/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5624909
>prove
You mean "confirm beyond reasonable doubt". Silly scientist.

fill a clear tank with it
put a rat in it
rat dies from over oxygenating
proved

>>5624909
>i know you can add matches
That is the standard procedure.

If you require something else, I am not really sure what to suggest, other than it should come back negative for litmus tests, and should be odourless.
The problem is that some other gases might as well, so this still may not be definitive proof that it is oxygen.

It is PH neutral, I think. An acid/alkali test could also be done, as well as odour and litmus test.

>>5624909
see if you live by breathing it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_sensor

>>5624926
That will not prove that it is definitely oxygen.
Other gases would also kill the rat.

The test also will not work because if Oxygen is present, but just in a low concentration, then the rat will still be alive.

It is also unethical to use the life of an innocent animal just to determine the identity of a particular gas.

>>5624940
lol wat.

just.. wat?

>>5624943
Which part did you not understand?
There are many many gases that would kill the rat. Only A gas mixture at a none toxic level of oxygen, coupled with other non-toxic gases will leave the rat alive.

The OP will need a specific test that applies to oxygen, and only oxygen.
Preferably one that does not involve cruelty to animals.

>>5624940
then use a gypsy ffs

>>5624919
'Proof' in science terms is a lot more than that. You have to be way beyond 99% sure.

More importantly, is this the best use of a lab?

Oxygen reacts with heat particles in the presence of water so if you mix the three together it will use quantum mechanics and the heisenberg uncertainty principle (a^2 + b^2 - c^2 = Area) to produce blue waves made of higgs bosons.

>>5625179
>Oxygen reacts with heat particles in the presence of water so if you mix the three together it will use quantum mechanics and the heisenberg uncertainty principle (a^2 + b^2 - c^2 = Area) to produce blue waves made of higgs bosons.
wat

>>5625185
What, you don't believe in science?

>>5625185
Look at this troll. I can't stand people like these ruining the quality of our board.

OP, oxygen is the only metal that is solid at room temperature so if you wave around a magnet in the air (all metals are attracted to magnets) then crystals of oxygen will react with the magnet to make magnesium (hence the name).

Another test is that oxygen turns green bromine water red due to its very strong quadruple bond between the layers in its ionic lattice. If you put a handful of oxygen into some of this special water then it will turn red and produce fluoridine (the element that goes in toothpaste). If you smell mint then you've discovered oxygen.

>>5625192
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it"

>>5625214

>>5625209
>Look at this troll
>oxygen is the only metal that is solid at room temperature

So who is the troll?

>>5625222
He did not say that.

>>5625214
>>5625220
See, even Sigmund Simon Ursler in your picture admits it. I'm sick of all of these people trying to disprove my facts with pseudoscience.

>>5625230
How do you know? You weren't there to quote him.

>>5625233
He does not smoke.

>>5625237
How do you know?

>>5625230
yes.

>>5625242
Because he is intelligent enough not to.

>>5625248
How do you know that intelligence is inversely correlated to drug use?

>>5625250
Experience.

>>5625252
>anecdotal evidence
>on /sci/

>>5625250
Case of point EK

>>5625255
>insufficient sample size

>>5625256
/sci/ is an anecdote.

>>5625250
Common sense.

>>5625255
She is intelligent, but also a drug user.
I consider her to be an anomaly

>>5625268
>intelligent

>>5625268
>Common sense.
>bandwagon fallacy

>>5625272
You doubt it?
But you do not know her.

>>5625268
>She is intelligent

>>5625281
I have known several heavy drug users, as well as several people who abstain.
On the whole, those who choose to abstain are certainly more intelligent, from what I have seen.
They are also happier with their lives.

>>5624909
I simply do not understand that pic

Couldn't you detemine if it's oygen by weighing the products? Since you know the mass of all elements and the mass of your educts it should be proof.

>>5625317
It is a metaphor.
His heart belongs to her, and without her, he is not complete.

>>5625338
More like the heartless bitch left only a broken heart.

>>5625378
The heart is not broken.

>>5625338
I understood it as, she took everything but the heart(love) of the man. Rejected but robbed of everything in the end.

>>5625338
>His heart belongs to her, and without her, he is not complete.
wat. his hart is one of the few things thats still in his body while she is missing a heart when she walks away. it would be more acurate tro say she was a part of him and when she left it left his hart bare. and that she is heartless.

>>5625395
He has not lost everything, he still has most of his body.
But he is not complete. Not without her.

>>5625401
It is art.
There is no right or wrong answer, you can interpret it in your own way.

>>5625407
>There is no right or wrong answer
pleb detected.

>>5625268
I'm a smart drug user. Drug use doesn't really have a strong correlation with intelligence. Smart people just are more likely to grow up sheltered.

>>5625418
I am not a pleb.
I like art.
You should know that how you interpret art is a personal thing.

>>5625422
Less intelligent people are more likely to be able to be 'led astray', with drugs and gangs, and so forth.
Intelligent people are more independent and strong willed.
They have he courage to say 'No.'
But as I said, there are anomalies.

>>5625431
>I am not a pleb. I like art.
>how you interpret art is a personal thing.
i love you. this is comedy gold.

>>5625455
Comedy?
I did not make a joke.

>>5625431
Yeah, I had fun once, and it was terrible

>>5625501
Pardon?

>>5625422
actually the opposite is true. intelligence is often correlated with novelty seeking behaviour.

inb4 psychology is pseudoscience.

the reason you dont hear about intelligent drug users is because they manage their drug habits carefully. They are smart enough to not get caught because they are aware of how drugs function and what risks they pose.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201010/why-intelligent-people-use-more-drugs

>>5625268
Know he's somewhat of a popsci type, but Sagan?
Or Erdős.

>>5625431
Why are you such a promiscuous, anti-intellectual slut?

>>5626720
Why are you replying to an idiotic tripfag attention whore?

I don't mean to be an asshole about it but the number of tripfags worth a damn on this board is very small, and the guy in this thread isn't on the list.