So, steal a car, have the police chase you and then sue them for the resulting crash?

[Deleted]

Fire is violent. Fire is forcible.

And people still stand in the fire btw, even when they know this.

Maybe I should stop my stupid jokes....

[KingHorse]

Yes, and flames ALWAYS ISSUE FORTH SUDDENLY, AND FORCIBLY. That is the nature of flames. That is the nature of fire.
Until a fire, is a fire, it is merely smoldering. In order for flames to exist, they BURST into existence.

No, they don't.

A fire is multiple flames bursting into existence. In order for it to BE a fire, flames must burst forth. Until flames have burst, and there is only overheating/smoking going on, it is smoldering, or overheating, or smoking. It is NOT on fire. The moment flames have BURST, it is on fire. Fire is violent. Fire is forcible. A single flame falls under both those definitions as well.

You're missing plenty, chum.

I'm missing Wells, as he at least makes sense. Sometimes.

[Slanderize]

No, they don't.



I'm missing Wells, as he at least makes sense. Sometimes.

Lmao.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flame
1. The zone of burning gases and fine suspended matter associated with rapid combustion; a hot, glowing mass of burning gas or vapor.
2. The condition of active, blazing combustion: burst into flame.

So yes, they do. I still find it hilarious you're out here beating this dead horse all so you can justify your asinine post trying to debase some random person on the internet saying "that shit only happens in the movies." It obviously doesn't. You simply wish to cling to this half assed statement that somehow flames, and fire, do not burst forth. They somehow slowly grow, like a tomato plant. It's truly a gut busting experience.

Oh yeah: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fire
a. A rapid, persistent chemical change that releases heat and light and is accompanied by flame, especially the exothermic oxidation of a combustible substance.
b. Burning fuel or other material: a cooking fire; a forest fire.

Ah yes, this game is so much fun.

[KingHorse]

I still find it hilarious you're out here beating this dead horse all so you can justify your asinine post trying to debase some random person on the internet saying "that shit only happens in the movies." It obviously doesn't. You simply wish to cling to this half assed statement that somehow flames, and fire, do not burst forth. They somehow slowly grow, like a tomato plant. It's truly a gut busting experience.

Ah yes, this game is so much fun.

Show me where I said fire only grows slowly, only smoulders, or anything even vaguely like that. I suppose your idea of fun is to pretend I said something I didn't, then prove your own lie wrong. Whatever works for you.

Lmao.

Indeed, your grasping at straws because you can't understand that there is more than one verb to describe starting a fire is pretty funny. In a sad sort of way.

[Creotor]

This thread is now about definitions of words/concepts such as burst, smolder and consumed by (fire).

[KingHorse]

This thread is now about definitions of words/concepts such as burst, smolder and consumed by (fire).

I have a fever right now. I'm going to lean on that as my excuse for hanging on to this. But it is pretty funny.

[Slanderize]

Show me where I said fire only grows slowly, only smoulders, or anything even vaguely like that. I suppose your idea of fun is to pretend I said something I didn't, then prove your own lie wrong. Whatever works for you.



Indeed, your grasping at straws because you can't understand that there is more than one verb to describe starting a fire is pretty funny. In a sad sort of way.

All I stated, was that a car can burst into flames, while idling in traffic. At which point in time you disagreed with me, stating that a car can only burst into flames through a violent crash. A car catching on fire in traffic, is not the same as a car bursting into flames.

My point, is that AS SOON AS A CAR IS ON FIRE, it has BURST INTO FLAMES. Flames BURST into existence. The definition states that, the synonyms state that. You disagree with it, and then somehow proclaim I'm grasping at straws, and I'm trying to "prove my own lie wrong." My "lie" is that as soon as a car IS ON FIRE, it has BURST INTO FLAMES. It has not yet been consumed by fire, which would take anywhere from forty seconds to two minutes, AFTER it has burst into flames.

The only thing I said in regards to a time is that it can take a car overheating two minutes easily BEFORE it bursts into flames. However, once there is fire. IT HAS BURST INTO FLAMES.

