Erm, you very clearly referred to things being changed from one element to another by fire, which is wrong. Also, the classical view of the elements suggesed that ordinary, everyday matter was composed of combinations of the four elements, while modern science does not maintain that things are made up of combinations of states of matter. So no, they are not the same thing, and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

If we compare this situation with the Aristotelian concepts of matter and form, we can say that the matter of Aristotle, which is mere "potentia", should be compared to our concept of energy, which gets into "actuality" by means of the form, when the elementary particle is created.
Source: Physics and Philosophy by Werner Heisenburg

Have you actually read Heisenberg's work or are you just pretending again?

I indeed read it, and the part above in italics is what I remember.

Stop pretending to understand this! The measuring of an electron's position requires an interaction with a photon.
Note: Blocking off one of the slits forces the electron to interact with the block. The forces of interaction involving electrons are carried by photons!

How does that enable the observers to see an interference pattern?

An electron interacting with a block, is not interacting with a measuring device.

And none of that learning will be done by New Age booksellers. It will all be done by scientists.

Science will do experiments. But Science can tell us nothing about life until they drop their materialist dogma.

But the video you chose to share in support of your position quoted Wigner. And the real Wigner quote turns out to say that solipsism is congruent with quantum mechanics!

So what?

Pressure waves are detected by the inner ear and signals are sent to the brain which is interpreted as "sound". But the pressure waves exist whether or not someone "hears" them.

Not unless someone knows and measures the pressure waves. Everything is existence is in a mind; otherwise no-one can say whether it exists or not.

Based upon your non-existent definition of conscious? You seem to have skipped a major step. Define "conscious" and show us how we measure the consciousness of a tree.

I doubt consciousness can be measured at all. Your error is to think that unless something can be measured, it does not exist. You idolize human technology and make it into God. In reality, no measurement can be accurate; it is approximate.

I can show you how to measure inner ears and brains. I can show you how to measure the pressure waves in the air. I can show you how to measure the neural signals sent from the inner ear to the brain. We are even getting to the point where we can measure the passage of signaling throughout a brain in real time.

None of that has the slightest thing to do with consciousness or hearing.

New age booksellers can't do a damn thing except spew more pablum and put a price sticker on it.

And people buy it, and not your chemistry book, because new age answers the things people really need and want to know, while your chemistry baloney only enables technology to make physical life more comfortable, at the cost of pollution.

Only if you arbitrarily reject solipsism.

Solipsism is an objection commonly raised against idealism. But idealism does not imply solipsism. Idealism says everything exists in consciousness. It does not say everything exists in your own individual mind.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Erm, you very clearly referred to things being changed from one element to another by fire, which is wrong.

No I didn't; show me where I said such a thing.

Also, the classical view of the elements suggested that ordinary, everyday matter was composed of combinations of the four elements, while modern science does not maintain that things are made up of combinations of states of matter. So no, they are not the same thing, and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

I don't remember that matter was composed of combinations of the four elements, in the way modern molecules are. They changed into one another, with fire as the initiating force. They could be "mixed together," much like mud, dust, humidity, etc. It is obvious that they are the same thing. You guys just don't want to admit that your modern science contains ancient science after all.

EDIT: even if the ancients thought the four elements composed everything, that was just because they didn't have the knowledge of atomic chemistry yet. They didn't have anything else to compose them with. They are still the same thing.

You commit the sin of pride. Modern isn't so great. We have become more blind since the Enlightenment.

Here is a discussion of Plato's theory of the elements. Notice in the table on that site that the terms that I say are equivalent, are equivalent in the table. So according to Jordan, Plato was disingenuous.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath096/kmath096.htm

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I never said wood is an element. What a foolish thing to say. Of course, according to the Chinese, wood IS an element.

Yep. I misread your statement. My bad.

My discussion is about the five ancient elements, which you are not interested in. But this doctrine plays an important role in typologies like generations theory, as well as esoteric psychology such as astrology. It remains in science under the title "states of matter," but fire and spirit are omitted.

