Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2017, 10:21 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
At work.

Laugh out load

No
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2017, 10:52 PM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2017 11:18 PM by Chas.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(21-01-2017 09:34 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Combusting aluminum, to burn it.

What does that even mean? Burning and combustion are the same thing.

Quote:Aluminum burns at over 6920°F

It does not require that temperature to begin combustion. When it burns, it gives off a lot of heat and that is the temperature of the ongoing reaction.
Do you even know what an exothermic reaction is?
Please take a chemistry course - you don't understand whatever it is you are getting your "facts" from.

Quote:You guys are confusing burning metal with melting metal.

Secondly the thin ash like layer created from burning an aluminum can is indeed aluminum oxide created during a corrosion process with the oxygen in the air. This thin layer of aluminum oxide prevents the aluminum behind it from oxidizing as it serves as a sort of barrier. At least this is true so long as you aren't BURNING the aluminum.

Where do you get your misinformation? Everything you just wrote is wrong.
An aluminum can in a fire burns completely to ash - there is nothing but ash left. No molten aluminum, no aluminum powder.
Take a chemistry course; you are not just ignorant, you are wrong on every count.

Your statements get more absurd with every post.

Quote:Being half right still doesn't make you right.

But you being a halfwit makes you all wrong.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
22-01-2017, 01:21 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Well, Chas saved me from needing to answer that crap.

A'Thank ye, sir.

Edit to Add: Seriously, CW, what part of "I have a degree in biology (major) and chemistry (minor)" was unclear, when we first started talking? You clearly are just throwing around terms you don't fully understand. What the hell makes you presume you can lecture to people who have actually studied chemistry? This is not a rhetorical question.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2017, 02:12 AM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2017 02:18 AM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(22-01-2017 01:21 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Well, Chas saved me from needing to answer that crap.

A'Thank ye, sir.

Edit to Add: Seriously, CW, what part of "I have a degree in biology (major) and chemistry (minor)" was unclear, when we first started talking? You clearly are just throwing around terms you don't fully understand. What the hell makes you presume you can lecture to people who have actually studied chemistry? This is not a rhetorical question.

Chas has already admitted his own error RocketSurgeon

He has said and I quote An aluminum can in a fire burns completely to ash - there is nothing but ash left. No molten aluminum, no aluminum powder. Ash is not molten aluminum which is clearly the substance we're talking about.

It is not my fault you two can not distinguish the two. Your degrees don't prevent you from making errors or being wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2017, 09:35 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
lol wut?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2017, 10:22 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(22-01-2017 02:12 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  It is not my fault you two can not distinguish the two. Your degrees don't prevent you from making errors or being wrong.

Perhaps. But your ignorance ensures your errors.


So you've already admitted that you believe in two unrelated conspiracy theories. What's the total?

Illuminati?
Reptilian overlords?
Chemtrails?
JFK?
Roserucians?
Freemasons?
New World Order?
United Nations?

Because it is possible for a person to realize a truth about a commonly held belief. It is possible for a conspiracy to be concealed from the public.

But when a person believes in multiple conspiracies it becomes not a sign of truth or wisdom but a sign of mental illness.

Belief in a conspiracy theory is essentially denial of an accepted reality. The more reality you deny the more likely it is that the problem is with you not with everyone else.

So how much reality do you deny?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2017, 10:41 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(22-01-2017 10:22 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(22-01-2017 02:12 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  It is not my fault you two can not distinguish the two. Your degrees don't prevent you from making errors or being wrong.

Perhaps. But your ignorance ensures your errors.


So you've already admitted that you believe in two unrelated conspiracy theories. What's the total?

Illuminati?
Reptilian overlords?
Chemtrails?
JFK?
Roserucians?
Freemasons?
New World Order?
United Nations?

Because it is possible for a person to realize a truth about a commonly held belief. It is possible for a conspiracy to be concealed from the public.

But when a person believes in multiple conspiracies it becomes not a sign of truth or wisdom but a sign of mental illness.

Belief in a conspiracy theory is essentially denial of an accepted reality. The more reality you deny the more likely it is that the problem is with you not with everyone else.

So how much reality do you deny?

Someone said Sandy Hook and if its true that's a disgusting conspiracy theory he's obviously a troll on occasions a Poe possibly a sock reincarnation of Heywood or a puppet of psikeyhacker I hope he pushes things and gets the banhammer, I would have preferred him gone more than Gilgamesh at least he was an interactive chew toy and amusing at times this ass is just nauseating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2017, 10:49 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(22-01-2017 10:41 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Someone said Sandy Hook and if its true that's a disgusting conspiracy theory he's obviously a troll on occasions a Poe possibly a sock reincarnation of Heywood or a puppet of psikeyhacker I hope he pushes things and gets the banhammer, I would have preferred him gone more than Gilgamesh at least he was an interactive chew toy and amusing at times this ass is just nauseating.

Yeah, he made a snide reference to Sandy Hook and I jumped on that. I too was hoping for a ban. Oh well. Time will tell.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2017, 02:13 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
I'm utterly baffled that this guy has the cojones to say that we can't tell the difference between burning and melting metal (utterly different chemical processes, only one of which is a chemical reaction), to pretend that Chas had "admitted to being wrong" only two posts under Chas's post ripping him a new one, and in the face of a person who just told him he specifically studied chemistry.

Like, honestly, this guy blows my mind.

Does he walk up to a mechanic who's telling him what's wrong with his car engine and say, "No, that's just what Detroit's Big Manufacturing wants you to say. Here's what's really going on with my engine..."?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
22-01-2017, 06:51 PM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(22-01-2017 02:12 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(22-01-2017 01:21 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Well, Chas saved me from needing to answer that crap.

A'Thank ye, sir.

Edit to Add: Seriously, CW, what part of "I have a degree in biology (major) and chemistry (minor)" was unclear, when we first started talking? You clearly are just throwing around terms you don't fully understand. What the hell makes you presume you can lecture to people who have actually studied chemistry? This is not a rhetorical question.

Chas has already admitted his own error RocketSurgeon

He has said and I quote An aluminum can in a fire burns completely to ash - there is nothing but ash left. No molten aluminum, no aluminum powder. Ash is not molten aluminum which is clearly the substance we're talking about.

It is not my fault you two can not distinguish the two. Your degrees don't prevent you from making errors or being wrong.

I made no mistake. You are the only one claiming there was any molten aluminum.

In a hot fire, aluminum burns, it does not sit around in a molten state. Facepalm


Note that I have also taken several university chemistry courses - I was a chem. major for one year.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: