3 ms·
I liked the analogy, though I'll confess I clicked the link expecting to see a layman explanation of some interesting physics trivia.
by rrdharan 9y ago
I liked the analogy, though I'll confess I clicked the link expecting to see a layman explanation of some interesting physics trivia.
- ada1981 9y agome too!
- ada1981 9y agome too!
- vm 9y agoDitto. I googled around and the gist of candle physics is this: -wick is lit and then heat travels downward to the candle -immediately begins melting the wax, which are hydrocarbons that fuel the fire. it's a simple combustion reaction as they mix with oxygen in the high heat -capillary action sends melted hydrocarbons up the wick, continuing the reaction No mention of energy loss when lighting another candle... but really heat is the byproduct of the combustion reaction, so lighting another candle is harnessing the byproduct and doesn't interfering the reaction. The expression is valid! :-P http://www.explainthatstuff.com/candles.html http://www.explainthatstuff.com/candles.html http://candles.org/candle-science/ http://candles.org/candle-science/
- jgtrosh 9y agoI thought it would be about teaching costing nothing to the educated or something along those lines, and trying to visualize how a rebuttal about the trade-off in time spent could apply to the candle simile. Come to think of it I don't see how the positive people were similar to the candles — that simile is about making use of the positivity in your life, while the blog is about either the benefits of finding and reciprocating the positiveness in others (the candles don't choose to be lit in the first place) or reducing interaction with negative influences (the receiving candle can't choose to surround themselves with lit candles). I don't believe the simile really works with either, even though it's a nice image.