No, it doesn't. As I already explained. That doctrine was specifically refuted and ultimately rejected by early Enlightenment researchers.

When I say fire transforms, I just mean that original materials become heat and ashes.

None of the original materials become heat. The heat released is due to the difference in potential energy states between the before materials (reactants) and after materials (products).

Of course, I'm using a typical agreed upon definition of materials and you probably have no idea what exactly you mean by "materials".

I know what an element is in chemistry.

Nothing you've said so far indicates that you do.

But the fire we see on earth, and the fire in the sun are analogous.

Yes. They are not at all the same thing in reality.

They are hot, they give off heat and light, and they transform things.

Going to need you to define the word "transform". I know what scientist mean when they use the term but I seriously doubt you mean the same thing. It's just like physicists mean one thing when they refer to "observation" in quantum mechanics but you inaccurately represent their statements with an implied, different meaning.

But it moves things. And it can't be conceived as a fixed object. It is force.

Once again you are not using the terms accurately. You can not quote Newton's Laws as supportive of your claim if you don't also use the same meaning of the terms as Newton. Doing so would be outright lying. Of course, it is your standard operating procedure.

In physics, energy and force are two completely different concepts. Forces can transfer energy between bodies or sometimes transform the energy. But, energy is itself absolutely not a force.

We speak different languages. I understand chemistry, though not to the detail and in the conventional language that you do,

You don't understand it at all.

but I also understand Aristotle and esoterics.

Maybe. Not my expertise.

It is quite obvious that the modern states of matter are the old elements.

No. That is not obvious. We have the writings of the Enlightenment researchers that show us that they were completely rejecting the Aristotelean view.

Of course elements did not literally become states of matter; the term state of matter was applied to what had been called element earlier. I know this is what happened. Solid, liquid and gas are the same 3 states which were called the 3 elements earth, water and air respectively. "Water," for example, in the old Greek system did not refer to H20, but to the state of being liquid.

Except, in the Aristotelean view all things were viewed as being made up of these "elements". If you melted copper are you adding "fire" to "earth" and releasing its "water"? What exactly is a copper coin made of?

This view repeatedly failed experimental testing during the Enlightenment and was rejected as wrong. Elements (what things are made of) and states (how things appear to us) were correctly understood to be two different concepts.

What were simply called metals before (not "elements distinct from states"), came to be called elements in the Enlightenment Era by chemists; and more of them were being discovered (including non-metals), and more still were discovered later. Originally, and for centuries, there were only about 9 known metals. Now there are 118 elements.

No. There are only 114 formally recognized with one or two more potentially going to be added in the next few years.

Same things. The old 9 metals are now elements on the periodic table. The old elements are now the states of matter.

Because we discovered that the old view was incorrect. It was wrong, no matter how poetic you find it to be.

Materialists claim "plasma" is a state of matter. I disagree.

No one cares what your know-nothing butt thinks.

Plasma is just ionized atoms.

So? Why does that make it not a state of matter?

Energy is a state of matter. Einstein said so.

No. There you go again substituting your meaning of a word for what scientist actually mean by the term. States of matter can only be applied to matter. Einstein showed us that matter is one form of energy. Form does not equal state.

Ordinary fire releases energy, as you say.

No I did not say that. You still don't get it. A chemical reaction releases the energy. That release is seen by us as a fire.

Nuclear fire transforms elements.

A nuclear reaction is not a fire. And the "transforming" is nothing esoteric. It is simply the breaking apart or formation of atomic nuclei.

But in both cases the forces in atoms are being released, and things change as a result of the fire happening.

No. No. No. There are no "forces" being released. Forces are not the same thing as energy. And for the fifth freaking time, the fire is the result of the release not the cause.

There is indeed a whole lot you need to learn.

Not from you. You don't know anything useful.

Your mind is among the most extremely narrow I have ever encountered.

In other words, I'm the most persistent skeptic you've ever encountered.

And I have known a lot more people, in my longer life than yours.

Surrounding yourself with same thinking New Age booksellers hasn't given you an education in science. All it taught you was to parrot tired, wrong claims about the congruence between 100-year-old "cutting edge" science and the wishes of New Age booksellers.

