science law violations - for fun only!!

[Hikensasameyuki]

In response to the most recent and ridiculous attempt at slandering my online presence, I'm not going to make the usual allowances for editing the quoted so as to make him seem more intelligent than in reality. This is, of course, so as not to place undue burden on my time, simply in regard to the massive number of hideous errors in grammar and syntax that the post in question contained. Hereafter, quotes will appear simply as originally written. Plus it just amuses me more to pretend to refute his non-arguments when every single word he writes is misspelled, incorrectly used, or totally invented. Enjoy.

 

 

 

Silly silly man!!!

 

 

 

If you are not simply makeing this all up, you should know there is no such thing as true weight.

 

 

 

This is basically the same preposterous assertion that you rephrase in increasingly annoying, incorrect, and totally irrelevant ways, throughout the remainder of your rambling, incoherent response (everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it - Billy Madison is quite fitting here - at any rate, I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul). Whatever meaning you intend to be conveyed by your apparently pivotal term 'true weight' completely escapes any reader, as you never enumerate it. I can only imagine that by 'true' you meant to evoke 'constant' or some other equivalent concept. I certainly hope this is not the case, as that type of assertion would make your ignorance of the tenets of physics literally undeniable; weight is, by definition, not a constant, but rather a variable (which, for any particular massive body varies multiplicatively depending on the relative strength of the net gravitational force acting on that body at a time t). If you meant to argue against the common understanding that iron 'has' weight, you may have been able to actually contribute to the discussion. However, you neither advanced that argument nor contributed to the discussion in any other way.

 

 

 

There is only mass, and the amount of downward force implyed by gravity upon it. to say that iron weighs more than air with out haveing more mass is ubsured. though i think i may begin to see what you meen. but you said it in a very confusing, illogicle, selfcontradictory, and yes even stupid, way.

 

 

 

No, there is not only mass. The very relation you describe concerning mass under gravitational force is precisely what we mean when we use the word weight, and indeed provides for its conceptualization in the field of theoretical physics. Countless pertinent and indispensible equations in the science depend on the salience of considering weight in relation to other variables and constants which represent characteristics of massive bodies and other relevant forces. This is all, of course, not to mention the preposterous notion that iron could weigh more than air without having more mass. I can't imagine any other readers of my post thought for even an instant that this was the position for which I was arguing. Almost as importantly, weight is a more meaningful part of our collective vocabulary than mass, simply because the realm of social interaction for the most part takes place within the same field of gravity, rendering weight just as descriptive, if not more descriptive, than mass. Consider for a moment the fact that no one on earth knows their mass (in kilograms, generally) in any other way than by being 'weighed' on a scale that outputs its results in kilos rather than the actual property it was measuring - weight. When you thought for a fraction of a second that you might understand what I was saying, you were on the right track. Perhaps you should have forged ahead toward that understanding, rather than slamming your forehead repeatedly against a wall of ignorance. The fact that you resort to ad hominem attacks on my character further undermines the shaky ground on which your non-arguments are precariously balanced. Were I to respond in kind, I would notice that your username has the word 'god' in it, and accuse you of being a religious zealot. Basically, you may as well have made fun of me for having an 'oriental-sounding' username.

 

 

 

"It doesn't just 'have more mass'", yes, it does just have more mass.

 

 

 

I find this one even funnier because it's based on a simple misunderstanding of linguistic convention. It would serve you well to remember in future verbal exchanges that in english, the phrase "doesn't just" is used to indicate that what immediately follows is something that is already agreed upon, but that the speaker intends to convey an additional predication of meaning to the subject, beyond that which is already assumed to be agreed upon between the speaker and audience. To be specific, in the case concerned, I used "doesn't just" to indicate that, while I consider it agreed upon that iron has mass, it "doesn't just have mass," it "also" has weight. Note how the use of "doesn't just" was followed shortly by "also." This is something you can look out for, as it will denote the additional predication, which is generally the substance of the utterance. Furthermore, iron "doesn't just" have more mass than the surrounding gases which comprise the earth's atmosphere, it "also" weighs more in earth's gravitational field, which is why iron 'falls' toward the earth's surface when 'dropped.' As you can probably see by now, your entire post was not only arguing (I use the term perhaps so loosely here that it loses all meaning, but only for lack of a better word, as the mood of the post was clearly argumentative, whether it actually made one or not) for something that is both widely accepted and considered within this topic to be agreed upon, but was in the spirit of using me as a 'straw man' against which to argue your moot point. This is not only rude, but ignorant. I advise you to avoid this kind of self-denigrating and audacious behavior in the future.

