Perhaps understanding more would finally be evidence for why exactly water freezes - but nothing more. Last point, the logic is flawed. Seemingly you are conveying an implication relationship (ie: if A, then B) - notably: because physics & chemistry were hacked, life can exist. Looking at the truth table of the implication relationship [1], the latter being true, that life exists, the relationship no longer guarantees the former proposition (that physics and chemistry were hacked) to also be true. Which means we could equally say "because so much time passed things lined up - therefore life could exist." The key is, you have to figure out why the preposition (ie: A, that physics & chemistry were hacked) is independently true of life existing. In other words, independent of life existing, you must prove that physics and chemistry were hacked in order for that to be evidence of why life exists. Otherwise, using the existence of life as evidence of a hacked chemistry & physics is circular reasoning. [1] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4254268/implication-logic-truth-table-explained https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4254268/implication...
nick7376182 2y ago
What's the reasoning here? You think that life would not have survived ice ages if ice didn't float? Life would probably have adapted even if the oceans froze bottom-up with deep sea "snow" no? It could even have led to a more consistent global temperature as the albedo of earth didn't change through colder periods.
Retric 2y ago
Ice freezing and sinking would be an issue on earth, but the habitable zone extends much closer to the sun than the earth because extremophiles can survive up to at least 122 C. Similarly a denser atmosphere more eventually distributes temperature so planets don’t actually need to have very high surface temperatures to avoid water freezing.

dev_tty01 2y ago

Yes, ice floating is super important in our system. Another biggie is the surface tension effect. Surface tension [1] plays a big part in the capillary action that allows trees to transport water and nutrients from deep in the ground up to the top of their trunk and branches. Surface tension is important throughout nature and many industrial processes as well. Water is incredible. [1] https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/38556 https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/38556

vishnugupta 2y ago
> Water is incredible. You could say that again! The more I observe and understand properties of water the more fascinating it gets. For example, the minutest of leakages can cause a havoc in a building. That’s why I get extremely nervous when I see damp walls. Or take flowing water. What looks like a gentle stream could easily sweep away a few tons of bus. Often times vehicle drivers misjudge this to drive through a shallow rain stream and end up in a whole lot of trouble.