And I also post on Theology Online.

Couldn't care less.

Now, there are some narrow-minded people there! Christian literalists and creationists. You are even more narrow-minded than they are!

Bwa haaa haaaa. It seems all your arguing with them has done is to teach you to adopt their tactics. You lie, use weasel words, quote mine, throw red herrings, subscribe to pseudo-scientific organizations, conspiracy monger, and babble just like they do.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I indeed read it, and the part above in italics is what I remember.

No. You remember that piece because it is routinely quote mined by New Agers on the web. Seriously. Google the entire quote and see how many websites it takes you to that try to sell you a new book.

How does that enable the observers to see an interference pattern?

An electron interacting with a block, is not interacting with a measuring device.

Holy crap. I found the simplest, accurate description of an actual, not just a gedanken, two-slit electron experiment and you still don't get it.

1- Electrons are sent through the two slits one at a time. The pattern formed on the detecting screen shows a typical interference pattern seen when waves are sent through two slits.

2- When the block is activated, the electron is prevented from going through both slits. It can only go through one slit. We are observing it. The pattern on the detector is not what happens when a wave passes through a single slit (spread out over a wide area with a central region of concentration). Instead we see a pattern matching what happens when a particle goes through a single slit (one narrow band of hits).

3- each individual electron interacts with the mask (block) as it passes through a slit.

Science will do experiments. But Science can tell us nothing about life until they drop their materialist dogma.

Says you. Meanwhile, biology journals are filled with thousands of new things we found out about life every month.

So what?

So, you and your sources don't mind being raging hypocrites. I agree, no news there.

Not unless someone knows and measures the pressure waves. Everything is existence is in a mind; otherwise no-one can say whether it exists or not.

Solipsism.

I doubt consciousness can be measured at all. Your error is to think that unless something can be measured, it does not exist.

I doubt pink unicorn farts can be measured at all. Your error is to think that anything you can imagine is just as real as any other imaginary explanation.

You idolize human technology and make it into God. In reality, no measurement can be accurate; it is approximate.

Isn't it nice when circular reasoning insulates your claims from any sort of examination!

None of that has the slightest thing to do with consciousness or hearing.

Yeah! That's it! Keep redefining those terms to avoid actually checking their validity! Keep going! There is no way that this will render your argument ludicrous in the extreme! [/snark]

And people buy it, and not your chemistry book, because new age answers the things people really need and want to know, while your chemistry baloney only enables technology to make physical life more comfortable, at the cost of pollution.

Yeah. Never mind dying by age fifty without chemistry. That's not important to people today.

Claiming that your ideas are popular because people buy your book has nothing to do with whether your claims are actually accurate. You really are the flip-side to the creationist, climate-denial coin.

Solipsism is an objection commonly raised against idealism. But idealism does not imply solipsism. Idealism says everything exists in consciousness. It does not say everything exists in your own individual mind.

And it has exactly the same level of evidence for and against it that solipsism does . . . none.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No I didn't; show me where I said such a thing.

I don't remember that matter was composed of combinations of the four elements, in the way modern molecules are. They changed into one another, with fire as the initiating force. They could be "mixed together," much like mud, dust, humidity, etc. It is obvious that they are the same thing. You guys just don't want to admit that your modern science contains ancient science after all.

You commit the sin of pride. Modern isn't so great. We have become more blind since the Enlightenment.

Here is a discussion of Plato's theory of the elements. Notice in the table on that site that the terms that I say are equivalent, are equivalent in the table. So according to Jordan, Plato was disingenuous.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath096/kmath096.htm

Quoting others who are as deluded as you is not evidence of anything.

BTW: Did you notice that your table completely ignored one of the Platonic solids? That's a pretty clear clue that you are all just making it up as you go along.

