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

  • @NoRodent
    link
    521 year ago

    Aren’t rockets vehicles that ride on fire (that they create themselves)?

    • @deus
      link
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And the Space Shuttle! (RIP)

    • @MrCharles
      link
      31 year ago

      Came her to say this. Literally riding on the hot air from a big fire.

  • @uservoid1
    link
    English
    14
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So solid, liquid, gas, and missing plasma. You just need to have a really big bang and any of the other vehicles will do

  • @CADmonkey
    link
    10
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I have a vehicle that is powered by fire, does that count?

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not that I want to ride on fire.

    It’d be pretty bad ass to sail a boat through liquid hot magma. Uh… assuming the boat survived, I mean. Not so bad ass to take a wooden raft.

    • @XeroxCool
      link
      21 year ago

      I’d say this one. It catches the product of fire and rides on it

  • partial_accumen
    link
    61 year ago

    Earth, water, air all have density. Meaning we can create a vehicle that can be lower destiny than the (Earth, water, air) our vehicle is riding in.

    Fire doesn’t have density. So we can’t make a vehicle lighter than fire as fire has no density to begin with.

    A rocket you say? Doesn’t qualify. The rocket (when in the atmosphere) is providing lots of expanding gasses which creates a difference in air pressure pushing the vehicle forward. The rocket (when in the vacuum of space) is providing lots of expanding gasses at high velocities that we throw out of one side of the rocket causing the rocket to be thrown equally and oppositely the other direction. We have lots of engine in space which done have fire at all (nitrogen cold gas thrusters come to mind).

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      While fire itself may not have mass or density, the materials involved in the fire (fuel and oxygen) do have density.

      In the context of a rocket engine, the combustion process involves the ejection of high-speed exhaust gases, which have mass and therefore contribute to the overall density of the vehicle.

      • partial_accumen
        link
        21 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          41 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.

          • @spittingimage
            link
            21 year ago

            I tried to imagine a vehicle for travelling on a surface of Heart, then decided I don’t want to.