RE: Science anarchists

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Science anarchists

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Science anarchists

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Science anarchists - 4/27/2017 6:07:41 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

you aint got no brains to suck out, shiteater, that ship sailed at your birth. Thats why you are RealZeroRetard.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Real0ne)

Profile

Post #: 81

RE: Science anarchists - 4/27/2017 6:35:40 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

say what you want snotty, at least I ant so foking stoopid to claim hitler was a mass mountain extinctionzer. the beast! LOL

So how you doing on figgering out that little kindergarten physics problem, as good as your german, aspirating I bet

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 82

RE: Science anarchists - 4/27/2017 6:43:39 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

LOL. RealZeroRetard is still not closing in on the fact that he is a fucking retard, and demonstrably knows nothing about this whatsoever, like all the other asswipe he posts.

yeh there is a fact, that real handing you your ass is becoming a habit.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 83

RE: Science anarchists - 4/27/2017 11:46:06 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

and be indoctrinated by having a hole drilled in my head and half my brains sucked out like you snotty and the whore, I htink not.
Worse my name associated with criminal zionism for all of eternity, are you out of your fucking mind, yes I think you are. No tommy
just look at this board zionism is todays religion, its so wonderful people convert it to gobblemint, which is why we have such a wonderful
honest gubmint, you know land of the free and all that shit.

Roflmfao

(in reply to Real0ne)

Profile

Post #: 84

RE: Science anarchists - 4/28/2017 8:49:41 AM

WickedsDesire

Posts: 9362
Joined: 11/4/2015
Status: offline

I kinda fell asleep the other night - no matter perhaps later if i get bored enough...Rises sinks flows flees etc is all kinda the same to me - why is a surface cold(er) to touch - does pan of hot water boil quicker than cold water etc waffle

Still a bit sad when they debunk science with fibbery

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 85

RE: Science anarchists - 4/28/2017 3:19:07 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire
does pan of hot water boil quicker than cold water etc waffle

A pan of hot water will freeze more quickly than a pan of cold water.

(in reply to WickedsDesire)

Profile

Post #: 86

RE: Science anarchists - 4/28/2017 4:02:57 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

say what you want snotty, at least I ant so foking stoopid to claim hitler was a mass mountain extinctionzer. the beast! LOL

So how you doing on figgering out that little kindergarten physics problem, as good as your german, aspirating I bet

I didnt claim any such thing, you were the fucking retard who claimed 625K people were bombed in Dresden and that WWII never happened and Hiltler was a peacenik and now Jews died during your lifelong retardation and shiteating.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Real0ne)

Profile

Post #: 87

RE: Science anarchists - 4/28/2017 4:04:27 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

LOL. RealZeroRetard is still not closing in on the fact that he is a fucking retard, and demonstrably knows nothing about this whatsoever, like all the other asswipe he posts.

yeh there is a fact, that real handing you your ass is becoming a habit.

You aint handling my ass, shitbreather. You are as fucking retarded as you sound and look. Your habit is cockgargling in the institution for mental defectives, your lifelong home.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Real0ne)

Profile

Post #: 88

RE: Science anarchists - 4/28/2017 7:52:12 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

LOL. RealZeroRetard is still not closing in on the fact that he is a fucking retard, and demonstrably knows nothing about this whatsoever, like all the other asswipe he posts.

yeh there is a fact, that real handing you your ass is becoming a habit.

You aint handling my ass, shitbreather. You are as fucking retarded as you sound and look. Your habit is cockgargling in the institution for mental defectives, your lifelong home.

snotty no one has to handle your ass to hand it to you dipweedbut its nice to see you are having fun aspirating with tommy.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 89

RE: Science anarchists - 4/28/2017 7:54:07 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

say what you want snotty, at least I ant so foking stoopid to claim hitler was a mass mountain extinctionzer. the beast! LOL

So how you doing on figgering out that little kindergarten physics problem, as good as your german, aspirating I bet

I didnt claim any such thing, you were the fucking retard who claimed 625K people were bombed in Dresden and that WWII never happened and Hiltler was a peacenik and now Jews died during your lifelong retardation and shiteating.

snotty you really need ot go back to toddler school and learn 'comprehension' its key to understanding. Little too much felch gargling, gonna have to put you on a diet

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 90

RE: Science anarchists - 4/28/2017 8:09:45 PM

InfoMan

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

so, inside the space station, they just said fuck that humans need to breathe, this is good to go. We put mustard on that N1O1 and eat that shit. or do you think they have environmental controls, like heat, light and normal air in the cabins?

In any case I think we both can agree that gravity is a field of force that distorts space time and operates on mass.

and of course the microgravity in the space station does affect flame, because natural convection no longer occurs.

