The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: RandomREalist on May 09, 2014, 05:54:36 AM

Title: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RandomREalist on May 09, 2014, 05:54:36 AM
I apologize, these are likely to be many one line posts, but I know jroa likes short, concise questions, and he's the main proponent, it is what it is. So: first question:

Is phlogiston responsible for all combustion?

(and apologies if i'm mis-spelling as well)
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2014, 05:58:24 AM
I can't say for certain that it is responsible for all combustion.  I am still unsure about fission and fusion.  They may play a role in some of the combustion that we experience as well. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RandomREalist on May 09, 2014, 06:07:45 AM
I can't say for certain that it is responsible for all combustion.  I am still unsure about fission and fusion.  They may play a role in some of the combustion that we experience as well.

Ok, fair enough. Can we agree at least on "normal combustion", in other words, things you and I can start, without any extordinary materials? So nothing radioactive needed, no fusion or fission, just stuff burning?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2014, 06:22:58 AM
I would say that your statement is likely mostly correct.  As I said, I can not say what other energy sources may be out there, but Phlogiston seems like the most likely source for at least most of the combustion that is observed. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RandomREalist on May 09, 2014, 06:25:36 AM
I would say that your statement is likely mostly correct.  As I said, I can not say what other energy sources may be out there, but Phlogiston seems like the most likely source for at least most of the combustion that is observed.

Ok, fair enough. Is it also responsible for things melting? I.E. if I heat a gold ingot, is phlogiston being released without burning?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2014, 06:30:23 AM
If the heat is obtained from releasing Phlogiston from coal or some other source, then yes, the Phlogiston is responsible for the gold melting.  If there is any Phlogiston left in the gold at the time, then you might even have some burn in the gold itself.  But, no, the melting of gold has nothing to do with Phlogiston, other that it may be the source of the heat. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RandomREalist on May 09, 2014, 06:51:04 AM
If the heat is obtained from releasing Phlogiston from coal or some other source, then yes, the Phlogiston is responsible for the gold melting.  If there is any Phlogiston left in the gold at the time, then you might even have some burn in the gold itself.  But, no, the melting of gold has nothing to do with Phlogiston, other that it may be the source of the heat.

Ok.

So this one substance is responsible for all* combustion, Can you then explain the chart  here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoignition_temperature) or  table 1 here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_burner#Table_3:_Combustion_values_of_common_gases).

In other words: if one substance is doing the burning, why are the temps required to get something to ignite so different, and why do the flames burn at such different intensities?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2014, 07:26:15 AM
If the heat is obtained from releasing Phlogiston from coal or some other source, then yes, the Phlogiston is responsible for the gold melting.  If there is any Phlogiston left in the gold at the time, then you might even have some burn in the gold itself.  But, no, the melting of gold has nothing to do with Phlogiston, other that it may be the source of the heat.

Ok.

So this one substance is responsible for all* combustion, Can you then explain the chart  here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoignition_temperature) or  table 1 here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_burner#Table_3:_Combustion_values_of_common_gases).

In other words: if one substance is doing the burning, why are the temps required to get something to ignite so different, and why do the flames burn at such different intensities?

You do realize that there are inconsistent amounts of Phlogiston in matter, right?  Some things burn better than others.   You seem like you think everything has to be the same everywhere. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RandomREalist on May 09, 2014, 07:31:31 AM
If the heat is obtained from releasing Phlogiston from coal or some other source, then yes, the Phlogiston is responsible for the gold melting.  If there is any Phlogiston left in the gold at the time, then you might even have some burn in the gold itself.  But, no, the melting of gold has nothing to do with Phlogiston, other that it may be the source of the heat.

Ok.

So this one substance is responsible for all* combustion, Can you then explain the chart  here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoignition_temperature) or  table 1 here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_burner#Table_3:_Combustion_values_of_common_gases).

In other words: if one substance is doing the burning, why are the temps required to get something to ignite so different, and why do the flames burn at such different intensities?

You do realize that there are inconsistent amounts of Phlogiston in matter, right?  Some things burn better than others.   You seem like you think everything has to be the same everywhere.

That is unfounded based on observable conditions. It doesn't matter if i have a 10 kg block of wood, or a 1 kb block of the same type of wood, it's going to ignite at the same temperature, where as if i have a 10 kg of a different type of wood, it may ignite at a different temperature.

According to you, everything should ignite at the same point.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2014, 07:57:08 AM
Actually, the substance that the material is made of determines the amount of Phlogiston that is still in the substance.  Do you understand, or are you still butt hurt and looking for anything to disprove me? 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RandomREalist on May 09, 2014, 08:14:24 AM
Actually, the substance that the material is made of determines the amount of Phlogiston that is still in the substance.  Do you understand, or are you still butt hurt and looking for anything to disprove me?

Really, jroa? Is implying that i take it in the ass really appropriate? Have I been anything but concise and polite in this thread (or, really anywhere) to this point?

Yes I'm trying to show you why phlogiston isn't real. Yes, I understand if you grasp that it isn't real it's going to make a lot of your precious little flat world unravel.
So, try again. Why does 1 kg of pure phlogiston ignite at temp X, but a 2 kg chunk of material z with 50% phlogiston, ignite at temp Y. If you can't answer that, its ok, I've got more questions i can ask.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 09, 2014, 08:28:18 AM
More to the point, why are things heavier after they're burnt, and why does that same mass of oxygen go mysteriously missing from the air the thing was burnt in?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RealScientist on May 09, 2014, 08:56:46 AM

That is unfounded based on observable conditions. It doesn't matter if i have a 10 kg block of wood, or a 1 kb block of the same type of wood, it's going to ignite at the same temperature, where as if i have a 10 kg of a different type of wood, it may ignite at a different temperature.

According to you, everything should ignite at the same point.

You are not quite getting the real problem with phlogiston: you cannot prove the non-existence of phlogiston just as you cannot prove the non-existence of invisible dragon fairies that make all combustion happen. But you can make innumerable predictions about combustion using simple chemistry knowledge.

You can do some cheap philosophical arguments about phlogiston, and in a sense they are arguably true. But you cannot make a single prediction starting from your phlogiston idea. On the other hand, the total amount of heat you can get from a piece of wood (given enough availability of oxygen) can be predicted very well by finding out the amount of carbon in that piece of wood.

This is the eternal "Science versus Truth" cheap philosophy that is used everywhere in this forum.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RandomREalist on May 09, 2014, 09:54:25 AM

That is unfounded based on observable conditions. It doesn't matter if i have a 10 kg block of wood, or a 1 kb block of the same type of wood, it's going to ignite at the same temperature, where as if i have a 10 kg of a different type of wood, it may ignite at a different temperature.

According to you, everything should ignite at the same point.

You are not quite getting the real problem with phlogiston: you cannot prove the non-existence of phlogiston just as you cannot prove the non-existence of invisible dragon fairies that make all combustion happen. But you can make innumerable predictions about combustion using simple chemistry knowledge.

