RE: Science anarchists

RE: Science anarchists (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 2:14:44 PM)
ORIGINAL: mnottertail you wont have any problem whatsoever for providing a citation to an actual credible source that says, "there exists in this universe no naturally aspirated flame, or fire". And go. I wont bother checking back because.....................there wont be one. Why would a lying nazi buffoon need proof beyond what he believes? If it exist under his tinfoil hat then the nazi buffoon thinks everyone needs be as deluded as he.

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 2:17:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne aspiration is a process, and like tommy boy you chose the wrong one, thought you were catching on in a previous post, but I guess not after all. everything is a process. it is a process to obtain intellect, unfortunately you were not given the choice, being born a profound retard, you have never and will never catch on, and it is obvious. You cannot explain why it is not 1) natural, 2) aspired, 3) flame, you can only spout drivel. naturally (without special help or intervention) aspirated (inhaled, drawn in, sniff, snort, gulp, insufflate) fire( combustion or burning, in which substances combine chemically with oxygen from the air and typically give out bright light, heat, and smoke.) good, then you wont have any difficulty what so ever providing a citation for a 'naturally aspirated flame' [8\|] you wont have any problem whatsoever for providing a citation to an actual credible source that says, "there exists in this universe no naturally aspirated flame, or fire". And go. I wont bother checking back because.....................there wont be one. geebus snotty, talk about a 180, ok so you agree with me now. I said there will be no citation for aspirated 'flame' because a flame is not aspirated! LOL You and gomer pyle are the ones who think a flame is aspirated and there are shitloads of citations for aspirated engines, furnaces, burners etc, but none for the flame. Oh well makes no difference glad you agree with me. that musta hurt eh? [:D]

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 2:19:26 PM)
what are you talking about, Zionist propaganda whore?

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 2:32:44 PM)
ORIGINAL: Real0ne ORIGINAL: thompsonx More ignorant opinion unsubstantiated by facts followed by your assertion that you are sooooo smart and everyone else is sooo dumb that they would not be able to understand your explanation. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. not everyone tommy, just you feel free to cite and post your substantiation that an open air FLAME is aspirated It would appear that the army corps of engineers has added their voice to those who think you are full of shit. Earlier this year, the Eternal Flame received several upgrades because it was experiencing some malfunctions. The corps’ Norfolk District awarded a contract to install automated controls and a more energy-efficient system than what was being used. The work included new electrical conduit and cable, as well as new gas lines, relocation of gas pressure regulators from inside to outside the vault to provide easier maintenance and, fabrication of new burner assemblies that are naturally aspirated to reduce maintenance and utility costs, according to Norfolk District officials. http://www.swd.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/478539/us-army-corps-of-engineers-keepers-of-the-eternal-flame/ You really do have a nice case of chronic dumbass. the BURNER ASSEMBLIES are naturally aspirated, a burner assembly is not the ETERNAL FLAME, there is no such thing as an eternal flame, its just abstract artistic license, fuck you are illiterate with comprehension ability of a chimp. Only a Nazi buffoon would think something besides a naturally aspirated flame would come from a naturally aspirated burner. Only a nazi buffoon would believe that a "open air flame" could melt steel. Jesus you are phoquing stupid

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 2:35:13 PM)
ORIGINAL: Real0ne what are you talking about, Zionist propaganda whore? Just asking the nazi buffoon how to melt steel with a bonfire? Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 3:26:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne aspiration is a process, and like tommy boy you chose the wrong one, thought you were catching on in a previous post, but I guess not after all. everything is a process. it is a process to obtain intellect, unfortunately you were not given the choice, being born a profound retard, you have never and will never catch on, and it is obvious. You cannot explain why it is not 1) natural, 2) aspired, 3) flame, you can only spout drivel. naturally (without special help or intervention) aspirated (inhaled, drawn in, sniff, snort, gulp, insufflate) fire( combustion or burning, in which substances combine chemically with oxygen from the air and typically give out bright light, heat, and smoke.) This has been explained... Convection requires gravity to function. (needs outside help/intervention) The thermal exchange actually increases pressure, not decreases it (no suction produced) thus - the very functions of fire in and of itself contradicts the statement 'naturally aspirated'.

