Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #561319 > unrolled thread

My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:49 -0800
    Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 18:33 -0600
      Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 16:51 -0800
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 19:27 -0600
          Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:33 -0800
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:40 -0600
              Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:40 +0100
                Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 01:07 -0800
                  Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:38 -0800
                    Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-11 09:05 -0600
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 01:22 +0000
          Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:36 -0800
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 19:52 -0600
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 03:13 +0000
              Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:44 -0800
                Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 05:24 +0000
                  Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 21:53 -0800
                    Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 07:12 +0000
    Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 00:42 +0000
      Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 16:53 -0800
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 19:29 -0600
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 01:17 +0000
          Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:34 -0800
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-10 20:34 -0600
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 03:15 +0000
      E-maniA noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:49 -0800
    Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:34 -0600
      Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:12 +0100
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 22:36 -0800
          Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-11 07:48 -0600
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:43 -0800
              Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 09:01 -0800
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 23:22 -0800
    Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 07:55 +0100
      Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 23:37 -0800
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-11 07:51 -0600
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-11 19:08 +0000
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 13:20 -0600
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 07:44 +0100
          Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 23:20 -0800
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:32 +0100
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 14:21 -0500
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-14 19:33 +0000
              Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 14:19 -0700
                Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-14 16:53 -0500
                Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-14 22:53 +0000
      Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 22:53 +0800
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 15:10 +0000
          Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear g8dgc <g8dgc@noneya.none> - 2016-03-11 10:15 -0500
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe aka g8dgc) - 2016-03-11 15:23 +0000
        Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:19 +0100
          Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-13 15:49 +0800
            Re: My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 06:47 +0100
      wind shear?! noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 12:37 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#561319 — My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:38:24 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a 
> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of at 
> least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that if 
> you want to ionize the water (make a plasma) 

You are interpreting my use of the word plasma too literally.  There is no ionization associated with my plasma.  Ionization is associated with ionic bonds.  My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind shear.

See my videos for details.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#561326

On 3/10/2016 5:49 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:38:24 AM UTC-8, Friendly
> Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
>> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a
>> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of
>> at least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that
>> if you want to ionize the water (make a plasma)
>
> You are interpreting my use of the word plasma too literally.  There
> is no ionization associated with my plasma.

you do not know the meaning of the word "plasma", and you continue to 
mislead people with your "special" meaning, instead just use the word 
"magical".


> Ionization is associated
> with ionic bonds.  My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind
> shear.

"Magical Plasma" by imagination boy.

>
> See my videos for details.

you should sell them on VHS

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561329

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 4:34:17 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/10/2016 5:49 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:38:24 AM UTC-8, Friendly
> > Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> >
> >> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in a
> >> water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy of
> >> at least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That means that
> >> if you want to ionize the water (make a plasma)
> >
> > You are interpreting my use of the word plasma too literally.  There
> > is no ionization associated with my plasma.
> 
> you do not know the meaning of the word "plasma", and you continue to 
> mislead people with your "special" meaning, instead just use the word 
> "magical".
> 
> 
> > Ionization is associated
> > with ionic bonds.  My plasma is a consequence of H bonds and wind
> > shear.
> 
> "Magical Plasma" by imagination boy.
> 
> >
> > See my videos for details.
> 
> you should sell them on VHS

Sergio, you're a nitwit who only understands what he is told, takes concepts literally, and has no ability to reason outside of strictly defined parameters.  For you science is a belief system, it's not a means to discovery.  The suggestion that there is only one kind of plasma is just a dumb as the suggestion that there is one kind of solid, liquid, or gas.  

The fact that you have proven yourself incapable of adding to the discussion here should be taken as a clue that you are out of your element in any kind of scientific forum.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561335