You can do some cheap philosophical arguments about phlogiston, and in a sense they are arguably true. But you cannot make a single prediction starting from your phlogiston idea. On the other hand, the total amount of heat you can get from a piece of wood (given enough availability of oxygen) can be predicted very well by finding out the amount of carbon in that piece of wood.

This is the eternal "Science versus Truth" cheap philosophy that is used everywhere in this forum.

That's true, but jroa will simply dismiss everything else published as falsified information for the conspiracy, so I'm trying to show him why his phlogiston can't be responsible for all the combustion. I say it at least once a week around here that i can't prove a negative.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2014, 02:06:24 PM
I appreciate the help, guys.  I cannot state for certain that Phlogiston theory is absolute truth.  However, it does make sense from the observations we normally apply to oxidation.  I could be completely wrong about the whole thing.  And, if so, I am willing to open my mind.  However, the theory does seem to sit well with both Aether theory and Flat Earth theory. 

Let me do some more research, and perhaps I could come up with some experiments that I could try.  I can't promise anything as of yet, though. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: evildylan on May 09, 2014, 02:11:51 PM
It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis.

Please label it as such.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2014, 02:13:47 PM
Why?  I can't theorize about it?  I have to hypothesize about the substance?  Have you looked up the meaning of those words lately? 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: bravimone on May 09, 2014, 02:23:40 PM
You have an idea, you make up an hypothesis accordingly. Then you set up and run a series of experiments to check if your hypothesis is correct and you build a theory based on the observations, complete of a mathematical model. No experiment shows phlogiston exists, so it's a hypothesis. That's why the FE is a hypothesis too, not a theory.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2014, 02:28:11 PM
I am not sure where you are going with this, but I will take the bait. 

Quote from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: bravimone on May 09, 2014, 02:32:41 PM
I am not sure where you are going with this, but I will take the bait. 

Quote from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

Ah, your good old dictionary. I assumed we were talking about scientific theories, were we not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2014, 02:42:34 PM
We are talking about theories.  You can take the asinine definition, if it makes you feel better.  Personally, I will stick to the common usage definition.   
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: bravimone on May 09, 2014, 02:44:08 PM
We are talking about theories.  You can take the asinine definition, if it makes you feel better.  Personally, I will stick to the common usage definition.   

The "asinine" definition, commonly called the scientific one... I guess I'm expecting too much for phlogiston to have anything to do with science.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2014, 02:46:19 PM
It is all science.  We can't both be right, but we could both be wrong.  I am researching experiments as we speak. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Shmeggley on May 09, 2014, 03:01:49 PM
What's wrong with the commonly accepted idea that burning is simply rapid oxidation with the release of heat? Did I miss something?

I remember learning about phlogiston in high school. I thought it was a pretty funny idea from the perspective of already knowing about oxygen and oxidation. Although now I see it as a pretty reasonable idea for its time, in proposing a substance to explain the phenomena of burning and rusting. It's just that it didn't hold up to scrutiny, one objection being that it would have to have negative mass to account for certain observations such as metals burning in oxygen. I think it's a triumph of science that these ideas can be proposed and discussed reasonably, and then discarded when the data don't fit the theory.

What is the attraction of the phlogiston theory for you jroa? Do you think that oxygen doesn't actually combine with other elements and release heat, or that oxygen doesn't exist, or what?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2014, 03:38:53 PM
I was asked a question and gave an answer.  I told you that I cannot say for sure that my theory is correct.  All I can do is give the best answers that I can. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Shmeggley on May 09, 2014, 03:52:42 PM
I was asked a question and gave an answer.  I told you that I cannot say for sure that my theory is correct.  All I can do is give the best answers that I can.

What I'm confused about is why you speak as if the concept of phlogiston was in any way still viable after the discovery of oxygen and oxidation. ???
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2014, 04:05:32 PM
Do you have proof that Phlogiston Theory is not possible?  Perhaps you have performed some experiments that you would like to share with us? 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Shmeggley on May 09, 2014, 04:17:11 PM
Do you have proof that Phlogiston Theory is not possible?  Perhaps you have performed some experiments that you would like to share with us?

I can't remember if I did this one in high school or not; maybe you'd like to try it yourself since you're in doubt?

http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/practical-chemistry/change-mass-when-magnesium-burns (http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/practical-chemistry/change-mass-when-magnesium-burns)

Since these types of experiments invariably yield the result that the mass increases, then the phlogiston explanation has to include negative mass, a very strange concept indeed! That's the main objection.

However, since the discovery of oxygen and oxidation, we already have a complete explanation without the need for phlogiston, so I don't see why I'd need to prove that phlogiston is impossible. Rather, the burden appears to be on you to explain why it is necessary. :)
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RandomREalist on May 09, 2014, 05:07:10 PM
I appreciate the help, guys.  I cannot state for certain that Phlogiston theory is absolute truth.  However, it does make sense from the observations we normally apply to oxidation.  I could be completely wrong about the whole thing.  And, if so, I am willing to open my mind.  However, the theory does seem to sit well with both Aether theory and Flat Earth theory. 

Let me do some more research, and perhaps I could come up with some experiments that I could try.  I can't promise anything as of yet, though.

Let's keep it civil everyone.

Jroa, as you do your research, I would ask of one thing. Take a look at the EM spectrum of various gasses, and what they look like here on earth, and then take a look at the EM spectrum of various stars around the galaxy, yet none of them will show some common, unknown signature that would be indicative of phlogiston.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: sokarul on May 09, 2014, 06:02:33 PM
Do you have proof that Phlogiston Theory is not possible?  Perhaps you have performed some experiments that you would like to share with us?
Well I react sulfur with oxygen on any given day to get SO2 gas. I then analyze the gas flow to see how much SO2 was made. I can then tell how much sulfur was in the sample. Other versions of the instrument will do carbon at the same time. This goes 100% against Phlogiston theory.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2014, 06:33:12 PM
Do you have proof that Phlogiston Theory is not possible?  Perhaps you have performed some experiments that you would like to share with us?

I can't remember if I did this one in high school or not; maybe you'd like to try it yourself since you're in doubt?

http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/practical-chemistry/change-mass-when-magnesium-burns (http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/practical-chemistry/change-mass-when-magnesium-burns)

Since these types of experiments invariably yield the result that the mass increases, then the phlogiston explanation has to include negative mass, a very strange concept indeed! That's the main objection.

However, since the discovery of oxygen and oxidation, we already have a complete explanation without the need for phlogiston, so I don't see why I'd need to prove that phlogiston is impossible. Rather, the burden appears to be on you to explain why it is necessary. :)

I do not own, nor do I have access to, a precision scale.  If I can get a hold of one, I will give this a try.  Magnesium is easy enough to get and shave. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2014, 06:35:00 PM
I appreciate the help, guys.  I cannot state for certain that Phlogiston theory is absolute truth.  However, it does make sense from the observations we normally apply to oxidation.  I could be completely wrong about the whole thing.  And, if so, I am willing to open my mind.  However, the theory does seem to sit well with both Aether theory and Flat Earth theory. 

