Comment on Just answer the question you fuckin' nerd
anomnom@sh.itjust.works 12 hours agoIsn’t part of the definition of liquid that it takes the form of its container?
I need an epistemological argument like I need a hole in my head.
Comment on Just answer the question you fuckin' nerd
anomnom@sh.itjust.works 12 hours agoIsn’t part of the definition of liquid that it takes the form of its container?
I need an epistemological argument like I need a hole in my head.
dustyData@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
One of them was that in a vacuum, absent of any container or gravity, a liquid’s shape is that of a sphere.
Another one was that depending on the definition of liquid, liquids might or might not have a shape. It also varies depending on the definition of the attribute shape.
The point of the exercise was to challenge the notion of objective truth in science.
anomnom@sh.itjust.works 44 minutes ago
Without gravity it’s a sphere, or in free fall without air drag it’s a sphere (if it has sufficient surface tension anyway, which is what makes lava or molasses flow that way, in combination with its viscosity).
But in a vacuum it will boil off until the vapor pressure is high enough to eliminate the vacuum. But then it’s not in a vacuum anymore.
Really a fluid or liquid will always try to minimize its surface area while fighting gravity.
It’s a definitions problem that a lot of people who think there aren’t “objective truths” in science.