When have automobiles been subjected to all-consuming fires?

Well, forever really (100+ years). Large fires with cars in them have happened since cars.,

Regardless, you have obviously not looked at the evidence. Look at the video that is the topic of the OP of this thread. The car's wheel melted completely, running in rivulets on a mostly flat plain, which means it stayed melted while in complete contact with the ground for a while in an open field without any fuel around except the car itself. And nothing else was burned around it except the other car and a few feet of grass. The air temperature in the nearby environment was obviously ambient. There was no way from a tire burning into ambient air to achieve a high enough heat in such an environment. Not even slightly close. Not even close to close.

And this is one of dozens of such examples. If these cars were in an effective oven, I wouldn't be saying what I am saying.

write an article and get it published somewhere.

I don't see anyone else being startled by the melted aluminum, least of all the manufacturers of aluminum wheels.

You do not understand how the world works. Please read my report on this topic. I show, unequivocally, that there is a single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. That same corporation also controls all science publishing. That doesn't mean I couldn't self publish on an open publisher (Researchgate e.g.), but if it isn't pushed by a "real" journal (all of which are completely controlled) then it wouldn't be seen by anyone.

Of course there are programs that are not in the public domain---but there are no programs that violate the laws of physics.

The "laws of physics"? Physics is a mathematical model. It has nothing to do with how the universe really works. Physics is useful, it is not truth. We have no fucking clue what the laws of the Universe are. We can't even reasonably define space and time, and they may be emergent properties of something more fundamental which looks absolutely nothing like our concept of them. There is no way to know what properties may emerge from that fundamental, or how we may be able to manipulate our environment with a better understanding of it.

The Navy videos are also "interesting" but... they prove nothing.

I never said they were "proof", but it is evidence that can't be ignored or attempted to explain away as "optical effects" because you can't explain them otherwise. I think that is your fundamental problem. You don't understand how little we know about how things really work.

The Universe is whatever it is. It can do whatever it can do. We have no idea what is possible. Your statements suggest that you not only think of our models as some sort of "truth," but you rely on your understanding of a model as some sort of absolute understanding of "how the Universe really works."

Let go of what you "know" just enough so that you can ask the right questions.

When have automobiles been subjected to all-consuming fires?

Well, forever really (100+ years). Large fires with cars in them have happened since cars.,

Regardless, you have obviously not looked at the evidence. Look at the video that is the topic of the OP of this thread. The car's wheel melted completely, running in rivulets on a mostly flat plain, which means it stayed melted while in complete contact with the ground for a while in an open field without any fuel around except the car itself. And nothing else was burned around it except the other car and a few feet of grass. The air temperature in the nearby environment was obviously ambient. There was no way from a tire burning into ambient air to achieve a high enough heat in such an environment. Not even slightly close. Not even close to close.

And this is one of dozens of such examples. If these cars were in an effective oven, I wouldn't be saying what I am saying.

write an article and get it published somewhere.

I don't see anyone else being startled by the melted aluminum, least of all the manufacturers of aluminum wheels.

You do not understand how the world works. Please read my report on this topic. I show, unequivocally, that there is a single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. That same corporation also controls all science publishing. That doesn't mean I couldn't self publish on an open publisher (Researchgate e.g.), but if it isn't pushed by a "real" journal (all of which are completely controlled) then it wouldn't be seen by anyone.

Of course there are programs that are not in the public domain---but there are no programs that violate the laws of physics.

The "laws of physics"? Physics is a mathematical model. It has nothing to do with how the universe really works. Physics is useful, it is not truth. We have no fucking clue what the laws of the Universe are. We can't even reasonably define space and time, and they may be emergent properties of something more fundamental which looks absolutely nothing like our concept of them. There is no way to know what properties may emerge from that fundamental, or how we may be able to manipulate our environment with a better understanding of it.

The Navy videos are also "interesting" but... they prove nothing.