From your source: The idea that all the constituents of nature consist of mixtures of a small number of "elements", and in particular the selection of the four elements of earth, water, air, and fire, is attributed to an earlier Greek philosopher Empedocles of Agrigentum (495-435 BC). Empedocles believed that although these elements (which he called "the roots of all things") could be mixed together in various proportions, the elements themselves were inviolable, and could never be changed. In contrast, one of the intriguing aspects of Plato's theory was that he believed it was possible for the subatomic particles to split up and re-combine into other kinds of atoms. For example, he believed that a corpuscle of liquid, consisting of 120 "type 1" triangles, could be broken up into five corpuscles of plasma, or into two corpuscles of gas and one of plasma. Also, he believed that the "smaller" corpuscles could merge into larger corpuscles, so that (for example) two atoms of plasma could merge and form a single atom of gas. However, since the basic triangles making up "earth" (cubes) are dissimilar to those of the other forms of substance, he held that the triangles comprising cubes cannot be combined into any of the other shapes. If a particle of earth happened to be broken up into its constituent triangles, they will "drift about - whether the breaking up within fire itself, or within a mass of air or water - until its parts meet again somewhere, refit themselves together and become earth again".

Oh yeah. How could we have missed how much this is just like modern chemistry!

Go sell your books elsewhere. No one here is buying it.

Jesus Christ. Where do you two get the time to do this? Is it fun for you or what?

I'm an old semi-retired fart and still have too much to do to even read through all this.

No I didn't; show me where I said such a thing.

With pleasure:

The flame or fire refers to the process of rapid shift of electrons, often transforming the atoms into other types of atoms

Stop dissembling.

Originally Posted by TnT

Jesus Christ. Where do you two get the time to do this? Is it fun for you or what?

I'm an old semi-retired fart and still have too much to do to even read through all this.

Particularly with Vandal. He is on a mission to debunk all of us new agers. Except mostly what he does is answer us by saying "gobbledygook." He forgets when I write new age gobbledygook, it is not written for him to read. There might be others reading this forum besides him, although Vandal apparently thinks he is the only one who counts.

But yes, I waste too much time on this forum; admitted.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

No, it doesn't. As I already explained. That doctrine was specifically refuted and ultimately rejected by early Enlightenment researchers.

And yet there they are, plain as day! The 4 elements are the 4 states of matter.

None of the original materials become heat. The heat released is due to the difference in potential energy states between the before materials (reactants) and after materials (products).

I understand, professor.

In physics, energy and force are two completely different concepts. Forces can transfer energy between bodies or sometimes transform the energy. But, energy is itself absolutely not a force.

I don't see what else it would be.

No. That is not obvious. We have the writings of the Enlightenment researchers that show us that they were completely rejecting the Aristotelean view.

Yes, it IS obvious. Enlightenment writers were just covering up.

Except, in the Aristotelean view all things were viewed as being made up of these "elements". If you melted copper are you adding "fire" to "earth" and releasing its "water"? What exactly is a copper coin made of?

This view repeatedly failed experimental testing during the Enlightenment and was rejected as wrong. Elements (what things are made of) and states (how things appear to us) were correctly understood to be two different concepts.

But the ancients did not have a separate concept of element from what we know as states. Now we understand, in chemistry, that they are separate concepts. They didn't then.

No. There are only 114 formally recognized with one or two more potentially going to be added in the next few years.

http://www.ptable.com/

No one cares what your know-nothing butt thinks.

Like TnT says, how do you find the time for just making insults against people?

So? Why does that make it not a state of matter?

How is plasma different from gas, liquid or solid?

No. There you go again substituting your meaning of a word for what scientist actually mean by the term. States of matter can only be applied to matter. Einstein showed us that matter is one form of energy. Form does not equal state.

I'll keep my meaning, thanks. Einstein showed matter and energy are the same thing.

No I did not say that. You still don't get it. A chemical reaction releases the energy. That release is seen by us as a fire.

So when we see a flame, what we see is "release of energy." The ancients called that an element or state of matter. I like to call that 4th element "energy." It is not precisely correct in your terms. But whatever you call it, fire seems to be very useful in providing power, light and heat for us. It is also very destructive.

A nuclear reaction is not a fire. And the "transforming" is nothing esoteric. It is simply the breaking apart or formation of atomic nuclei.