 

 

 

For something to Weigh more than something else, of the exact same size, and shape, it must be more dense, IE have more mass.

 

 

 

Even more interesting that this was the very next sentence. After just recently denying that objects have weight as well as mass, you immediately and explicitly assert that very fact. Not much needs to be said about the 'logic' (rather, the lack thereof) of this kind of 'argument.' However, it should be noted that size/shape are encapsulated terms in physics, making their independent consideration wholly irrelevant. That is to say, in physics, size and shape come as a package referred to as 'volume.' Keep in mind that in conventional language, two objects can be the same size (that is, in the language of physics, have mathematically identical values representing their respective volumes - reported in mÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâó or some other such unit) without having the same shape, but not vice versa; this gives you an approximate grasp of how size/shape interact in physics. Interestingly, objects that we would, in conventional language, say have the same shape, but not mathematically identical volumes, are not considered in the language of physics to have the same shape. They are, instead, considered to have 'analagous' shapes. This simply means that the two objects in question represent two instantiations of an archetypal possible shape, but at different and mutually exclusive points on the volume ratio gradient for that archetype (a sphere is one example of an archetypal shape). Furthermore, it is possible for such 'analogs' to have the same mass without being the same shape, so long as the object with less volume is appropriately more dense. This is how we make sense of the interaction between mass and volume - density; we take the units from mass (g, or some prefixed form of the unit), the units from volume (again, usually mÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâó), and when dividing the mass by volume to determine how dense the object in question is, we perform the same operation on the units of measurement, and report the object's density in g/mÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâó, for instance.

 

 

 

I do belive that people make stuff up on here simply because most people cant correct them and it makes them look smart.

 

Here you stand, useing all this big vocabulary, and yet you deniy one of the simplest priceiples of physics that even a 6th grader can understand.

 

If you want to appear smart, go out and learn something before you star trying to impres people. You people make me so furyus when you come to places like this, where you can hide behind a wall of invisibility, while makeing people think you are these briliant minds of the world who for some unresonable reason wast their time playing a simple online game, while they could be makeing huge changes in the world with the mind they present themselfes to have.

 

 

 

This is, in essense, a meaningless jumble of angry words spilling out of your mind before you have a chance to consider their complete irrelevance to my post, not to mention the fact that these kind of accusations make a better argument against you as a credible source than against me.

 

 

 

edit: In suport of my primis, i will tell you that gravity pulls down on all things at an equil rate: 9.8 meters per second persecond, This means that one second after you drop any item, it will fall at a rate of 9.8 meters per second, a second after that it will be traveling 20.6 meters per second and so on and so on untill it reaches its maximum velocity, you must ofcorce make alouences for friction.

 

For more information on gravity, visit this site

 

 

 

This is a grammatically misconceived and slightly misleading encapsulation of gravity, but is microcosmically correct in a few ways. However, words like 'pull' and 'down' are not exactly the most widely applicable, and you should point out that the figures you present here are strictly rough estimates of the force of gravity near the surface of our planet. The force of gravity is vastly different depending on what bodies are considered in relation to each other (you've heard of black holes, I'm sure; also known as 'gravity wells,' they produce forces which are quite a bit stronger than our earth's field; of course, due to their incredible density and resultant high mass). Also keep in mind that we most often consider the 'net force' of gravity; that is, the product of all the gravitational forces acting at a locus, reported as a vector. Though this is perhaps an extraneous consideration, it doesn't hurt to keep in mind that it's "not just" the earth which produces the gravitational field around itself. Also, when you mention 'friction,' I imagine you intended to refer to 'air resistance,' which, though undeniably similar to friction, is a wholly independent concept with its own unique properties.