I never said they were "proof", but it is evidence that can't be ignored or attempted to explain away as "optical effects" because you can't explain them otherwise. That is your fundamental problem. You don't understand how little we know about how things really work.

The Universe is whatever it is. It can do whatever it can do. We have no idea what is possible. Your statements suggest that you not only think of our models as some sort of "truth," but you rely on your understanding of a model as some sort of absolute understanding of "how the Universe really works."

Let go of what you "know" just enough so that you can ask the right questions.

When have automobiles been subjected to all-consuming fires?

Well, forever really (100+ years). Large fires with cars in them have happened since cars.

Regardless, you have obviously not looked at the evidence. Look at the video that is the topic of the OP of this thread. The car's wheel melted completely, running in rivulets on a mostly flat plain, which means it stayed melted while in complete contact with the ground for a while) in an open field without any fuel around except the car itself. And nothing else was burned around it except the other car and a few feet of grass. The air temperature in the nearby environment was obviously ambient. There was no way from a tire burning into ambient air to achieve a high enough heat in such an environment. Not even slightly close. Not even close to close.

And this is one of dozens of such examples. If these cars were in an effective oven, I wouldn't be saying what I am saying.

write an article and get it published somewhere.

I don't see anyone else being startled by the melted aluminum, least of all the manufacturers of aluminum wheels.

You do not understand how the world works. Please read my report on this topic. I show, unequivocally, that there is a single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. That same corporation also controls all science publishing. That doesn't mean I couldn't self publish on an open publisher (Researchgate e.g.), but if it isn't pushed by a "real" journal (all of which are completely controlled) then it wouldn't be seen by anyone.

Of course there are programs that are not in the public domain---but there are no programs that violate the laws of physics.

The "laws of physics"? Physics is a mathematical model. It has nothing to do with how the universe really works. Physics is useful, it is not truth. We have no fucking clue what the laws of the Universe are. We can't even reasonably define space and time, and they may be emergent properties of something more fundamental which looks absolutely nothing like our concept of them. There is no way to know what properties may emerge from that fundamental, or how we may be able to manipulate our environment with a better understanding of it.

The Navy videos are also "interesting" but... they prove nothing.

I never said they were "proof", but it is evidence that can't be ignored or attempted to explain away as "optical effects" because you can't explain them otherwise. That is your fundamental problem. You don't understand how little we know about how things really work.

The Universe is whatever it is. It can do whatever it can do. We have no idea what is possible. Your statements suggest that you not only think of our models as some sort of "truth," but you rely on your understanding of a model as some sort of absolute understanding of "how the Universe really works."

Let go of what you "know" just enough so that you can ask the right questions.

When have automobiles been subjected to all-consuming fires?

Well, forever really (100+ years). Large fires with cars in them have happened since cars.

Regardless, you have obviously not looked at the evidence. Look at the video that is the topic of the OP of this thread. The car's wheel melted completely, running in rivulets on a mostly flat plain (which means it stayed melted while in complete contact with the ground for a while) in an open field without any fuel around except the car itself. And nothing else was burned around it except the other car and a few feet of grass. The air temperature in the nearby environment was obviously ambient. There was no way from a tire burning into ambient air to achieve a high enough heat in such an environment. Not even slightly close. Not even close to close.

And this is one of dozens of such examples. If these cars were in an effective oven, I wouldn't be saying what I am saying.

write an article and get it published somewhere.

I don't see anyone else being startled by the melted aluminum, least of all the manufacturers of aluminum wheels.

You do not understand how the world works. Please read my report on this topic. I show, unequivocally, that there is a single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. That same corporation also controls all science publishing. That doesn't mean I couldn't self publish on an open publisher (Researchgate e.g.), but if it isn't pushed by a "real" journal (all of which are completely controlled) then it wouldn't be seen by anyone.

Of course there are programs that are not in the public domain---but there are no programs that violate the laws of physics.

