F
FrankBaker
Guest
This question has stumped me for nearly over a decade. At first I assumed it had something to do with cells expanding under the heat, but I cannot find any plausible theories.
Do you have a citation for this?The enzyme theory is obsolete and proven wrong.
What makes you say that? I would think different enzymes fail at different temperatures - some enzyme reactions speed up when a fever occurs, and only fail at incredibly high fevers (106+). SHC seems to depend more on specific chemicals occurring in the body but... yeah...But then skeptics would moan that it hasn't happened in a lab (how exactly do you monitor someone like that?)
If enzymes break down at fever temperatures, then that would mean a metabolic scenario leading to spontaneous human combustion is an impossibility.
Fair enough, but then where are the scientific papers? Huffington Post is... well, it's nice and all, but not really a science site.The two recent cases last year have proven that otherwise. Skeptics haven't touched them.
Science says that enzymes are broken down by too many reactive chemicals also.
Science also says that no enzymes can reach 200 C, for example.
Science basically says SHC cannot happen.
So what if it's not a science journal? 9/11 happened, do you need a science journal to prove it was planes that hit those towers?
How do you study SHC? Hook a person up for their entire life to a temperature sensor and hope they combust? Not likely, and also unethical.
The sad thing is many scientists are arrogant enough to say SHC is an impossibility. They probably wouldn't do those studies anyway because it'd threaten their egos in the trillion chance it did randomly happen to the test subjects.
So you agree with me then. It's called logic. How else could SHC be proven but with a horrendously unlikely and unethical method?