why we cannot trust scientists

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on March 03, 2015, 07:03:13 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 03, 2015, 05:46:35 AM

it's harder to breathe at higher altitudes because aether is thicker there. explained.

Lets focus on this right here.

IF the air is harder to breath at altitude because the aether is thicker, then why do planes have trouble gaining lift at high altitudes? Wouldnt they fly better there because of the thicker aether?

they do not reach those altitudes because it is harder to fly into the thicker aether.

Oxygen in scuba tanks can be safely inhaled, unlike many gases. it actually improves heat circulation. when it runs out, the pressure keeping loose particles from the inside of the scuba tank is gone, however, so the diver inhales loose particles of metal etc. these are fatal.

Fire depends on a fuel source and heat. it needs free space for movement (which is heat). smother it, and it loses that movement. no extra assumptions about a fantasy oxygen required. don't forget, as i have pointed out many times before, if you put a match in oxygen the fire looks completely different.

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 01:13:58 AM

Oxygen in scuba tanks can be safely inhaled, unlike many gases. it actually improves heat circulation. when it runs out, the pressure keeping loose particles from the inside of the scuba tank is gone, however, so the diver inhales loose particles of metal etc. these are fatal.

Fire depends on a fuel source and heat. it needs free space for movement (which is heat). smother it, and it loses that movement. no extra assumptions about a fantasy oxygen required. don't forget, as i have pointed out many times before, if you put a match in oxygen the fire looks completely different.

LOL... and yet even more disinformation bred as a result of ignorance.  I don't think I've ever read as much pseudo-scientific drivel and misconceptions as I have from JRoweSkeptic.  It would seem that the guy knows virtually nothing about everything.

—SCUBA tanks contain compressed air.
—Fire depends on heat?

He's obviously never done any SCUBA diving or known anybody who has.  Pure oxygen is toxic.

He doesn't know that fire is simply a process of oxidation, identical to rusting, but much quicker.  Both need oxygen  Duh.

Wow, oxygen is topic and yet we depend on it to breathe? you say I'm stupid...

Making up an explanation for fire that makes no sense is ridiculous. you can't be serious, why are you unable to add anything to a discussion beyond "you're wrong! because, uh, because i say so!"

I have offered an explanation which matches with everything we observe, and doesn't rely on some random friendship between heat and one gas out of hundreds.

If you can do nothing beyond assert, why are you here?

time to recap.

oxygen in scuba tanks can be safely inhaled, unlike many gases. it actually improves heat circulation. when it runs out, the pressure keeping loose particles from the inside of the scuba tank is gone, however, so the diver inhales loose particles of metal etc. these are fatal.

fire depends on a fuel source and heat. it needs free space for movement (which is heat). smother it, and it loses that movement. no extra assumptions about a fantasy oxygen required. don't forget, as i have pointed out many times before, if you put a match in oxygen the fire looks completely different.

i have never said aether cannot be detected. i was only talking about aetheric whirlpools above the earth, out of our reach. however, by your logic, you're going to explain it away as some fantasy.

i have made my case clearly, and answered every question posed easily and repeatedly. anyone who reads what i've said with an open mind should see the truth.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 05:29:22 AM

Wow, oxygen is topic and yet we depend on it to breathe? you say I'm stupid...

Yes, because you claimed initially that SCUBA tanks were filled with oxygen, and you're now admitting you had that simple fact wrong.  It's obvious that you didn't even know oxygen was toxic to humans LOL.
 

Quote

Making up an explanation for fire that makes no sense is ridiculous. you can't be serious, why are you unable to add anything to a discussion beyond "you're wrong! because, uh, because i say so!"

It's not just me that says your understanding of the mechanics of fire (oxidation) is totally, laughably erroneous—so do 6 million scientists. But then, you think all scientists are shills and liars, and just in it for the money don't you?  Enough said LOL.

Quote

I have offered an explanation which matches with everything we observe, and doesn't rely on some random friendship between heat and one gas out of hundreds.

No you haven't.  All you've "offered" is some silly fantastical notion of how you think chemical processes occur, and which no other person on the planet would accept as correct.  You're also unaware of what exactly "heat" is;  you seem to think it's some sort of tangible entity, rather than a form of energy.  It's not something that you can bottle, and mix with other chemicals LOL.

Quote

If you can do nothing beyond assert, why are you here?