The "laws of physics"? Physics is a mathematical model. It has nothing to do with how the universe really works. Physics is useful, it is not truth. We have no fucking clue what the laws of the Universe are. We can't even reasonably define space and time, and they may be emergent properties of something more fundamental which looks absolutely nothing like our concept of them. There is no way to know what properties may emerge from that fundamental, or how we may be able to manipulate our environment with a better understanding of it.

The Navy videos are also "interesting" but... they prove nothing.

I never said they were "proof", but it is evidence that can't be ignored or attempted to explain away as "optical effects" because you can't explain them otherwise. That is your fundamental problem. You don't understand how little we know about how things really work.

The Universe is whatever it is. It can do whatever it can do. We have no idea what is possible. Your statements suggest that you not only think of our models as some sort of "truth," but you rely on your understanding of a model as some sort of absolute understanding of "how the Universe really works."

Let go of what you "know" just enough so that you can ask the right questions.

When have automobiles been subjected to all-consuming fires?

Well, forever really (100+ years). Large fires with cars in them have happened since cars.

Regardless, you have obviously not looked at the evidence. Look at the video that is the topic of the OP of this thread. The car's wheel melted completely, running in rivulets on a mostly flat plain (which means it stayed melted while in complete contact with the ground for a while) in an open field without any fuel around except the car itself. And nothing else was burned around it (except the other car and a few feet of grass. The air temperature in the nearby environment was obviously ambient. There was no way from a tire burning into ambient air to achieve a high enough heat in such an environment. Not even slightly close. Not even close to close.

And this is one of dozens of such examples. If these cars were in an effective oven, I wouldn't be saying what I am saying.

write an article and get it published somewhere.

I don't see anyone else being startled by the melted aluminum, least of all the manufacturers of aluminum wheels.

You do not understand how the world works. Please read my report on this topic. I show, unequivocally, that there is a single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. That same corporation also controls all science publishing. That doesn't mean I couldn't self publish on an open publisher (Researchgate e.g.), but if it isn't pushed by a "real" journal (all of which are completely controlled) then it wouldn't be seen by anyone.

Of course there are programs that are not in the public domain---but there are no programs that violate the laws of physics.

The "laws of physics"? Physics is a mathematical model. It has nothing to do with how the universe really works. Physics is useful, it is not truth. We have no fucking clue what the laws of the Universe are. We can't even reasonably define space and time, and they may be emergent properties of something more fundamental which looks absolutely nothing like our concept of them. There is no way to know what properties may emerge from that fundamental, or how we may be able to manipulate our environment with a better understanding of it.

The Navy videos are also "interesting" but... they prove nothing.

I never said they were "proof", but it is evidence that can't be ignored or attempted to explain away as "optical effects" because you can't explain them otherwise. That is your fundamental problem. You don't understand how little we know about how things really work.

The Universe is whatever it is. It can do whatever it can do. We have no idea what is possible. Your statements suggest that you not only think of our models as some sort of "truth," but you rely on your understanding of a model as some sort of absolute understanding of "how the Universe really works."

Let go of what you "know" just enough so that you can ask the right questions.

When have automobiles been subjected to all-consuming fires?

Well, forever really (100+ years). Large fires with cars in them have happened since cars.

Regardless, you have obviously not looked at the evidence. Look at the video that is the topic of the OP of this thread. The car's wheel melted completely, running in rivulets on a mostly flat plain (which means it stayed melted while in complete contact with the ground for a while) in an open field without any fuel around except the car itself. And nothing else was burned around it (except the other car and a few feet of grass. The air temperature in the nearby environment was obviously ambient. There was no way from a tire burning in the air to achieve a high enough heat in such an environment. Not even slightly close. Not even close to close.

And this is one of dozens of such examples. If these cars were in an effective oven, I wouldn't be saying what I am saying.

write an article and get it published somewhere.

I don't see anyone else being startled by the melted aluminum, least of all the manufacturers of aluminum wheels.

You do not understand how the world works. Please read my report on this topic. I show, unequivocally, that there is a single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. That same corporation also controls all science publishing. That doesn't mean I couldn't self publish on an open publisher (Researchgate e.g.), but if it isn't pushed by a "real" journal (all of which are completely controlled) then it wouldn't be seen by anyone.