Your entire argument here has been that a car can "catch fire" but not "burst into flames." Which is obviously wrong. You just refuse to admit it, and keep on beating that dead horse. I can quote the post you stated this, if you really insist. I believe it's on page 8.

Now we can keep arguing over this as much as you desire, you're the one who wanted to play this game after all. The point still stands, you're wrong. The definitions of the words you chose, were chosen incorrectly. You then decide to start linking dictionary sites to me, to somehow portray that I do not understand the definitions of my native language. Obviously I do. Obviously, you simply do not comprehend that "catching on fire" is the SAME thing as "burst into flames."

[ngc2440]

So A sometimes equals B and A sometimes equals C, therefor A always equals B?

Flames don't always "BURST into existence". By stating that it just shows how little you know about fire in general. Although I suppose if all you have to go by is a match and movies then yes, I suppose you are right. Shamelessly stolen from wikipedia.

Color and temperature of a flame are dependent on the type of fuel involved in the combustion, as, for example, when a lighter is held to a candle. The applied heat causes the fuel molecules in the candle wax to vaporize. In this state they can then readily react with oxygen in the air, which gives off enough heat in the subsequent exothermic reaction to vaporize yet more fuel, thus sustaining a consistent flame. The high temperature of the flame causes the vaporized fuel molecules to decompose, forming various incomplete combustion products and free radicals, and these products then react with each other and with the oxidizer involved in the reaction. Sufficient energy in the flame will excite the electrons in some of the transient reaction intermediates such as CH and C2, which results in the emission of visible light as these substances release their excess energy. As the combustion temperature of a flame increases (if the flame contains small particles of unburnt carbon or other material), so does the average energy of the electromagnetic radiation given off by the flame (see blackbody).

[KingHorse]

Obviously, you simply do not comprehend that "catching on fire" is the SAME thing as "burst into flames."

You're right, I don't. Because it's not the same thing. As the poster above me pointed out, better than my fevered brain could manage.

[Slanderize]

So A sometimes equals B and A sometimes equals C, therefor A always equals B?

Flames don't always "BURST into existence". By stating that it just shows how little you know about fire in general. Although I suppose if all you have to go by is a match and movies then yes, I suppose you are right. Shamelessly stolen from wikipedia.

So your defense to the point of flames not always bursting into existence is that the color of a flame changes based upon the materials that are being consumed?
The beginning of that explanation defends my point even further. The existing flame is used to apply heat which causes the fuel molecules in the candle wax to vaporize. At that point, they can readily react with oxygen in the air, which THEN gives off enough heat in the ambient area to vaporize more fuel, I.E. the candle wick, and it then sustains a consistent flame.

All this is saying is that when you take a lighter, and you hold it next to the wick of a candle, it begins igniting the wick, and melting the wax, which reacts with the oxygen to apply enough ambient heat to the area of the wick in order for a flame to BURST OUT!! Isn't that amazing?!

It can take anywhere from 2 seconds to a minute before that flame happens, but as soon as the flame has burst out, it has burst into a flame.

It then continues on to explain how an existing flame will change color through various means.

Also, while I really enjoy the cheap shot at "movies and match sticks" this oh so SOPHISTICATED slant towards me is using a cigarette lighter, and a candle.
I have previously already used a candle in this conversation. Do you wanna play this game too?!

---------- Post added 2012-04-29 at 09:08 PM ----------

You're right, I don't. Because it's not the same thing. As the poster above me pointed out, better than my fevered brain could manage.

It is the same thing. The post he stated proves it's the same thing, merely with chemicals. The dictionary links I provided you gave you the exact same thing, through literary means.

Flames burst into existence. Something can be hot, hot to the point of scorching skin. Take a block of wood for instance. You take a splinter of wood, and heat it up over some charcoal. That log splint will heat up, and heat up, and heat up, long before flames burst forth, it'll start to char. The wood will start turning black, ash will start forming, and you'll see red veins through the wood. No flames though, not even an inkling of a flame. Just heat. If you touch the top of that splint, it'll melt your skin in under 6 seconds if you don't move.

