[ebneter]

Originally Posted by wolfie ↗

Are we not saying the same thing

I don't think so. It seemed to me that you're saying that there are cases that cannot be explained. I disagree -- the only inexplicable cases I know of are ones for which insufficient information is available.

[Pleasure Junkie]

So kids, don't smoke!

[wolfie]

Originally Posted by ebneter ↗

I don't think so. It seemed to me that you're saying that there are cases that cannot be explained. I disagree -- the only inexplicable cases I know of are ones for which insufficient information is available.

So you just add what you believe? Unexplained is just that. You are not a true student of science making that statement. It is either mathematically proven in science or it isn't. That does not mean it doesn't happen

[DiamondSmiles]

It would be so cool to be able to do that to people you didn't like! The guy with the walker was the first picture I saw regarding SHC.

[ebneter]

Originally Posted by wolfie ↗

So you just add what you believe? Unexplained is just that. You are not a true student of science making that statement. It is either mathematically proven in science or it isn't. That does not mean it doesn't happen

You misunderstand me.

All the cases for which sufficient evidence is available can be explained by the wick effect.

There are "inexplicable" cases in which there is not enough information to, for example, identify a source of ignition. Such cases remain technically "unexplained," but there is also nothing about them to suggest that there is anything really unusual going on.

Also, "It is either mathematically proven in science or it isn't" is not an accurate statement about science. (And yes, I am trained in science; I have a Ph.D. in astronomy.) Science is most fundamentally about falsifiability. Nothing is ever really proven to be true in science. A good counter-example can always throw the most well-established theory into the trash. Currently by far the best-established explanation for SHC is the wick effect.

[carolinablue823]

I think pic 4 is Mary Reeser; she's the most well-known case of SHC. Anyway, good post.

[Airbornemama]

I find this subject oober fascinating!!! This happening has been A mind fuck for many years, and i'm afraid it's gonna stay that way for sometime to come!! Nice post

[Jay Powers]

Originally Posted by Bylot ↗

Since I don't know if his image is real, I post it seperately. Looks interesting, anyway.

Got to take my shoes off, my feet are burning up. Oh shit!

[wolfie]

Originally Posted by ebneter ↗

You misunderstand me.

All the cases for which sufficient evidence is available can be explained by the wick effect.

There are "inexplicable" cases in which there is not enough information to, for example, identify a source of ignition. Such cases remain technically "unexplained," but there is also nothing about them to suggest that there is anything really unusual going on.

Also, "It is either mathematically proven in science or it isn't" is not an accurate statement about science. (And yes, I am trained in science; I have a Ph.D. in astronomy.) Science is most fundamentally about falsifiability. Nothing is ever really proven to be true in science. A good counter-example can always throw the most well-established theory into the trash. Currently by far the best-established explanation for SHC is the wick effect.

I disagree. You are right we are talking two different things. Fact is mathematically explained. You seem to be talking theory. Theory can be a standard belief. Lets use an example of gravity. Do you really believe we have 11 dimension?

Wicking effect does not explain all spontaneous combustions. We will just have to agree to disagree but your ideas are interesting.

[ebneter]

Originally Posted by wolfie ↗

I disagree. You are right we are talking two different things. Fact is mathematically explained. You seem to be talking theory. Theory can be a standard belief. Lets use an example of gravity. Do you really believe we have 11 dimension?

Wicking effect does not explain all spontaneous combustions. We will just have to agree to disagree but your ideas are interesting.

I suppose "agree to disagree" will have to do, since you don't seem to understand how science works.