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

Groups > sci.physics > #571935 > unrolled thread

Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma" and derive plasma not as state of matter but as radiation energy

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma" and derive plasma not as state of matter but as radiation energy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 14:55 -0700
    Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma" and derive plasma not as state of matter but as radiation energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 18:21 -0500
      Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma" and derive plasma not as state of matter but as radiation energy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 22:29 -0700
        Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma" and derive plasma not as state of matter but as radiation energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 10:45 -0500
          Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma" and derive plasma not as state of matter but as radiation energy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 23:16 -0700
            Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma" and derive plasma not as state of matter but as radiation energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 07:50 -0500
              plasma not a state of matter for no longer a bonding Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma" Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 14:01 -0700
                Re: plasma not a state of matter for no longer a bonding Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma" Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 22:34 -0700
                  Re: plasma not a state of matter for no longer a bonding Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 14:57 -0500
                Re: plasma not a state of matter for no longer a bonding Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 08:33 -0500
                  Re: plasma not a state of matter for no longer a bonding Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma" Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 22:52 -0700
                    Re: plasma not a state of matter for no longer a bonding Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma" benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-24 02:02 -0400
                    Re: plasma not a state of matter for no longer a bonding Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 15:42 -0500
                    States of Matter in Physics is just a simplistic classification of the degree of EM bonding and there are only 3 states of matter Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 15:03 -0700
                      Re: States of Matter in Physics is just a simplistic classification of the degree of EM bonding and there are only 3 states of matter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 06:37 -0500
                        plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 23:38 -0700
                          Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 08:50 -0500
                          Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 09:48 -0500
                          Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-26 14:54 +0000
                          radius of Sun conform to gravity? Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 19:50 -0700
                            radius of Sun conform to gravity? Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 01:42 -0700
                              Re: radius of Sun conform to gravity? Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-28 17:02 +0000
                                cheers to all the illogical people that infest science Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 15:21 -0700
                                  Re: cheers to all the illogical people that infest science Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 17:25 -0500
                                    Re: cheers to all the illogical people that infest science Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 22:32 -0700
                                      Re: cheers to all the illogical people that infest science Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 09:57 -0500
                                  dumb people in physics that mistake a Classification scheme for reality Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 15:35 -0700
                                    Re: dumb people in physics that mistake a Classification scheme for reality Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 06:56 -0500
                                  Re: cheers to all the illogical people that infest science Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-29 05:06 +0000
                              radius of Sun conform to gravity? Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 13:57 -0700
                                Re: radius of Sun conform to gravity? Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 16:28 -0700
                                  Re: radius of Sun conform to gravity? Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 22:43 -0700
                                  Re: radius of Sun conform to gravity? Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 23:49 -0700
                    Re: plasma not a state of matter for no longer a bonding Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma" "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 16:18 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#571935 — Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma" and derive plasma not as state of matter but as radiation energy

Old Physics and their dumb classification of plasma as a state of matter when it looks as though plasma is more about energy than about matter.

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#571947

On 4/20/2016 4:55 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Old Physics and their dumb classification of plasma as a state of matter when it looks as
> though plasma is more about energy than about matter.
>
> AP
>

I really don't think so. What is true is that plasma is all about fluid 
dynamics where electromagnetic charge interactions are dominant. This is 
to be compared with ordinary atomic fluid dynamics where most of the 
electromagnetic field is contained inside the atom, and only a little 
leaks out. Here in a plasma, the electromagnetic interaction is "fully 
engaged" if you will.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#572023

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:21:39 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/20/2016 4:55 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Old Physics and their dumb classification of plasma as a state of matter when it looks as
> > though plasma is more about energy than about matter.
> >
> > AP
> >
> 
> I really don't think so. What is true is that plasma is all about fluid 
> dynamics where electromagnetic charge interactions are dominant. This is 
> to be compared with ordinary atomic fluid dynamics where most of the 
> electromagnetic field is contained inside the atom, and only a little 
> leaks out. Here in a plasma, the electromagnetic interaction is "fully 
> engaged" if you will.
> 
> 

I hope what you are saying is true, for it says, then, that plasma is 100% EM energy and forget about "state of matter".

