Does water boil at a consistent temp?

[Woody50]

My OP in another post challenged the rationality of science on this point. I've not heard a sound answer to it, though, as it's easier to attack people than question something you held true.

Does it? Does water boil--at any consistent altitude--at a consistent temp?

 

[Whateverman]

My OP in another post challenged the rationality of science on this point. I've not heard a sound answer to it, though, as it's easier to attack people than question something you held true.

Does it? Does water boil--at any consistent altitude--at a consistent temp?

Of course, this is not what you questioned in that other thread:

Zero experiments have given us the boiling point of water. Please, please, PLEASE tell me you know this.

 

[Woody50]

Of course, this is not what you questioned in that other thread:

How do you know?

I know this isn't what I questioned, Whateverman (sorry...almost posted the W thing...sorry).

Just answer the question in this thread, which is "of course" from you, yes?

Just "of course?" That's it?

 

[The Pixie]

My OP in another post challenged the rationality of science on this point. I've not heard a sound answer to it, though, as it's easier to attack people than question something you held true.

Does it? Does water boil--at any consistent altitude--at a consistent temp?

At a standard pressure of 100 kPa (1 bar) the boiling point of pure water is 99.61°C or 211.3°F. Always.

And we know that because the temperature scale is defined on that basis. 99.61°C is the boiling point of water by definition of °C.

 

[Woody50]

At a standard pressure of 100 kPa (1 bar) the boiling point of pure water is 99.61°C or 211.3°F. Always.

And we know that because the temperature scale is defined on that basis. 99.61°C is the boiling point of water by definition of °C.

Wait...you "know?' LOL. Sorry, but I've already been told by "science" that knowledge cannot be certain. Which is is, Pixie?

Are you certain about the boiling point of water? You just said you "know," but to "know" in science is to be unsure...

 

[The Pixie]

Wait...you "know?' LOL. Sorry, but I've already been told by "science" that knowledge cannot be certain. Which is is, Pixie?

Are you certain about the boiling point of water? You just said you "know," but to "know" in science is to be unsure...

We know because it is in the definition. Did you not read the rest of the sentence?

Given you feel the need to nit-pick on this, can we assume you have abandoned your claim that he boiling point of pure water at atmospheric pressure is variable?

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

My OP in another post challenged the rationality of science on this point. I've not heard a sound answer to it, though, as it's easier to attack people than question something you held true.

Does it? Does water boil--at any consistent altitude--at a consistent temp?

That explains your attacks.

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Bearing false witness includes slander because of the untruths being spread. Slander is simply lying about someone with the intent of causing others to view that person in a negative light.

 

[TeabagSalad]

That explains your attacks.

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Bearing false witness includes slander because of the untruths being spread. Slander is simply lying about someone with the intent of causing others to view that person in a negative light.

Like you're honest!

 

[Woody50]

That explains your attacks.

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Bearing false witness includes slander because of the untruths being spread. Slander is simply lying about someone with the intent of causing others to view that person in a negative light.

"Wah!"

 

[Cisco Qid]

My OP in another post challenged the rationality of science on this point. I've not heard a sound answer to it, though, as it's easier to attack people than question something you held true.

Does it? Does water boil--at any consistent altitude--at a consistent temp?

The boiling point of water is achieved when the vapor pressure equals the surrounding pressure. I have experimentally observed water boiling at room temperature in a near vacuum so obviously when you remove or vary the air pressure the boiling point changes. In a nuclear pressurized water reactor (PWR) the water reaches 555 F without boiling under a pressure of 2250 psi. The boiling point is a macroscopic event and the exact temperature and pressure can't be measured to any high degree of accuracy which could involved statistical, quantum and even gravitational effects. For instance, how many molecules (or at what rate) have to leave the water before it is considered to be boiling or would the boiling point be the same in (or close to) an extinguished neutron star where gravity is the major force. You don't know a whole lot by simply of being aware of the boiling point of water in our environment.

 

[Woody50]

The boiling point of water is achieved when the vapor pressure equals the surrounding pressure.

Yes. I know.

I have experimentally observed water boiling at room temperature in a near vacuum so obviously when you remove or vary the air pressure the boiling point changes.

Exactly my point...

In a nuclear pressurized water reactor (PWR) the water reaches 555 F without boiling under a pressure of 2250 psi.

Always?

The boiling point is a macroscopic event and the exact temperature and pressure can't be measured to any high degree of accuracy

THANK YOU!

which could involved statistical, quantum and even gravitational effects.