On 3/10/2016 6:51 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 4:34:17 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> On 3/10/2016 5:49 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:38:24 AM UTC-8, Friendly
>>> Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>>
>>>> It has been measured that to create any degree of ionization in
>>>> a water vapor atmosphere you need to have electrons with energy
>>>> of at least around 12 electron volts. (See Ref. below) That
>>>> means that if you want to ionize the water (make a plasma)
>>>
>>> You are interpreting my use of the word plasma too literally.
>>> There is no ionization associated with my plasma.
>>
>> you do not know the meaning of the word "plasma", and you continue
>> to mislead people with your "special" meaning, instead just use the
>> word "magical".
>>
>>
>>> Ionization is associated with ionic bonds.  My plasma is a
>>> consequence of H bonds and wind shear.
>>
>> "Magical Plasma" by imagination boy.
>>
>>>
>>> See my videos for details.
>>
>> you should sell them on VHS
>
> Sergio, you're a nitwit who only understands what he is told, takes
> concepts literally, and has no ability to reason outside of strictly
> defined parameters.  For you science is a belief system, it's not a
> means to discovery.  The suggestion that there is only one kind of
> plasma is just a dumb as the suggestion that there is one kind of
> solid, liquid, or gas.


Your insistence of "reasoning outside of the box" leads you to believe 
your imagination is fact, which is delusion.

You do not have the skills or self discipline to use the scientific 
method. Everybody here will tell you that.

No wonder you are full of non-sense, your mind is unhinged, are you self 
medicating with medical meth ?

you do not understand the word "plasma", it is the 4th state of matter, 
and you cannot redefine it.

But you can use "Magical Plasma"  or "M-Plasma" , like the rest of your 
NEW "magical science"

Perhaps you should define your terms first.


>
> The fact that you have proven yourself incapable of adding to the
> discussion here should be taken as a clue that you are out of your
> element in any kind of scientific forum.

you do not use scientific words at all, or use scientific reasoning, you 
make stuff up like  your "Magical Plasma", "no water vapor" etc, etc. 
into airy-fairy land cozmic kiddie.


and you are projecting again;
 >"The fact that I have proven myself incapable of adding to the
 > discussion here should be taken as a clue that I am out of my
 > element in any kind of scientific forum."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561343

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 5:28:02 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:

> Your insistence of "reasoning outside of the box" 

The fact that your only dispute with my thinking is that it is outside the box doesn't indicate my theory is correct.  But it does indicate you are dumb.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561348

On 3/10/16 7:33 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> The fact that your only dispute with my thinking is that it is outside the box doesn't indicate my theory is correct


   The only thing that make a theory correct is the support of
   observation and experiment. All you have is misconceptions, James.
   This is basic stuff you should have learned in school.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561425

Dne 11/03/2016 v 02:40 Sam Wormley napsal(a):
> On 3/10/16 7:33 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> The fact that your only dispute with my thinking is that it is outside the box doesn't indicate my theory is correct
> 
> 
>    The only thing that make a theory correct is the support of
>    observation and experiment. All you have is misconceptions, James.
>    This is basic stuff you should have learned in school.
> 
Every technically skilled student of high school
can experimentally refute James' idea of heavy vapour.
He would do it himself, if he was really interested
in refuting it in case if it was wrong.

It is impossible to have a gas or liquid at given temperature
with molecules of the same energy.
As molecules *actively* participate to keep their energies statistically
distributed via mutual collisions.

As energies are distributed with asymptotic upper energy limit,
then at any temperature,
there is portion of molecules
with sufficient energy to escape the liquid.

This portion depends only on temperature,
not on external pressure. It does not matter,
if at given temperature is pressure too high to boil or not.

If James says water gaseous phase cannot exist at 20 deg C,
he is not aware of he at the same time implicitly says
it cannot exist either at 100 deg C either at 200 deg C.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561471

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:40:33 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 11/03/2016 v 02:40 Sam Wormley napsal(a):
> > On 3/10/16 7:33 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >> The fact that your only dispute with my thinking is that it is outside the box doesn't indicate my theory is correct
> > 
> > 
> >    The only thing that make a theory correct is the support of
> >    observation and experiment. All you have is misconceptions, James.
> >    This is basic stuff you should have learned in school.
> > 
> Every technically skilled student of high school
> can experimentally refute James' idea of heavy vapour.
> He would do it himself, if he was really interested
> in refuting it in case if it was wrong.
> 
> It is impossible to have a gas or liquid at given temperature
> with molecules of the same energy.
> As molecules *actively* participate to keep their energies statistically
> distributed via mutual collisions.
> 
> As energies are distributed with asymptotic upper energy limit,
> then at any temperature,
> there is portion of molecules
> with sufficient energy to escape the liquid.

