|
Ice.
Jul 16, 2022 19:09:44 GMT
Post by Mr Stabby on Jul 16, 2022 19:09:44 GMT
Yes. If you read to the end you will see that the article is far from conclusive. What, this end? ‘Water is a peculiar fluid, but we don’t believe the Mpemba effect exists in a meaningful way,’ he laments. ‘It would have been far more exciting to conclude that it was true.’
|
|
|
Ice.
Jul 16, 2022 19:18:38 GMT
JohnV likes this
Post by Telemachus on Jul 16, 2022 19:18:38 GMT
Yes. If you read to the end you will see that the article is far from conclusive. What, this end? ‘Water is a peculiar fluid, but we don’t believe the Mpemba effect exists in a meaningful way,’ he laments. ‘It would have been far more exciting to conclude that it was true.’ No, I mean as in read the entire article. That quote is from one study, there are many other studies which disagree. But of course just like so many of your other opinions, it is based on trawling the internet for a multitude of sources of information and selecting the one source of information that suits your agenda, discounting the many that don’t.
|
|
|
Ice.
Jul 16, 2022 19:26:32 GMT
Post by Mr Stabby on Jul 16, 2022 19:26:32 GMT
What, this end? ‘Water is a peculiar fluid, but we don’t believe the Mpemba effect exists in a meaningful way,’ he laments. ‘It would have been far more exciting to conclude that it was true.’ No, I mean as in read the entire article. That quote is from one study, there are many other studies which disagree. But of course just like so many of your other opinions, it is based on trawling the internet for a multitude of sources of information and selecting the one source of information that suits your agenda, discounting the many that don’t. No, it's based on having a fundamental understanding of the basic laws of physics. I presume you were too busy leaning poncy classical languages to bother with that sort of thing. Incidentally, there cannot be "studies which disagree" when it comes to scientific fact. Something can either be proven and repeatedly replicated under controlled conditions or it can't.
|
|
|
Ice.
Jul 16, 2022 19:39:16 GMT
JohnV likes this
Post by Telemachus on Jul 16, 2022 19:39:16 GMT
No, I mean as in read the entire article. That quote is from one study, there are many other studies which disagree. But of course just like so many of your other opinions, it is based on trawling the internet for a multitude of sources of information and selecting the one source of information that suits your agenda, discounting the many that don’t. No, it's based on having a fundamental understanding of the basic laws of physics. I presume you were too busy leaning poncy classical languages to bother with that sort of thing. Incidentally, there cannot be "studies which disagree" when it comes to scientific fact. Something can either be proven and repeatedly replicated under controlled conditions or it can't. You have a fundamental grasp of the basic laws of physics only at a very simplistic level. Which I suppose isn’t too surprising. There is a big difference between a basic law of physics such as the 1st law of TD, and how things manifest in real life when numerous other factors come into play. As to you last sentence, it is incredibly naive. No competent scientist would ever say such a thing.
|
|
|
Ice.
Jul 16, 2022 20:19:10 GMT
Post by Mr Stabby on Jul 16, 2022 20:19:10 GMT
No, it's based on having a fundamental understanding of the basic laws of physics. I presume you were too busy leaning poncy classical languages to bother with that sort of thing. Incidentally, there cannot be "studies which disagree" when it comes to scientific fact. Something can either be proven and repeatedly replicated under controlled conditions or it can't. As to you last sentence, it is incredibly naive. No competent scientist would ever say such a thing. Are you for real? The whole distinction between science and faith is that science can be proven. What was the name of this school you went to?
|
|
|
Ice.