Let me do some more research, and perhaps I could come up with some experiments that I could try.  I can't promise anything as of yet, though.

Let's keep it civil everyone.

Jroa, as you do your research, I would ask of one thing. Take a look at the EM spectrum of various gasses, and what they look like here on earth, and then take a look at the EM spectrum of various stars around the galaxy, yet none of them will show some common, unknown signature that would be indicative of phlogiston.

I do not have the equipment to measure the EM spectrum of stars.  However, are they not supposed to be red shifted?  Does that not throw off the EM spectrum? 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2014, 06:36:28 PM
Do you have proof that Phlogiston Theory is not possible?  Perhaps you have performed some experiments that you would like to share with us?
Well I react sulfur with oxygen on any given day to get SO2 gas. I then analyze the gas flow to see how much SO2 was made. I can then tell how much sulfur was in the sample. Other versions of the instrument will do carbon at the same time. This goes 100% against Phlogiston theory.

Your job sounds fascinating.  Please, tell us more.  ::)
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: sokarul on May 09, 2014, 06:44:10 PM
Do you have proof that Phlogiston Theory is not possible?  Perhaps you have performed some experiments that you would like to share with us?
Well I react sulfur with oxygen on any given day to get SO2 gas. I then analyze the gas flow to see how much SO2 was made. I can then tell how much sulfur was in the sample. Other versions of the instrument will do carbon at the same time. This goes 100% against Phlogiston theory.

Your job sounds fascinating.  Please, tell us more.  ::)
How about you explain away oxidation reactions?  Or are you just going to pretend they don't exist so you can keep thinking Phlogiston Theory is a viable theory?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RandomREalist on May 09, 2014, 06:47:40 PM
I appreciate the help, guys.  I cannot state for certain that Phlogiston theory is absolute truth.  However, it does make sense from the observations we normally apply to oxidation.  I could be completely wrong about the whole thing.  And, if so, I am willing to open my mind.  However, the theory does seem to sit well with both Aether theory and Flat Earth theory. 

Let me do some more research, and perhaps I could come up with some experiments that I could try.  I can't promise anything as of yet, though.

Let's keep it civil everyone.

Jroa, as you do your research, I would ask of one thing. Take a look at the EM spectrum of various gasses, and what they look like here on earth, and then take a look at the EM spectrum of various stars around the galaxy, yet none of them will show some common, unknown signature that would be indicative of phlogiston.

I do not have the equipment to measure the EM spectrum of stars.  However, are they not supposed to be red shifted?  Does that not throw off the EM spectrum?

I know you're distrusting of sources and nasa, and space agencies, and schools jroa, but if you look on line, you can find examples of them.

And while, yes, things are red shifted, they are still "in sequence", so if you take, for instance, a print out of reference helium, and then look at a star and "slide" your helium reference along it, then it will almost lock into place, and everything will line up.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2014, 08:15:39 PM
Do you have proof that Phlogiston Theory is not possible?  Perhaps you have performed some experiments that you would like to share with us?
Well I react sulfur with oxygen on any given day to get SO2 gas. I then analyze the gas flow to see how much SO2 was made. I can then tell how much sulfur was in the sample. Other versions of the instrument will do carbon at the same time. This goes 100% against Phlogiston theory.

Your job sounds fascinating.  Please, tell us more.  ::)
How about you explain away oxidation reactions?  Or are you just going to pretend they don't exist so you can keep thinking Phlogiston Theory is a viable theory?

Are you sure something is oxidating and not just Phlogisticating?  Have you looked at the atoms through a microscope? 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: sokarul on May 09, 2014, 11:40:51 PM
Do you have proof that Phlogiston Theory is not possible?  Perhaps you have performed some experiments that you would like to share with us?
Well I react sulfur with oxygen on any given day to get SO2 gas. I then analyze the gas flow to see how much SO2 was made. I can then tell how much sulfur was in the sample. Other versions of the instrument will do carbon at the same time. This goes 100% against Phlogiston theory.

Your job sounds fascinating.  Please, tell us more.  ::)
How about you explain away oxidation reactions?  Or are you just going to pretend they don't exist so you can keep thinking Phlogiston Theory is a viable theory?

Are you sure something is oxidating and not just Phlogisticating?  Have you looked at the atoms through a microscope?
How would my instrument distinguish what the phligiston came from if oxidation wasn't happening? The instrument uses IR spectroscopy to figure out how much SO2 gas is flowing in the carrier gas. There is no way for it to work if oxidation didn't exist.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 02:57:31 AM
How would my instrument distinguish what the phligiston came from if oxidation wasn't happening? The instrument uses IR spectroscopy to figure out how much SO2 gas is flowing in the carrier gas. There is no way for it to work if oxidation didn't exist.

Your instrument is calibrated for what you expect it to read.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 10, 2014, 04:25:35 AM
It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis.

Please label it as such.
Strictly speaking, it's a falsified scientific theory.

It has been superseded by theories that better explain observations, and is therefore obsolete.

Jroa just likes getting all 17th century on our asses.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 10, 2014, 06:57:59 AM
Your instrument is calibrated for what you expect it to read.

And all the world's scales which have showed for over a century that burnt things have gained mass and the air they were burnt in has lost it?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RealScientist on May 10, 2014, 07:18:56 AM
Do you have proof that Phlogiston Theory is not possible?  Perhaps you have performed some experiments that you would like to share with us?

I can't remember if I did this one in high school or not; maybe you'd like to try it yourself since you're in doubt?

http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/practical-chemistry/change-mass-when-magnesium-burns (http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/practical-chemistry/change-mass-when-magnesium-burns)

Since these types of experiments invariably yield the result that the mass increases, then the phlogiston explanation has to include negative mass, a very strange concept indeed! That's the main objection.

However, since the discovery of oxygen and oxidation, we already have a complete explanation without the need for phlogiston, so I don't see why I'd need to prove that phlogiston is impossible. Rather, the burden appears to be on you to explain why it is necessary. :)

I do not own, nor do I have access to, a precision scale.  If I can get a hold of one, I will give this a try.  Magnesium is easy enough to get and shave.

I got a scale that measures to a precision of 0.01 grams for less than 30 dollars. This is not a problem of not having the equipment, it is a problem of knowing that you will only spend your dollars (however few) in an experiment that will pop your bubble.

Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: sokarul on May 10, 2014, 07:27:16 AM
How would my instrument distinguish what the phligiston came from if oxidation wasn't happening? The instrument uses IR spectroscopy to figure out how much SO2 gas is flowing in the carrier gas. There is no way for it to work if oxidation didn't exist.

Your instrument is calibrated for what you expect it to read.
It is calibrated for a range. You still didn't address anything. Are you going to explain how it can tell the difference between carbon and sulfur? Keep in mind it only reads what's in the carrier gas. (Which of course is oxygen. )
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RealScientist on May 10, 2014, 07:27:56 AM
Your instrument is calibrated for what you expect it to read.