Of course there are programs that are not in the public domain---but there are no programs that violate the laws of physics.

The "laws of physics"? Physics is a mathematical model. It has nothing to do with how the universe really works. Physics is useful, it is not truth. We have no fucking clue what the laws of the Universe are. We can't even reasonably define space and time, and they may be emergent properties of something more fundamental which looks absolutely nothing like our concept of them. There is no way to know what properties may emerge from that fundamental, or how we may be able to manipulate our environment with a better understanding of it.

The Navy videos are also "interesting" but... they prove nothing.

I never said they were "proof", but it is evidence that can't be ignored or attempted to explain away as "optical effects" because you can't explain them otherwise. That is your fundamental problem. You don't understand how little we know about how things really work.

The Universe is whatever it is. It can do whatever it can do. We have no idea what is possible. Your statements suggest that you not only think of our models as some sort of "truth," but you rely on your understanding of a model as some sort of absolute understanding of "how the Universe really works."

Let go of what you "know" just enough so that you can ask the right questions.

When have automobiles been subjected to all-consuming fires?

Well, forever really (100+ years). Large fires with cars in them have happened since cars.

Regardless, you have obviously not looked at the evidence. Look at the video that is the topic of the OP of this thread. The car's wheels melted completely, running in rivulets on a mostly flat plain (which means it stayed melted while in complete contact with the ground for a while) in an open field without any fuel around except the car itself. And nothing else was burned around it (except the other car and a few feet of grass. The air temperature in the nearby environment was obviously ambient. There was no way from a tire burning in the air to achieve a high enough heat in such an environment. Not even slightly close. Not even close to close.

And this is one of dozens of such examples. If these cars were in an effective oven, I wouldn't be saying what I am saying.

write an article and get it published somewhere.

I don't see anyone else being startled by the melted aluminum, least of all the manufacturers of aluminum wheels.

You do not understand how the world works. Please read my report on this topic. I show, unequivocally, that there is a single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. That same corporation also controls all science publishing. That doesn't mean I couldn't self publish on an open publisher (Researchgate e.g.), but if it isn't pushed by a "real" journal (all of which are completely controlled) then it wouldn't be seen by anyone.

Of course there are programs that are not in the public domain---but there are no programs that violate the laws of physics.

The "laws of physics"? Physics is a mathematical model. It has nothing to do with how the universe really works. Physics is useful, it is not truth. We have no fucking clue what the laws of the Universe are. We can't even reasonably define space and time, and they may be emergent properties of something more fundamental which looks absolutely nothing like our concept of them. There is no way to know what properties may emerge from that fundamental, or how we may be able to manipulate our environment with a better understanding of it.

The Navy videos are also "interesting" but... they prove nothing.

I never said they were "proof", but it is evidence that can't be ignored or attempted to explain away as "optical effects" because you can't explain them otherwise. That is your fundamental problem. You don't understand how little we know about how things really work.

The Universe is whatever it is. It can do whatever it can do. We have no idea what is possible. Your statements suggest that you not only think of our models as some sort of "truth," but you rely on your understanding of a model as some sort of absolute understanding of "how the Universe really works."

Let go of what you "know" just enough so that you can ask the right questions.

When have automobiles been subjected to all-consuming fires?

Well, forever really (100+ years). Large fires with cars in them have happened since cars.

Regardless, you have obviously not looked at the evidence. Look at the video that is the topic of the OP of this thread. The car's wheels melted completely, running in rivulets on a mostly flat plain (which means it stayed melted while in complete contact with the ground for a while) in an open field without any fuel around except the car itself. And nothing else was burned around it (except the other car and a few feet of grass. The air temperature in the nearby environment was obviously ambient. There was no way from a tire burning in the air to achieve a high enough heat in such an environment. Not even slightly close. Not even close to close.