 

 

 

By the way, In case anyone has the idea of saying i did the same thing, let me tell you this. I am in the 11th grade, and i have just destroyed this, man's, teen's or kid's argument. Most of what he said is true, but in this one mistake he has shown himself to be the froud that he is. If i am wrong, dont just say so, prove it. Im out

 

 

 

If this is what argument destruction looks like, I must admit that I'm seeing it for the first time. I guess I had imagined the idea of 'argument destruction' in a slightly different way. If I had to imagine what got you off on the wrong track, it would probably be shallow reading of my post, which resulted in your lack of comprehension and eventual misguided confusion. I think you made an attribution error common to young people who are just being introduced to the ideas of physics as a science. Often, it seems offensive to refer to the 'weight' of an object, when it is not a constant and universal value. The aspiring physicist thinks to himself, "Why not just use a constant - its mass value - instead?" What you need to remember is that the apparent absurdity lies in, for example, the idea of reporting the 'weight' of the entire earth in terms of the gravitational force it supplies to other massive bodies, because it is itself the massive body which produces the gravity used to determine weight values of bodies within its net field. However, this does not preclude the 'weight' of any component part of the earth itself from being accurately and productively considered. Even the 'potential weight' of the earth in its entirety (were it possible for the earth to 'weigh' within its own field) can be calculated by including values for its known mass and the force of its own gravitational field. Though this sort of calculation is certainly more possible than it is meaningful, it gets to the root of your confusion: on earth, the earth (in toto) does not have weight, since it is itself the source of the gravity which attributes weight to other massive bodies in its field; however, as soon as a front-end loader digs up a load of dirt, the portion of the earth contained in its bucket has a definite, meaningful 'weight' value. Moreover, the earth (in toto) does indeed have weight in relation to other massive bodies which exert gravitational forces on it. Though pounds as a measure of weight are a unit specific to the power of earth's gravitational field, they are still generally used when reporting weight for other systems of gravitational interaction. I assume this is simply because doing so remains the best way to keep discussion of such relations coherent and comprehensible to humans, who in large part spend their lives within earth's gravitational field.

 

 

 

To clear up any confusion, I'm 26 years old. I have two university degrees, one of which is a bachelor of science degree. I am a published author and a contributor to several scientific journals. I do believe that bodies have mass. I also believe that massive bodies within gravitational fields have weight. Furthermore, I believe that iron cannonballs are just this type of thing - massive bodies within gravitational fields - and they have weight because of that fact. I like using weight values whenever possible, because they are more informative than mass values; they not only relay mass information, but also information regarding the strength of gravitational force present. They are most certainly a relevant and socially acceptable form of communication regarding the properties of objects we consider in discussions of this type.

 

 

 

My advice to you, o young sage: enjoy high school while it lasts. Try to learn some things while you're there. Come back after you've taken some university courses - preferably in physics, metaphysics, epistemology, inorganic chemistry, sociology, rhetoric, semantics, linguistics, and for christ's sake, english - and read my posts again when you're ready to absorb their content.

 

 

 

To everyone else: I'm looking for a group of dedicated individuals to critically read the post I've just quoted, with the aim of producing a categorized inventory of the total number of language errors committed within. PM me if you're interested in spending the rest of your life futilely parsing 'sentences' and attempting to determine the intended meaning of invented 'words,' toward an objective which will remain unrealized even long after your death. Good luck to all who apply.

[Moonlapsed]

 

* I can stand next to a stall and repeatedly steal stuff for hours on end and the guy who owns the stall is dumb enough to constantly replace them every few seconds ;)

 

 

:XD: That really cracked me up.

 

-----------------------------

 

 

 

I would quote Hikensasameyukis massive post but seeing as how it's so large I'll just post my comments;

 

As I read through the post (Which was really quite interesting with all of the science/physics/etc content) I was amazed at the horrendous form of "English" WaterofGod used, honestly there are an unreasonably large number of errors in his quotes, more than I myself believe I make and I'm in the 8th grade :roll:

 

I'd also like to thank Hikensasameyuki for providing me with an interesting post to read and all of that information (And large vocabulary) you provided.

[12pure34]

Steel is made out of 2 coal and 1 iron. Hm.. I am pretty sure this is not true ;)

 

 

 

Money has no weight/mass, while they are made from solid gold. (1 million coins of solid gold.. heavy :P)

 

 

 

When searching haystacks, you find a needle once in every 10 tries (aprox) while real chances are lower then 1 in 1000.