And all the world's scales which have showed for over a century that burnt things have gained mass and the air they were burnt in has lost it?

And most important, if you are a honest scientist you calibrate your equipment to international standards before you do the experiment and report your results even if they contradict your previous belief.

What you jroa is saying is that the instruments are magical and decide for themselves what calibration will give the expected results. This process ( a scale divining that you want the burnt sample to weigh more than the original and showing the expected result rather than the real one) would only be possible in Oz.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 07:30:59 AM
How would my instrument distinguish what the phligiston came from if oxidation wasn't happening? The instrument uses IR spectroscopy to figure out how much SO2 gas is flowing in the carrier gas. There is no way for it to work if oxidation didn't exist.

Your instrument is calibrated for what you expect it to read.
It is calibrated for a range. You still didn't address anything. Are you going to explain how it can tell the difference between carbon and sulfur? Keep in mind it only reads what's in the carrier gas. (Which of course is oxygen. )

Could you somehow be unwittingly measuring dephlogisticated material and you are assuming that oxygen has been added? 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: sokarul on May 10, 2014, 07:33:43 AM
How would my instrument distinguish what the phligiston came from if oxidation wasn't happening? The instrument uses IR spectroscopy to figure out how much SO2 gas is flowing in the carrier gas. There is no way for it to work if oxidation didn't exist.

Your instrument is calibrated for what you expect it to read.
It is calibrated for a range. You still didn't address anything. Are you going to explain how it can tell the difference between carbon and sulfur? Keep in mind it only reads what's in the carrier gas. (Which of course is oxygen. )

Could you somehow be unwittingly measuring dephlogisticated material and you are assuming that oxygen has been added?
I change out the oxygen tank when it is empty. Once again, sulfur and carbon would both release phlogiston and it would be impossible to figure out what element it came from. Not to mention a person can smell the SO2 coming out the back of the instrument.

Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 07:45:37 AM
Perhaps oxygen somehow has a role in the process of dephogistication? 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: sokarul on May 10, 2014, 07:50:14 AM
Perhaps oxygen somehow has a role in the process of dephogistication?
No, we know what it's role is.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2014, 07:53:01 AM
Phlogiston? Seriously? The last time I heard that word was 11th Grade Physics! I looked up Wikipedia's well-written article on Phlogiston Theory in order to remind myself what Mr. Dart had taught us back then. JRoa, what is it w/ you? I'm no scientist, but even I know you're out to lunch on this. In the 17th Century, this made sense. But advances in science have shown that combustion can be better explained in different ways. Let me ask 1 question. If phlogiston exists as an actual element, where does it belong on the Periodic Table of the Elements, & why isn't it there? How is its absence explained?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 08:00:17 AM
But advances in science have shown that combustion can be better explained in different ways.

Or, so you have been told, and since you never question anything, you blindly proclaim that it makes total sense to you.

Let me ask 1 question. If phlogiston exists as an actual element, where does it belong on the Periodic Table of the Elements, & why isn't it there? How is its absence explained?

I did not say it was an element.  My theory is that it is a combination of elements that change into other elements through the phlogistication process.   
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2014, 08:03:37 AM
That is certainly not what the theory stated. The theory stated that phlogiston was an element. What is your justification for changing the theory on that point?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 08:05:39 AM
Are you saying that theories can not possibly change over time? 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2014, 08:11:47 AM
I'm saying that in order to change one, you have to have a legitimate reason, that you can explain, to do so. If I wanted to suddenly suggest that in fact, alien life existed, I would have to demonstrate proof of that. If you wish to take a previously accepted theory & change it, you must demonstrate proof that your explanation was better than the previously accepted one.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 08:33:48 AM
Yes, when things do not add up scientifically, I change my theory and try again.  Isn't that what your RE scientists do? 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: inquisitive on May 10, 2014, 08:40:46 AM
Yes, when things do not add up scientifically, I change my theory and try again.  Isn't that what your RE scientists do?
Yet you have no evidence for your theories.  What elements is it made of and please prove.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2014, 08:41:34 AM
Well, you haven't given reasons to accept the phlogiston theory @ all, let alone to tweak it.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 08:45:55 AM
I constantly present evidence.  Just because you chose to ignore the evidence does not mean that it was not presented. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: inquisitive on May 10, 2014, 08:52:18 AM
I constantly present evidence.  Just because you chose to ignore the evidence does not mean that it was not presented.
More like the evidence is wrong or just lacking.  Mystery substance made up of unknown elements changing to other elements...

Or even the old standard that the earth cannot be round and satellites don't exist, it's all a conspiracy when you can't explain how GPS or satellite TV works.  Despite measuring angles from dishes proving where the transmitter is.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2014, 08:53:19 AM
Demonstrate your evidence that phlogiston exists.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 09:00:47 AM
Demonstrate your evidence that phlogiston exists.

Burn a match and release the Phlogiston within. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2014, 09:02:11 AM
What does this phlogiston look like?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: bravimone on May 10, 2014, 09:04:49 AM
Burn a match and release the Phlogiston within. 

That proves matches burn, it doesn't prove the existence of phlogiston.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 09:09:55 AM
What does this phlogiston look like?

It looks like fire. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2014, 09:11:25 AM
I see. & can the amount of it be measured?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 09:13:33 AM
Yes, the matter being converted to energy can be measured.  Or, are you somehow saying it can't? 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2014, 09:18:29 AM
I don't mean that. I mean, can you capture the phlogiston & measure the amount thereof?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 09:26:22 AM
It is pretty hot.  Maybe you can capture it? 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: inquisitive on May 10, 2014, 09:30:23 AM
It is pretty hot.  Maybe you can capture it?
So you claim it exists, but have done nothing to confirm what it might consist of.  Any tests, analysis?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RandomREalist on May 10, 2014, 09:30:56 AM
Yes, the matter being converted to energy can be measured.  Or, are you somehow saying it can't?

Which goes back to one of my original points: Why do different materials have different ignition temperatures, and different burning temperatures. If it was one material that was burning, it would be consistent, not variable.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2014, 09:44:27 AM
Very true. My wood dining table should burn @ the same temperature as a piece of high tempered steel. Phlogiston should not have different burning temperatures.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RealScientist on May 10, 2014, 10:11:30 AM
Could you somehow be unwittingly measuring dephlogisticated material and you are assuming that oxygen has been added?

Yes, and I could be using un-fairied material, or sacramented material, or there could be a witch affecting my experiment from Salem.

Fact is, each and every claim I can make is meaningless if I cannot use it to make predictions. And our current knowledge of Chemistry predicts in detail the events that happen during a fire, while phlogiston only gives you predictions after the fact. In other words, nothing.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: sokarul on May 10, 2014, 10:21:53 AM
But advances in science have shown that combustion can be better explained in different ways.

Or, so you have been told, and since you never question anything, you blindly proclaim that it makes total sense to you.