I'm here in the apparently increasingly vain hope of educating people such as yourself, who seem to have very little knowledge of the earth sciences, astrophysics, chemistry, mathematics, physics etc.  You've made so many erroneous blanket statements about the various sciences, and all without citing even basic reference materials.

Your nonsensical claim that "fire depends on heat" really broke me up... plus I nearly cracked a rib.  Combustion causes heat, not the other way around LOL.

And here's a simple question for you since you think you're the expert on chemical reactions:  How do you explain the fact that sodium burns—with a visible flame—when fully submerged in water?  And why sodium is stored in kerosene to prevent its combustion?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 01:13:58 AM

time to recap.

oxygen in scuba tanks can be safely inhaled, unlike many gases. it actually improves heat circulation. when it runs out, the pressure keeping loose particles from the inside of the scuba tank is gone, however, so the diver inhales loose particles of metal etc. these are fatal.

fire depends on a fuel source and heat. it needs free space for movement (which is heat). smother it, and it loses that movement. no extra assumptions about a fantasy oxygen required. don't forget, as i have pointed out many times before, if you put a match in oxygen the fire looks completely different.

i have never said aether cannot be detected. i was only talking about aetheric whirlpools above the earth, out of our reach. however, by your logic, you're going to explain it away as some fantasy.

i have made my case clearly, and answered every question posed easily and repeatedly. anyone who reads what i've said with an open mind should see the truth.

It's actually a fire triangle. It needs ignition source, fuel, and oxidizer.

A matchwould burn more efficiently in pure oxygen.  I'm still waiting for the ex libation where oxygen comes from when burning hydrocarbons. "rust" and "water" are not valid answers. I'm still waiting on your answer to how you know you are right and everyone else is wrong.

So far you have not provided any evidence at all.

JRoweSkeptic, if things like the aether are so logical then you should have no trouble describing them with math because math is logic in a written form.

JRoweSkeptic, if things like the aether are so logical then you should have no trouble describing them with math because math is logic in a written form.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 04, 2015, 08:27:44 AM

JRoweSkeptic, if things like the aether are so logical then you should have no trouble describing them with math because math is logic in a written form.

This is all you backward people can come up with. Change the record.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 04, 2015, 08:27:44 AM

JRoweSkeptic, if things like the aether are so logical then you should have no trouble describing them with math because math is logic in a written form.

This is all you backward people can come up with. Change the record.

making up an explanation for fire that makes no sense is ridiculous. you can't be serious, why are you unable to add anything to a discussion beyond "you're wrong! because, uh, because i say so!"
use your brain. i have explained why fire cannot be reliant on oxygen (a match moved into an environment with oxygen reacts differently. the test for oxygen gas, this is basic chemistry). i have offered an explanation which matches with everything we observe, and doesn't rely on some random friendship between heat and one gas out of hundreds.

Quote from: sokarul on March 04, 2015, 06:59:00 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 01:13:58 AM

time to recap.

oxygen in scuba tanks can be safely inhaled, unlike many gases. it actually improves heat circulation. when it runs out, the pressure keeping loose particles from the inside of the scuba tank is gone, however, so the diver inhales loose particles of metal etc. these are fatal.

fire depends on a fuel source and heat. it needs free space for movement (which is heat). smother it, and it loses that movement. no extra assumptions about a fantasy oxygen required. don't forget, as i have pointed out many times before, if you put a match in oxygen the fire looks completely different.

i have never said aether cannot be detected. i was only talking about aetheric whirlpools above the earth, out of our reach. however, by your logic, you're going to explain it away as some fantasy.

i have made my case clearly, and answered every question posed easily and repeatedly. anyone who reads what i've said with an open mind should see the truth.

It's actually a fire triangle. It needs ignition source, fuel, and oxidizer.

A matchwould burn more efficiently in pure oxygen.  I'm still waiting for the ex libation where oxygen comes from when burning hydrocarbons. "rust" and "water" are not valid answers. I'm still waiting on your answer to how you know you are right and everyone else is wrong.

So far you have not provided any evidence at all.

i have provided evidence from simple logic and observation, you've ignored it. your ignorance only shows your refusal to think.
give an example of how a hydrocarbon can be burned, i will explain. in some cases, rust and water are entirely valid explanations, if you don't accept that you are lying and there's no more point in teaching you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2015, 08:31:37 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 04, 2015, 08:27:44 AM

JRoweSkeptic, if things like the aether are so logical then you should have no trouble describing them with math because math is logic in a written form.