This would make sense also with spiral galaxies of their inner portion being solid-body rotation, for we see that plasma as EM is solid body rotation.

AP

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

#572106

On 4/21/2016 12:29 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 6:21:39 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/20/2016 4:55 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> Old Physics and their dumb classification of plasma as a state of matter when it looks as
>>> though plasma is more about energy than about matter.
>>>
>>> AP
>>>
>>
>> I really don't think so. What is true is that plasma is all about fluid
>> dynamics where electromagnetic charge interactions are dominant. This is
>> to be compared with ordinary atomic fluid dynamics where most of the
>> electromagnetic field is contained inside the atom, and only a little
>> leaks out. Here in a plasma, the electromagnetic interaction is "fully
>> engaged" if you will.
>>
>>
>
> I hope what you are saying is true, for it says, then, that plasma is 100% EM energy and forget
> about "state of matter".

I disagree. It is a state of matter that is fluid and is dominated by 
electromagnetic interactions.

>
> This would make sense also with spiral galaxies of their inner portion being solid-body rotation,
> for we see that plasma as EM is solid body rotation.

Not so. Plasma physics is FLUID physics, not solid physics.

>
> AP
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#572313

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 10:45:26 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/21/2016 12:29 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
> >
> > I hope what you are saying is true, for it says, then, that plasma is 100% EM energy and forget
> > about "state of matter".
> 
> I disagree. It is a state of matter that is fluid and is dominated by 
> electromagnetic interactions.
> 

Well, the Maxwell theory such as Faraday law or Ampere law have to be inclusive of liquid and gas as well as solids.

> >
> > This would make sense also with spiral galaxies of their inner portion being solid-body rotation,
> > for we see that plasma as EM is solid body rotation.
> 
> Not so. Plasma physics is FLUID physics, not solid physics.
> 

Well, the innermost stars of a spiral galaxy are seen as a fluid or gas that is solid-body rotation.

AP

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

#572339

On 4/22/2016 1:16 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 10:45:26 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/21/2016 12:29 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> (snipped)
>>>
>>> I hope what you are saying is true, for it says, then, that plasma is 100% EM energy and forget
>>> about "state of matter".
>>
>> I disagree. It is a state of matter that is fluid and is dominated by
>> electromagnetic interactions.
>>
>
> Well, the Maxwell theory such as Faraday law or Ampere law have to be inclusive of liquid and gas as
> well as solids.

Of course, but in liquids or solids, most of the electromagnetic field 
is confined INSIDE the atoms. Not so in a plasma.

>
>>>
>>> This would make sense also with spiral galaxies of their inner portion being solid-body rotation,
>>> for we see that plasma as EM is solid body rotation.
>>
>> Not so. Plasma physics is FLUID physics, not solid physics.
>>
>
> Well, the innermost stars of a spiral galaxy are seen as a fluid or gas that is solid-body rotation.

Sorry, but fluids and gases are not solids.

>
> AP
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#572505 — plasma not a state of matter for no longer a bonding Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma"

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 7:50:05 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/22/2016 1:16 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 10:45:26 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 4/21/2016 12:29 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > (snipped)
> >>>
> >>> I hope what you are saying is true, for it says, then, that plasma is 100% EM energy and forget
> >>> about "state of matter".
> >>
> >> I disagree. It is a state of matter that is fluid and is dominated by
> >> electromagnetic interactions.
> >>
> >
> > Well, the Maxwell theory such as Faraday law or Ampere law have to be inclusive of liquid and gas as
> > well as solids.
> 
> Of course, but in liquids or solids, most of the electromagnetic field 
> is confined INSIDE the atoms. Not so in a plasma.
> 
(snipped) 

Then we would have to say in physics that ions are plasma and not a "state of matter". That a solid is a larger electromagnetic bonding than a liquid, and a liquid a larger EM bonding than a gas, and finally we reach where there is no more "state of matter" for a plasma is energy, radiation, and no longer a bonding. Plasma is not a physics state of matter.

