RE: Science anarchists

RE: Science anarchists (Full Version)

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

Message

BoscoX -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 12:43:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I am sorry cockgargler, thats as simple as I can make it, even for a toiletlicking retard such as you realzeroretard. If you aint got the language down, only the cockslobbering, you are gonna be busy licking at the KFC toilets the rest of your life. Yeah yeah yeah gramps, eeeeeeeveryone who disagrees with you is a faggot You've told us a million times Must have been considered quite the zinger back in the fifties, the way you rely on it as your crutch Yeah yeah yeah corpulent pedophile compound gimp and felchgobbler we know you are a hysterically homophobic pants shitter flouncing around like a perimenopausal drag queen in high dudgeon, you have felchgobbled and cockgargled that old line of yours from your mothers basement since the 60s till today and we have heard it several trillion times. All of your far left friends on here must be so proud of you, grampa felchguzzler... You're really an inspiration to the pussyhat rainbow coalition [:D]

mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 12:45:15 PM)
your nutsuckers friends love to felchgobble in a circle felch with you in your mothers basement corpulent pedophile compound gimp. And toiletlick with each other in the commie language. I am sure all your circlefelch is proud to call you their toiletlicking guru.

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 1:00:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I am not going to list all the senses of the words just the germane senses, we dont want to overload imbeciles. nat·u·ral·ly adverb 1. without special help or intervention; in a natural manner. synonyms: by nature, by character, inherently, innately, congenitally as·pi·rate verb (used with object), aspirated, aspirating. 3.to draw or remove by suction. flame noun 1. a hot glowing body of ignited gas that is generated by something on fire. an open air fire? yeah, looks like it. is in or out of a building a necessary and sufficient condition? no.........so placement isnt going to matter. http://discoverykids.com/articles/how-does-fire-work/ Fire is a chemical reaction in which an object reacts with oxygen at a certain temperatures. It has absolutely nothing to do with suction nor does it actually create atmospheric pressure differences through its normal processes. This is best observed in Zero Gravity - in which burning objects create self contained spheres, as viewed by NASA during their FLEX experiments in which droplets of fuel where ignited in 0G. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQQ1OHW1_F4 As such - Fire or Flame cannot be 'Naturally Aspirated'

Edwird -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 1:17:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: klmpong Are these the same "scientists" that have promoted the blatant lie of evolution? Just the same old political bullshit. I love just how fun and different educational culture is in the USA to the civilised world. [:)] There are probably at least 160 versions of "Six Days On The Road" emanating from the US, so according to Wiki's list of 160 countries, we can absolutely and resolutely accommodate and respond to any and all snark from all countries and all corners of the world, if you insist on trying our (non) patience. I already left an earlier post on how God made the world while hauling a load from Chicago to LA and taking another one back. But here's another version in any case: Six Days of Creation Proof is proof. Deal with it. Now just go away and shush while I look up US versions of Easter Bunny songs.

mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 1:36:20 PM)
I will put you in a room with fire, and you see how long you can breath in it. It certainly draws, sucks, inhales, aspirates, imbibes, consumes................oh hell you get the idea......................Oxygen from the air. Fire is a chemical reaction in which an object reacts with oxygen at a certain temperatures. <<<<<<<<<<<<< your blurb. now, do we have to get down to cases on 'reacts'? as such it is aspirated, and its natural. When there is no oxygen, there is no fire. Fire extinguishing methods exclude air (oxygen) from reacting that is...............atomically combining a fuel and an oxidizing agent (oxygen) and picking up free radicals. Natural aspiration has little or nothing to do with zero gravity or any gravity we exist in. Your non-sequitur is 'inoperable' sucking may not be vacuum here. Please see any naturally aspirated forest fire of any size for atomspheric changes. I cannot buy your assumptions, therefore I cannot buy your deal. (and explain the exploding windows in a house fire left unattended). see, we have this thing where hot air rises, and there becomes a difference in pressures between hot and cold, even a reactionary would not say that hot air descends would they? But to sharpen the point, the observers of this round ball of flame, did they naturally aspirate while performing the experiment or would that also be unnatural?