Jul 16, 2022 20:52:53 GMT
Post by Telemachus on Jul 16, 2022 20:52:53 GMT
As to you last sentence, it is incredibly naive. No competent scientist would ever say such a thing. Are you for real? The whole distinction between science and faith is that science can be proven. What was the name of this school you went to? Well as a very simple example, let’s take Newton’s laws of motion. eg 2nd law which amounts to “acceleration = force/mass”. You can test this as much as you like and think that since it works every time, you have proven it to be correct. Well except that it is not correct and it only works a bit, under constrained conditions. More generally, the Scientific Method works thus: We observe some phenomena, then think up a hypothesis that we hope describes the phenomena precisely. We then devise experiments to prove that the hypothesis is correct or not. The experiments match the predictions of the hypothesis so we then declare that the hypothesis is correct and thus becomes a theorem or law. 2 massive problems with that, firstly the experiments are limited in scope and number, and can thus only test the hypothesis under limited conditions, and secondly of course the scientific method doesn’t tell us how to think up the correct hypothesis in the first place. We might spend lifetimes thinking up the wrong hypotheses, testing them, finding them wanting and never solving the puzzle. Put simply, the Scientific Method doesn’t work. (c.Zataomm).
|
|
|
Post by Trina on Jul 16, 2022 21:15:33 GMT
No but an odd thing is that warm water freezes faster than cold water. That's called the Mpemba effect but in fact this is ghost science which cannot be proven under controlled conditions and which would be in breach of both the first law of thermodynamics and Newton's Law of Cooling. I'm a Newton & my rule of cooling is enough ice plus frozen lemon slices in my G&T.Simples...
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 17, 2022 7:24:20 GMT
That's called the Mpemba effect but in fact this is ghost science which cannot be proven under controlled conditions and which would be in breach of both the first law of thermodynamics and Newton's Law of Cooling. No. The first law of TD just says energy cannot be created or destroyed. No-one is saying that less energy has to be extracted from hot water vs cold water to make it feeeze, that would be daft. It is about the rate of transfer of energy from the water to the freezer (or other “source of cold”). Newton’s law of cooling is quite simplistic (rate of cooling proportional to temperature difference) and presumes a solid with no thermal circulation. It doesn’t for example take into consideration what happens to the object’s interior which is “insulated” from its exterior according to its thermal conductivity. The effect is of course counted-intuitive but then so is quantum physics and relativity. I think the scientific consensus is that under some circumstances the theory may be correct with water, due to water’s weird density vs temperature profile, the fact that water doesn’t necessarily freeze at zero C (as I know from flying, you get liquid water in clouds at -15c or below sometimes), and probably something else. Are you sure? The first law of The Dunk just says boats cannot be created or destroyed. We are still awaiting empirical proof. Might be wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Ice.
Jul 17, 2022 7:33:35 GMT
Post by Jim on Jul 17, 2022 7:33:35 GMT
No, I mean as in read the entire article. That quote is from one study, there are many other studies which disagree. But of course just like so many of your other opinions, it is based on trawling the internet for a multitude of sources of information and selecting the one source of information that suits your agenda, discounting the many that don’t. No, it's based on having a fundamental understanding of the basic laws of physics. I presume you were too busy leaning poncy classical languages to bother with that sort of thing. Incidentally, there cannot be "studies which disagree" when it comes to scientific fact. Something can either be proven and repeatedly replicated under controlled conditions or it can't. But you kept licking your fingers while doing your "science".
|
|
|
Ice.
Jul 17, 2022 15:18:38 GMT
Jim likes this
Post by JohnV on Jul 17, 2022 15:18:38 GMT
As to you last sentence, it is incredibly naive. No competent scientist would ever say such a thing. Are you for real? The whole distinction between science and faith is that science can be proven. What was the name of this school you went to? Quantum physics is guaranteed to give you a bad head. ...... that is a fact ..... but very little else in the world is once you start dabbling in some modern science.
It wasn't for nothing that a certain paper titled "The Breakdown of Physics in the vicinity of a Singularity" was sub titled "The Breakdown of Physicists in the vicinity of a singularity"
and no, I don't understand it ...... I came away from it with the tilt light on .....
I do understand and accept though that there is a hell of a lot I will never be able to properly understand and that certainty is never certain
|
|
|
Ice.
Jul 18, 2022 8:55:47 GMT
Post by bodger on Jul 18, 2022 8:55:47 GMT
certainty is never certain .........................
.................. 'cept death and taxes
|
|
|
Ice.
Jul 19, 2022 14:30:03 GMT
Post by twbm2 on Jul 19, 2022 14:30:03 GMT
Point already well made, deleted.
|
|