Eh, it definitely has a cause. A known one. The fact water will boil isn’t spontaneous. “Spontaneous” still works for the sole reason which specific molecules is nigh impossible to predict.
So, who is correct depends entirely on the mental framing of what someone thinks of when they read “water”. Water as an abstract idea of a specific type of fluid? Not spontaneous. Water as in what will literally happen to the bottle of water in the picture? Spontaneous.
This post isn’t showcasing mansplaining. It’s showcasing pedantry. Nearly valid pedantry at that.
Nothing to do with the physical definition of spontaneity. Spontaneity of a process just means that the ∆G is negative or total energy of the system is lower after the process, and additional energy isn’t required for the process to be thermodynamically allowed. This is, and I can’t stress this enough, the simplest of simple thermo.
for the sole reason which specific molecules is nigh impossible to predict
Also unrelated, but it is fully impossible to predict, since in trying to predict it well enough you reach quantum scales where everything is probabilistic. That doesn’t at all mean everything is spontaneous.
So, who is correct depends entirely on the mental framing of what someone thinks of when they read “water”.
Nope, the first person is strictly correct and the second is strictly incorrect, as described above.
Water as an abstract idea of a specific type of fluid? Not spontaneous.
Nope, exactly spontaneous. You could even forget about water entirely and model this just as a bunch of nuclei and electrons in a box and derive that the lowest energy state has them being in a gas of atoms, and the initial state doesn’t, which is enough to demonstrate by our earlier statements that boiling is spontaneous.
Water as in what will literally happen to the bottle of water in the picture?
This is “not even wrong” territory.
This post isn’t showcasing mansplaining.
It absolutely is. We will define mansplaining here as the confidently incorrect dismissal of statements of women by men where we suspect that the genders of the participants may play a role.
The first part has been demonstrated above. It is also reasonable to assume the second given that we observe this happening to women at a far greater frequency than to men. Although, like with atoms, we cannot prove that this individual instance is a direct result, it is consistent with the probabilistic data and we would need additional evidence to conclude that this particular guy just goes around wrongly correcting everyone equally.
Nah you just don’t understand language or pedantry.
I said it takes an autistic reading to come to the non-standard conclusion. I’m also not agreeing with the pedantry, hence “almost valid”.
I’m sorry you do not understand how autistic people misread things or jump to funky conclusions, but I am wholly correct and you just want to be an asshole.
You’re probably one of those people that perpetuates the mistreatment of autistic people for shit like this. Pathetic of you.
And here we observe the Pendant in the natural habitat. Looks like they are trying to troll with the one word comment, “LOL”. Where will the conversation go from here, only time will tell.
While you are technically correct, you also misunderstand who the target audience is and what language is required to actually make people understand.
When speaking to a normal person you don’t want to slap random jargon and care too much about precise definitions. So in that context spontaneous is a great word to describe what is happening. People without deep backgrounds in the field will not understand technical jargon and it will only make them not pay attention.
No, many things in chemistry are functionally spontaneous. That’s why her usage of the word is totally fine.
He’s just taking an autistic reading of the text as I’ve described already. He’s being a bit of a pedantic ass, sure, but mansplaining is not simply being an ass.
I’d still say it’s spontaneous because when you reduce pressure you’re removing a factor rather than adding one. It’s like saying “when you compress a spring and then remove the compression force, it will spontaneously return to its previous length.” Water vapor can be seen as water’s “natural” state when thero no pressure forcing it to be a liquid. Also saying “simple thermo” to an astronaut is definitely mansplaining, because it implies the other person doesn’t know that simple thermo. Maybe it’s just pedantry, but in that case damn that’s some terrible phrasing.
Yes. Pedantry doesn’t make the guy more correct. He’s still being an ass. I’m not agreeing with him. So the fact you still don’t understand is a bit… sad for you. Do you treat autistic people like shit because they don’t operate on social norms and the most common understandings of statements? If you say, “no”, then I’d suggest you introspect a LOT more, because the answer is clearly yes.
words have meanings. thats not what spontaneous means in this context. the definition of spontaneous in this context is independent of the nature of water. and i frankly don’t give a shit if you struggle with social norms. i care that the word has a meaning and you are abusing it.
I agree, it really is showcasing pedantry. That man is just an asshole, not a misogynistic asshole. To me, this thread is full of confirmation bias. People who want to see what they personally believe, not objective reality.
Eh, it definitely has a cause. A known one. The fact water will boil isn’t spontaneous. “Spontaneous” still works for the sole reason which specific molecules is nigh impossible to predict.
So, who is correct depends entirely on the mental framing of what someone thinks of when they read “water”. Water as an abstract idea of a specific type of fluid? Not spontaneous. Water as in what will literally happen to the bottle of water in the picture? Spontaneous.