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 4:11:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Still waiting for you to explain how your "open flame" can melt steel. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. by making it large enough that it produces Adiabatic Conditions at it's core.

mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 5:34:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne aspiration is a process, and like tommy boy you chose the wrong one, thought you were catching on in a previous post, but I guess not after all. everything is a process. it is a process to obtain intellect, unfortunately you were not given the choice, being born a profound retard, you have never and will never catch on, and it is obvious. You cannot explain why it is not 1) natural, 2) aspired, 3) flame, you can only spout drivel. naturally (without special help or intervention) aspirated (inhaled, drawn in, sniff, snort, gulp, insufflate) fire( combustion or burning, in which substances combine chemically with oxygen from the air and typically give out bright light, heat, and smoke.) good, then you wont have any difficulty what so ever providing a citation for a 'naturally aspirated flame' [8\|] you wont have any problem whatsoever for providing a citation to an actual credible source that says, "there exists in this universe no naturally aspirated flame, or fire". And go. I wont bother checking back because.....................there wont be one. geebus snotty, talk about a 180, ok so you agree with me now. I said there will be no citation for aspirated 'flame' because a flame is not aspirated! LOL You and gomer pyle are the ones who think a flame is aspirated and there are shitloads of citations for aspirated engines, furnaces, burners etc, but none for the flame. Oh well makes no difference glad you agree with me. that musta hurt eh? [:D] No, you retarded shitbreather, you cannot provide a citation, I dont agree with your stupid ass on anything, I aint a fucking retard like you.

mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 5:44:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne aspiration is a process, and like tommy boy you chose the wrong one, thought you were catching on in a previous post, but I guess not after all. everything is a process. it is a process to obtain intellect, unfortunately you were not given the choice, being born a profound retard, you have never and will never catch on, and it is obvious. You cannot explain why it is not 1) natural, 2) aspired, 3) flame, you can only spout drivel. naturally (without special help or intervention) aspirated (inhaled, drawn in, sniff, snort, gulp, insufflate) fire( combustion or burning, in which substances combine chemically with oxygen from the air and typically give out bright light, heat, and smoke.) This has been explained... Convection requires gravity to function. (needs outside help/intervention) The thermal exchange actually increases pressure, not decreases it (no suction produced) thus - the very functions of fire in and of itself contradicts the statement 'naturally aspirated'. we need gravity to live. plants need gravity, the earth needs gravity, we are all just a fart bubble in a camels ass. (yes the thermal pressure is different from top of flame to bottom. I am ok calling it suction (boyles law and all that, to attempt equilibrium, naturo horror vacui........yeah, close enough for the girls we go with) Fire needs oxygen to function. convection not fire needs conditions The universe needs PI, Plancks constant, e, and many other things to function therefore nothing in our experience is natural except me getting a blowjob. Class dismissed. Schlau, aber nicht wahr. I suggest another course of study.

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 5:52:02 PM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx Still waiting for you to explain how your "open flame" can melt steel. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. by making it large enough that it produces Adiabatic Conditions at it's core. Adiabatic conditions defined: "Adiabatic conditions refer to conditions under which overall heat transfer across the boundary between the thermodynamic system and the surroundings is absent. Examples of processes proceeding under adiabatic conditions and applied in engineering are expansion and compression of gas in a piston-type machine, the flow of a fluid medium in heat-insulated pipes, channels and nozzles, throttling and setting of turbomachines and distribution of acoustic and shock waves. The flow of a viscous liquid or gas through a heat-insulated channel is often referred to as adiabatic. " http://thermopedia.com/content/290/ How about you walk us through this missinfoman.

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 5:58:03 PM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan Convection requires gravity to function. (needs outside help/intervention) Do you live in phoquing outer space? That is where you would have to live in order to claim that gravity is outside help/intervention. The thermal exchange actually increases pressure, not decreases it (no suction produced) According to the cites provided you are wrong thus - the very functions of fire in and of itself contradicts the statement 'naturally aspirated'. Only in the mind of a moron. Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 6:00:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne aspiration is a process, and like tommy boy you chose the wrong one, thought you were catching on in a previous post, but I guess not after all. everything is a process. it is a process to obtain intellect, unfortunately you were not given the choice, being born a profound retard, you have never and will never catch on, and it is obvious. You cannot explain why it is not 1) natural, 2) aspired, 3) flame, you can only spout drivel. naturally (without special help or intervention) aspirated (inhaled, drawn in, sniff, snort, gulp, insufflate) fire( combustion or burning, in which substances combine chemically with oxygen from the air and typically give out bright light, heat, and smoke.) This has been explained... Convection requires gravity to function. (needs outside help/intervention) The thermal exchange actually increases pressure, not decreases it (no suction produced) thus - the very functions of fire in and of itself contradicts the statement 'naturally aspirated'. we need gravity to live. plants need gravity, the earth needs gravity, we are all just a fart bubble in a camels ass. (yes the thermal pressure is different from top of flame to bottom. I am ok calling it suction (boyles law and all that, to attempt equilibrium, naturo horror vacui........yeah, close enough for the girls we go with) Fire needs oxygen to function. convection not fire needs conditions The universe needs PI, Plancks constant, e, and many other things to function therefore nothing in our experience is natural except me getting a blowjob. Class dismissed. Schlau, aber nicht wahr. I suggest another course of study. What you are willing to call it does not factor in... It has been explained - it is not natural, it is not aspirated. You cannot use the word-to-word definition then subjectively interpenetrate each of the words to best suit how you want to define it.

Nnanji -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 6:04:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne aspiration is a process, and like tommy boy you chose the wrong one, thought you were catching on in a previous post, but I guess not after all. everything is a process. it is a process to obtain intellect, unfortunately you were not given the choice, being born a profound retard, you have never and will never catch on, and it is obvious. You cannot explain why it is not 1) natural, 2) aspired, 3) flame, you can only spout drivel. naturally (without special help or intervention) aspirated (inhaled, drawn in, sniff, snort, gulp, insufflate) fire( combustion or burning, in which substances combine chemically with oxygen from the air and typically give out bright light, heat, and smoke.) This has been explained... Convection requires gravity to function. (needs outside help/intervention) The thermal exchange actually increases pressure, not decreases it (no suction produced) thus - the very functions of fire in and of itself contradicts the statement 'naturally aspirated'. we need gravity to live. plants need gravity, the earth needs gravity, we are all just a fart bubble in a camels ass. (yes the thermal pressure is different from top of flame to bottom. I am ok calling it suction (boyles law and all that, to attempt equilibrium, naturo horror vacui........yeah, close enough for the girls we go with) Fire needs oxygen to function. convection not fire needs conditions The universe needs PI, Plancks constant, e, and many other things to function therefore nothing in our experience is natural except me getting a blowjob. Class dismissed. Schlau, aber nicht wahr. I suggest another course of study. What you are willing to call it does not factor in... It has been explained - it is not natural, it is not aspirated. You cannot use the word-to-word definition then subjectively interpenetrate each of the words to best suit how you want to define it. To be fair, he also says he goes with girls. So we know he's off his meds and in la la land.

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 6:29:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx Still waiting for you to explain how your "open flame" can melt steel. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. by making it large enough that it produces Adiabatic Conditions at it's core. Adiabatic conditions defined: "Adiabatic conditions refer to conditions under which overall heat transfer across the boundary between the thermodynamic system and the surroundings is absent. Examples of processes proceeding under adiabatic conditions and applied in engineering are expansion and compression of gas in a piston-type machine, the flow of a fluid medium in heat-insulated pipes, channels and nozzles, throttling and setting of turbomachines and distribution of acoustic and shock waves. The flow of a viscous liquid or gas through a heat-insulated channel is often referred to as adiabatic. " http://thermopedia.com/content/290/ How about you walk us through this missinfoman. Adiabatic is a theoretical condition in which heat isn't lost. It is the highest potential temperature a burning material could possibly reach. next to nothing can physically reach these levels of heat under normal conditions - however placing objects in the right conditions which insulate heat or prevent heat loss can cause combustion of identical materials have very very different core temps. That being said we commonly use the term 'Adiabatic Fire' to denote flame under specific high heat conditions - such as the tip of a blow torch or the center of a kiln. A camp fire/fire place burns at ~850-900 c. A Bonfire burns closer ~1000 c at it's center. A burning house can have points of +1100 c. the constant here is that the larger the volume of burning space, the less heat that is lost at the core of the conflagration. Expand the fire to the size of a football field - and the center of that inferno can potentially reach temp points in which it can melt steel. [image]http://co-bw.com/Waldo/Fire_3.jpg[/image] The Waldo Canyon fire - in which thousands of acres of forest burned destroying hundreds of houses in it's path. Notice the partially melted STEEL I-beam.

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 6:38:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Do you live in phoquing outer space? That is where you would have to live in order to claim that gravity is outside help/intervention. Doesn't matter - Natural in the terms of the definition means specifically 'NO outside influence' Gravity is an outside influence. As per my example before - A Naturally Aspirated Internal Combustion Engine will work in Zero G - as the piston produces a partial vacuum which produces suction. Thus it can be entitled 'Naturally Aspirated' because the functions of gravity are not needed in it's function. quote: According to the cites provided you are wrong where in what cites does it specifically say anything to that effect?

