Interestingly liquid water also has negative thermal expansion between 0 and 3.98°C. This means that natural convection ("heat rises") is reversed in cold water.
Because ice floats and is an excellent insulator rivers and lakes don’t completely freeze up enabling aquatic life to continue to thrive beneath while the surface remains frozen.
I cheerfully propose this is evidence of a hacked universe. More specifically that there was a design flaw in the core structures and that water got tweaked as a band-aid - rather than rip the germ-code apart and rewrite it.
subscript: my premise requires a fallible creator. the most interesting kind, imho
Eg: disproving darwinism does not mean creationism is correct. Just that darwinism is flawed. You have to affirmatively prove alternative theories, can't just disprove something else and claim that makes you right. Yet more, creationism is not falsifiable, that's outside the scope of science. In the realm of faith, clues are taken as evidence, and this is where I quibble with you if we are talking science fact.
Evidence, clues, hypotheses and explanations are indeed different things.
> does not mean that alternatives must be right.
It was a proposal.
It was a cheerful proposal. A cheerful rebuttal seems to be called for, does it not?
I might be mildly autistic, I'm not sure how to say this more cheerfully.. but no - the fact water behaves slightly differently is not evidence for intelligent design. What's more, there can never be evidence for intelligent design because it is a non-falsifiable assertion. It is faith.
This just feels familiar to the intelligent design vs evolution debate. The idea being that if 'evolution' can be shown to be false, then intelligent design is true. First, intelligent design is not science, it is faith - it cannot be shown to be false and therefore a prime requirement of a scientific hypothesis fails. Further, if evolution is false in the end, then it does not mean intelligent design is correct, it just means we have no clue - we only are left with more questions and fewer answers.
I think the reason is that it feels somewhat common to see the realm of science as complementary to religion. There is tension for sure there. As a given, religion attempts to essentially explain everything. Therefore when science begins to explain more and more, religion explains less and less.
To that extent, how exactly is something working in a way we do not understand actually evidence of anything? Perhaps understanding more would finally be evidence for why exactly water freezes - but nothing more.
Last point, the logic is flawed. Seemingly you are conveying an implication relationship (ie: if A, then B) - notably: because physics & chemistry were hacked, life can exist. Looking at the truth table of the implication relationship [1], the latter being true, that life exists, the relationship no longer guarantees the former proposition (that physics and chemistry were hacked) to also be true. Which means we could equally say "because so much time passed things lined up - therefore life could exist."
The key is, you have to figure out why the preposition (ie: A, that physics & chemistry were hacked) is independently true of life existing. In other words, independent of life existing, you must prove that physics and chemistry were hacked in order for that to be evidence of why life exists. Otherwise, using the existence of life as evidence of a hacked chemistry & physics is circular reasoning.
[1] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4254268/implication...
Similarly a denser atmosphere more eventually distributes temperature so planets don’t actually need to have very high surface temperatures to avoid water freezing.
You could say that again! The more I observe and understand properties of water the more fascinating it gets.
For example, the minutest of leakages can cause a havoc in a building. That’s why I get extremely nervous when I see damp walls.
Or take flowing water. What looks like a gentle stream could easily sweep away a few tons of bus. Often times vehicle drivers misjudge this to drive through a shallow rain stream and end up in a whole lot of trouble.
I remind you that boiling water is 100c and not higher as the energy is used to change phase. (at 1atm and close to the sea level)
You can use different materials for the temperature you are more interested in if you want more precision, we don't need to go under bodies of water to calibrate thermometers
One was on Ecology, and had about thermal inversion in a lake in the Lake District when the temperature of the lake fell to 4ºC and the thermal circulation changed, between above 4ºC and below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_stratification#Definition
At low altitudes, temperature reduces with height (in daytime the atmosphere is heated by contact with the hot surface of the earth (as the atmosphere itself doesn't really get heated by the sun). The hot air rises, and expands as it ascends (pressure reduces as you climb, less air pushing down from above) and therefore cools (adiabatic expansion). Therefore, in the troposphere at least, temperature reduces with altitude due to all this vertical air movement and heating from below.
This is contrasted with the stratosphere, where the temperature begins to rise with altitude again and therefore is very stable and stratified without much vertical air movement.
Somewhat different physics at play, but funny how there are similarities.
https://seagrant.umn.edu/news-info/featured-stories/lake-riv...
Then gravitational tidal forces aren't strictly a uniform compression, on the contrary. Since gravity increases by 1/r^2, the part of the water drop that's closest to the black hole would experience largest force. That tears everything apart, so the water would be more dispersed instead of compressed. While I haven't done the math (and don't know if I even still could), I'd assume that gravity would quickly overcome Van Der Waals forces that holds the water molecules together, so it'd probably closer to water vapour than liquid.
And lastly, once it finally reaches the singularity, all bets are off. As far as I'm aware we have no idea what happens to matter in a singularity apart from contributing to its mass.