Also releasing energy, like a fire.

No. No. No. There are no "forces" being released. Forces are not the same thing as energy. And for the fifth freaking time, the fire is the result of the release not the cause.

I just said things change as a result of the fire happening, Mr. Champion Nitpicker. That statement does not specify a cause of the fire.

Not from you. You don't know anything useful.

So why say so?

In other words, I'm the most persistent skeptic you've ever encountered.

And skeptics of your kind are nothing but dogmatists. You don't seek the truth; you merely defend your dogma.

Surrounding yourself with same thinking New Age booksellers hasn't given you an education in science. All it taught you was to parrot tired, wrong claims about the congruence between 100-year-old "cutting edge" science and the wishes of New Age booksellers.

Back atcha. The correct term is new age authors. Authors don't necessarily sell books. They may write them and offer them for sale, but they don't run book stores on the web or at brick and mortar stores.

100-year old is nothing at all. It ought to convince you that scientists are just novices.

Bwa haaa haaaa. It seems all your arguing with them has done is to teach you to adopt their tactics. You lie, use weasel words, quote mine, throw red herrings, subscribe to pseudo-scientific organizations, conspiracy monger, and babble just like they do.

You are just like them. You are one of them.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

No. You remember that piece because it is routinely quote mined by New Agers on the web. Seriously. Google the entire quote and see how many websites it takes you to that try to sell you a new book.

I read that book even before the new age movement began (and of course long before the web began!), and I referred to it in my masters degree paper (it's listed in the bibliography).
http://philosopherswheel.com/rrr.html
Aah, I found it Section 1, Part 2 # E, and note 23.

Oooh, I went there:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...20is%20created.

not too many new age woo books on sale on the first two pages, I don't think.....

Holy crap. I found the simplest, accurate description of an actual, not just a gedanken, two-slit electron experiment and you still don't get it.

1- Electrons are sent through the two slits one at a time. The pattern formed on the detecting screen shows a typical interference pattern seen when waves are sent through two slits.

2- When the block is activated, the electron is prevented from going through both slits. It can only go through one slit. We are observing it. The pattern on the detector is not what happens when a wave passes through a single slit (spread out over a wide area with a central region of concentration). Instead we see a pattern matching what happens when a particle goes through a single slit (one narrow band of hits).

3- each individual electron interacts with the mask (block) as it passes through a slit.

My comments still apply.

Claiming that your ideas are popular because people buy your book has nothing to do with whether your claims are actually accurate. You really are the flip-side to the creationist, climate-denial coin.

No YOU are.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Quoting others who are as deluded as you is not evidence of anything.

BTW: Did you notice that your table completely ignored one of the Platonic solids? That's a pretty clear clue that you are all just making it up as you go along.

What did I make up?

Dodecahedron corresponds to the fifth element, which you completely deny.

Go sell your books elsewhere. No one here is buying it.

My book???!!! lol

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

With pleasure:

Stop dissembling.

I guess I misspoke; I meant molecules.

Interesting Jeopardy show I watched today, considering the strange discussion I have been indulging in with Vandal and Jordan (both of whom I normally ignore); I aced a chemistry category, but missed the final which was about a Greek philosopher.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

No. There are only 114 formally recognized with one or two more potentially going to be added in the next few years.

Yeah, Lv is pretty new.

Here's some of these:

The chalcogens (/ˈkælkədʒɨnz/) are the chemical elements in group 16 of the periodic table. This group is also known as the oxygen family. It consists of the elements oxygen (O), sulfur (S), selenium (Se), tellurium (Te), and the radioactive element polonium (Po). The synthetic element livermorium (Lv) is predicted to be a chalcogen as well.[




Eric, sulfur is right below oxygen on the periodic table. I can use that to predict that sulfur can make fires when reacted with stuff like aluminum.

No I did not say that. You still don't get it. A chemical reaction releases the energy. That release is seen by us as a fire.

Eric, that is correct. If you gather some aluminum dust and sulfur dust you can make a fire. See above.

