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.
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.
If i’m not mistaken, that much pressure would actually increase the temperature, something about the same amount of energy being more densely packed. Someone who actually knows physics can certainly explain it better
Yes. pV=nRT. If you keep n constant (same number of particles), drop the volume (V) and crank the pressure (p) proportionally, then the only variable left is T, which would have to rise. This is called adiabatic compression. What’s being described is an engine piston the size of the atmosphere and a compression ratio thousands of times higher than what we can normally make.
The fact that blue light gets scattered by the atmosphere is due to the fact that there’s just so much of it and not bcoz the atmosphere inherently is non-transparent
I’m saying if the atmosphere was smaller, scattering would be less and blue colour may not appear. So the blue colour is not because the atmosphere is “not entirely transparent” like the commenter said, but because there is enough of the atmosphere that the scattering effect is prominent.
And yet, if the atmosphere was fully transparent, there would be no scattering of light. The blue colour is an effect of the amount of air, but there would be no colour at all if air was fully transparent.
That is funny. According to you, for a medium to be called “fully transparent” there has to be no scattering of light. By that definition, water and air are not “fully transparent”. I’m not sure if such a material exists that doesn’t scatter any amount of light.
Correct. The only substance I can imagine being completely transparent would be some kind of dark matter. Everything else still interacts with light, no matter how little. Even deep space isn’t completely transparent, as we can tell what elements exists as interstellar and intergalactic dust from spectrographs.
Atmospheric absorption spectrum - We can see (heh) that the atmosphere is completely opaque to most electromagnetic radiation before scattering. Only some microwaves and short radio waves can pass without any absorption.
Atmospheric transmission spectrum - We can see that not even 60% of visible light is transmitted to the surface directly due primarily to scattering losses. That scattered light is why our sky is blue during the day and orange at sunset/sunrise. Mars’ atmosphere is orange during the day and blue at sunset/sunrise for the same reason.
The physics of light scattering doesn’t change based on how much atmosphere you have, even a single particle can scatter light. In fact, the physics of scattering is based on single particles, and the particle size is what differentiates Rayleigh scattering from Mie scattering. Other interactions with the incident particle can cause Raman and Compton scattering too. None of these need multiple particles.
Because scattering happens when photons hit particles, so the more particles the more scattering.
Light coming at you thru the atmosphere from above has a much shorter trip through the atmosphere than light coming at you near the horizon.
The longer path length means more chances to hit particles and scatter and the higher frequency ‘blue-er’ light gets filtered out more or absorbed and reradiated as a lower frequency light, more so than the lower freq red/yellow light.
Yes, more stuff means more scattering, but scattering happens at all scales.
Photons don’t cause absorption or scattering with themselves, no, but they do interfere. The interference really only shows up when the waves are nearly in-phase, so random light rarely interferes, but it should happen.
Photons aren’t matter anyway, so I can’t make a substance out of them. The rest of the bosons should interact with light even less, although the gravity of their energy might bend it the tiniest amount.
By that definition, water and air are not “fully transparent”. I’m not sure if such a material exists that doesn’t scatter any amount of light.
That seems to be the scientific consensus, yes. It’s like friction, no material is truly frictionless just like no material is truly completely transparent. The ocean gets real dark once you get deep enough which does seem to suggest that water is 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.
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.
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.
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.
Those that spoke out against religion were killed or punished. Those who used it were rewarded. Those who followed it, were either sent to slaugher members of different religions, sacrificed, milked for coin, or forced into submission by the scary make-believe hell.
Religion works because it gives people something in common, soothes human fears, and sets forth rules to abide by.
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.
It’s just such a fucking shitty false equivalency to relate the physical to the meta physical.
Look at Christianity for example, the biggest factor in your choice of religion is where you were born first and who you were born to a close second.
You see a great amount of similarity, especially inter discipline, but you can find huge differences between states, even cities and counties. People will shop for churches when they move to find a version of the same religion that fits with their preferred style and interpretation.
That’s inside of a body like the SBC, Roman Catholicism and the SBC are even more different fundamentally. Same books, same dudes tho.
Scientific models update with research, even if things are difficult to change, they change based on new info. Religion needs to constantly fit it’s ever dwindling influence into the same scripture, you just get to think the words mean different things now.
While I agree with your assessment vis claims and observable truths, I also think that religion has to be seen as a kind of naturally evolved and universal system of sense-making in anatomically modern homo sapiens that would not exist did it not serve some kind of selective value in our distant past as a species.
In other words, religion, or notions of spirituality, wouldn’t be as universal as they seemingly are were it not the case that they played something like an adaptive role in human evolution.