 

 

 

In the first post there was something about cannonsballs by the way. If a cannonball vaporizes on the spot, it has enough energy as a large hydro bomb. Enough to take down not only a large building, but probaly enough for an entire city. (maybe Paris :twisted: )

[mememe513]

- During the Between a Rock... quest, the player must make a helmet out of gold bars. After doing that, the inventory becomes heavier! This violates the conservation of mass/matter!

 

There's a God Letter (I think) that says that when smithing, it gains compressed air or something like that. This rule also works for when smithing platebodies.

[berbatovsky]

This topic goes to prove several things, firstly that if you offer people a chance to show how clever they are and they will rip you're arm off, secondly clever and stupid people don't mix well, thirdly people get stuck thinking that scientific 'constants' are anything but ideas we've had that will be proved incorrect in 500 years.

 

 

 

On topic:I can stand 2 feet from a 15 foot tall demon while he pummels me for...no damage whatsoever, and on the offchance that he does hit me i can teleport/eat to heal \ or even just run away about 20 feet at which point the demon will become broed and ignore me.

[Randox]

 

 

 

- Obsidian is one of the strongest materials in the game. However, in real-life, it's rather weak. It is only ranked 5 on the Mohs mineral hardness scale. Any sharp blow will shatter obsidian.

 

 

 

Your confusing hardness with toughness. Something that is hard is just difficult to scratch.

 

 

 

And your saying that obsidian is brittle. An example of hardness thing on the Mohs scale is gold and silver. Both are rated the same (4 I belive) yet gold is veary easy to bend where silveer is brittle and just snaps.

[Cloudwolf]

The smithing skill. Or rather, the whole smelting aspect of it, seeing as IRL, you use waaay more of the ore than coal.

 

 

 

Electrolysis would be awesome on RS :D.

 

 

 

 

 

Rofl, that would be good.

 

 

 

'Warning your cathode has been destroyed, please replace'

 

'You cannot lift the cathode on your own, use a machine'

 

'Machines have not been invented yet, please use your hands'

[Monoxide_Child]

 

Sorry but I think they are all rpetty weak

 

 

 

-Jagex use it correctly, there is much mis conception as to what weight is. People weigh themselves and weigh ingredients as weights. Techincally yes they are all masses and not weights, but people call them weight and measure them in kg - not everyone is good at science

 

 

 

-In the making of such a large gold object impurtieis would be absorbed into the metal, plus you add a white gold inlay to the helm that is not a bar in your inventory both of whihc supply the extra weight

 

 

 

-That is perfect logical, cannon balls are an iron sphere the heat caused inside the steam pwoered cannon would soften them somewhat then the friction cuase by the speed would allow the iron to react with the water. Such a combination would release some oxygen from the water and the rest would form into iron hydroxide - a gas aka it would vapourise

 

 

 

-In real life gold and silver ore are filtered by machinery to remove more earth and impurties than some ores have but are then heated in a furnace to remove the rest hence jagexs is a perfectly logical process

 

 

 

-Obsidian in its natural state is a weak metal yes, when interlaced with a substances like coal or occasionally granite it offers the strength and properties of the metal while gaining in durabilty and strength (thats why steel is stronger than iron) so it is correct

 

 

 

99% of jagexs game checks out against science fact if you devele deeper than basic fact...

 

 

 

Well first the poster of this topic is right that kg is a measure for mass and mass and weight are very different. In space, a planet larger than our sun could collapse into a sphere smaller than a golf ball. weight and mass are somewhat related but not the same.

 

 

 

When he (the topic creator) was talking about the way it weighs more when you finish the helmet than when it was bars, he could be wrong im not sure i never did that quest im not a member.

 

 

 

About the cannon ball thing you replier are wronger than mj on the muppet show. It is obvious to the most ill adept thinker that an iron ball won't disintegrate from anything less than being walloped into the center of a atomic explosion where the iron would literally be ripped apart atom by atom. What in runescape could possibly cause a huge lunking mass of iron to disintegrate? Cannon balls didn't disintegrate in real life when they impacted on the iron plating of the first armored ships during the civil war, they just bounced of and traipsed into the water, round as your intellect is small. Simple "evaporation" CAN'T split atoms. Your talking about just a fast moving piece of iron completely being reaped from existence because it hit a rock or even more likely flesh and bone. Plus you say the steam of a steam powered cannon would soften the iron. I doubt that even today someone could create a steam powered cannon the size and proportion of the one in runescape (iv seen pictures). Besides, if in fact runescape cannons are steam operated then they have managed to vault a tremendous gap in a scientific discovery seeing how gunpowder was first used against an armored knight during the 1400's and steam powered machines weren't created until the 1800's. Besides its just completely heinous that a cannonball would disintegrate because of a reaction to water.