This post isn’t showcasing mansplaining. It’s showcasing pedantry. Nearly valid pedantry at that.
“Spontaneous” is actually the correct word to use here, using its definition in statistical mechanics.
Here’s an example: https://principlesofchemistryopencourse.pressbooks.tru.ca/chapter/5-6/
This should have been the correct answer to Kev, and not that thing about mansplaining.
I think would’ve even worked in a reference to “it is Kev’s turn to study statistical mechanics.”
Yes, I already said it is correct when viewing it as specific water boiling.
Just like this comment!
Yes, that’s the point. I’m explaining a very pedantic point, ofc that requires ample amounts of pedantry.
Spontaneous doesn’t mean “happens suddenly without explanation” what are you on about?
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Nothing to do with the physical definition of spontaneity. Spontaneity of a process just means that the ∆G is negative or total energy of the system is lower after the process, and additional energy isn’t required for the process to be thermodynamically allowed. This is, and I can’t stress this enough, the simplest of simple thermo.
Also unrelated, but it is fully impossible to predict, since in trying to predict it well enough you reach quantum scales where everything is probabilistic. That doesn’t at all mean everything is spontaneous.
Nope, the first person is strictly correct and the second is strictly incorrect, as described above.
Nope, exactly spontaneous. You could even forget about water entirely and model this just as a bunch of nuclei and electrons in a box and derive that the lowest energy state has them being in a gas of atoms, and the initial state doesn’t, which is enough to demonstrate by our earlier statements that boiling is spontaneous.
This is “not even wrong” territory.
It absolutely is. We will define mansplaining here as the confidently incorrect dismissal of statements of women by men where we suspect that the genders of the participants may play a role.
The first part has been demonstrated above. It is also reasonable to assume the second given that we observe this happening to women at a far greater frequency than to men. Although, like with atoms, we cannot prove that this individual instance is a direct result, it is consistent with the probabilistic data and we would need additional evidence to conclude that this particular guy just goes around wrongly correcting everyone equally.
Once again, not remotely.
Well said.
I think you may have meant to say “confidently incorrect dismissal” in your definition of mansplaining.
Oh, good catch, thanks
Nah you just don’t understand language or pedantry.
I said it takes an autistic reading to come to the non-standard conclusion. I’m also not agreeing with the pedantry, hence “almost valid”.
I’m sorry you do not understand how autistic people misread things or jump to funky conclusions, but I am wholly correct and you just want to be an asshole.
You’re probably one of those people that perpetuates the mistreatment of autistic people for shit like this. Pathetic of you.
Lol
And here we observe the Pendant in the natural habitat. Looks like they are trying to troll with the one word comment, “LOL”. Where will the conversation go from here, only time will tell.
Everything has a cause.
Even your face
While you are technically correct, you also misunderstand who the target audience is and what language is required to actually make people understand.
When speaking to a normal person you don’t want to slap random jargon and care too much about precise definitions. So in that context spontaneous is a great word to describe what is happening. People without deep backgrounds in the field will not understand technical jargon and it will only make them not pay attention.
Spontaneous is actually the thermodynamic jargon in this case though :)
No, I’m explaining the pedantry, not agreeing with it. I said almost valid pedantry.
Hahaha, under that definition not spontaneous can ever occur
No, many things in chemistry are functionally spontaneous. That’s why her usage of the word is totally fine.
He’s just taking an autistic reading of the text as I’ve described already. He’s being a bit of a pedantic ass, sure, but mansplaining is not simply being an ass.
I’d still say it’s spontaneous because when you reduce pressure you’re removing a factor rather than adding one. It’s like saying “when you compress a spring and then remove the compression force, it will spontaneously return to its previous length.” Water vapor can be seen as water’s “natural” state when thero no pressure forcing it to be a liquid. Also saying “simple thermo” to an astronaut is definitely mansplaining, because it implies the other person doesn’t know that simple thermo. Maybe it’s just pedantry, but in that case damn that’s some terrible phrasing.
no
Yes. Pedantry doesn’t make the guy more correct. He’s still being an ass. I’m not agreeing with him. So the fact you still don’t understand is a bit… sad for you. Do you treat autistic people like shit because they don’t operate on social norms and the most common understandings of statements? If you say, “no”, then I’d suggest you introspect a LOT more, because the answer is clearly yes.
words have meanings. thats not what spontaneous means in this context. the definition of spontaneous in this context is independent of the nature of water. and i frankly don’t give a shit if you struggle with social norms. i care that the word has a meaning and you are abusing it.
I agree, it really is showcasing pedantry. That man is just an asshole, not a misogynistic asshole. To me, this thread is full of confirmation bias. People who want to see what they personally believe, not objective reality.
It’s not an external cause. It boils on its own, because the molecules don’t want to be close together.
Pressure almost by definition is external influence…
There’s no pressure in space
You should be an astronaut