This is all you backward people can come up with. Change the record.

Eh, at least JRowes aether makes more sense then denpressure.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on March 04, 2015, 08:39:31 AM

Eh, at least JRowes aether makes more sense then denpressure.

If that's what you think then stop calling out his mental state of mind and understand what he's telling you then, instead of going into gang mode, you dipshit.

i have never said aether cannot be detected.

there is no test of aether ... that can be done from earth.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on March 04, 2015, 08:39:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 04, 2015, 08:31:37 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 04, 2015, 08:27:44 AM

JRoweSkeptic, if things like the aether are so logical then you should have no trouble describing them with math because math is logic in a written form.

This is all you backward people can come up with. Change the record.

Eh, at least JRowes aether makes more sense then denpressure.

If that's what you think then stop calling out his mental state of mind and understand what he's telling you then, instead of going into gang mode, you dipshit.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 08:12:01 AM

Quote from: sokarul on March 04, 2015, 06:59:00 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 01:13:58 AM

time to recap.

oxygen in scuba tanks can be safely inhaled, unlike many gases. it actually improves heat circulation. when it runs out, the pressure keeping loose particles from the inside of the scuba tank is gone, however, so the diver inhales loose particles of metal etc. these are fatal.

fire depends on a fuel source and heat. it needs free space for movement (which is heat). smother it, and it loses that movement. no extra assumptions about a fantasy oxygen required. don't forget, as i have pointed out many times before, if you put a match in oxygen the fire looks completely different.

i have never said aether cannot be detected. i was only talking about aetheric whirlpools above the earth, out of our reach. however, by your logic, you're going to explain it away as some fantasy.

i have made my case clearly, and answered every question posed easily and repeatedly. anyone who reads what i've said with an open mind should see the truth.

It's actually a fire triangle. It needs ignition source, fuel, and oxidizer.

A matchwould burn more efficiently in pure oxygen.  I'm still waiting for the ex libation where oxygen comes from when burning hydrocarbons. "rust" and "water" are not valid answers. I'm still waiting on your answer to how you know you are right and everyone else is wrong.

So far you have not provided any evidence at all.

i have provided evidence from simple logic and observation, you've ignored it. your ignorance only shows your refusal to think.
give an example of how a hydrocarbon can be burned, i will explain. in some cases, rust and water are entirely valid explanations, if you don't accept that you are lying and there's no more point in teaching you.

Science isn't simple. Your simple logic makes no sense at all. Your logic says chemistry is all wrong and what you think is correct. Your are the one who ignores everything.  There is a reason you have no real evidence.
For you to continue, you need to disprove all of chemistry. We are waiting.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 05:29:22 AM

making up an explanation for fire that makes no sense is ridiculous. you can't be serious, why are you unable to add anything to a discussion beyond "you're wrong! because, uh, because i say so!"
use your brain. i have explained why fire cannot be reliant on oxygen (a match moved into an environment with oxygen reacts differently. the test for oxygen gas, this is basic chemistry). i have offered an explanation which matches with everything we observe, and doesn't rely on some random friendship between heat and one gas out of hundreds.

I have just one question about fire - why can't anything burn in oxygen-deprived atmosphere? Say, when only nitrogen gas is present. Strike that match and move it to nitrogen atmosphere and the flame dies out right away.

Quote from: neimoka on March 04, 2015, 08:40:47 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 05:29:22 AM

making up an explanation for fire that makes no sense is ridiculous. you can't be serious, why are you unable to add anything to a discussion beyond "you're wrong! because, uh, because i say so!"
use your brain. i have explained why fire cannot be reliant on oxygen (a match moved into an environment with oxygen reacts differently. the test for oxygen gas, this is basic chemistry). i have offered an explanation which matches with everything we observe, and doesn't rely on some random friendship between heat and one gas out of hundreds.

