|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Forum:Holy Fire
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Can someone write article on Holy Fire[1]? I must be fraud, but is there any (scientifically) explanation for this? --Max Sterling (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Looks fun, but I think it's just plain old fire and a few chemistry tricks or something http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Fire#Criticism
14:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'have just checked on Wikipedia. Thanks a lot, anyway. Case closed. --Max Sterling (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- The case is hardly closed. Everybody seems to shy away from explaining how the flame does not burn skin or hair. It's usually dismissed by noting that you can prevent any flame from burning skin or hair by passing it through quickly. But if you watch videos, I think it's undeniable that something else is happening with the flame -- the length of time people pass their hands, hair, or face, combined with the proximity; the way the flame bends; and that this occurrence is easily repeatable. I certainly haven't seen anybody actually hold their skin and hair in the flame for a period of time. But we need a more thorough answer if we want to dismiss it adequately. 79.176.17.169 (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hm... this seems to be a case of a lack of science understanding promoting existence of so-called holy phenomenon. It's in the best interest of someone toting these ideas to not talk about the science behind fire. A pretty good example of denying understanding so belief can remain true. ±
KnightOfTL;DRjust shut up already 15:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- When i was at school, my friends and I would pour acetone over our hands and light it. Never resulted in any burns, severe or minor. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hm... this seems to be a case of a lack of science understanding promoting existence of so-called holy phenomenon. It's in the best interest of someone toting these ideas to not talk about the science behind fire. A pretty good example of denying understanding so belief can remain true. ±
- The case is hardly closed. Everybody seems to shy away from explaining how the flame does not burn skin or hair. It's usually dismissed by noting that you can prevent any flame from burning skin or hair by passing it through quickly. But if you watch videos, I think it's undeniable that something else is happening with the flame -- the length of time people pass their hands, hair, or face, combined with the proximity; the way the flame bends; and that this occurrence is easily repeatable. I certainly haven't seen anybody actually hold their skin and hair in the flame for a period of time. But we need a more thorough answer if we want to dismiss it adequately. 79.176.17.169 (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