> > Well, the innermost stars of a spiral galaxy are seen as a fluid or gas that is solid-body rotation.
> 
> Sorry, but fluids and gases are not solids.
> 

So here again, what makes a State of Matter is the degree of EM bonding of the particles involved. And where Plasma is no longer a bonding and thus, not a state of matter.

AP

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

#572613 — Re: plasma not a state of matter for no longer a bonding Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma"

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 4:01:14 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
> 
> Then we would have to say in physics that ions are plasma and not a "state of matter". That a solid is a larger electromagnetic bonding than a liquid, and a liquid a larger EM bonding than a gas, and finally we reach where there is no more "state of matter" for a plasma is energy, radiation, and no longer a bonding. Plasma is not a physics state of matter.
> 
> > > Well, the innermost stars of a spiral galaxy are seen as a fluid or gas that is solid-body rotation.
> > 
> > Sorry, but fluids and gases are not solids.
> > 
> 
> So here again, what makes a State of Matter is the degree of EM bonding of the particles involved. And where Plasma is no longer a bonding and thus, not a state of matter.
> 
> AP

So, the question raised above for that of Odd and Sam, is what is an ion state of matter? If you strip a atom of all its electrons, is it still a solid, liquid or gas?

AP

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

#572930 — Re: plasma not a state of matter for no longer a bonding Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma"

On 4/23/2016 12:34 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 4:01:14 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> (snipped)
>>
>> Then we would have to say in physics that ions are plasma and not a "state of matter". That a solid
>> is a larger electromagnetic bonding than a liquid, and a liquid a larger EM bonding than a gas, and
>> finally we reach where there is no more "state of matter" for a plasma is energy, radiation, and no
>> longer a bonding. Plasma is not a physics state of matter.
>>
>>>> Well, the innermost stars of a spiral galaxy are seen as a fluid or gas that is solid-body rotation.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but fluids and gases are not solids.
>>>
>>
>> So here again, what makes a State of Matter is the degree of EM bonding of the particles involved. And
>> where Plasma is no longer a bonding and thus, not a state of matter.
>>
>> AP
>
> So, the question raised above for that of Odd and Sam, is what is an ion state of matter? If you strip
> a atom of all its electrons, is it still a solid, liquid or gas?
>
> AP
>

If you strip an atom of all it's electrons, it's not a solid, liquid or 
gas, but it's still a state of matter. It's just that states of matter 
are not limited to the three options: solid, liquid, gas. There's also 
the state of matter that fully stripped ions belong to: plasma.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#572694 — Re: plasma not a state of matter for no longer a bonding Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma"

On 4/22/2016 4:01 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 7:50:05 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/22/2016 1:16 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 10:45:26 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 4/21/2016 12:29 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> (snipped)
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope what you are saying is true, for it says, then, that plasma is 100% EM energy and forget
>>>>> about "state of matter".
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. It is a state of matter that is fluid and is dominated by
>>>> electromagnetic interactions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, the Maxwell theory such as Faraday law or Ampere law have to be inclusive of liquid and gas as
>>> well as solids.
>>
>> Of course, but in liquids or solids, most of the electromagnetic field
>> is confined INSIDE the atoms. Not so in a plasma.
>>
> (snipped)
>
> Then we would have to say in physics that ions are plasma and not a "state of matter".

Plasma consists of ions, yes.

> That a solid is a
> larger electromagnetic bonding than a liquid, and a liquid a larger EM bonding than a gas,

So far, so good.

> and finally we
> reach where there is no more "state of matter" for a plasma is energy, radiation, and no longer a bonding.

No. What is true is that the temperatures are high enough where the 
electrons are no longer bound to the nuclei, and all atoms are 
dissociated into ions. But ions are not energy.

> Plasma is not a physics state of matter.

I disagree.

>
>>> Well, the innermost stars of a spiral galaxy are seen as a fluid or gas that is solid-body rotation.
>>
>> Sorry, but fluids and gases are not solids.
>>
>
> So here again, what makes a State of Matter is the degree of EM bonding of the particles involved.

No. What makes a state of matter is whether it consists of a collection 
of interacting fermions. Electrons and nucleons are all fermions. Energy 
is not a collection of interacting fermions.

A state of matter is NOT defined by whether the fermions are assembled 
into neutral atoms.