 

 

 

In real life rocks and dirt containing gold are simply dropped onto a large conveyor which dumps rock, dirt, gold and all into a massive superheated steel container that liquefies everything inside at a temperature of around 2000 deg Fahrenheit and the gold is heavier than anything else in the ground found anywhere near a gold vein, so the impurities are pressures up by the supreme weight of the gold and a vented steel separator sweeps over the top of the gold and lifts out all the liquefied dirt and rocks and it gets dumped in a huge heap outside the smelting factory. gold doesn't technically get smelted in a furnace.

 

 

 

Clearly you don't know anything about metal (rocks would be a better word in this case since obsidian is in fact a rock) since obsidian is a rock which Native Americans have used to create tools for hundreds of years. It's actually quite simple to break obsidian and it used to be crafted into hatchet heads and arrow heads by hitting the sides with a piece of animal bone. Since mixing rock types naturally is pretty much never going to happen since if obsidian was mixed with granite as you say, then it wouldnt be called obsidian mixed with granite it would be an entirely new type of rock. Besides its easier to melt metal than rocks because metal is more heat conductive (thats why when hiroshima was bombed only stone and brick building still stood but the buildings which frames were made of metal were twisted melted and gnarled). And coal, you said coal. Coal is one of THE weakest rock based natural substances you can possible find. And why you say:

 

 

 

 

granite it offers the strength and properties of the metal while gaining in durabilty and strength (thats why steel is stronger than iron) so it is correct

 

 

 

Is completely beyond recognition. You relate the strength properties of rocks to metal. Granite in no way shape or form contains the properties that allow steel or iron to be so invincible. Rocks are in no way durable and wear away in many more ways than metals. And to cut this rant short, the reason steel is stronger than iron, is not because of some freaking rock. Steel IS iron which is superheated and allows for oxygen molecules to flow inside the newly widened atomic crevices in the iron and then the iron is quickly cooled in cold water which instantly shrinks the microscopic holes which the oxygen entered through and because of that the oxygen atoms are trapped in between the iron molecules and for some reason makes the iron stronger, and also strangely warrants the name steel.

 

 

 

Last of all, runescape can't be called scientifically correct because there isn't much to BE called correct. If the game included more science related material then there would be more to talk about. but what is in the game is most definitely not correct (even if a little but is scientifically correct which probably it isn't).

[Bard_Bow_Man]

Its only a game.....

 

 

 

^ too true.

 

 

 

why not point out the fact that we respawn when we die :roll:

 

All Runescapians are simply buddhists, all very close to the point of nirvana or something like that.

 

 

 

As for science law violations, the alchemy in Rs [magic anyways but whatever] seems pretty unrealistic to me.

 

 

 

Technically, alchemy is possible but it would take a huge amount of enegy to perform and isn't worth it.

 

 

 

To turn something into to gold you have to mess with it's nucleus (hence the term nucleur). The Nucleus is held together very tightly and messing with it to turn an element into gold wouldn't be the smartest/safest idea.

[Wizz]

ow my head :wall:

[Iv_Green_vI]

Awh, I was thinking this thread was going to be like. Idea's of defying the laws of physics and what not.. Ex: Pulling a 360 misty 1800 Rotisery Canadian back flip 180 Turtle neck flying Squirrel, And landing it (Snowboarding).. Get what I'm saying? :P

[Sy_Accursed]

 

Well first the poster of this topic is right that kg is a measure for mass and mass and weight are very different. In space, a planet larger than our sun could collapse into a sphere smaller than a golf ball. weight and mass are somewhat related but not the same.

 

 

 

When he (the topic creator) was talking about the way it weighs more when you finish the helmet than when it was bars, he could be wrong im not sure i never did that quest im not a member.