Let me ask 1 question. If phlogiston exists as an actual element, where does it belong on the Periodic Table of the Elements, & why isn't it there? How is its absence explained?


I did not say it was an element.  My theory is that it is a combination of elements that change into other elements through the phlogistication process.
So now carbon turns into gold? Are you trying to top sceptic by posting the dumbest thing you can think of?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 12:53:05 PM
Yes, the matter being converted to energy can be measured.  Or, are you somehow saying it can't?

Which goes back to one of my original points: Why do different materials have different ignition temperatures, and different burning temperatures. If it was one material that was burning, it would be consistent, not variable.

You are making up a great story.  Keep up the good work.  It would be almost believable, if not for the lack of evidence. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: sokarul on May 10, 2014, 01:17:56 PM
Yes, the matter being converted to energy can be measured.  Or, are you somehow saying it can't?

Which goes back to one of my original points: Why do different materials have different ignition temperatures, and different burning temperatures. If it was one material that was burning, it would be consistent, not variable.

You are making up a great story.  Keep up the good work.  It would be almost believable, if not for the lack of evidence.
Where is your evidence that elements change to different elements when they burn?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 10, 2014, 01:31:23 PM
Burn a match and release the Phlogiston within.
Why doesn't this work in the absence of oxygen?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: bravimone on May 10, 2014, 01:57:40 PM
Burn a match and release the Phlogiston within.
Why doesn't this work in the absence of oxygen?

Hey, you got your quotes wrong, i didn't say that ;)
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 02:57:17 PM
Perhaps in order to completely dephlogistinize, a material needs to be in the presence of oxygen?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2014, 03:48:50 PM
Next question: what about when using a stove? An electric stove has the element getting very hot, but clearly not going away like wood. In other words the mettle element is not hot enough to 'burn' or release phlogiston. But yet it gets damned hot. How is it that my dining table (cherry, I think) would likely 'burn' (release phlogiston) @ that temperature, but the element does not? & what IS it doing in releasing heat?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Vauxhall on May 10, 2014, 03:52:37 PM
Next question: what about when using a stove? An electric stove has the element getting very hot, but clearly not going away like wood. In other words the mettle element is not hot enough to 'burn' or release phlogiston. But yet it gets damned hot. How is it that my dining table (cherry, I think) would likely 'burn' (release phlogiston) @ that temperature, but the element does not? & what IS it doing in releasing heat?

Heating elements and wood are the same thing now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating_element (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating_element)
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 03:57:06 PM
Next question: what about when using a stove? An electric stove has the element getting very hot, but clearly not going away like wood. In other words the mettle element is not hot enough to 'burn' or release phlogiston. But yet it gets damned hot. How is it that my dining table (cherry, I think) would likely 'burn' (release phlogiston) @ that temperature, but the element does not? & what IS it doing in releasing heat?

Heating elements do not last forever.  They can only stay hot for a certain amount of time before they quit working.  Also, the heat from a heating element does not come from combustion, but usually from electrical current flowing through a resistive material.  In other words, the heat is produced by electrical power. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2014, 04:00:35 PM
The ? is still a valid one. All things should release phlogiston @ the same time, no?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 04:02:30 PM
Only when they are burning (combusting).  Just because something is getting hot, that does not mean it is actually on fire, now does it? 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: bravimone on May 10, 2014, 04:11:02 PM
jroa, how do you explain hot things to emit a glowing red light? You can see it in some resistors used by ovens or such.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: sokarul on May 10, 2014, 04:25:06 PM
But advances in science have shown that combustion can be better explained in different ways.

Or, so you have been told, and since you never question anything, you blindly proclaim that it makes total sense to you.

Let me ask 1 question. If phlogiston exists as an actual element, where does it belong on the Periodic Table of the Elements, & why isn't it there? How is its absence explained?


I did not say it was an element.  My theory is that it is a combination of elements that change into other elements through the phlogistication process.
So now carbon turns into gold? Are you trying to top sceptic by posting the dumbest thing you can think of?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Vauxhall on May 10, 2014, 04:28:57 PM
I'm not sure about carbon to gold, but I know scientists have turned lead into gold. Transmutation of lead into gold isn't just theoretically possible - it's a reality. There are reports that Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in transmuting a minute quantity of lead into gold. There is an earlier report (around 1972) in which Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed to gold.


If lead can turn to gold then I'm sure other elements can be turned into gold as well. It's really not as outrageous as you're making it out to be.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 04:33:16 PM
jroa, how do you explain hot things to emit a glowing red light? You can see it in some resistors used by ovens or such.

Incandescent light bulbs also emit light, yet they are not burning.  I really don't see where you people are going with this. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: sokarul on May 10, 2014, 04:40:54 PM
So you are not going to back up what you said. I guess we both know it was quite stupid.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Vauxhall on May 10, 2014, 04:54:47 PM
So you are not going to back up what you said. I guess we both know it was quite stupid.

It's not stupid. Please don't write my post off because it inconveniences your position:

I'm not sure about carbon to gold, but I know scientists have turned lead into gold. Transmutation of lead into gold isn't just theoretically possible - it's a reality. There are reports that Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in transmuting a minute quantity of lead into gold. There is an earlier report (around 1972) in which Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed to gold.


If lead can turn to gold then I'm sure other elements can be turned into gold as well. It's really not as outrageous as you're making it out to be.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: sokarul on May 10, 2014, 05:00:43 PM
So you are not going to back up what you said. I guess we both know it was quite stupid.

It's not stupid. Please don't write my post off because it inconveniences your position:

I'm not sure about carbon to gold, but I know scientists have turned lead into gold. Transmutation of lead into gold isn't just theoretically possible - it's a reality. There are reports that Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in transmuting a minute quantity of lead into gold. There is an earlier report (around 1972) in which Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed to gold.


If lead can turn to gold then I'm sure other elements can be turned into gold as well. It's really not as outrageous as you're making it out to be.
Except Jroa said burning elements change into other elements. I am aware that if you smash two atoms together they can combine if the energy is high enough. Or that if an atom breaks apart it will change to other elements. These two ideas have nothing to do with what Jroa said.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 05:05:42 PM
No, I said that when Phlogiston is spent, it likely is converted into something else. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: sokarul on May 10, 2014, 05:10:01 PM
No, I said that when Phlogiston is spent, it likely is converted into something else. 
Quote from: Jroa
My theory is that it is a combination of elements that change into other elements through the phlogistication process.
No, you didn't.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 10, 2014, 08:06:11 PM
1."There's a problem with your idea."
2."Then perhaps my idea is different now."
3.Goto 1.

That process could go on until the heat death of the universe and never come up with anything useful. Instead of talking about what phlogiston isn't or what it doesn't do or infer could you supply a prediction that can be tested?