> And where Plasma is no longer a bonding and thus, not a state of matter.
>
> AP
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#572868 — Re: plasma not a state of matter for no longer a bonding Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma"

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 8:33:39 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/22/2016 4:01 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

> > Then we would have to say in physics that ions are plasma and not a "state of matter".
> 
> Plasma consists of ions, yes.
> 

Stop acting like some high priestess of science, for you are really awkward in science.

> > That a solid is a
> > larger electromagnetic bonding than a liquid, and a liquid a larger EM bonding than a gas,
> 
> So far, so good.
> 
> > and finally we
> > reach where there is no more "state of matter" for a plasma is energy, radiation, and no longer a bonding.
> 
> No. What is true is that the temperatures are high enough where the 
> electrons are no longer bound to the nuclei, and all atoms are 
> dissociated into ions. But ions are not energy.
> 

States of Matter are about EM bonding, if tightly bonded-- solid, if loosely-- liquid, if no bonding-- gas. So, plasma does not fit into the critical definition of State of Matter-- the degree of bonding

> > Plasma is not a physics state of matter.
> 
> I disagree.
> 

Alright, that is a good reply. And shows that you can be a conversant in science. Where your posts are not a blanket attack on whatever the other person says, and that you are willing to learn, not just dish out your low opinion of the other person.

> >
> >>> Well, the innermost stars of a spiral galaxy are seen as a fluid or gas that is solid-body rotation.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but fluids and gases are not solids.
> >>
> >
> > So here again, what makes a State of Matter is the degree of EM bonding of the particles involved.
> 
> No. What makes a state of matter is whether it consists of a collection 
> of interacting fermions. Electrons and nucleons are all fermions. Energy 
> is not a collection of interacting fermions.
> 

Bs, pure bs. What makes a state of matter is the extent of the EM bonding of the particles involved.
Plasma has no EM bonding.

> A state of matter is NOT defined by whether the fermions are assembled 
> into neutral atoms.
> 

Back to your old high priestess frommpit.

You could improve your posts immensely by posting with a real name.

AP

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

#572871 — Re: plasma not a state of matter for no longer a bonding Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma"

On 04/24/2016 01:52 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 8:33:39 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/22/2016 4:01 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> (snipped)
>
>>> Then we would have to say in physics that ions are plasma and not a "state of matter".
>>
>> Plasma consists of ions, yes.
>>
>
> Stop acting like some high priestess of science, for you are really awkward in science.
>
>>> That a solid is a
>>> larger electromagnetic bonding than a liquid, and a liquid a larger EM bonding than a gas,
>>
>> So far, so good.
>>
>>> and finally we
>>> reach where there is no more "state of matter" for a plasma is energy, radiation, and no longer a bonding.
>>
>> No. What is true is that the temperatures are high enough where the
>> electrons are no longer bound to the nuclei, and all atoms are
>> dissociated into ions. But ions are not energy.
>>
>
> States of Matter are about EM bonding, if tightly bonded-- solid, if loosely-- liquid, if no bonding-- gas. So, plasma does not fit into the critical definition of State of Matter-- the degree of bonding
>
>>> Plasma is not a physics state of matter.
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>
> Alright, that is a good reply. And shows that you can be a conversant in science. Where your posts are not a blanket attack on whatever the other person says, and that you are willing to learn, not just dish out your low opinion of the other person.
>
>>>
>>>>> Well, the innermost stars of a spiral galaxy are seen as a fluid or gas that is solid-body rotation.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but fluids and gases are not solids.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So here again, what makes a State of Matter is the degree of EM bonding of the particles involved.
>>
>> No. What makes a state of matter is whether it consists of a collection
>> of interacting fermions. Electrons and nucleons are all fermions. Energy
>> is not a collection of interacting fermions.
>>
>
> Bs, pure bs. What makes a state of matter is the extent of the EM bonding of the particles involved.
> Plasma has no EM bonding.
>
>> A state of matter is NOT defined by whether the fermions are assembled
>> into neutral atoms.
>>
>
> Back to your old high priestess frommpit.
>
> You could improve your posts immensely by posting with a real name.
>
> AP

Archie (whose real name is Archimedes Plutonium) and Boinker going at 
it! This is going to be rich! Anybody got some popcorn?