Surrounding yourself with same thinking New Age booksellers hasn't given you an education in science. All it taught you was to parrot tired, wrong claims about the congruence between 100-year-old "cutting edge" science and the wishes of New Age booksellers.

OK. On behalf of Vandal, another parrot award for Eric.

Originally Posted by TnT

Jesus Christ. Where do you two get the time to do this? Is it fun for you or what?

It has to be fun for them because all that screed can be reduced to 2 things.

Vandal: [GenX scientist, thinks New Age woo-woo is for the birds and is chicken shit]
Eric: [New Age Hippy type Boomer, New Age is awesome Thinks modern science is for the birds and is chicken shit]

I'm an old semi-retired fart and still have too much to do to even read through all this.

I don't read all of it. However, there are places to dish Eric another bird award and stick some youtube sulfur reactions out there.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

It has to be fun for them because all that screed can be reduced to 2 things.

Vandal: [GenX scientist, thinks New Age woo-woo is for the birds and is chicken shit]

Scientist? Not any more. He's a lyin', cheatin' mean ol' progagandist and that's all.

Eric: [New Age Hippy type Boomer, New Age is awesome Thinks modern science is for the birds and is chicken shit]

No, modern science is not for the birds; science and religion dogma are both for the birds. I don't know how you can have me pegged so wrong, Rags. And "for the birds" as a saying is not really respectful to the birds. But then, science dogma is not fair to the birds either. Materialist science dogma reduces birds to machine-like automatic chemical reactions. So Rags, you should be ashamed of yourself for not respecting the birds. You deserve a dodo award for that. As you listen to the mockingbird or rain crow outside your Okie window, imagine him singing to you, "R-E-S-P-E-C-T; Find out what it means to me!"

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Eric, sulfur is right below oxygen on the periodic table. I can use that to predict that sulfur can make fires when reacted with stuff like aluminum.

Yes, that's what I pointed out.

Eric, that is correct. If you gather some aluminum dust and sulfur dust you can make a fire. See above.

Just what do you guys say the flame of a fire consists of? Just what is in that thang? Don't touch it to find out, please.

Originally Posted by TnT

Jesus Christ. Where do you two get the time to do this?

Teacher on summer break.

Is it fun for you or what?

Yes.

I'm an old semi-retired fart and still have too much to do to even read through all this.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And yet there they are, plain as day! The 4 elements are the 4 states of matter.

Uhm, problem. There are more than four states of matter. What about supercritical fluids, super fluids, super solids, and Bose-Einstein condensates?

I understand, professor.

I don't see what else it would be.

Because you don't understand the science at all.

Yes, it IS obvious. Enlightenment writers were just covering up.

I see, outright rejection equals covering up in your vocabulary.

But the ancients did not have a separate concept of element from what we know as states. Now we understand, in chemistry, that they are separate concepts. They didn't then.

Yes. The ancient ideas were completely wrong.

http://www.ptable.com/

Please stop referring to things that you don't understand. The elements with three letter symbols like Uus are place holders for elements that have not been actually discovered yet.

Like TnT says, how do you find the time for just making insults against people?

The same way you find the time to trash and denigrate the work of thousands of scientists the world over.

How is plasma different from gas, liquid or solid?

Gases, liquids and solids are made out of electromagnetically neutral particles.

I'll keep my meaning, thanks. Einstein showed matter and energy are the same thing.

Of course you'll keep your own meaning, because that will allow you to misrepresent what scientists are actually talking about whenever you need to.

So when we see a flame, what we see is "release of energy."

You happen to see only some of the energy as photons in the visible to human band.

The ancients called that an element or state of matter.

The ancients were wrong.

I like to call that 4th element "energy." It is not precisely correct in your terms.

Yep. You are misrepresenting science when you say such things. If you want to use your own definitions that's fine as long as you acknowledge that the actual science does not support your "poetic" license.

But whatever you call it, fire seems to be very useful in providing power, light and heat for us. It is also very destructive.

Also releasing energy, like a fire.

Analogies are not facts.