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 2:57:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I will put you in a room with fire, and you see how long you can breath in it. It certainly draws, sucks, inhales, aspirates, imbibes, consumes................oh hell you get the idea......................Oxygen from the air. Fire is a chemical reaction in which an object reacts with oxygen at a certain temperatures. <<<<<<<<<<<<< your blurb. now, do we have to get down to cases on 'reacts'? as such it is aspirated, and its natural. When there is no oxygen, there is no fire. Fire extinguishing methods exclude air (oxygen) from reacting that is...............atomically combining a fuel and an oxidizing agent (oxygen) and picking up free radicals. Natural aspiration has little or nothing to do with zero gravity or any gravity we exist in. Your non-sequitur is 'inoperable' sucking may not be vacuum here. Please see any naturally aspirated forest fire of any size for atomspheric changes. I cannot buy your assumptions, therefore I cannot buy your deal. (and explain the exploding windows in a house fire left unattended). see, we have this thing where hot air rises, and there becomes a difference in pressures between hot and cold, even a reactionary would not say that hot air descends would they? But to sharpen the point, the observers of this round ball of flame, did they naturally aspirate while performing the experiment or would that also be unnatural? Incorrect, The thermal energy produced by the reaction is absorbed by the surrounding air, causing it to circulate via thermodynamics and gravity (hot air rises, cold air descends) which is what causes more air is pushed into the combusting materials. For Aspiration to occur naturally - AS PER YOUR DEFINITION - it would have to suck air into the flame with out any other external forces being applied to it. And if we put it in exactly those conditions, like in zero gravity, the flame does NOT produce a vacuum effect drawing in extra air, and instead produces a ball of burning material which eventually sputters out once all the fuel in it's area of effect is consumed. You are contradicting your Own definition.

Aylee -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 3:21:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx what is 'naturally aspirated flame'? I realize it is a very big word...try to sound it out. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. Actually it isn't a very big word, it is 3 words. I know time and again you have difficulty with English, but c'mon... even a 5 year old would realize that. Further more - that doesn't answer the question: What is 'Naturally aspirated flame'... because there is no such thing as a 'naturally aspirated' flame... because fire doesn't work that way. I think he is talking about mythical creatures like dragons.

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 4:06:02 PM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan Incorrect, The thermal energy produced by the reaction is absorbed by the surrounding air, causing it to circulate via thermodynamics and gravity (hot air rises, cold air descends) which is what causes more air is pushed into the combusting materials. You can call it pushing but that is not what it is doing. The falling cold air is at the same temp and pressure as the surrounding air so it is not pushing. The reduced pressure within the flame sucks more air into the combustion process. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. For Aspiration to occur naturally - AS PER YOUR DEFINITION - it would have to suck air into the flame with out any other external forces being applied to it. And if we put it in exactly those conditions, like in zero gravity, the flame does NOT produce a vacuum effect drawing in extra air, and instead produces a ball of burning material which eventually sputters out once all the fuel in it's area of effect is consumed. Wrong again, the ball of burning material is fuel and oxygen. when the oxygen is consumed the flame goes out. Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 4:11:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: InfoMan Incorrect, The thermal energy produced by the reaction is absorbed by the surrounding air, causing it to circulate via thermodynamics and gravity (hot air rises, cold air descends) which is what causes more air is pushed into the combusting materials. You can call it pushing but that is not what it is doing. The falling cold air is at the same temp and pressure as the surrounding air so it is not pushing. The reduced pressure within the flame sucks more air into the combustion process. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. For Aspiration to occur naturally - AS PER YOUR DEFINITION - it would have to suck air into the flame with out any other external forces being applied to it. And if we put it in exactly those conditions, like in zero gravity, the flame does NOT produce a vacuum effect drawing in extra air, and instead produces a ball of burning material which eventually sputters out once all the fuel in it's area of effect is consumed. Wrong again, the ball of burning material is fuel and oxygen. when the oxygen is consumed the flame goes out. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. Incorrect. If this where the case - then in a Zero Gravity environment the air would cycle naturally as different pressure systems would move the air around. But this - again - does not happen. The reason air Moves around is because the heated air becomes lighter and thus floats up as heavier cooler air sinks down in response as per the rules of gravity. This is High School Physics here... how do you guys not comprehend this?

mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 6:13:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I will put you in a room with fire, and you see how long you can breath in it. It certainly draws, sucks, inhales, aspirates, imbibes, consumes................oh hell you get the idea......................Oxygen from the air. Fire is a chemical reaction in which an object reacts with oxygen at a certain temperatures. <<<<<<<<<<<<< your blurb. now, do we have to get down to cases on 'reacts'? as such it is aspirated, and its natural. When there is no oxygen, there is no fire. Fire extinguishing methods exclude air (oxygen) from reacting that is...............atomically combining a fuel and an oxidizing agent (oxygen) and picking up free radicals. Natural aspiration has little or nothing to do with zero gravity or any gravity we exist in. Your non-sequitur is 'inoperable' sucking may not be vacuum here. Please see any naturally aspirated forest fire of any size for atomspheric changes. I cannot buy your assumptions, therefore I cannot buy your deal. (and explain the exploding windows in a house fire left unattended). see, we have this thing where hot air rises, and there becomes a difference in pressures between hot and cold, even a reactionary would not say that hot air descends would they? But to sharpen the point, the observers of this round ball of flame, did they naturally aspirate while performing the experiment or would that also be unnatural? Incorrect, The thermal energy produced by the reaction is absorbed by the surrounding air, causing it to circulate via thermodynamics and gravity (hot air rises, cold air descends) which is what causes more air is pushed into the combusting materials. For Aspiration to occur naturally - AS PER YOUR DEFINITION - it would have to suck air into the flame with out any other external forces being applied to it. And if we put it in exactly those conditions, like in zero gravity, the flame does NOT produce a vacuum effect drawing in extra air, and instead produces a ball of burning material which eventually sputters out once all the fuel in it's area of effect is consumed. You are contradicting your Own definition. oh, sorry, you again must stand in a fire in a room with no circulation. You will not be burned. Tell me all about your breathing skills. we do not live in zero gravity and fire burns and people breath in it. Further your experiment, add more gasoline in the confined space, and watch it burn in a ball. We live in a real world. A fire will burn as long as there is fuel and oxygen (its really rusting is what it is doing). assume all the fuel in the world if you must. and exactly 2 sq ft of 02 in the world and it is available to the burning organic matter. It will last forever, go!!!! let us see the equation again, a wildfire burns, and there is no lack of organic material and zero oxygen. What is the burn time? is the burn time equal to the flame or fire? if not, why not?

bounty44 -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 6:56:33 PM)
none of which really has anything to do with the question at hand. on a side note---"rust" requires iron and water---neither of which are constituents of fire. maybe you are getting confused over the word "oxidation" in reference to fire? the only thing you can do now to make it even worse for yourself is to throw some "felchgobbles" in the mix.

heavyblinker -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 7:24:25 PM)
This thread is really cool and I enjoyed reading it a lot. Keep up the good work.

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 7:51:25 PM)
snotty that has jack to do with jack! Here is an example, see if you can figger it out. The typical ICE is naturally aspirated, put a turbo on it and its not.

