I’m going to have so many family members angry at me when I post this on Facebook!
I thought that was the whole point of Facebook.
just… like… get some of your own LOX before a big family picnic or something and drop the meme day of. but then bring the LOX to the picnic and play with it. It’s super corrossive (literally the most oxidizing thing we know of… gee wonder why.) but it’ll tickle everyone’s inner pyro
I thought you were bringing lox bagel sandwiches, not LOX bagel sandwiches.
I mean, you know you wanna dump random things into glass flasks full of LOX just to see what happens.
spoiler
Okay. maybe that’s just me.
Just dropping stuff in liquid oxygen does nothing, they just get cold. You need to have an ignition source - one that doesn’t just go out when it gets cold.
I think we both know what happens but can probably feign ignorance long enough to conduct the experiment.
There’s usually plenty of bored kids needing “guidance”…
True vikings would eat either.
It is absolutely not corrosive, the word does not mean what you seen to think. It is also not the most oxidizing thing there is, the most simple compound that is more so is Fluorine.
But even in Christianity, you can live just fine without god. You just go to hell when you die.
Do you though?
Yes. Show me just one person who died and did not go to hell.
margaret thatcher, pat robertson, and rush limbaugh’s deaths were enough to make me wish there was a hell for them to go to, but sadly, they just stopped existing, like everyone else
In common Christian canon, yes. In reality, no.
I would counter with the fact that you can’t see radiation either, and that shit will kill you.
FYI the light you see during the day is radiation.
Yes, I understand the visible light spectrum. My point is that there are portions of the spectrum that are invisible to the unassisted human eye, and there are portions of that which are detrimental to our health.
I missed the rule that said it needed to be with an unassisted human eye. Even in the post it’s not really “unassisted” since they had to cool it to -218.
That’s how science works, you use tools and methods to get to “see” what you can’t with your measly human body.
What rule? I was proposing an alternate response to the initial meme about “you can’t see oxygen/god”.
Instead of moving the goal posts to make oxygen visible by changing it’s state, why not provide an example of a similarly “invisible” thing that can have profound effects on a person’s ability to be not dead?
Right that makes sense my bad! But still I think it’s fine to use tools or whatever you prove things, but I now see what you mean about the point of the original deep™ quote.
Very well, carry on.
But you clearly can see it…? Be it in the form of visible light from florescence or in a cloud chamber , where you can even see the trail of individual particles. I am sure there are other ways, but these 2 are not exactly new.
You can clearly see gamma rays with the naked eye?
The same way I can see a thrown rock creating waves in water, yes. How is that something special?
I was literally just making an alternate point to the mindless meme of “can’t see oxygen, can’t see god”. You also cannot see certain wavelengths of radiation with the naked eye. That’s literally the only point I was making. You can be a pedantic goon? You go ahead and be a pedantic goon.
Having that message just say ‘Oxygen:’ would be so much funnier
There’s no photos of the lord because cameras weren’t invented yet when he was on earth. You want him to incarnate into a human body AGAIN? But that’s so much work! And it would be really boring going through human childhood. Plus it would take a really long time to grow up and show you miracles
when the supreme omnipotent being cant manifest itself at will (it has to test the faith of its believers)
The lord isn’t omnipotent. He’s a minor god.
Ironically, the God of Christianity comes from just the “god of war and thunder”… then some people decided that “war and thunder” was the supreme thing to worship.
i think they meant its like oxygen as in “it has that in common with it” not as in ‘exactly like’
Yeah, but the counterpoint is that “it doesn’t have that in common with it”, and the point of “I can’t see them because they don’t exist, and I can easily live without them)” still stands.