I just said things change as a result of the fire happening, Mr. Champion Nitpicker.

And for the sixth flipping time, that is wrong. It is backwards. As a result of things changing (chemical reaction), we see a fire.

That statement does not specify a cause of the fire.

In the English language "as a result of" implies what follows is the cause.

So why say so?

Because you typically take a non-comment as tacit approval of your claims.

And skeptics of your kind are nothing but dogmatists. You don't seek the truth; you merely defend your dogma.

Projection at its finest.

Back atcha. The correct term is new age authors. Authors don't necessarily sell books. They may write them and offer them for sale, but they don't run book stores on the web or at brick and mortar stores.

1- Some New Agers do in fact directly sell their books. Are you really going to claim you've never been to a convention with writers selling their books or never seen websites were you can order their books directly from a stack they keep in their garage?

2- That's all that they do. They don't do research. They don't conduct tests. They just think up any random stuff to say and write it down and sell it to rubes like you.

100-year old is nothing at all. It ought to convince you that scientists are just novices.

The 100-year-old statement was to point out that the New Agers in your videos are being disingenuous when they claim that "science is now revealing" something related to their gobbledygook.

You are just like them. You are one of them.

Projection.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, that's what I pointed out.


Just what do you guys say the flame of a fire consists of? Just what is in that thang? Don't touch it to find out, please.

A flame is mostly gas particles (molecules of carbon dioxide and water) at very high temperatures with some ionized particles (plasma) briefly mixed in. There are also some solid clumps of soot and/or ash. But, the clumps are so small that the thermal energy of the surrounding gas is enough to keep them suspended. We call that colloid smoke.

As the thermal energy of the super hot gas and solid particles is dissipated to the surrounding medium (through convection and radiation) , some of that energy is released as visible photons. As some of the plasma particles are being de-ionized, they will also emit photons of visible light. Depending on the elements making up the plasma, the color of the light can vary. That's how fireworks and other colored flames work.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Uhm, problem. There are more than four states of matter. What about supercritical fluids, super fluids, super solids, and Bose-Einstein condensates?

A fluid is a fluid is a fluid; a solid is a solid is a solid is a condensate is a solid.....

Please stop referring to things that you don't understand. The elements with three letter symbols like Uus are place holders for elements that have not been actually discovered yet.

Ha! I guess I caught you off your game and behind the curve. According to wikipedia:

Ununtrium is the temporary name of a chemical element with the temporary symbol Uut and atomic number 113. Also known as eka-thallium or simply element 113, is an extremely radioactive synthetic element (an element that can be created in a laboratory but is not found in nature); the most stable known isotope, ununtrium-286, has a half-life of 20 seconds. Ununtrium was first created in 2003 by the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununtrium

But would Vandal ever admit a mistake? Not likely.

The same way you find the time to trash and denigrate the work of thousands of scientists the world over.

But you still find time just to throw insults at people.

Trashed a scientist's work? I'm not so sure about that one. The fiercesome foursome of atheism maybe: Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins.

Gases, liquids and solids are made out of electromagnetically neutral particles.

So what? Don't ionized gases behave the same way as gases in general?

You happen to see only some of the energy as photons in the visible to human band.

So you admit that what we see is energy, as I said. (no, you won't admit I was right).

Yep. You are misrepresenting science when you say such things. If you want to use your own definitions that's fine as long as you acknowledge that the actual science does not support your "poetic" license.

OK, unless it does.

Analogies are not facts.

The energy released by the Sun is not energy, then?

And for the sixth flipping time, that is wrong. It is backwards. As a result of things changing (chemical reaction), we see a fire.

But the fire happens, and things change. They didn't change before there was a fire. The fire is the changing.

Because you typically take a non-comment as tacit approval of your claims.

No I don't. Your theory of my (or others') behavior is just an excuse to insult someone. You are mean-spirited, defensive, and unwilling to conduct an honest dialogue.

Your comments typically don't provide any information. When they sometimes do, it is information circumscribed within your dogma. But it might be correct within those limits.