I have just one question about fire - why can't anything burn in oxygen-deprived atmosphere? Say, when only nitrogen gas is present. Strike that match and move it to nitrogen atmosphere and the flame dies out right away.

there are several answers. before i get on to nitrogen straight away, the most common kind of so-called oxygen deprived atmosphere is when you light a candle under a glass, and it snuffs itself out. this is nothing to do with using up oxygen, and everything to do with how heat requires movement (total stillness is absolute zero), and in a limited space movement fails quickly.
with gases, i suspect certain gases dampen the flame. as flames normally light in the absence of air, the presence of gases dampens any attempt at movement by adding more resistance to motion. the addition of oxygen helps, as oxygen burns (as can be observed by the radically different flame you get by putting a match into an oxygenated environment).

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 12:25:56 PM

Quote from: neimoka on March 04, 2015, 08:40:47 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 05:29:22 AM

making up an explanation for fire that makes no sense is ridiculous. you can't be serious, why are you unable to add anything to a discussion beyond "you're wrong! because, uh, because i say so!"
use your brain. i have explained why fire cannot be reliant on oxygen (a match moved into an environment with oxygen reacts differently. the test for oxygen gas, this is basic chemistry). i have offered an explanation which matches with everything we observe, and doesn't rely on some random friendship between heat and one gas out of hundreds.

I have just one question about fire - why can't anything burn in oxygen-deprived atmosphere? Say, when only nitrogen gas is present. Strike that match and move it to nitrogen atmosphere and the flame dies out right away.

there are several answers. before i get on to nitrogen straight away, the most common kind of so-called oxygen deprived atmosphere is when you light a candle under a glass, and it snuffs itself out. this is nothing to do with using up oxygen, and everything to do with how heat requires movement (total stillness is absolute zero), and in a limited space movement fails quickly.
with gases, i suspect certain gases dampen the flame. as flames normally light in the absence of air, the presence of gases dampens any attempt at movement by adding more resistance to motion. the addition of oxygen helps, as oxygen burns (as can be observed by the radically different flame you get by putting a match into an oxygenated environment).

I saw your mumbling about the need of space to move or something to that effect, hence I left the volume of the space unspecified. So 'gases' now have a 'damping' property, eh. As you probably don't know nitrogen is less viscous than air so you probably mean something else when you say damping, than what damping usually means in context of motion.

Btw perhaps you missed an earlier post asking if you know what commercial production of oxygen and nitrogen gases most commonly uses for material.

Quote from: neimoka on March 04, 2015, 01:32:13 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 12:25:56 PM

Quote from: neimoka on March 04, 2015, 08:40:47 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 05:29:22 AM

making up an explanation for fire that makes no sense is ridiculous. you can't be serious, why are you unable to add anything to a discussion beyond "you're wrong! because, uh, because i say so!"
use your brain. i have explained why fire cannot be reliant on oxygen (a match moved into an environment with oxygen reacts differently. the test for oxygen gas, this is basic chemistry). i have offered an explanation which matches with everything we observe, and doesn't rely on some random friendship between heat and one gas out of hundreds.

I have just one question about fire - why can't anything burn in oxygen-deprived atmosphere? Say, when only nitrogen gas is present. Strike that match and move it to nitrogen atmosphere and the flame dies out right away.

there are several answers. before i get on to nitrogen straight away, the most common kind of so-called oxygen deprived atmosphere is when you light a candle under a glass, and it snuffs itself out. this is nothing to do with using up oxygen, and everything to do with how heat requires movement (total stillness is absolute zero), and in a limited space movement fails quickly.
with gases, i suspect certain gases dampen the flame. as flames normally light in the absence of air, the presence of gases dampens any attempt at movement by adding more resistance to motion. the addition of oxygen helps, as oxygen burns (as can be observed by the radically different flame you get by putting a match into an oxygenated environment).

I saw your mumbling about the need of space to move or something to that effect, hence I left the volume of the space unspecified. So 'gases' now have a 'damping' property, eh. As you probably don't know nitrogen is less viscous than air so you probably mean something else when you say damping, than what damping usually means in context of motion.

Btw perhaps you missed an earlier post asking if you know what commercial production of oxygen and nitrogen gases most commonly uses for material.

of course gases are damping, more molecules makes motion harder. given there is no air, your comparison seems rather pointless.

oxides and nitrates exist, as does natural gas. there are many possible sources. i have never denied the existence of the gases, it is just plain they do not cover the earth like we're told.

