I love the fear inherent in the faith of so many "faithful." Stephen Hawking decides, after years of hemming and hawing and (more importantly) further discoveries in M-Theory, that God is not in fact required to bring something out of nothing. Pundits scoff, Lary King attempts the same "gotcha" questions as every pastor and wanna-be creation "scientist", and still the universe keeps on expanding. Hawking's answer to the not-at-all-novel question from King, "How can something come out of nothing?" was curt and unsatisfactory. Why? Because he doesn't have a decade or more to train you in the mathematics, conceptual frameworks, and underlying theories necessary to comprehend the mind-crumpling awesomeness and rigor of the theory. We're speaking of a fellow who is most likely too busy to call someone in to change his soiled diapers because his brain is swiftly analyzing data for problems we are, without being in any way hyperbolic, too fucking shit-tarded to understand. However, people like Hawking, Richard Feynman, and Brian Greene write lovely books that are designed to distill the most salient features of the Cutting Edge O' Science into words the layperson can wrap their noodle around. They try diligently to impart as much knowledge as you can gather without learning a metric butt-ton of math - and believe me, that is a difficult task. If you want to know what these fellows are on about,
read their god damned books. Trying to "catch" one of the most renowned minds of all time is juvenile, impotent, pandering nonsense that makes good television for the self-assured, ignorant monkey nation we've become. Stephen Hawking doesn't care if you believe in god, he's just making a point about the fact that the universe probably doesn't need him, and we (by we I mean of course 'they') can back that shit up. Much as I can prove that fire is not magic only to the average english speaker with a high school degree, these dudes require you to know some herpes-serious shit before their arguments make sense. So read their books and decide for yourself, but remember that you and I don't actually have the chops to argue this stuff. There are thousands of people who do (ok, maybe hundreds) and you are welcome to go to college, get an advanced physics degree, and then poo poo on their party as loudly as you want.
So now to what you really came for. I got very excited about urine today. Since it's cold as hell (for Portland) I decided to find out just how cold it would have to be for your urine to freeze when it leaves your body. Could it freeze before striking the ground? Could it freeze at all? Did I have the tools to find out? I spent the next hour and a half combing two text books and the internet for data. Thankfully, many others had collected information on the content of urine and I began to look at different possibilities for solving the problem. I, like those smarter dudes I mentioned before, will spare you the math. Basically I finally found that the miniscule amount of contaminants in your urine (which is more than 95% water) will reduce the temperature required to freeze the solution by anywhere from 132 - 142 degrees C. To be clear, it would have to be several hundred degrees Fahrenheit below freezing to accomplish the task of writing your name in falling ice off the Grand Canyon. Now, my math could be off. I haven't been peer reviewed yet, but I'll be sending my work to a friend in France the next time I'm drunk, rest assured. However, I found afterwards that Mythbusters failed to freeze urine at -70 degrees F, which lends at least some minor element of observational weight to my theory. This is how science works. If you come up with an idea, you test it. Hopefully your test is fun and involves peeing, but sometimes it's boring and involves a lot of statistics. You back yo' shit up with observations, fool. You don't just proclaim inane fairy tales to be the everlasting truth about the universe and kill anyone who disagrees with your point of view. Well actually, I guess that works out pretty well for those guys.
On my numbers and other numbers: My numbers agree with other calculations I have read online, however research done around the turn of the century found the freezing point of urine to be between -.45 and -2.4 degrees Celsius. This was done with patients experiencing renal failure, and I am unclear on the freezing method. The Mythbuster dudes failed to freeze artificial urine at -55 degrees C, but the "artificial" part still bugs me. So! Science! I am currently trying to freeze my pee. If putting it in the freezer works, I will disregard my former method as flawed. If the sample fails to freeze I will begin looking for funding for further research. Basically I want a free Vacation to Alaska in the dead of winter. Anyone feel like supporting the progression of human knowledge? I promise a non-biased and rigorous experiment that will control as many variables as possible within a constrained budget. I will use multiple subjects, sample and analyze the content of their urine, and determine (if it does freeze) the heat of fusion of urine as well as a suitable conversion factor for this value based on the contaminant content in moles/L.
Pee!
Update: It's starting to freeze! Science!