“it doesn’t have any consistent physical or chemical properties;”
And oxides do? Or are you referring to pure phlogiston? It’s not that big a deal that you can’t get pure phlogiston. It’s nigh impossible to purify fluorine. I think that under our current understanding of physics, it’s totally impossible to isolate a single quark.
It moves because it’s attracted to some things more than others. It’s still attracted to everything more than itself.
“many things not containing oxygen fail to burn in air”
Hurts both theories equally. Presumably, it’s strongly bonded to the phlogiston/it doesn’t strongly bond to oxygen.
″...and none burn in vacuum;”
As I said, you can’t get pure phlogiston.
“on the other hand, things do burn under oxidizers other than oxygen;”
Hurts both theories equally. The only way to solve it to my knowledge is that there are things that cause fire other than phlogiston/oxygen.
“things burned in open air can either gain or lose weight;”
Hurts both theories equally. Presumably, some of the matter escapes into the air sometimes.
Everything you listed either is only a very minor problem or is exactly as bad for the idea of oxygen.
The absence of oxygen isn’t much like a substance whose release is fire:
it doesn’t have any consistent physical or chemical properties;
many things not containing oxygen fail to burn in air, and none burn in vacuum;
on the other hand, things do burn under oxidizers other than oxygen;
oxidized substances are very poorly modeled by mixtures of the original substance and oxygen;
things burned in open air can either gain or lose weight;
etc.
“it doesn’t have any consistent physical or chemical properties;”
And oxides do? Or are you referring to pure phlogiston? It’s not that big a deal that you can’t get pure phlogiston. It’s nigh impossible to purify fluorine. I think that under our current understanding of physics, it’s totally impossible to isolate a single quark.
It moves because it’s attracted to some things more than others. It’s still attracted to everything more than itself.
“many things not containing oxygen fail to burn in air”
Hurts both theories equally. Presumably, it’s strongly bonded to the phlogiston/it doesn’t strongly bond to oxygen.
″...and none burn in vacuum;”
As I said, you can’t get pure phlogiston.
“on the other hand, things do burn under oxidizers other than oxygen;”
Hurts both theories equally. The only way to solve it to my knowledge is that there are things that cause fire other than phlogiston/oxygen.
“things burned in open air can either gain or lose weight;”
Hurts both theories equally. Presumably, some of the matter escapes into the air sometimes.
Everything you listed either is only a very minor problem or is exactly as bad for the idea of oxygen.