No. That is a post hoc justification. The kinda logic that says since nearly every rabbit gets eaten eventually by a predator the predator must be doing the rabbit a favor. Just because religion is near universal does not mean it exists to serve us. It could easily just be a selfish meme and we are it’s food.
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.
Math is a language describing the fundamentals of our world and nature. God is a completely fabricated fairytale. You don’t need a proof of English to see it exists, you do need evidence to proof that the big bad wolf is real. That’s the difference, fuck you people need actual education…
Math is based on logic, we can’t prove it scientifically because it’s not something which is empirically verifiable but provable through deduction. If we are happy with logic to prove math what is wrong with logical arguments for God? I’m not against science or needing to prove your theories. I’m only against the notion that if you don’t have empirical proof for God then God doesn’t exist.
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.
I went back to my main comment and read it. I don’t think I conveyed any “nonsense”. Perhaps I could’ve presented things differently? Sure. Also, to say that I’ve been combative in the discussion while you are doing just that is ironic.
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.
we already have much better proofs demonstrating that true things exist without proof.
Isn’t this a contradiction? These “much better proofs” are proofs - which means that these “true things” are not “without proof”.
Also, I’m not sure what “things” you have in mind here, but I’m fairly certain they don’t “exist” in the same sense math does. Math exists in the same hard sciences do - any mathematical discovery, just like discoveries, is a rule that reality follows. Of course, I’m not implying that the mere formulation of this rule by human researchers is what gives it the power to govern the universe - we are just discovering laws that were already there.
Other things that are derived from human thought (rather than empirical evidence) and do not fall under the wide umbrella of math, don’t exist the same sense. You may claim that justice exists, but it’d be silly to expect the universe to obey to principles of justice. It won’t be silly to expect it to obey to mathematical principles.
Had @NoLifeGaming brought something like justice as their example, we could have talked about the meaning of existence and what does it mean for God to exist in the same way justice exists. But they didn’t - and I really try to avoid formulating other people’s claims for them, because even if I get it right they may still find (or invent) some nuance I got slightly wrong, leverage that to claim I understand nothing about their philosophy, and derail the entire conversation to revolve around that.
They didn’t mention these other “true things” that “exist without empirical proof”. They mentioned math. And math can be proven empirically using material evidence and the scientific method (of course, you need to make sure you are not trying to prove the parts of math that are crucial for the scientific method itself, because then your proof will be circular…)
Godels proof is quite clear. There are infinitely many assertions that are true but have no proof. Those assertions can be mapped to extant things. This is not an area that requires deliberation. If you are unfamiliar with the incompleteness theorum we can discuss it more. The fantastically great thing about this work is that it was the pursuit of a “complete” purely philosophical logic derivation of mathematical principles (the continuation of the work by Bertrand in the Principia Mathematica).
The thing here is we are arguing two different points… You are arguing that empirical evidence can demonstrate the usefulness of models to explain more empirical evidence… Which is true. I am arguing that philosophy builds models. You aren’t wrong(except that part about not trying to prove the parts that are crucial for the scientific method… You are just wrong about that) and I am not wrong. We are arguing different things.
Godel’s proof is about our inability to prove some theorems mathematically, but that does not mean we cannot prove them scientifically. Such proofs, of course, will suffer from the same problem all scientific proofs have - a certain probability that even though our model is wrong, somehow by pure chance our tests ended up showing otherwise (in technical term - non-zero p values)
except that part about not trying to prove the parts that are crucial for the scientific method… You are just wrong about that
I’m not saying that one must never attempt to prove these foundations. What I’m saying is that if you try to prove them empirically (as oppose to how they are usually proved - mathematically) using the scientific method, you will run into the circular reasoning fallacy:
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)
Would it also be explosive just from the pressure difference if it suddenly vaporizes? Though I’m not sure if the thermal mass required to do that would be realistic unless someone dropped it into a pot of water or something like that.
It would be close but but exactly the same. A vacuum would refract the light going through it differently than a bubble of gas. Though I think it would need to be pretty big to see it with the naked eye.
You see the a bubble of gas(and therefore the absence of water), not the oxygen itself. You could use only nitrogen gas and you couldn’t tell the difference.
There won’t be that much CO2 for a long time, even if we increase our carbon output. Currently it stands at around 0.04%, third to argon at a bit under 1%. Oxygen is just under 21%. Oxygen and nitrogen together make up over 99% of the atmosphere (at sea level). That’s for dry air, otherwise water vapour is at around 1% and the others reduced to fit that in.
Add comment