 

 

 

About the cannon ball thing you replier are wronger than mj on the muppet show. It is obvious to the most ill adept thinker that an iron ball won't disintegrate from anything less than being walloped into the center of a atomic explosion where the iron would literally be ripped apart atom by atom. What in runescape could possibly cause a huge lunking mass of iron to disintegrate? Cannon balls didn't disintegrate in real life when they impacted on the iron plating of the first armored ships during the civil war, they just bounced of and traipsed into the water, round as your intellect is small. Simple "evaporation" CAN'T split atoms. Your talking about just a fast moving piece of iron completely being reaped from existence because it hit a rock or even more likely flesh and bone. Plus you say the steam of a steam powered cannon would soften the iron. I doubt that even today someone could create a steam powered cannon the size and proportion of the one in runescape (iv seen pictures). Besides, if in fact runescape cannons are steam operated then they have managed to vault a tremendous gap in a scientific discovery seeing how gunpowder was first used against an armored knight during the 1400's and steam powered machines weren't created until the 1800's. Besides its just completely heinous that a cannonball would disintegrate because of a reaction to water.

 

 

 

In real life rocks and dirt containing gold are simply dropped onto a large conveyor which dumps rock, dirt, gold and all into a massive superheated steel container that liquefies everything inside at a temperature of around 2000 deg Fahrenheit and the gold is heavier than anything else in the ground found anywhere near a gold vein, so the impurities are pressures up by the supreme weight of the gold and a vented steel separator sweeps over the top of the gold and lifts out all the liquefied dirt and rocks and it gets dumped in a huge heap outside the smelting factory. gold doesn't technically get smelted in a furnace.

 

 

 

Clearly you don't know anything about metal (rocks would be a better word in this case since obsidian is in fact a rock) since obsidian is a rock which Native Americans have used to create tools for hundreds of years. It's actually quite simple to break obsidian and it used to be crafted into hatchet heads and arrow heads by hitting the sides with a piece of animal bone. Since mixing rock types naturally is pretty much never going to happen since if obsidian was mixed with granite as you say, then it wouldnt be called obsidian mixed with granite it would be an entirely new type of rock. Besides its easier to melt metal than rocks because metal is more heat conductive (thats why when hiroshima was bombed only stone and brick building still stood but the buildings which frames were made of metal were twisted melted and gnarled). And coal, you said coal. Coal is one of THE weakest rock based natural substances you can possible find. And why you say:

 

 

 

 

granite it offers the strength and properties of the metal while gaining in durabilty and strength (thats why steel is stronger than iron) so it is correct

 

 

 

Is completely beyond recognition. You relate the strength properties of rocks to metal. Granite in no way shape or form contains the properties that allow steel or iron to be so invincible. Rocks are in no way durable and wear away in many more ways than metals. And to cut this rant short, the reason steel is stronger than iron, is not because of some freaking rock. Steel IS iron which is superheated and allows for oxygen molecules to flow inside the newly widened atomic crevices in the iron and then the iron is quickly cooled in cold water which instantly shrinks the microscopic holes which the oxygen entered through and because of that the oxygen atoms are trapped in between the iron molecules and for some reason makes the iron stronger, and also strangely warrants the name steel.

 

 

 

Last of all, runescape can't be called scientifically correct because there isn't much to BE called correct. If the game included more science related material then there would be more to talk about. but what is in the game is most definitely not correct (even if a little but is scientifically correct which probably it isn't).

 

 

 

My first point still stands. And I never disputed him on it. I jsut merely stated that it is a general public acception that humans, and objects in the normal world are given weights, rather than masses. Despites it being incorrect.

 

 

 

I never said the cannonball would totally vapourise. It is just possible in a soften state, created by internal heat of a cannon. That reaction could take place to create iron hydroxide. Which would cause the degeneration in the state of the cannonball thus making un-able to be re-used. Also in the time of true cannonballs pure iron balls were rarely used, they normally consisted of an iron and rock mix, often with traces of other metals.

 

 

 

You just confirmed my point about gold and silver. The heating process is done by machine. And as I said impurities removed by heat.

 

 

 

I admitted I did not know Obsidian is actually a rock further down and there my knowledge ends.

 

 

 

And steel IS stronger due to coal, as it is the coal introduced into it that helps to form the molecular structures that make the steel stronger. Also it has nothing to do with oxygen, as if it was still iron, just with oxygen in it. Then minute it got wet it would begin to rust, like iron does. The whole purpose of intorudcing coal into iron to make steel is that neutralises the reactive properties whihc form rust.