1- Some New Agers do in fact directly sell their books. Are you really going to claim you've never been to a convention with writers selling their books or never seen websites were you can order their books directly from a stack they keep in their garage?

No, I have done both myself. But you refer to new age authors as booksellers; that is as inaccurate as anything you say I have said. A "bookseller" only sells books; new age authors (or others you might label as new age) also write books.

2- That's all that they do. They don't do research. They don't conduct tests. They just think up any random stuff to say and write it down and sell it to rubes like you.

Translation: they don't fully subscribe to your dogma about the only true source of knowledge; the way, the truth and the life.

The 100-year-old statement was to point out that the New Agers in your videos are being disingenuous when they claim that "science is now revealing" something related to their gobbledygook.

You're wrong again, as usual. The double-slit experiment is less than 100 years old. I can't find a precise date for one experiment off-hand, but quantum theories were developed in the 1920s. Further experiments in the 1960s until today have demonstrated non-locality and quantum-entanglement; ideas popular with new agers, but nevertheless the work of scientists.

How you can be as inaccurate as that, and still manage to convince Rags that you are offering "information," is hard to figure indeed.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Scientist? Not any more. He's a lyin', cheatin' mean ol' progagandist and that's all.

OK, I get it. Since you tend to have nothing real to dispute what Vandal's saying, you resort to ad-homs. Got it.

No, modern science is not for the birds; science and religion dogma are both for the birds. I don't know how you can have me pegged so wrong, Rags. And "for the birds" as a saying is not really respectful to the birds.

"...for the birds" is a common English idiom. If you prefer I can use "it's like polishing a turd". Hey, it even rhymes.

But then, science dogma is not fair to the birds either. Materialist science dogma reduces birds to machine-like automatic chemical reactions. So Rags, you should be ashamed of yourself for not respecting the birds. You deserve a dodo award for that. As you listen to the mockingbird or rain crow outside your Okie window, imagine him singing to you, "R-E-S-P-E-C-T; Find out what it means to me!"

You've lost it.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

A flame is mostly gas particles (molecules of carbon dioxide and water) at very high temperatures with some ionized particles (plasma) briefly mixed in. There are also some solid clumps of soot and/or ash. But, the clumps are so small that the thermal energy of the surrounding gas is enough to keep them suspended. We call that colloid smoke.

Smoke in ancient terms would seem to be a combo of gas and solid with some fiery sparks.

You say a flame is essentially a hot gas. And yet gas that isn't a fire (or else a solid, or a liquid, that isn't a fire) often erupts into flame when it's heated up to the right temperature, just as liquid evaporates into a gas when heated up, and a solid melts into liquid when heated up. Seems like a "state of matter" to me. As my source said, heat is the driving factor in the shift between the states, and fire emits the heat.

What in your world view explains just why these states of matter occur; these 4, and no others, and with shifts just at particular temperatures? Seems mysterious and archetypal to me. That is: explained by the formal qualities, not by physical properties. You can say that water will boil at 212 degrees, but why at that degree and not others? Why are there four states, with these 4 qualities, and a shift at a particular temperature, while at most temperatures there is no shift?

You think your physics explains these things, and thus takes the wonder out of Nature. You say my awareness of wonder in Nature is only ignorance. I understand that what I say means not a whit to you. But for me, the wonder and miracle of life and nature is still there, and the mystery is still there. Your physics does not take it away, not because I don't understand it, but because it really doesn't explain very much.

Why do you post on a site based on a work that says that the 4 states of matter are archetypes, and that these archetypes are the basis for the 4 generation archetypes?

As the thermal energy of the super hot gas and solid particles is dissipated to the surrounding medium (through convection and radiation) , some of that energy is released as visible photons.

So "energy" is released in the form of light.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

OK, I get it. Since you tend to have nothing real to dispute what Vandal's saying, you resort to ad-homs. Got it.

Since he doesn't say anything himself but ad homs, there's nothing to dispute.

And apparently you refuse to admit that you mischaracterized me.

You've lost it.

My tongue got lost in my cheek. Nevertheless, I made some important points with it.