As soon as that splint gets hot enough, it reaches its "burn point" flames BURST OUT.
You can keep arguing, but you're wrong.

[ngc2440]

I did an experiment just now. I lit a match and the head of the match burst into flames. I don't think anyone would disagree that what happened was a burst of energy quickly engulfing the head of the match in fire. I then took the lit match and put it next to a candle. If Sladerize is correct the wick of the candle would display some of the same properties that the match just did. That did not happen though. I watched the fire move from the end of the match to the end of the wick smoothly and at no point did the flame at the end of the wick get to the same proportions as the flame at the end of the match. In fact when I pulled the match away the flame at the end of the wick was rather small and it took it a couple seconds to grow to an iconic flame.

To sum it up while some flames can be brought into existence through a burst-like action, not all flames do.

[smelltheglove]

well guys, congrats on a successful thread-jacking

[Slanderize]

I did an experiment just now. I lit a match and the head of the match burst into flames. I don't think anyone would disagree that what happened was a burst of energy quickly engulfing the head of the match in fire. I then took the lit match and put it next to a candle. If Sladerize is correct the wick of the candle would display some of the same properties that the match just did. That did not happen though. I watched the fire move from the end of the match to the end of the wick smoothly and at no point did the flame at the end of the wick get to the same proportions as the flame at the end of the match. In fact when I pulled the match away the flame at the end of the wick was rather small and it took it a couple seconds to grow to an iconic flame.


To sum it up while some flames can be brought into existence through a burst-like action, not all flames do.

As the aforementioned post already included, a flame is a flame. A flame burst into existence. A flame will grow larger, but that is still a flame bursting into existence. A flame is immediate. A flame can always grow larger, and consume more materials.

"Bursting into flames" is the EXACT SAME THING as "Catching on fire." "Catching on fire" is "Bursting into a flame." It didn't catch on fire, then burst into a flame. A flame bursted out, and it "caught on fire." Arguably if anything, after a flame bursts out, something can "catch more on fire" just as it can "burst more flame" but bursting INTO a flame is the EXACT SAME THING as catching ON fire.

[ngc2440]

Thread wasn't going anywhere anyways. Not that this new conversation is going anywhere when the other person resorts to "but you're wrong" dang near every post. -shrug- Nothing can be said to change his mind because he feels that he has the correct answer and anything deviating away from that is absolutely wrong. Wish I could go back in time when I thought in absolutes.

"Bursting into flames" is the EXACT SAME THING as "Catching on fire." "Catching on fire" is "Bursting into a flame." It didn't catch on fire, then burst into a flame. A flame bursted out, and it "caught on fire." Arguably if anything, after a flame bursts out, something can "catch more on fire" just as it can "burst more flame" but bursting INTO a flame is the EXACT SAME THING as catching ON fire.

I swear it is like I am arguing with my 7th grade science teacher and trying to explain to him that our sun is a star. /facepalm

[Deleted]

Thread wasn't going anywhere anyways. Not that this new conversation is going anywhere when the other person resorts to "but you're wrong" dang near every post. -shrug- Nothing can be said to change his mind because he feels that he has the correct answer and anything deviating away from that is absolutely wrong. Wish I could go back in time when I thought in absolutes.

Buuuuut aren't you doing the same?

(Or well... basicly everybody)

[ngc2440]

Buuuuut aren't you doing the same?

(Or well... basicly everybody)

I suppose I am now that I think about it. Hmm maybe I could have rephrased that. Oh well, can't be bothered.

[MorradinCC]

The cops might have been too harsh but honestly it would have never happened if those kids didn't take the car.

[dignaidgnaiud]

Maybe he didnt steal the car, Maybe he just was being attack by walrus vikings

[Deleted]

Maybe he didnt steal the car, Maybe he just was being attack by walrus vikings

Omg that is a possibility.

[MorradinCC]

Walrus Vikings do have a tendency to chase folks, maybe they thought the kid had fish?