some questions on phlogiston

  • 147 Replies
  • 10767 Views
*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #90 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.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2014, 08:08:13 PM by Goddamnit, Clown »
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #91 on: May 10, 2014, 08:10:38 PM »
I can predict that when wood gets hot enough, it catches fire. 

*

sokarul

  • 17096
  • Discount Chemist
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #92 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?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #93 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".

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #94 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. 

*

sokarul

  • 17096
  • Discount Chemist
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #95 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?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #96 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.
Read the FAQS.

*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #97 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?
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #98 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"?

Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #99 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?
I have yet to see evidence that Lunar Eclipses even exist.  Have you ever seen one?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #100 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.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #101 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. 

Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #102 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?
I have yet to see evidence that Lunar Eclipses even exist.  Have you ever seen one?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #103 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?

Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #104 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?
I have yet to see evidence that Lunar Eclipses even exist.  Have you ever seen one?

Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #105 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'.

Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #106 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

EDIT: With air i actually mean also the gaseous product of the reaction.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 02:33:36 AM by bravimone »
I have yet to see evidence that Lunar Eclipses even exist.  Have you ever seen one?

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #107 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

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.

Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #108 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. :)
I have yet to see evidence that Lunar Eclipses even exist.  Have you ever seen one?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #109 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. 

Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #110 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.
I have yet to see evidence that Lunar Eclipses even exist.  Have you ever seen one?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #111 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. 

Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #112 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.
I have yet to see evidence that Lunar Eclipses even exist.  Have you ever seen one?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #113 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. 
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 06:24:45 AM by jroa »

*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #114 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.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 08:07:59 AM by Goddamnit, Clown »
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #115 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.

?

Starman

  • 3860
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #116 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.

*

sokarul

  • 17096
  • Discount Chemist
Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #117 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.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #118 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"?

Re: some questions on phlogiston
« Reply #119 on: May 11, 2014, 06:27:06 PM »
Random, it is hard to dispute truth.