Astro priest's tell use that hydrogen burning at 15 million kelvin degrees produces fusion, is that combustion burning like you see here on earth - no, but still hot enough to create fusion.
Combustion burning doesn't actually create a fraction of the heat required.

this is funny.

What is the difference between combustion and burning?

Benoit Cushman-Roisin
Benoit Cushman-Roisin, Professor of Engineering Sciences at Dartmouth College. Author of Introductio...
3.7k Views
Depends on how much you want to earn as a consultant. For example, if you are providing advice on waste disposal, your hourly fee could increase according to whether you speak of
- burning
- combustion
- incineration
- thermal oxidation.
Same advice, different fees.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jul 22 2016 05:45pm

Interestingly in that video they still talk about burning something in space involving oxygen, just that less of it is needed and it still works.

So still I'm asking what is YOUR definition of "burning". Just saying no oxygen is needed is no answer.

This post was edited by ScotchBonnet on Jul 22 2016 05:59pm

Burning in the sense of fire/combustion has three main requirements: heat (source of ignition), a fuel and an oxidising agent (oxidiser).

Oxidisers, including oxygen, serve the purpose of snatching electrons or breaking off Hydrogen chemically bonded from the fuel molecules.
Oxygen is the most common and freely available oxidiser on Earth's surface, but not the only one.

So the answer is yes, things can burn without Oxygen but with another oxidiser like Chlorine, Fluorine etc.

and according to Astro priests - hydrogen can burn at 15 million k kelvin to create fusion, just don't ask too many questions or you're going to get into circle jerk magical logic

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jul 22 2016 06:01pm

yep yep yep, ofc u know a thing or two about burning...

u've been burned so many times here in the science section that u've earned a PhD in the subject

but not as much as the burn on your right palm.

Funny, comming from a guy who has a gif image of a girl shaking her ass on his profile.

Lubrication > no hand dirability loss and also gives IAS

That is true even though combustion is a specific term related to oxygen and the activation energy not necessarily has to be heat.



That is the definition of burning that most people would think of. A redox reaction.



And here you proved yourself that "burning" is not the same as "burning", which was actually my point. In case of fusion there is no redox reaction involved. Nevertheless there can be fusion in the presence of C, N or O but they will serve as a catalyst. That is no circular logic. These are two different things described by the same word.

You can also say a plasma is "burning" and still it is something completely different than a normal fire "burning".

when i was like 10 in school and asked to describe the sun i said 'a burning ball of gas'
and was told that i was actually wrong about the burning bit
those memories...




Btw can't be fucked with this discussion, is the sun burning in the end? ^^
(i mean the real sun btw, not the light bulb 20 miles away on flat earth)

This post was edited by dakariii on Jul 23 2016 10:23am

Did your teacher make you write out 50 lines of "Burning is not Burning because we understand what the sun is and we don't worship it even though it the source for all the energy that sustains important life and gives us gravity which make the earth circle the sun even though we can't actually explain what gravity is but the Sun is definately Fusion, at least we're pretty sure, i mean it has to be fusion right? I mean science is 100% right all the time, they never ever have been wrong and i will have pure faith in everything they say. Amen"

and by amen - i don't mean amen-ra - the sun of god.



This post was edited by card_sultan on Jul 23 2016 11:55am

Isn't it Amun-Ra

guess something has to pull the sun along right?