Crucially: assuming that [whatever your phlogiston idea actually is] is true, what can you -armed with that knowledge- do, predict or understand about fire (or anything) that a caveman could not? Ideally your idea would be more useful or make more accurate predictions than the consensus of all contemporary science as that is what you're intending to supplant. But we'll start small.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 08:10:38 PM
I can predict that when wood gets hot enough, it catches fire. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: sokarul on May 10, 2014, 08:21:47 PM
I can predict that when wood gets hot enough, it catches fire.
Can you predict what element carbon will change into once the wood starts burning?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 10, 2014, 08:34:06 PM
I'm not sure about carbon to gold, but I know scientists have turned lead into gold. Transmutation of lead into gold isn't just theoretically possible - it's a reality. There are reports that Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in transmuting a minute quantity of lead into gold. There is an earlier report (around 1972) in which Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed to gold.


If lead can turn to gold then I'm sure other elements can be turned into gold as well. It's really not as outrageous as you're making it out to be.


There are reports? Really? Who did the reporting? And, although I freely admit to being a card carrying member of the Communist Party USA, I also freely acknowledge that the Soviet propaganda machine was unparalleled by anything else in the world, and this is the kind of thing they were especially good at, was claiming things like this. So until you can tell me who did the reporting in the case of the Nobel Prize winner, and what kind of reputation he or she had as a journalist, and what qualifications he or she had, and until you can confirm that the Soviet claim was not just their propaganda machine working overtime, I think we are safe in doubting such "reports".
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 10, 2014, 08:43:11 PM
I can predict that when wood gets hot enough, it catches fire.
Can you predict what element carbon will change into once the wood starts burning?

I said a material like wood has only trace amounts of Phlogiston in it. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: sokarul on May 10, 2014, 08:59:28 PM
I can predict that when wood gets hot enough, it catches fire.
Can you predict what element carbon will change into once the wood starts burning?

I said a material like wood has only trace amounts of Phlogiston in it.
Ok. So what does the carbon in the wood change into? Does it go down in atomic number or up in atomic number?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Vauxhall on May 10, 2014, 09:03:28 PM
Can we just drop this whole thing? You misquoted Jroa, now youre trying to make him look like a fool...

Get over it.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 10, 2014, 09:16:17 PM
I can predict that when wood gets hot enough, it catches fire.

That's what you've learnt from your new and superior sciencing? That wood + heat = fire? I think primitive man knew that. Can you do any better than him? Or is the net utility of your idea still nil?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RandomREalist on May 10, 2014, 09:42:21 PM
Yes, the matter being converted to energy can be measured.  Or, are you somehow saying it can't?

Which goes back to one of my original points: Why do different materials have different ignition temperatures, and different burning temperatures. If it was one material that was burning, it would be consistent, not variable.

You are making up a great story.  Keep up the good work.  It would be almost believable, if not for the lack of evidence.

So, which part of this is a "story"?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: bravimone on May 11, 2014, 01:18:53 AM
jroa, how do you explain hot things to emit a glowing red light? You can see it in some resistors used by ovens or such.

Incandescent light bulbs also emit light, yet they are not burning.  I really don't see where you people are going with this.

It was a question.
So incandescent things emit light, and fire itself is phlogiston, right?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2014, 01:59:59 AM
I can predict that when wood gets hot enough, it catches fire.
Can you predict what element carbon will change into once the wood starts burning?

I said a material like wood has only trace amounts of Phlogiston in it.
Ok. So what does the carbon in the wood change into? Does it go down in atomic number or up in atomic number?

Ash.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2014, 02:02:26 AM
jroa, how do you explain hot things to emit a glowing red light? You can see it in some resistors used by ovens or such.

Incandescent light bulbs also emit light, yet they are not burning.  I really don't see where you people are going with this.

It was a question.
So incandescent things emit light, and fire itself is phlogiston, right?

Yes, I think you almost have it now. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: bravimone on May 11, 2014, 02:05:55 AM
So incandescent things emit light, and fire itself is phlogiston, right?

Yes, I think you almost have it now.

So why don't you consider the idea that fire may actually be incandescent air and discard phlogiston?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2014, 02:10:31 AM
So incandescent things emit light, and fire itself is phlogiston, right?

Yes, I think you almost have it now.

So why don't you consider the idea that fire may actually be incandescent air and discard phlogiston?

Now you are just being silly.  However, I will entertain you.  What would supply the energy to power the Sun if it is just incandescent air.  Also, why would it stick together in a ball shape?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: bravimone on May 11, 2014, 02:14:16 AM
Now you are just being silly.  However, I will entertain you.  What would supply the energy to power the Sun if it is just incandescent air.  Also, why would it stick together in a ball shape?

We are not talking about the Sun, we are talking about fires here on Earth. Do you agree that incandescent air emits light?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: inquisitive on May 11, 2014, 02:17:22 AM
Now you are just being silly.  However, I will entertain you.  What would supply the energy to power the Sun if it is just incandescent air.  Also, why would it stick together in a ball shape?

We are not talking about the Sun, we are talking about fires here on Earth. Do you agree that incandescent air emits light?
Please explain 'incandescent air'.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: bravimone on May 11, 2014, 02:27:47 AM
Please explain 'incandescent air'.

 ??? Do i have to bring the dictionary as jroa does? Incandescent, i.e. very hot air, so that its EM emission in the visible spectrum is clearly visible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence)

EDIT: With air i actually mean also the gaseous product of the reaction.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RealScientist on May 11, 2014, 05:38:39 AM
Please explain 'incandescent air'.

 ??? Do i have to bring the dictionary as jroa does? Incandescent, i.e. very hot air, so that its EM emission in the visible spectrum is clearly visible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence)

EDIT: With air i actually mean also the gaseous product of the reaction.

Here comes a nit pick, just because I do not want jroa to capitalize on a simple misconception to give credence to his useless idea.

The flame is not, in general, incandescent air. It is a mixture of air and a gas which is burning. You can heat enough the nitrogen and oxygen in the air so that they will become plasma and emit heat, but this does not happen in everyday household situations.

This is the reason why some very hot objects do not produce a flame but other, less hot objects do. Some components of wood vaporize and ignite while on top of the wood, producing the yellow flame. On the other hand, some metals burn producing characteristic colored flames which do not correspond to the color of the black body radiation corresponding to its temperature.

Lots and lots of questions are answered by our current knowledge of Physics and Chemistry, including the presence or absence of flame, the change in mass of a burnt object, the color of the flame, the amount of heat a chemical reaction produces, and so much more. On the other hand, phlogiston only explains the two or three things that medieval scientists already knew.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: bravimone on May 11, 2014, 05:55:18 AM
Here comes a nit pick, just because I do not want jroa to capitalize on a simple misconception to give credence to his useless idea.

The flame is not, in general, incandescent air. It is a mixture of air and a gas which is burning. You can heat enough the nitrogen and oxygen in the air so that they will become plasma and emit heat, but this does not happen in everyday household situations.

This is the reason why some very hot objects do not produce a flame but other, less hot objects do. Some components of wood vaporize and ignite while on top of the wood, producing the yellow flame. On the other hand, some metals burn producing characteristic colored flames which do not correspond to the color of the black body radiation corresponding to its temperature.

