We have cars for earth, boats for water and planes for air. Nothing for fire. Not that I want to ride on fire.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    We’re in agreement on the physics of rocket propulsion. However, “fire” is essentially defined as a chemical oxidation reaction. The reaction itself doesn’t have mass. While fuel and oxidizer undergo the oxidation reaction, it isn’t the reaction itself providing the propulsion, its the mass and velocity of the combustion products.

    This is why the “natural element” definition is old and out-of-date. Any discussion of “fire” as an element is a philosophical or literary exercise, not a scientific one.

    • criitz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you nailed it - fire is not analogous to earth, wind, and water (and heart), so the premise of the post is confounded.