And this is one of dozens of such examples. If these cars were in an effective oven, I wouldn't be saying what I am saying.

write an article and get it published somewhere.

I don't see anyone else being startled by the melted aluminum, least of all the manufacturers of aluminum wheels.

You do not understand how the world works. Please read my report on this topic. I show, unequivocally, that there is a single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. That same corporation also controls all science publishing. That doesn't mean I couldn't self publish on an open publisher (Researchgate e.g.), but if it isn't pushed by a "real" journal (all of which are completely controlled) then it wouldn't be seen by anyone.

Of course there are programs that are not in the public domain---but there are no programs that violate the laws of physics.

The "laws of physics"? Physics is a mathematical model. It has nothing to do with how the universe really works. Physics is useful, it is not truth. We have no fucking clue what the laws of the Universe are. We can't even reasonably define space and time, and they may be emergent properties of something more fundamental which looks absolutely nothing like our concept of them. There is no way to know what properties may emerge from that fundamental, or how we may be able to manipulate our environment with a better understanding of it.

The Navy videos are also "interesting" but... they prove nothing.

I never said they were "proof", but it is evidence that can't be ignored or attempted to explain away as "optical effects" because you can't explain them otherwise. That is your fundamental problem. You don't understand how little we know about how things really work.

The Universe is whatever it is. It can do whatever it can do. We have no idea what is possible. Your statements suggest that you not only on our models as some sort of "truth," but on your limited knowledge of a model as some sort of absolute understanding of "how the Universe really works."

Let go of what you "know" just enough so that you can ask the right questions.

When have automobiles been subjected to all-consuming fires?

Well, forever really (100+ years). Large fires with cars in them have happened since cars.

Regardless, you have obviously not looked at the evidence. Look at the video that is the topic of the OP of this thread. The car's wheels melted completely, running in rivulets on a mostly flat plain (which means it stayed melted while in complete contact with the ground for a while) in an open field without any fuel around except the car itself. And nothing else was burned around it (except the other car and a few feet of grass. The air temperature in the nearby environment was obviously ambient. There was no way from a tire burning in the air to achieve a high enough heat in such an environment. Not even slightly close. Not even close to close.

And this is one of dozens of such examples. If these cars were in an effective oven, I wouldn't be saying what I am saying.

write an article and get it published somewhere.

I don't see anyone else being startled by the melted aluminum, least of all the manufacturers of aluminum wheels.

You do not understand how the world works. Please read my report on this topic. I show, unequivocally, that there is a single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. That same corporation also controls all science publishing. That doesn't mean I couldn't self publish on an open publisher (Researchgate e.g.), but if it isn't pushed by a "real" journal (all of which are completely controlled) then it wouldn't be seen by anyone.

Of course there are programs that are not in the public domain---but there are no programs that violate the laws of physics.

The "laws of physics"? Physics is a mathematical model. It has nothing to do with how the universe really works. Physics is useful, it is not truth. We have no fucking clue what the laws of the Universe are. We can't even reasonably define space and time, and they may be emergent properties of something more fundamental which looks absolutely nothing like our concept of them. There is no way to know what properties may emerge from that fundamental, or how we may be able to manipulate our environment with a better understanding of it.

The Navy videos are also "interesting" but... they prove nothing.

I never said they were "proof", but it is evidence that can't be ignored or attempted to explain away as "optical effects" because you can't explain them otherwise. That is your fundamental problem. You don't understand how little we know about how things really work.

The Universe is whatever it is. It can do whatever it can do. We have no idea what is possible. You rely not only on our models as some sort of "truth," but on your limited knowledge of a model as some sort of absolute understanding of "how the Universe really works."

Let go of what you "know" just enough so that you can ask the right questions.

When have automobiles been subjected to all-consuming fires?

Well, forever really (100+ years). Large fires with cars in them have happened since cars.