You just refuted your own argument.


> 
> This portion depends only on temperature,
> not on external pressure. It does not matter,
> if at given temperature is pressure too high to boil or not.
> 
> If James says water gaseous phase cannot exist at 20 deg C,
> he is not aware of he at the same time implicitly says
> it cannot exist either at 100 deg C either at 200 deg C.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> 
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561512

Dne pátek 11. března 2016 10:07:13 UTC+1 Solving Tornadoes napsal(a):
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:40:33 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> > Dne 11/03/2016 v 02:40 Sam Wormley napsal(a):
> > > On 3/10/16 7:33 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > >> The fact that your only dispute with my thinking is that it is outside the box doesn't indicate my theory is correct
> > > 
> > > 
> > >    The only thing that make a theory correct is the support of
> > >    observation and experiment. All you have is misconceptions, James.
> > >    This is basic stuff you should have learned in school.
> > > 
> > Every technically skilled student of high school
> > can experimentally refute James' idea of heavy vapour.
> > He would do it himself, if he was really interested
> > in refuting it in case if it was wrong.
> > 
> > It is impossible to have a gas or liquid at given temperature
> > with molecules of the same energy.
> > As molecules *actively* participate to keep their energies statistically
> > distributed via mutual collisions.
> > 
> > As energies are distributed with asymptotic upper energy limit,
> > then at any temperature,
> > there is portion of molecules
> > with sufficient energy to escape the liquid.
> 
> You just refuted your own argument.

No, you have just nothing better to say,
as you obviously do not understand what I am talking about.

BTW, it is not my argument, 
it is argument of statistical thermodynamics.
 
> 
> > 
> > This portion depends only on temperature,
> > not on external pressure. It does not matter,
> > if at given temperature is pressure too high to boil or not.
> > 
> > If James says water gaseous phase cannot exist at 20 deg C,
> > he is not aware of he at the same time implicitly says
> > it cannot exist either at 100 deg C either at 200 deg C.
> > 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561529

On 3/11/2016 8:38 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne pátek 11. března 2016 10:07:13 UTC+1 Solving Tornadoes
> napsal(a):
>> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:40:33 PM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
>>> Dne 11/03/2016 v 02:40 Sam Wormley napsal(a):
>>>> On 3/10/16 7:33 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>> The fact that your only dispute with my thinking is that it
>>>>> is outside the box doesn't indicate my theory is correct

James;
so far, nothing indicates your "theory" is correct.

Got anything ? or are you just making stuff up ?

It turns out, that your theory, is all your imagination.



>>>>
>>>> The only thing that make a theory correct is the support of
>>>> observation and experiment. All you have is misconceptions,
>>>> James. This is basic stuff you should have learned in school.
>>>>
>>> Every technically skilled student of high school can
>>> experimentally refute James' idea of heavy vapour. He would do it
>>> himself, if he was really interested in refuting it in case if it
>>> was wrong.

>>> It is impossible to have a gas or liquid at given temperature
>>> with molecules of the same energy. As molecules *actively*
>>> participate to keep their energies statistically distributed via
>>> mutual collisions.
>>>
>>> As energies are distributed with asymptotic upper energy limit,
>>> then at any temperature, there is portion of molecules with
>>> sufficient energy to escape the liquid.
>>
>> You just refuted your own argument.
>
> No, you have just nothing better to say, as you obviously do not
> understand what I am talking about.

nobody understands what James McGinn is babbling about,
"Magical Plasma" "no water vapor"  "soylent potatoes"
(i.e. thoughts are deep fried)


  I agree with all you have said, Poutnik.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561341

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:

> The suggestion that there is only one kind of plasma is just a dumb
> as the suggestion that there is one kind of solid, liquid, or gas.  

None of plasma, solid, liquid, or gas are a "kind" of anything; they are
all well defined states of matter.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561346

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 5:31:13 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > The suggestion that there is only one kind of plasma is just a dumb
> > as the suggestion that there is one kind of solid, liquid, or gas.  
> 
> None of plasma, solid, liquid, or gas are a "kind" of anything; they are
> all well defined states of matter.

