Here's a fancy thought experiment; imagine lighting a candle at room temperature. The flame is red right? Classic red. Nothing special. Now... imagine that candle was lit in a room as hot as the sun. Still red, or is it blue?
The reason I ask is because growing up I was taught that blue flame is hotter than red but I have never seen blue flame occur naturally. Not even forest fires or lava burning down stuff makes a blue flame. The sun is orange flame. The only blue space stuff I know of are cold planets. So... how does fire ever get so hot in nature for it to be blue? Is it a human creation or did blue flame exist before we invented the means to create blue flame with tools?
but temperature isn't the only determinant for colour tbqh
Daniel Hughes
So what flame has moods that determine its color? No, trust me, I know a thing or two about the natural sciences and fire is temperature with a physical appearance. There aren't any other things that determine fire apart from temperature. It's heat. It isn't a living organism that occasionally chooses to be one color. It's that way because of the temperature.
Anthony Carter
because everyhing that you see burning (wood, paper, matchsticks, etc) is all the same thing: cellulose propane etc flames are blue because propane burns hotter than cellulose the reason that some fires burn hotter than others is a property known has enthalpy of combustion, which involves the energy released when breaking the bonds in the fuel source more energy means different colored flames: red, yellow, white, blue the other user mentioning there's more to flame color than heat is absolutely right, a common high school lab is to burn salts of different metals and notice the colors (Cu salts are green, etc- think fireworks), but this is a different mechanic entirely
also the sun is not fire
Carson Murphy
>The spectra of cool flames consist of several bands and are dominated by the blue and violet ones – thus the flame usually appears pale blue.
Parker Powell
>There aren't any other things that determine fire apart from temperature it's almost like youve never taken a high school chemistry class
>and fire is temperature with a physical appearance
Ryder Thomas
...
Leo Anderson
You are the stupidest poster I have ever seen.
Brody Turner
leave it to tripfags to be absolutely retarded
Robert Reyes
/thread
Bentley Bell
> Suns flame is orange flame
Here's your problem, op. The sun doesn't produce flame, and it isn't orange. If I do recall correctly the sun is white.
Easton Gomez
I've never seen a red flame on a candle before. They are always yellow, white, and blue.
Kayden Cruz
you're lying
Ethan Peterson
You can't light a candle in a room as hot as the sun because the oxygen would have long since ionized, preventing ignition. That's assuming you had some candle that could also withstand that temperature.
But this has nothing to do with the color of a flame. A candle will burn the same whether it's -60 or + 100 degrees Fahrenheit
Gavin Nelson
>or lava There you go
Connor King
...
Caleb Wilson
it has to do with what is reacting with oxygen
anything that you burn that is carbon will give you a classic flame and create Co2, to get a different flame/gas you would need to have a different element react with oxygen
Julian Harris
>imagine that candle was lit in a room as hot as the sun. You mean under conditions where everything, including the room would either self ignite or melt?
Josiah Russell
It doesn't particularly depend on temperature as such. Colour of the flame can vary from material to material. The colour is brought about by the electron emitting a photon and then returning to the ground state, things like wood don't emit blue photons as the energy required to dissociate the majority of the molecules found in the wood are much lower than level the electron would be to emit blue light.
Luke Jenkins
Care to prove that's blue magma/fire? Because from I can tell that's magma blending with ocean to create the effect of looking blue. That's an exact ocean blue. I don't buy that photo as evidence contrary to my hypothesis.
Thomas Richardson
So... using the scientific method of altering variables on an imaginary plane where we can equate our theories with results that could apply in the real world, assume the candle and wick can withstand temperatures as hot as the sun, and that the room is melt-proof, and none of this would ignite. Now conduct the thought experiment. The results are pretty interesting, huh?
Jose Jenkins
>I have never seen blue flame occur naturally For real, nigguh?
Ian Phillips
not natural
Julian Nguyen
I thought you were dead faggot, now I I can't lurk in peace anymore.
Zachary Sanders
lol you're doing god's work, son. Time to filter OP.
Oliver Martin
This absolute nigger potato is the stupidest shitstain I've ever seen. And I live in Georgia, so I routinely interact with creationists, climate change deniers, and general dumb fuck rednecks. It takes a special kind of retarded to make these posts. >no, trust me, I know a thing or two about the natural sciences No you don't. Go to fucking school.
>using the scientific method of throwing all science out the window >assuming the natural laws of physics don't exist >the results are pretty interesting, huh? No, they aren't, because your thought experiment barely qualifies as such and you have offered no actual results. As someone else said, it would be impossible to light a candle in a room as hot as the sun, and assuming it weren't, the flame would be the exact same color because the color is determined by the source material. A candle is a candle is a candle. Get the fuck out, jesus christ.