1. simplification, think before you speak. i wasn't trying to be completely accurate, i was answering the question posed, which i did. it wouldn't matter of scuba tanks were meant to be filled with furbies, my explanation stands.
2. i'm the one giving evidence.
3. assertion, and a lie. heat is the movement of molecules, i've said that, and used it several times.
4. fire can't exist without heat, heat causes fire. lift a magnifying glass to the sun or light a match with friction, either way it's the same.

oxygen exists, and burns. sodium reacts with the oxygen in the water (which does exist, it's how fish breathe). think before you try and make more up.

time to recap.

oxygen in scuba tanks can be safely inhaled, unlike many gases. it actually improves heat circulation. when it runs out, the pressure keeping loose particles from the inside of the scuba tank is gone, however, so the diver inhales loose particles of metal etc. these are fatal.

fire depends on a fuel source and heat. it needs free space for movement (which is heat). smother it, and it loses that movement. no extra assumptions about a fantasy oxygen required. don't forget, as i have pointed out many times before, if you put a match in oxygen the fire looks completely different.

i have never said aether cannot be detected. i was only talking about aetheric whirlpools above the earth, out of our reach. however, by your logic, you're going to explain it away as some fantasy.

i have made my case clearly, and answered every question posed easily and repeatedly. anyone who reads what i've said with an open mind should see the truth.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 08:08:33 AM

1. simplification, think before you speak. i wasn't trying to be completely accurate, i was answering the question posed, which i did. it wouldn't matter of scuba tanks were meant to be filled with furbies, my explanation stands.
2. i'm the one giving evidence.
3. assertion, and a lie. heat is the movement of molecules, i've said that, and used it several times.
4. fire can't exist without heat, heat causes fire. lift a magnifying glass to the sun or light a match with friction, either way it's the same.

oxygen exists, and burns. sodium reacts with the oxygen in the water (which does exist, it's how fish breathe). think before you try and make more up.

What a truly laughable "response".  You now reckon—after claiming that SCUBA tanks were filled with oxygen—that you weren't trying "to be accurate".  This is truly funny.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 08:08:33 AM

1. simplification, think before you speak. i wasn't trying to be completely accurate, i was answering the question posed, which i did. it wouldn't matter of scuba tanks were meant to be filled with furbies, my explanation stands.
2. i'm the one giving evidence.
3. assertion, and a lie. heat is the movement of molecules, i've said that, and used it several times.
4. fire can't exist without heat, heat causes fire. lift a magnifying glass to the sun or light a match with friction, either way it's the same.

oxygen exists, and burns. sodium reacts with the oxygen in the water (which does exist, it's how fish breathe). think before you try and make more up.

What a truly laughable "response".  You now reckon—after claiming that SCUBA tanks were filled with oxygen—that you weren't trying "to be accurate".  This is truly funny.

And heat is the "movement of molecules"?  This gets funnier by the minute.  If heat was produced by the movement of molecules, we'd all spontaneously combust in a couple of minutes!

Also, you need to understand that—despite denying it several times now—oxygen, by itself, WILL NOT BURN. If it did, our atmosphere—which is 21% oxygen—would have burned up a long time ago.

You still haven't explained why sodium burns under water, but is stored in kerosene.  Both contain hydrogen atoms, and hydrogen is flammable, and in water is released during the exothermic reaction as per 2Na(s) + 2H2O —> 2NaOH(aq) + H2(g). So it's not the oxygen that burns, but the hydrogen.

So your new answer is.....?

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 04, 2015, 02:47:21 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 08:08:33 AM

1. simplification, think before you speak. i wasn't trying to be completely accurate, i was answering the question posed, which i did. it wouldn't matter of scuba tanks were meant to be filled with furbies, my explanation stands.
2. i'm the one giving evidence.
3. assertion, and a lie. heat is the movement of molecules, i've said that, and used it several times.
4. fire can't exist without heat, heat causes fire. lift a magnifying glass to the sun or light a match with friction, either way it's the same.

oxygen exists, and burns. sodium reacts with the oxygen in the water (which does exist, it's how fish breathe). think before you try and make more up.

What a truly laughable "response".  You now reckon—after claiming that SCUBA tanks were filled with oxygen—that you weren't trying "to be accurate".  This is truly funny.

and fish apparently do 'breathe' oxygen, that's what he just said which is curious if we do not need oxygen =D

thermal energy and particle motion actually are at least closely linked, afaik? Not that I would have followed this particular branch of discussion, I might have misunderstood something.