Aspiration is not respiration, it is one component.

I am fine with lighting a bic and calling it a naturally aspirating flame.

I am fine with setting fire to the barn and calling it a naturally aspirating fire.

I also do not cause a vacuum when I aspirate, and I have never maintained that fire does, but it does draw and draft, as I do

And medical science fundamentally disagrees with you:

http://www.biologyreference.com/Re-Se/Respiration.html
When these muscles are stimulated, they contract and enlarge the thoracic cavity. This creates a partial vacuum in the lungs. With the atmospheric pressure outside the body now greater than the pressure in the lungs, air flows "downstream" into the lungs and inflates them.

https://training.seer.cancer.gov/anatomy/respiratory/mechanics.html
Inspiration (inhalation) is the process of taking air into the lungs. It is the active phase of ventilation because it is the result of muscle contraction. During inspiration, the diaphragm contracts and the thoracic cavity increases in volume. This decreases the intraalveolar pressure...

http://www.ptdirect.com/training-design/anatomy-and-physiology/pulmonary-ventilation-breathing
When contracted the diaphragm flattens and pushes downwards resulting in an enlargement of the chest cavity (area within which the lungs sit) and a decrease of pressure in the lungs. This reduction in pressure causes air to be sucked into the lungs and we breathe in...

http://www.yourdictionary.com/partial-vacuum
- A region of low atmospheric pressure

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/aspirate
to draw or remove by suction.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/suction
the force that, by a pressure differential, attracts a substance or object to the region of lower pressure.

Ultimately, just because you're 'fine' with doing something doesn't make it right, nor does it make your point of view valid. Fire does not Aspirate - it does not produce suction, it does not create a region of low atmospheric pressure. Fire is a Chemical Reaction between a fuel and an oxidizer resulting in the release of gas and thermal energy.

So to say 'Naturally Aspirated Flame/Fire' is wrong.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 91

RE: Science anarchists - 4/28/2017 8:15:55 PM

InfoMan

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

An internal combustion engine's piston is pulled down via momentum of the drive shaft which it is connected to through it's control arm, as it is drawn down, it produces a cavity that produces a partial vacuum which sucks air in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdW1t8r8qYc

Fire does not produce a vacuum, which has been demonstrated via the NASA video fire being ignited in zero gravity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQQ1OHW1_F4

Actually it does. As the fuel and air mixture burn the combustion process draws oxygen
from the atmosphere to support combustion. When the fuel is exhausted the flame goes out.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

you have 2 videos which conclusively prove you wrong in the very thing you quoted.

If fire produced a vacuum - then when the fuel air mix was ignited, it should draw in the air intake valve, as it is a pressure driven stopper.
If fire produced a vacuum - then in zero gravity the fire should produce a Torus/implode - as the higher pressure air would instantly rush into the lowest point of pressure.

These events do not happen and thus prove you wrong.

Flame does not produce a vacuum.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 92

RE: Science anarchists - 4/28/2017 8:48:49 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Fire does not produce a vacuum, which has been demonstrated via the NASA video fire being ignited in zero gravity:

Actually it does. As the fuel and air mixture burn the combustion process draws oxygen
from the atmosphere to support combustion. When the fuel is exhausted the flame goes out.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

you have 2 videos which conclusively prove you wrong in the very thing you quoted.

If fire produced a vacuum - then when the fuel air mix was ignited, it should draw in
the air intake valve, as it is a pressure driven stopper.

Valves in an ic engine are not pressure driven stoppers. A spring closes the valve and a cam opens it.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

If fire produced a vacuum - then in zero gravity the fire should produce a
Torus/implode - as the higher pressure air would instantly rush into the lowest point
of pressure.

These events do not happen and thus prove you wrong.

Wrong again dumbass. As oxygen is consumed in the flame more oxygen is drawn into the flame to sustain
combustion until the fuel runs out.

Flame does not produce a vacuum.

Yet here you say it does

Hot Air Rises.
Cold Air Descends.
cool air moves in to replace the heated air, which rises, which fuels the flame.