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 8:03:22 PM)
ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: thompsonx Incorrect, The thermal energy produced by the reaction is absorbed by the surrounding air, causing it to circulate via thermodynamics and gravity (hot air rises, cold air descends) which is what causes more air is pushed into the combusting materials. You can call it pushing but that is not what it is doing. The falling cold air is at the same temp and pressure as the surrounding air so it is not pushing. The reduced pressure within the flame sucks more air into the combustion process. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. For Aspiration to occur naturally - AS PER YOUR DEFINITION - it would have to suck air into the flame with out any other external forces being applied to it. And if we put it in exactly those conditions, like in zero gravity, the flame does NOT produce a vacuum effect drawing in extra air, and instead produces a ball of burning material which eventually sputters out once all the fuel in it's area of effect is consumed. Wrong again, the ball of burning material is fuel and oxygen. when the oxygen is consumed the flame goes out. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. Incorrect. If this where the case - then in a Zero Gravity environment the air would cycle naturally as different pressure systems would move the air around. But this - again - does not happen. The reason air Moves around is because the heated air becomes lighter and thus floats up as heavier cooler air sinks down in response as per the rules of gravity. This is High School Physics here... how do you guys not comprehend this? This is high school physics of which you have no clue. Try running your ignorance past your high school physics teacher.

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 8:08:19 PM)
ORIGINAL: bounty44 none of which really has anything to do with the question at hand. on a side note---"rust" requires iron and water---neither of which are constituents of fire. maybe you are getting confused over the word "oxidation" in reference to fire? Pay attention 'college boy' Fire is the rapid oxidation of a material in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products. Slower oxidative processes like rusting or digestion are not included by this definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 8:10:34 PM)
ORIGINAL: Real0ne snotty that has jack to do with jack! Here is an example, see if you can figger it out. The typical ICE is naturally aspirated, put a turbo on it and its not. That is the difference between naturally aspirated and forced induction.

Real0ne -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 9:28:59 PM)
still dont get it LOL

mnottertail -> RE: Science anarchists (4/26/2017 11:40:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 none of which really has anything to do with the question at hand. on a side note---"rust" requires iron and water---neither of which are constituents of fire. maybe you are getting confused over the word "oxidation" in reference to fire? the only thing you can do now to make it even worse for yourself is to throw some "felchgobbles" in the mix. rust is oxidation, thank you for playing. Throw some metal, in a fire, if you have questions, go get an education. Water is not a necessary and sufficient condition of rust. Have a really good day felchgobbling the putinjizz, you fucking retard. Maybe you are getting confused because you are a fucking retard?

thompsonx -> RE: Science anarchists (4/27/2017 2:23:14 AM)
ORIGINAL: Real0ne still dont get it LOL And of course you won't tell us the secret because you are sooooo smart and no one here would be able to understand. Roflmfao Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

InfoMan -> RE: Science anarchists (4/27/2017 3:42:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail what you've said is literally a bunch of gibberish. no really - it is a bunch of independent statements randomly appended together forming incohesive statements. quote: oh, sorry, you again must stand in a fire in a room with no circulation. You will not be burned. Tell me all about your breathing skills. If you stand in a room with a match or candle you can breath just fine and you will not burn. What's more - if you're in a room with a raging fire - you will eventually be burned. Although smoke inhalation will usually kill you first in an enclosed space - The fire radiates heat into the room eventually the air becomes hot enough to spontaneously combust other materials in the room. This effect is called the 'Flashover' point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtMmymOxdjc quote: we do not live in zero gravity and fire burns and people breath in it. Further your experiment, add more gasoline in the confined space, and watch it burn in a ball. We live in a real world. Gravity is an outside force - By displaying how fire behaves in zero gravity it scientifically brings into question your definition: How can it be 'Natural' as in not requiring an outside force (Gravity) to feed it oxygen? How can it be Aspirated if it does not produce a suction or air movement through it's own functions? a Naturally Aspirated Internal Combustion Engine works in zero G. As the piston moves down it creates a partial vacuum which draws in air regardless of the gravity. quote: A fire will burn as long as there is fuel and oxygen (its really rusting is what it is doing). assume all the fuel in the world if you must. and exactly 2 sq ft of 02 in the world and it is available to the burning organic matter. It will last forever, go!!!! let us see the equation again, a wildfire burns, and there is no lack of organic material and zero oxygen. What is the burn time? is the burn time equal to the flame or fire? if not, why not? I don't even know what you're trying to say here... it is a bunch of random statements.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875