Lots and lots of questions are answered by our current knowledge of Physics and Chemistry, including the presence or absence of flame, the change in mass of a burnt object, the color of the flame, the amount of heat a chemical reaction produces, and so much more. On the other hand, phlogiston only explains the two or three things that medieval scientists already knew.

I see, I stand corrected. We can learn something even in this forum. :)
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2014, 05:59:30 AM
Yeah, I was going to say that too, but I was going to make you look dumb for saying it.  Good thing we have a Real Scientist here to intervene.  ;)

Seriously, though, I would like to know more about this theory that you are forming.  Let us know when you have come up with some new developments. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: bravimone on May 11, 2014, 06:02:57 AM
Yeah, I was going to say that too, but I was going to make you look dumb for saying it.  Good thing we have a Real Scientist here to intervene.  ;)

Seriously, though, I would like to know more about this theory that you are forming.  Let us know when you have come up with some new developments.

Oh, so understanding when you got something wrong is a bad thing. The right thing to do is to deny every evidence and keep going on with your theory, gotcha.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2014, 06:10:35 AM
Yeah, I was going to say that too, but I was going to make you look dumb for saying it.  Good thing we have a Real Scientist here to intervene.  ;)

Seriously, though, I would like to know more about this theory that you are forming.  Let us know when you have come up with some new developments.

Oh, so understanding when you got something wrong is a bad thing. The right thing to do is to deny every evidence and keep going on with your theory, gotcha.

Dude, I was joking.  You people seem to be very uptight.  Do you need a massage?  I was not putting you down.  I was admitting that I could not have made such a detailed post as RealScientist, and pretended that I was just about to post the same thing.  You do know how humor works, do you not?  It was just a little satire, and giving credit to RealScientist for a good post without having to say it. 

But, seriously, I would like to help you develop your new theory, if I can. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: bravimone on May 11, 2014, 06:17:43 AM
Dude, I was joking.  You people seem to be very uptight.  Do you need a massage?  I was not putting you down.  I was admitting that I could not have made such a detailed post as RealScientist, and pretended that I was just about to post the same thing.  You do know how humor works, do you not?  It was just a little satire, and giving credit to RealScientist for a good post without having to say it.

Ok, sorry. It's just that it's really difficult to tell hirony and seriousness apart in this forum sometimes, because you can read the most absurd things.

But, seriously, I would like to help you develop your new theory, if I can.

I don't have any theory. My understanding of the flame was wrong, that's it.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2014, 06:21:21 AM
I don't have any theory. My understanding of the flame was wrong, that's it.

I bet we could come up with a rebuttal to RealScientists seemingly accurate argument.  If you want to try to collaborate on this, I would be happy to help.  You can poke holes in any science.  I think you were onto something with your incandescent theory. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 11, 2014, 08:05:49 AM
I don't want to stretch my post out with tons of quotes but I'm sure my replies will make sense in context.

-jroa, does your idea take you beyond primitive man's knowledge or capabilities with fire, or is it useless?

-jroa, if the sun is phlogiston, that apparently answers your rhetorical question about what "powers" it. How?

-I learn stuff here all the time! One of the reasons I'm here is the adage that if you can't teach it you don't understand it.

-Shit yes, I could use a massage.

-Merely poking holes in stuff is of dubious value even when the "holes" are legitimate, which here (so far) they have never been.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RealScientist on May 11, 2014, 08:21:50 AM

I bet we could come up with a rebuttal to RealScientists seemingly accurate argument.  If you want to try to collaborate on this, I would be happy to help.  You can poke holes in any science.  I think you were onto something with your incandescent theory.

This statement can only come from the Archetypical Unscientific Mind of a flat-earther. Scientific knowledge is not there for the disgruntled to poke holes in. It is there as a tool for all of us to understand nature. Holes are not poked with sophistry, they are poked by experiments and observations that produce results that do not fit the current theories.

This whole idea of calling the same things we already know with a different name and calling that a hole is ... just plain useless.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Starman on May 11, 2014, 08:27:21 AM

I bet we could come up with a rebuttal to RealScientists seemingly accurate argument.  If you want to try to collaborate on this, I would be happy to help.  You can poke holes in any science.  I think you were onto something with your incandescent theory.

This statement can only come from the Archetypical Unscientific Mind of a flat-earther. Scientific knowledge is not there for the disgruntled to poke holes in. It is there as a tool for all of us to understand nature. Holes are not poked with sophistry, they are poked by experiments and observations that produce results that do not fit the current theories.

This whole idea of calling the same things we already know with a different name and calling that a hole is ... just plain useless.
I agree... It is not about us against them but that seem to make it that way. Science is fun. It is not a competition of any sort.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: sokarul on May 11, 2014, 09:11:01 AM
I can predict that when wood gets hot enough, it catches fire.
Can you predict what element carbon will change into once the wood starts burning?

I said a material like wood has only trace amounts of Phlogiston in it.
Ok. So what does the carbon in the wood change into? Does it go down in atomic number or up in atomic number?

Ash.
Ash is made up of non combustible molecules or elements with oxides that are not in the gas phase.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RandomREalist on May 11, 2014, 05:51:01 PM
so no FE'er can tell me which part of my facts that different materials ignite at different temperatures, and different materials burn at different temperatures is a "good story"?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2014, 06:27:06 PM
Random, it is hard to dispute truth.
Title: Re: Explain me this
Post by: V on May 11, 2014, 07:13:18 PM
Random, it is hard to dispute truth.
Unless you are a conspiracy theorist.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 11, 2014, 07:21:50 PM
Well, V, I guess you have a point.
Title: Re: Explain me this
Post by: RandomREalist on May 12, 2014, 03:32:06 AM
Random, it is hard to dispute truth.
Unless you are a conspiracy theorist.

Thats more like denying, not disputing...
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RandomREalist on May 17, 2014, 06:17:26 AM
So Jroa, it's been a week or so at least, are you any "closer" to proving phlogiston? Did you do as i suggested and take a look at some known samples and compare them to each other to find the color signature of it? Or explain why things ignite at different temps, and burn at different temps?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 17, 2014, 06:21:24 AM
No.  I worked all week.  Besides, I couldn't care less about proving Phlogiston for your amusement.  You will not believe any proof that I could possibly offer anyway, so why should I bother? 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RandomREalist on May 17, 2014, 06:36:10 AM
if it's legitimate and repeatable sure i will! Don't just say "i did some stuff and got this so hah."
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 17, 2014, 06:38:14 AM
If your phlogiston hypothesis took you further than mankind's knowledge of chemisty, or even further than primitive man or common sense, I would absolutely test it myself with an open mind. What more do you want? Blind acceptance?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: sokarul on May 17, 2014, 06:55:02 AM
No.  I worked all week.  Besides, I couldn't care less about proving Phlogiston for your amusement.  You will not believe any proof that I could possibly offer anyway, so why should I bother?
You mean to say you don't have any.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RealScientist on May 18, 2014, 07:59:25 PM
The damn shame of all this phlogiston hypothesis is that jroa shuts his eyes and ears and shouts "lalalalalala I can't hear you" instead of doing the experiments that practically started modern chemistry.