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 6:47:15 PM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx Still waiting for you to explain how your "open flame" can melt steel. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. by making it large enough that it produces Adiabatic Conditions at it's core. Adiabatic conditions defined: "Adiabatic conditions refer to conditions under which overall heat transfer across the boundary between the thermodynamic system and the surroundings is absent. Examples of processes proceeding under adiabatic conditions and applied in engineering are expansion and compression of gas in a piston-type machine, the flow of a fluid medium in heat-insulated pipes, channels and nozzles, throttling and setting of turbomachines and distribution of acoustic and shock waves. The flow of a viscous liquid or gas through a heat-insulated channel is often referred to as adiabatic. " http://thermopedia.com/content/290/ How about you walk us through this missinfoman. Adiabatic is a theoretical condition in which heat isn't lost. It is the highest potential temperature a burning m aterial could possibly reach. next to nothing can physically reach these levels of heat under normal conditions - however placing objects in the right conditions which insulate heat or prevent heat loss can cause combustion of identical materials have very very different core temps. That being said we commonly use the term 'Adiabatic Fire' to denote flame under specific high heat conditions - such as the tip of a blow torch or the center of a kiln. A camp fire/fire place burns at ~850-900 c. A Bonfire burns closer ~1000 c at it's center. A burning house can have points of +1100 c. the constant here is that the larger the volume of burning space, the less heat that is lost at the core of the conflagration. Expand the fire to the size of a football field - and the center of that inferno can potentially reach temp points in which it can melt steel. Your opinion seems to be in conflict with the cite provided. This would tend to confirm that your opinion is full of shit. The Waldo Canyon fire - in which thousands of acres of forest burned destroying hundreds of houses in it's path. Notice the partially melted STEEL I-beam. Perhaps you could point out just where that distorted I beam is partially melted Here is a pic of a building that was less than 200 yards from the epicenter of the a bomb at hiroshima. Note the steel beams of the dome in tact and not melted. My understanding is that a nuke blast is pretty warm. . https://www.google.com/search?q=hiroshima+dome&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiu57z3kdrTAhVEslQKHZu7CC4Q_AUIBigB&biw=853&bih=413#imgrc=G5NiX-ysHZGJ8M:&spf=198

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 7:32:47 PM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx Do you live in phoquing outer space? That is where you would have to live in order to claim that gravity is outside help/intervention. Doesn't matter - Natural in the terms of the definition means specifically 'NO outside influence' Gravity is an outside influence. Gravity and oxygen exist on earth and not in outer space dumbass. so if you are going to count gravity as an outside influence then oxygen would also be an outside influence. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. As per my example before - A Naturally Aspirated Internal Combustion Engine will work in Zero G - as the piston produces a partial vacuum which produces suction. Thus it can be entitled 'Naturally Aspirated' because the functions of gravity are not needed in it's function. How would the fuel and lubrication for this engine work in zero gravity dumbass? According to the cites provided you are wrong where in what cites does it specifically say anything to that effect? Post #55

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 7:56:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Your opinion seems to be in conflict with the cite provided. This would tend to confirm that your opinion is full of shit. Actually it does not. It coincides with what i said: "Adiabatic conditions refer to conditions under which overall heat transfer across the boundary between the thermodynamic system and the surroundings is absent." I know, time and again you've proven yourself incapable of reading the English Language but: transfer across the boundary between the thermodynamic system and the surroundings is absent specifically means exactly what i said: a theoretical condition in which heat isn't lost. quote: Perhaps you could point out just where that distorted I beam is partially melted the parts where it is distorted. Metals, steel in particular, just don't automatically turn into a liquid when it reaches it's melting point. [image]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/GCrHwOX-IPM/hqdefault.jpg[/image] That is white hot steel on the anvil. White hot steel is steel that is heated to ABOVE it's melting point. (1300-1400 c) Yet - despite it being heated to above it's melting point, it is still a mostly solid material. it is just extremely malleable and workable. What did you think partially melted steel looks like? candle wax drippings? quote: Here is a pic of a building that was less than 200 yards from the epicenter of the a bomb at hiroshima. Note the steel beams of the dome in tact and not melted. My understanding is that a nuke blast is pretty warm. . https://www.google.com/search?q=hiroshima+dome&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiu57z3kdrTAhVEslQKHZu7CC4Q_AUIBigB&biw=853&bih=413#imgrc=G5NiX-ysHZGJ8M:&spf=198 Actually it is melted. Like i mentioned before - just because you bring metals like steel up to their melting point doesn't mean they start turning into liquid and deforming like a wax candle does. As such, it was heated to it's melting point, and the attached metal bolts and brackets fused to the structure, making it a single contentious piece of metal...

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 8:06:40 PM)
If heat is not lost across the system then how is steel, which is not part of the system, melted

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (5/5/2017 8:09:51 PM)
Perhaps you could point out just where that distorted I beam is partially melted the parts where it is distorted. Distorted is not the same as melted dumbass. Metals, steel in particular, just don't automatically turn into a liquid when it reaches it's melting point That is the definition of melting dumbass. Jesus you are phoquing stupid..

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.1054688