By which you mean all the claims of nasa lies you've made that we've debunked for thousands of pages at this point.

can you remind me again how you debunked this lie from nasa:



This is just ONE glaring lie where nasa admits that actornaughts never left earths atmosphere.

Lol

I think NASA will try to pull it off, the technology is already available to completely fake a person - video and voice.
They just need to convive some idiots farming potatoes under a glass dome sounds cool (even though thats whats already happening)

just found this

https://blink.ucsd.edu/safety/research-lab/chemical/gas/storage.html#Flammable,-oxidizing,-and-corro

Oxidizing gases
See Oxygen System Safety (PDF) for more detailed information on oxygen system hazards and safety.
Storage:
Do not permit oil or grease to come in contact with compressed oxidizing gases — explosions may occur!



you haven't debunked anything - just shown your a raging zealot about his fundamentalist Satanic Death Cult.

cutting edge

Zeus son fighting flat earthers... Interesting!

Because oxygen is not fuel.

We're in a science-y topic. I can't be asked to superimpose my understanding for yours. Convection is heat transfer, and we're talking about combustion.

You can't even be consistent about what it is that you think you want a scientific paper on. But the last time you asked, I provided a link to the long list of papers by Einstein that comprise his theories of general and special relativity. But since you're back on adsorption, I want to know how you made the mental leap from a topic discussing HOW to separate gases from each other constitutes any kind of proof that oxygen burns. I don't need to provide a scientific paper refuting anything, because you haven't made a case that there's anything to refute. You're literally saying "here's how to separate nitrogen from oxygen, now prove to me that oxygen doesn't burn." Non sequitur. To the max. Methane and superheated water (Brown's gas) are flammable, they just don't burn absent an oxidizer and heat

Sorry i'm not a JPL Jet Engine Designer, nor do i have a billion dollars and 30 years to test everything just to prove things to you. Whether Oxygen can can burn - (you insist that is what i'm talking about when I'm not because it's an irrelevant issue), I did present evidence air can be used "like" a fuel source - in that it can explode, air can be separated and compressed leaving elements that are combustible or the oxygen can be used in a magnetic levitation kinda way. Thats three very plausible examples that are much more reasonable than Jumbo Jets carrying around 30 tanks fill of Jet Fuel sloshing around for these long distance flights. Do you know how much that fuel would weigh? We simply can't make airplane fuel tanks bigger, Thats why the Spruce Goose built in the 30s couldn't get higher than 100 feet off the ground, it was too heavy, so despite your ""usual" wicca-pedi knowledge, science has known about this issue for 90 years, and thats how far you are in dragging behind.



awww so cute child, now feel free to grab a sucker, I keep them in a jar in the corner of my Jet hanger.

Oxygen always requires a fuel to combust.
The only element in air that can be separated that is useful to combustion is Oxygen.

This post was edited by remco6 on Jul 21 2019 10:24am