3 ms·

Reading this article left me more and more annoyed with every paragraph. To quote from the article: > Because the boiling point of water depends on altitude,

Reading this article left me more and more annoyed with every paragraph. To quote from the article: > Because the boiling point of water depends on altitude, you could take it to a very, very high place and the same calorific value might well boil the water. I agree that approaching it like this is possible. But, “possible” doesn’t mean that it is sensible. Philosophically speaking, if such things like above are allowed, then it should also be allowed to simply heat this water to very high temperature (like 99 C) with another apparatus such as a stove and then finally boil it with the candles. That is, use a stove instead of a rocket. It is also possible to conceive of an apparatus with heating elements and photodiodes. This apparatus will run the heaters and heat the water when its photodiode detect the light from the candle. So, in effect, the candle is responsible for heating the water. Here’s what I’m trying to say: we need to accept some constraints and reject some possibilities in order to answer anything. If there are no constraints, then anything is possible. But, we know that this is not how the universe works. Finally, I hope to never read anything from this author again. Ironically for this person, maybe they should consider the possibility that their ”science” is BS, aka bullshit.

adammarples 2y ago
It's a silly example but he does give a constraint. The one constraint is that the heat has to come from the candles. The purpose is to illustrate that even if one variable is constrained, there are other variables that may not be constrained, that you had assumed were static (altitude, pressure). It's just an example which illustrates a point of the article: try and think of something you had assumed was fixed and change that instead of working with the parameters you thought you had. Not a bad idea overall.
- gweinberg 2y ago
  He absolutely does not. He said "using only the candles and a box of matches". He never says "as a heat source". There's nothing in the problem as given that would indicate moving the water to someplace low pressure is within the rules but moving it to someplace hot is not.
mharig 2y ago
You didn't get the gist of the article: many constraints are artificial or plain mental. And you have to think outside the worn trousers to determine where that is the case.

adammarples 2y ago

It's a silly example but he does give a constraint. The one constraint is that the heat has to come from the candles. The purpose is to illustrate that even if one variable is constrained, there are other variables that may not be constrained, that you had assumed were static (altitude, pressure). It's just an example which illustrates a point of the article: try and think of something you had assumed was fixed and change that instead of working with the parameters you thought you had. Not a bad idea overall.

gweinberg 2y ago
He absolutely does not. He said "using only the candles and a box of matches". He never says "as a heat source". There's nothing in the problem as given that would indicate moving the water to someplace low pressure is within the rules but moving it to someplace hot is not.

mharig 2y ago

You didn't get the gist of the article: many constraints are artificial or plain mental. And you have to think outside the worn trousers to determine where that is the case.