You have to about be retarded to think that solid, liquid, or gas is defined by temperature--same for plasma.

You are way to dumb for any of this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561352

On 3/10/2016 7:36 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 5:31:13 PM UTC-8,
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The suggestion that there is only one kind of plasma is just a
>>> dumb as the suggestion that there is one kind of solid, liquid,
>>> or gas.
>>
>> None of plasma, solid, liquid, or gas are a "kind" of anything;
>> they are all well defined states of matter.
>
> You have to about be retarded to think that solid, liquid, or gas is
> defined by temperature--same for plasma.

Wrong again, James.  Phase Diagrams show the relationship of temperature 
and pressure with the states of matter.

Very basic stuff here, pre high school

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram


I guess you are regressing at an increasing rate.

you are evolving from your current physical form, a solid like shell 
into a more liquidy and now gaseous state.

>
> You are way to dumb for any of this.
>

easy to refute others as dumb, but we see a person in distress here, and 
take our warning, do not continue these paths of exploration too long. 
The end result is nada.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561386

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 5:31:13 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > The suggestion that there is only one kind of plasma is just a dumb
>> > as the suggestion that there is one kind of solid, liquid, or gas.  
>> 
>> None of plasma, solid, liquid, or gas are a "kind" of anything; they are
>> all well defined states of matter.
> 
> You have to about be retarded to think that solid, liquid, or gas is
> defined by temperature--same for plasma.

Who said anything about such being defined by temperature?

Was that the voices in your head?

What is true is that substances have phase diagrams the describe the
state of a particular substance for a range of temperature and pressure.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561388

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 7:31:06 PM UTC-8, 

> Who said anything about such being defined by temperature?
> 
> Was that the voices in your head?
> 
> What is true is that substances have phase diagrams the describe the
> state of a particular substance for a range of temperature and pressure.

Obviously that doesn't exist yet for this newly theorized type of plasma.  Surely you are not so simple as to suggest that until diagrams are constructed that we can't discuss it.  Or maybe you really are just that simple.  

You've never had an out of the box thought in all of your simple life, have you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561410

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 7:31:06 PM UTC-8, 
> 
>> Who said anything about such being defined by temperature?
>> 
>> Was that the voices in your head?
>> 
>> What is true is that substances have phase diagrams the describe the
>> state of a particular substance for a range of temperature and pressure.
> 
> Obviously that doesn't exist yet for this newly theorized type of plasma.

Plasma is a state of matter, not a "type".

If you think you have discovered a new state of matter, where is the
experiment and data to show this?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561416

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:31:10 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 7:31:06 PM UTC-8, 
> > 
> >> Who said anything about such being defined by temperature?
> >> 
> >> Was that the voices in your head?
> >> 
> >> What is true is that substances have phase diagrams the describe the
> >> state of a particular substance for a range of temperature and pressure.
> > 
> > Obviously that doesn't exist yet for this newly theorized type of plasma.
> 
> Plasma is a state of matter, not a "type".

My god you are dumb.  Every step of the way everything has to be spelled out for you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561507

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:31:10 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 7:31:06 PM UTC-8, 
>> > 
>> >> Who said anything about such being defined by temperature?
>> >> 
>> >> Was that the voices in your head?
>> >> 
>> >> What is true is that substances have phase diagrams the describe the
>> >> state of a particular substance for a range of temperature and pressure.
>> > 
>> > Obviously that doesn't exist yet for this newly theorized type of plasma.
>> 
>> Plasma is a state of matter, not a "type".
> 
> My god you are dumb.  Every step of the way everything has to be spelled
> out for you.

You probable believe that is an intelligent retort.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561328

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:

> You are interpreting my use of the word plasma too literally.

The word "plasma" has a well defined meaning in physics.

If you are going to make up your own language as you go, you will get
nowhere other than to be laughed at.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561330

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 4:46:06 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > You are interpreting my use of the word plasma too literally.
> 
> The word "plasma" has a well defined meaning in physics.

Who cares, dumbass.  There is more to science than looking up definitions in wikipedia.  Go find another hobby.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web