Regardless, you have obviously not looked at the evidence. Look at the video that is the topic of the OP of this thread. The car's wheels melted completely, running in rivulets on a mostly flat plain (which means it stayed melted while in complete contact with the ground for a while) in an open field without any fuel around except the car itself. And nothing else was burned around it (except the other car and a few feet of grass. The air temperature in the nearby environment was obviously ambient. There was no way to achieve a high enough heat in such an environment. Not even slightly close. Not even close to close.

And this is one of dozens of such examples. If these cars were in an effective oven, I wouldn't be saying what I am saying.

write an article and get it published somewhere.

I don't see anyone else being startled by the melted aluminum, least of all the manufacturers of aluminum wheels.

You do not understand how the world works. Please read my report on this topic. I show, unequivocally, that there is a single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. That same corporation also controls all science publishing. That doesn't mean I couldn't self publish on an open publisher (Researchgate e.g.), but if it isn't pushed by a "real" journal (all of which are completely controlled) then it wouldn't be seen by anyone.

Of course there are programs that are not in the public domain---but there are no programs that violate the laws of physics.

The "laws of physics"? Physics is a mathematical model. It has nothing to do with how the universe really works. Physics is useful, it is not truth. We have no fucking clue what the laws of the Universe are. We can't even reasonably define space and time, and they may be emergent properties of something more fundamental which looks absolutely nothing like our concept of them. There is no way to know what properties may emerge from that fundamental, or how we may be able to manipulate our environment with a better understanding of it.

The Navy videos are also "interesting" but... they prove nothing.

I never said they were "proof", but it is evidence that can't be ignored or attempted to explain away as "optical effects" because you can't explain them otherwise. That is your fundamental problem. You don't understand how little we know about how things really work.

The Universe is whatever it is. It can do whatever it can do. We have no idea what is possible. You rely not only on our models as some sort of "truth," but on your limited knowledge of a model as some sort of absolute understanding of "how the Universe really works."

Let go of what you "know" just enough so that you can ask the right questions.

When have automobiles been subjected to all-consuming fires?

Well, forever really (100+ years). Large fires with cars in them have happened since cars.

Regardless, you have obviously not looked at the evidence. Look at the video that is the topic of the OP of this thread. The car's wheels melted completely, running in rivulets on a mostly flat plain (which means it stayed melted while in complete contact with the ground for a while) in an open field without any fuel around except the car itself. And nothing else was burned around it (except the other car and a few feet of grass. The air temperature in the nearby environment was obviously ambient. There was no way to achieve the theoretical limit of the flame temperature in such an environment. Not even slightly close. Not even close to close.

And this is one of dozens of such examples. If these cars were in an effective oven, I wouldn't be saying what I am saying.

write an article and get it published somewhere.

I don't see anyone else being startled by the melted aluminum, least of all the manufacturers of aluminum wheels.

You do not understand how the world works. Please read my report on this topic. I show, unequivocally, that there is a single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. That same corporation also controls all science publishing. That doesn't mean I couldn't self publish on an open publisher (Researchgate e.g.), but if it isn't pushed by a "real" journal (all of which are completely controlled) then it wouldn't be seen by anyone.

Of course there are programs that are not in the public domain---but there are no programs that violate the laws of physics.

The "laws of physics"? Physics is a mathematical model. It has nothing to do with how the universe really works. Physics is useful, it is not truth. We have no fucking clue what the laws of the Universe are. We can't even reasonably define space and time, and they may be emergent properties of something more fundamental which looks absolutely nothing like our concept of them. There is no way to know what properties may emerge from that fundamental, or how we may be able to manipulate our environment with a better understanding of it.

The Navy videos are also "interesting" but... they prove nothing.

I never said they were "proof", but it is evidence that can't be ignored or attempted to explain away as "optical effects" because you can't explain them otherwise. That is your fundamental problem. You don't understand how little we know about how things really work.

The Universe is whatever it is. It can do whatever it can do. We have no idea what is possible. You rely not only on our models as some sort of "truth," but on your limited knowledge of a model as some sort of absolute understanding of "how the Universe really works."

Let go of what you "know" just enough so that you can ask the right questions.