One of the decisive pieces of evidence that atoms exist came precisely from this kind of experiment. You weigh things, burn them, weigh them again. You try to burn more combustible with the same oxygen. You try to burn less combustible with the same combustible. All of a sudden, you have evidence that matter is made of atoms! All of a sudden, you can start making a periodic table of elements! You can even start to understand thermodynamics!

But what does jroa take home? The knowledge that things burn. The knowledge that things don't burn without oxygen. In other words, nothing that Babylonians did not know, but with a word for the mixture of methane and ethane that evaporates from burning wood. Phlogiston is really just methane gas and ethane gas, but don't tell jroa.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 18, 2014, 08:36:08 PM
This whole concept about blows my mind. I mean, seriously, I'm close to 40 yo, & hold an MA & 2 BAs. & in all that education, I can only recall hearing about 'phlogiston' once, in Mr. Dart's 12th Grade Physics class. He taught us physics more in terms of the theory of the thing rather than the mathematical application of it, although we got some of that too. But we learned mostly about the development of physics from its most primitive state to its current state. Questions like, how did we get from there (believing in Vulcan, the god of Fire), to here (acknowledging fire as a chemical process whereby certain things take place that render, say, wood, for example, into different substances like ash, & the manner in which this occurs). As per that example, other things burn. But they do so @ different temperatures than wood. Say, iron, for instance. A knowledge of how things ignite & burn is essential to many of our modern conveniences, such as the internal combustion engine, that can be used to power many
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 18, 2014, 08:45:59 PM
things, but is most widely used to power the automobile. As Mr. Dart explained, the theory of phlogiston was one of many that were floated down through the centuries. It was eventually rejected because it was shown to be inadequate. If man had continued to hold that theory, we'd still be walking, or biking @ best. The internal combustion engine was invented based on a modern understanding of how things ignite & how they burn. The very car that Jroa uses to drive to work each day would not exist if we still believed in phlogiston, because such an idea does not account for why things burn @ different temperatures,  why they can stay lit after the phlogiston is gone, the role of oxygen in burning, etc. So there you are.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RandomREalist on May 27, 2014, 04:13:25 AM
So Jroa, how's this science coming a long? I wait with bated breath.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 27, 2014, 07:37:17 AM
It's going quite well.  Thank you for asking. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Socratic Amusement on May 27, 2014, 08:58:32 AM
It's going quite well.  Thank you for asking.

...You've got nothing, right?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 27, 2014, 09:46:08 AM
It's going quite well.  Thank you for asking.

...You've got nothing, right?

I've been making lots of observations.  You would likely just shrug them all off, like you do with all evidence that is presented here.  Oh well.  I am not here to impress you. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Socratic Amusement on May 27, 2014, 09:57:25 AM
It's going quite well.  Thank you for asking.

...You've got nothing, right?

I've been making lots of observations.  You would likely just shrug them all off, like you do with all evidence that is presented here.  Oh well.  I am not here to impress you.

You don't have to "impress" me.

You have to prove your claim. And if your claim can't stand up to even the barest levels of scrutiny, it is a false claim. When we poke holes in your theories, it isn't because we are interested in maintaining the status quo or whatever. Its because that is how the scientific method works.

You present evidence, we try to disprove it or show a problem with the methodology of gaining evidence. If there is no problem with the methodology, and no problem with the evidence, and it is able to accurately predict things based on the aforementioned, it is accepted.

I will be the first to scream to the world that phlogiston is real if you could prove it.


However, going by past FE "science" I suspect this will merely end with you going silent, and never posting any of your "observations."
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 27, 2014, 10:08:32 AM
I don't have to do anything.  I did not even read past your second sentence.  You will not come here and bully me.  You can't tell me what I have to do. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Vauxhall on May 27, 2014, 10:15:41 AM
How do you explain magnesium gaining mass when it burns without phlogiston? It's impossible.  ::)
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Socratic Amusement on May 27, 2014, 10:47:13 AM
I don't have to do anything.  I did not even read past your second sentence.  You will not come here and bully me.  You can't tell me what I have to do.

Since when is asking for proof of a claim "bullying?"

Are you THAT desperate to sidestep legitimate points?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 27, 2014, 10:53:47 AM
You have to prove your claim.

No, I do not have to do anything. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Socratic Amusement on May 27, 2014, 10:58:08 AM
You have to prove your claim.

No, I do not have to do anything.

Then, if you don't believe that it is the onus of the person making the claim to back it up with evidence, in this case you, I assume you will cease being a proponent of the phlogiston theory?
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 27, 2014, 11:21:46 AM
I don't believe that I made any claims.  I answered a question with an educated guess.  Your scientists do that all the time, yet, you do not run around calling them liars, do you? 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Socratic Amusement on May 27, 2014, 11:52:52 AM
I don't believe that I made any claims.  I answered a question with an educated guess.  Your scientists do that all the time, yet, you do not run around calling them liars, do you?

Uh. Yeah. We do.

All the time.

Not in those words, it sounds more like "You have made a claim. PROVE IT. With evidence."

Now there are some things that scientists don't fully understand, and they flat out admit it. They have hypothesis for many things, but they admit they are that.

The difference between that, and what you are doing, is that we can objectively prove your assertion false.

So you better have some hefty ammunition to unfalsify it.

But you don't.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 27, 2014, 11:56:14 AM
No, it is more like this: "Why is this?", "Probably because of this.", "Now you have to prove it.", "No, I don't."
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: PiemanFiddy on May 27, 2014, 12:00:48 PM
No, it is more like this: "Why is this?", "Probably because of this.", "Now you have to prove it.", "No, I don't."


No it isn't. Socratic Amusement had it right.

I understand your FE theory to some extent, but just because our scientists.. who have been researching this for centuries.. can't make you understand, doesn't mean you have to dismiss them like they're childish. They don't battle eachother like we do for who gets the proof. They handle it civily and explore every possible option.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 27, 2014, 12:17:00 PM
I don't dismiss anything without a reason.  When I smell bull shit, I call it out. 
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: Socratic Amusement on May 27, 2014, 12:23:32 PM
I don't dismiss anything without a reason.  When I smell bull shit, I call it out.

And when shown repeatedly and undisputedly that it isn't bullshit, you refuse to budge.

This is a bad thing.
Title: Re: some questions on phlogiston
Post by: RandomREalist on May 27, 2014, 12:28:46 PM
I don't dismiss anything without a reason.  When I smell bull shit, I call it out.

And I'm calling bull shit, on phlogiston. Because I have SEEN the spectrograph readings from various elements burning, and they DON'T share any common colors,which shows that there isn't some common, unknown element, doing the burning.