• tbird83ii@kbin.social
    81·
    7 个月前

    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…

  • OutlierBlue@lemmy.caEnglish
    61·
    7 个月前

    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.

    • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
      32·
      7 个月前

      “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.”

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        3·
        7 个月前

        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?

    • Trailblazing Braille Taser@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      6·
      7 个月前

      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?

      • Enkrod@feddit.de
        8·
        7 个月前

        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.

        • Witchhatswamp@lemmy.worldEnglish
          17·
          7 个月前

          Same issue with the big bang, since we don’t know what created it. I personally believe that God is the universe. The universe manifested itself…somehow…and to me that makes it as close to God as we can get. I hope that the universe is conscious, and that our consciousnesses goes back into the big thing at the end. My evidence is experiential; an excellent acid trip 😉. I do wonder what atheists experience when they trip…

          • SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com
            6·
            7 个月前

            I do wonder what atheists experience when they trip…

            I see patterns and have hallucinations when tripping. I’ve seen doritos logos cover my wall and noticed the patterns in mountains. No you are not talking to God, you are having essentially a waking dream and I don’t attribute dreams, which are your subconscious trying to interpret your daily actions, to supernatural beings. That would be stupid.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      41·
      7 个月前

      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.

  • Venat0r@lemmy.world
    413·
    7 个月前

    You don’t actually have to chill oxygen to see it, you can also just blow bubbles underwater.

    • Robmart@lemm.ee
      20·
      7 个月前

      Aren’t you just seeing the lack of water rather than actually seeing the oxygen?

              • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
                2·
                7 个月前

                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.

            • Kühe sind toll@feddit.de
              21·
              7 个月前

              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.

          • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            2·
            7 个月前

            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.

        • Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.network
          1·
          7 个月前

          Well if we’re gonna get specific then if your blowing the bubbles I would assume it’s largely carbon dioxide lol

      • Venat0r@lemmy.world
        1·
        7 个月前

        Maybe, but its a similar case with a mirror, unless its dirty or the backing is flaking off.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        9·
        7 个月前

        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)

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          3·
          7 个月前

          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.

    • Kühe sind toll@feddit.de
      41·
      7 个月前

      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.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        10·
        7 个月前

        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.

      • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
        3·
        7 个月前

        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.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    241·
    7 个月前

    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.

    • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.mlEnglish
      31·
      7 个月前

      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.

      • Karyoplasma
        3·
        7 个月前

        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.

      • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
        3·
        7 个月前

        Its blue because of Nitrogen more than Oxygen, considering the relative densities.

        And also, ofc, because of Avagadro’s Number.

        • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.mlEnglish
          2·
          7 个月前

          Yeah, should have mentioned that myself as well. Was not my intention to imply that the colour of the sky is the colour of oxygen.

      • embed_me@programming.dev
        27·
        7 个月前

        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

          • embed_me@programming.dev
            34·
            7 个月前

            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.

            • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
              5·
              7 个月前

              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.

              • embed_me@programming.dev
                11·
                7 个月前

                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.

                • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
                  3·
                  7 个月前

                  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.

                • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  2·
                  7 个月前

                  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.

    • dukk@programming.dev
      21·
      7 个月前

      If you did pack all that oxygen that right, wouldn’t the temperature also drop to about a similar level?

      • I Cast Fist@programming.devEnglish
        5·
        7 个月前

        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

        • willis936@lemmy.world
          7·
          7 个月前

          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.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.caEnglish
    4·
    7 个月前

    God is all around you, he created everything! So you can witness him by his works!

    – some religious, science denying person… Probably.