This is from a larger article you may wish to read. You might wish to use it as a pry bar to get your feet out of your mouth.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

"In zero-G, convection does not carry the hot combustion products away from the
fuel source, resulting in a spherical flame front.
In the year 2000, experiments by NASA confirmed that gravity plays an indirect role
in flame formation and composition.[12] The common distribution of a flame under
normal gravity conditions depends on convection, as soot tends to rise to the top of a
flame (such as in a candle in normal gravity conditions), making it yellow. In
microgravity or zero gravity environment, such as in orbit, natural convection no
longer occurs and the flame becomes spherical, with a tendency to become bluer and
more efficient. There are several possible explanations for this difference, of which
the most likely is the hypothesis that the temperature is sufficiently evenly distributed
that soot is not formed and complete combustion occurs.[13] Experiments by NASA
reveal that diffusion flames in microgravity allow more soot to be completely oxidized
after they are produced than do diffusion flames on Earth, because of a series of
mechanisms that behave differently in microgravity when compared to normal gravity
conditions.[14] These discoveries have potential applications in applied science and
industry, especially concerning fuel efficiency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame

(in reply to InfoMan)

Profile

Post #: 93

RE: Science anarchists - 4/28/2017 9:10:20 PM

InfoMan

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Wrong again dumbass. As oxygen is consumed in the flame more oxygen is drawn into the flame to sustain
combustion until the fuel runs out.

You have provided nothing to support this claim.
Instead you just keep repeating it, over and over again.

In fact, everything you've sated is entirely unsupported - you try and draw conclusions that what you quote actually says what you want it to say, but nothing mentioned here by you even coincides with what you're proposing.

I've provided 2 examples of how fire does not create pressure difference significant enough to cause atmospheric displacement, otherwise known as a 'partial vacuum'. You've just simply said 'Nuh-uh'.

so either provide proof fire produces a vacuum effect.
not explosives, fuel air explosives, or thermobaric weapons - just simple flame.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 94

RE: Science anarchists - 4/29/2017 3:58:15 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Wrong again dumbass. As oxygen is consumed in the flame more oxygen is drawn into the flame to sustain
combustion until the fuel runs out.

You have provided nothing to support this claim.
Instead you just keep repeating it, over and over again.

In fact, everything you've sated is entirely unsupported - you try and draw conclusions that what you quote actually says what you want it to say, but nothing mentioned here by you even coincides with what you're proposing.

I've provided 2 examples of how fire does not create pressure difference significant enough to cause atmospheric displacement, otherwise known as a 'partial vacuum'. You've just simply said 'Nuh-uh'.

so either provide proof fire produces a vacuum effect.
not explosives, fuel air explosives, or thermobaric weapons - just simple flame.

The cite from wiki pretty clearly defines what you claim it does not.

(in reply to InfoMan)

Profile

Post #: 95

RE: Science anarchists - 4/29/2017 4:22:31 AM

epiphiny43

Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline

In positive gravity the heat of a flame heats All gasses nearby, N2, remaining O2, and the various combustion products. These all Rise, by Boyle's gas law, being heated, the given mass expands and cooler, denser air comes in below. The cooler air may feed new O2 to whatever fuel is present to continue the flame. If the fuel is another gas or vaporized liquid mixed in the atmosphere, the flame front moves far faster than expanding hot gases can create a lifting force, and may become an explosion. If the fuel is stationary (wood in a pile) or a gas/liquid feed from a pipe (kitchen gas stove burner), the flame base is stationary but all the involved heated gases rise rapidly ("sucking" in cooler air from the sides or below) till reaching the ceiling, if indoors, or till cooled and finding atmospheric equilibrium outdoors, as in smoke from a campfire or other larger conflagration.
In a vacuum, 'things' are different,

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 96

RE: Science anarchists - 4/29/2017 4:25:41 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

~FR~
Oh, that naturally aspirating flame. fuckin shameful that is.

Dont think there is a vacuum created when a human aspirates either. But that is natural. I think its too much pressure, or not enough, dont you all?

I freely admit the oxidization is a radical idea. (I fuckin crack myself up)

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to epiphiny43)

Profile

Post #: 97

RE: Science anarchists - 4/29/2017 6:23:12 AM

InfoMan

Posts: 471
Joined: 2/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The cite from wiki pretty clearly defines what you claim it does not.

If the oxidizer is oxygen from the surrounding air, the presence of a force of gravity, or of some similar force caused by acceleration, is necessary to produce convection, which removes combustion products and brings a supply of oxygen to the fire. Without gravity, a fire rapidly surrounds itself with its own combustion products and non-oxidizing gases from the air, which exclude oxygen and extinguish the fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire

odd, the cite from the wiki pretty clearly defines what I claim as entirely correct.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 98

RE: Science anarchists - 4/29/2017 6:49:24 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Schlau, aber nicht wahr.

How does the sun work then?

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to InfoMan)

Profile

Post #: 99

RE: Science anarchists - 4/29/2017 6:56:33 AM

Edwird

Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline

~FR~

One thing for certain; with reference to the term "flaming" on forums, it seems that the naturally aspirated and oxygenated varieties seem to be on high flame in this post.

But, just a physics question here; Is there such a thing as "flame nine," like "ice nine" in the converse?

(in reply to InfoMan)

Profile

Post #: 100