RE: Prove it

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Prove it

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Prove it

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Prove it - 4/18/2010 7:59:43 PM

Dubbelganger

Posts: 200
Joined: 4/9/2010
Status: offline

Term: "The boiling point of water is proven (or defined) by the presence of bubbles at a certain point in a marked piece of tubing, which is marked in precise measurements relating to the specific gravity of H2O. "

The boiling point of anything, whether it be water (100C) or lead (1744C), is the point at which the vapor pressure of the substance is equal to the vapor pressure of the surrounding medium (usually air), at standard pressure, 760 Torr. The substance undergoes a phase change from a liquid (water) or a solid (dry ice), to a gas.

Term: "Now prove to me that prescription drugs don't do the same thing. " All I can say is, alcohol makes me a lot more stupid than oxycodone.

(in reply to pahunkboy)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Prove it - 4/18/2010 11:51:22 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

"equal to the vapor pressure of the surrounding medium "

Yes but I was more referring to neat gizmo they use to actually measure it. (I love using those scientific terms) In other words they didn't Google it, that's sort of the point of the thread. Few things in life are so accurate, precise. Even at that other variables are stated, foremost is barometric pressure. I'll admit I'm not a chemist and I couldn't tell you if relative humidity affects the reading, it would seem that it does because evaporative cooling is more efficient at lower humidity.

Scientific study, if conducted properly is rarely disproven, not that it doesn't happen, but when it does someone has alot of explaining to do. I don't mean that in the colloquial sense, I mean the reasons the first experiment yielded inaccurate results will be explored in detail. Still rare though, unless the original experiment was flawed somehow, in fact one could also say it's impossible unless there was a flaw. This should yield a new, more accurate experiment that is of course, repeatable.

It just doesn't get much closer to real proof in this world. What people don't realize is just about everything else is hearsay. Nelkon and Parker had a depiction of said gizmo and I know how to bend glass tubing, so I can check for myself. Of course to be totally valid one needs accurate measuring instruments, in this case the thermometer is crucial, in measuring the speed of light the tachometer must be accurate. So there is even some uncertainty even in something so "accurate and precise".

The oltimers used to say "Don't believe anything you hear and half of what you see". Amazing how they get smarter as I get older, despite the fact that many of them are now dead.

T

(in reply to Dubbelganger)

Profile

Post #: 22