It is extremely simple to do that. But you won't accept it. You would say the gas canister containing oxygen to be "unproved", or the ignition source to be "unproved to be so", or the camera to be "unproved to truly reflect the reality", or the container in which the gases are put in "unproved to be empty".
You do not really care about knowing, you care about being right. And there's nothing I can do for you on this regard.
Seriously, post a video of you doing that. Or someone else's.
If you think I will refute it whatever the case, what can I do? I can only say that I will watch in good faith.
If, as you seem to suggest, I do see issues with the video and evidence, and you don't, what does that tell you about your threshold for the acceptance of what is presented as true to you?
> If, as you seem to suggest, I do see issues with the video and evidence, and you don't, what does that tell you about your threshold for the acceptance of what is presented as true to you?
Of course my threshold of acceptance is lower than yours! This whole discussion, my point was that your "threshold of acceptance" is ridiculously, insanely high.
For instance, I do think that the BBC guy in this video is acting in good faith. Also, given the two following hypothesis:
- Thousands of people around the globe have been putting up complex magic tricks and keep the secret for more than two centuries to make me believe that a gas can burn an produce water;
- Hydrogen and oxygen mixed together and ignited produce water vapor.
The latter is far, far more likely than the former.
Issues I have with the video you provided. I can't believe that this passes muster with you as a scientist.
I can't help but notice the gas he creates at first is white in colour. In the second the gas is clear in colour. Both white and colourless gas are the same apparently. The difference in colour is not explained.
In the second experiment, Brian Cox says he is using hydrogen + AIR (not oxygen). Air is apparently 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and argon + trace gases are the rest. This is to say, this is not mixing oxygen + hydrogen. So this experiment is NOT what I was asking evidence of.
Finally, he creates an explosive pop and some condensation appears on the glass jar. Let's accept that this liquid is water. What's to say that the water isn't simply water that was already in vapour form in the air that condensed against the glass?
And why do we need flame to ignite the gases? Is it really true that fire creates water? Is that a joke?
And do we really think that the ratio of 2 particle of hydrogen to 1 of oxygen was met? It was hardly a rigorous measurement, was it?
Overall, no, I did not see and experiment where pure hydrogen and pure oxygen where combined to make water. Do you think you did? To me, its all inference, hearsay and claim.
If this is all the evidence you need, yes, I think your threshold is too low.
Losing the argument sucks right? Guess you'll have to get use to it. I know I'm right while you do not know, so you're wrong.
It's hard to argue against pure logic like mine... Maybe one day you'll understand.
I want to see a gas canister that say hydrogen, that is tested and proved to be so.
Then I want the gases put into some sort of container, where some sort of process is undertaken, and water is poured out.
It should be straightforward, with no trickery or slight of hand trickery.
It must be simple to do that surely??!
Feel free to post a video.