Explanation: Fire exists because of chemical reactions, much like rapid respiration. It even uses oxygen and usually makes carbon dioxide. Burning requires fuel. Flames flicker because that's where wind blows the fuel, and the fire moves to it. Fire spreads. Firestorms (gigantic, maybe highly evolved fire 'civilisations') use convection currents to bring in more oxygen. They die when their fuel runs out (we probably will when fossil fuels deplete if we can't find viable alternatives) and they can cause their own destruction by making pyrocumulonimbus clouds. It's even possible that fires go to war. When two conflagrations (uncontrolled fires) burn into each other, they compete for fuel (resources) and both sides lose a lot of power.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But it's not a lifeform. If it is, it's not scientifically recognized as one.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Fires don't 'go to war' lmfao. After the fight, do they retreat to plan a different attack? They just combine and consume more fuel.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well of course a pure energy life form (if they exist) would not fit many of the criteria for matter life, so science would not recognise it until it achieves unmistakable sapience. So, if fire were a simple pure energy life form, it would appear as just a chemical reaction. It probably is, but if anything were discovered to be a pure energy life form, it would be fire.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This is much more helpful than when I ask what fire is in Science class and some kid says 'Fire is fire'

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This is what fire is: http://flamechallenge.org/

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I've got a pretty good understanding of what fire is, but thank you for that link. Helped me out a bit!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No problem! If it weren't for that link, I probably would have YYA'd this.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What? You made the link.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I mean if I hadn't seen the video on the link.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And normal life is basically respiration. What did you expect a pure energy life form to be, anyway? I always pictures one as a chemical reaction, or a cloud of energy that needs chemical reactions to prevent diffusion of itself.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

this is really interesting to think about, thanks for posting this

by Anonymous 11 years ago

another classic post from blockhead

by Anonymous 11 years ago

OP, what career do you want in life? Your posts are always interesting, by the way.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Scientist (surprise, surprise). Specifically one involved in research on disease or (defensive/deterrent) weapons.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Flames are just the heat and light energy given off by the rapid oxidation of a material. Combustion doesn't necessarily need oxygen, it just needs an oxidizer. Granted, oxygen is the most common, but it is not the only oxidizer. Thermite, for example, can be made with certain ingredients that allow it to self-oxidize so that it can be used for underwater welding. It also doesn't truly consume anything. Living organisms take in food, separate what they need from the food, then excrete the waste. Fire combines the oxidizer with the free radicals within a material, and takes nothing for itself. It doesn't consume, it builds other materials. It doesn't make its own environment suitable, it needs help from outside forces. There has been many a time when I was building a fire that it went out by its own action, and I was able to revive it by manually adding more oxygen to the environment. The whole sustaining itself with convection thing is only due to the laws of thermodynamics. In zero/micro-gravity situations, fires will often put themselves out before all of the fuel is used up. Following the mention of the laws of thermodynamics, it will not always go to where fuel is.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If you light the top of something on fire, the flame will often not travel down the material. (depending on the flammability, of course) Finally, one of the biggest reasons I disagree is that it simply doesn't exist without any of the necessary parts. Living things will die without all the necessary constituents, but there are remains. Cut off any of things things a fire needs, and it may as well not have existed at all.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Tl;dr

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You're doing it wrong. The point of TL:DR isn't so you can tell me you're an asshole with zero patience, the point is so I can summarize what I said at the end of my message.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's the reason I don't think it can be considered a living thing. The criteria for a living thing are already set, and no type of energy will ever meet that criteria. I suppose an exception might be made if a type of energy managed to achieve sentience instead of playing a role in sentient matter. That will never happen unless data can be stored on pure energy, and I'm not sure that can happen. That's all I am, though, is unsure. To be honest, this post is giving me a lot of inner-conflict about whether or not I should agree. Most of all, fire reminds me of a virus. Technically, viruses aren't living things. However, I tend to think they should be. Perhaps fire is a pure energy virus?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