Understood. But water does not boil at 212F or 100C all the time. Does it?

For instance, how many molecules (or at what rate) have to leave the water before it is considered to be boiling or would the boiling point be the same in (or close to) an extinguished neutron star where gravity is the major force.

I'm glad you asked. So, are you averaging these degrees when you say it's 212F? Who decides on the final boiling temp (because there isn't one)? As you say, it can't be measured to any high degree of accuracy.

You don't know a whole lot by simply of being aware of the boiling point of water in our environment.

AGREED! Science doesn't know a whole lot. Which, as scientists tell me, is the POINT of science.

 

[Cisco Qid]

AGREED! Science doesn't know a whole lot. Which, as scientists tell me, is the POINT of science.

Hey, I like that! I think between the two of us, we have come with a great phrase. "The point of science is not to tell us what we know but rather to tell us what we don't know and thereby directing future research". I hope nobody else got there first.

 

[Woody50]

Hey, I like that! I think between the two of us, we have come with a great phrase. "The point of science is not to tell us what we know but rather to tell us what we don't know and thereby directing future research".

Thank you for my part, but you can take all the credit for that phrase. Science cannot know anything. Of course it cannot tell us what we know.

I hope nobody else got there first.

Where? You're not using science to determine that, are you?

 

[The Pixie]

Thank you for my part, but you can take all the credit for that phrase. Science cannot know anything. Of course it cannot tell us what we know.

On the one hand we have science, giving us accurate models of reality and telling us what is probably true where it can.

On the other hand we have religion, offering the illusion of absolute certainty, but no good reason to think any of it is actually true.

I will stick with science, thanks.

 

[J regia]

The boiling point of water is achieved when the vapor pressure equals the surrounding pressure. I have experimentally observed water boiling at room temperature in a near vacuum so obviously when you remove or vary the air pressure the boiling point changes. In a nuclear pressurized water reactor (PWR) the water reaches 555 F without boiling under a pressure of 2250 psi. The boiling point is a macroscopic event and the exact temperature and pressure can't be measured to any high degree of accuracy which could involved statistical, quantum and even gravitational effects. For instance, how many molecules (or at what rate) have to leave the water before it is considered to be boiling or would the boiling point be the same in (or close to) an extinguished neutron star where gravity is the major force. You don't know a whole lot by simply of being aware of the boiling point of water in our environment.

Anyone who is familiar with science, however, knows that the boiling point of water on Earth can be accurately calculated for a particular pressure.

And it's your choice if you want to believe that the universe is less than 6000 years old and that the average spacing between stars in the visible universe is therefore less than four billion kilometres.

 

[CrowCross]

Anyone who is familiar with science, however, knows that the boiling point of water on Earth can be accurately calculated for a particular pressure.

And it's your choice if you want to believe that the universe is less than 6000 years old and that the average spacing between stars in the visible universe is therefore less than four billion kilometres.

Funny how you acknowledge pressure will effect the boiling point of water...but...you will not acknowledge gravity will effect time.

 

[The Pixie]

Funny how you acknowledge pressure will effect the boiling point of water...but...you will not acknowledge gravity will effect time.

I thought that was pretty well established too (if harder to test in your kitchen).

 

[J regia]

Funny how you acknowledge pressure will effect the boiling point of water...but...you will not acknowledge gravity will effect time.

But if you hypothesize that the universe is less than 6000 years old, do you have any evidence to support your hypothesis that there are therefore 9.26 visible galaxies within one light year from Earth, given there are ~two trillion visible galaxies and the speed of light is ~300,000 km/sec?

 

[CrowCross]

But if you hypothesize that the universe is less than 6000 years old, do you have any evidence to support your hypothesis that there are therefore 9.26 visible galaxies within one light year from Earth, given there are ~two trillion visible galaxies and the speed of light is ~300,000 km/sec?

When you actually express the theory correctly.....you can ask questions.

 

[Woody50]

On the other hand we have religion, offering the illusion of absolute certainty,

WAIT. I've been told that science cannot know "absolute certainty" by people on this forum. Are you now rebutting their claim? Are you telling us science can give us "absolute certainty????"

No, you're not, because you said that science is, "telling us what is probably true where it can."

Hardly definitive of any "absolute certainty."

So, according to you, science and religion are on equal footing when it comes to certainty. To you, they both have the illusion of absolute certainty.

I disagree.