@Mike 1. It still needs fuel. Animals can also eat different foods. 2. Living organisms take the matter in food. A pure energy lif form would take the bond energy in molecules, much like fire does. The food is fuel and the product is lower-energy waste, much like fire shit. 3. Humans can also be self-destructive. Greece was about to die, but more money was injected to keep it from bankruptcy longer. 4. Fire will go to fuel to the best of its abilities governed by therodynamics. Humans would also not cross the ocean to the most resource rich land if they didn't have boats. 5. A pure energy life form would of course have that quality. With no external force, matter stays in one piece, but energy will disperse, so fundamentally, that is one of the main qualities a pure energy anything will have. If it's made of different stuff, of course there will be major differences. In Bionicle, the Makutas were pure energy. They disperse and die if their armour (acting like a weapised box) broke.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's probable that it is a virus. Viruses are non-cellular life (it really is life, just a different type). If life does NEED to be in cells, why does it NEED to be made of matter? Bu the way, much of the internet is electrons in motion, pretty much pure energy. Nintendo cartridges only store data if power is supplied, so that's pretty close. Fire is as close to matter life as energy can get, until you end up with a Makuta. Bionicle has a pretty interesting universe, but it was quite force near the end.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I would've thought this would have been scientist who posted this. Oh well.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"...and can create an environment to help its continued existence" Fire creates an environment that is barren. You can't burn land, or anything, twice.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Humans also do that. When a building crumbles, we need to put in energy to melt it down and rebuild. Fire would (if it were possible) to use energy to reverse the reaction like how plants photosynthesize. If it were a pure energy lifeform, it would need the energy to sustain itself, so that would be out of the question.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yea, if it were possible, which is what throws off the credibility of this. Otherwise it's interesting

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's my point. I don't think life could exist just as energy, but if it could, fire would be a pretty good candidate.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Fire has no DNA.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Not to appear rude, but, so what? And maybe it does, but it's in energy form, and thus undetectable to our equipment. I don't actually think it IS life, but I don't like how people pick a characteristic matter-based life has and say fire doesn't have it, thus it's not life.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I guess that's a possibility. That's just the answer I got when I asked my Bio teacher a few weeks ago.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But aren't you doing something similar (just reversed) by only picking characteristics that fire does have in common with matter-based life and proposing that because fire has them, it could be life?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No, the reverse would be saying it IS life. I'm saying it COULD be life.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Right, but you're really just proposing that it COULD be life if we altered the accepted meaning of what life is. Science is really just defined sets of characteristics, right? So we could really say that anything could be defined as life if the definition were to be changed. ...I don't really think I'm articulating myself very well. I guess I'm just saying that because fire does not have genetic material, it is not life. Sure, it could be if we changed what "life" means, but then so couldn't anything. ANYWAY, interesting post, 10/10, would read again.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Aww, thanks. But I'm not changing what life itself is, I'm just suggesting what it could be like if put in a vessel of energy instead of matter. I don't know what the one defining trait of life is (alien life may or may not use DNA), but I think it should be based in instinct. Life is energy, not matter, so it could exist in either one, and its defining trait should be something you don't need to be in one form to have. On the other hand, it could, as long as that defining trait has an energy counterpart too.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

When you say instincts, do you mean the instincts of the life-form in question? I'm also not sure that life is energy, not matter. Cells are essentially the building blocks of what is currently considered life, and they use energy to "live," which leads me believe that both is needed. ...Then again, you're proposing a purely energy based life form, but a purely matter based life form would just be an empty puppet. So if you were to make the case that energy is THE life force and matter just the machinery, I s'pose it could make sense to say that fire is a life force unbound by physical constraint. And now I'm rambling I think I just talked myself in circles, but I'm pretty sure I see where you're coming from. I think calling into question the sentience of life could throw the theory for a loop, though.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Actually, you explained my point pretty well :)

by Anonymous 11 years ago