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

#572939 — Re: plasma not a state of matter for no longer a bonding Re: Does Maxwell theory and equations cover "plasma"

On 4/24/2016 12:52 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 8:33:39 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/22/2016 4:01 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> (snipped)
>
>>> Then we would have to say in physics that ions are plasma and not a "state of matter".
>>
>> Plasma consists of ions, yes.
>>
>
> Stop acting like some high priestess of science, for you are really awkward in science.

No "high priestess" status is required. This is basic knowledge, which 
is available in encyclopedias, textbooks, or the internet.

>
>>> That a solid is a
>>> larger electromagnetic bonding than a liquid, and a liquid a larger EM bonding than a gas,
>>
>> So far, so good.
>>
>>> and finally we
>>> reach where there is no more "state of matter" for a plasma is energy, radiation, and no longer a bonding.
>>
>> No. What is true is that the temperatures are high enough where the
>> electrons are no longer bound to the nuclei, and all atoms are
>> dissociated into ions. But ions are not energy.
>>
>
> States of Matter are about EM bonding,

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Can you tell me whether you have looked up 
what defines states of matter, or whether this is something you have 
made up for yourself through philosophical reasoning? If the latter, 
please consider that YOUR definitions may conflict with the definitions 
as used by scientists.

> if tightly bonded-- solid, if loosely-- liquid, if no bonding-- gas. So, plasma does not fit into the
> critical definition of State of Matter-- the degree of bonding
>
>>> Plasma is not a physics state of matter.
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>
> Alright, that is a good reply. And shows that you can be a conversant in science. Where your posts
> are not a blanket attack on whatever the other person says, and that you are willing to learn, not
> just dish out your low opinion of the other person.

I am always stating where I disagree with you. Especially when the 
disagreement stems from simple facts that can be looked up.

>
>>>
>>>>> Well, the innermost stars of a spiral galaxy are seen as a fluid or gas that is solid-body rotation.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but fluids and gases are not solids.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So here again, what makes a State of Matter is the degree of EM bonding of the particles involved.
>>
>> No. What makes a state of matter is whether it consists of a collection
>> of interacting fermions. Electrons and nucleons are all fermions. Energy
>> is not a collection of interacting fermions.
>>
>
> Bs, pure bs. What makes a state of matter is the extent of the EM bonding of the particles involved.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think that's true. From where do you get 
this statement?

> Plasma has no EM bonding.
>
>> A state of matter is NOT defined by whether the fermions are assembled
>> into neutral atoms.
>>
>
> Back to your old high priestess frommpit.
>
> You could improve your posts immensely by posting with a real name.

I'm sorry, but that is practically foolish on a public internet forum.

>
> AP
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#572953 — States of Matter in Physics is just a simplistic classification of the degree of EM bonding and there are only 3 states of matter

So now, the Maxwell theory is a axiomatic theory of all of Physics when we include the Atomic theory and facts of Chemistry to the Maxwell theory. So all of physics is obtained by these three:

Maxwell theory
Atomic fact
facts of chemistry

What is State of Matter? It is simply a classification, and no more. And it is defined as to the degree of chemical bonding by EM forces upon atoms. When we have 0 EM forces of bonding on atoms we have a gas, when we have considerable EM forces but not strong ones we have a liquid, when we have strong EM bonding forces we have a solid.

Do we ever have Plasma in this scheme? No. Only the modern day science fools, weak in logic, have thrown plasma as a "state of matter".

Plasma is radiation, is energy, is ions and is not a "state of matter". 

Lightening bolts are plasma, and not a state of matter.

An alpha particle emitted in radioactivity is plasma and not a state of matter.

AP

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

#573048 — Re: States of Matter in Physics is just a simplistic classification of the degree of EM bonding and there are only 3 states of matter

On 4/24/2016 5:03 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> What is State of Matter? It is simply a classification, and no more. And it is defined
> as to the degree of chemical bonding by EM forces upon atoms.

I disagree with this definition, and can find no place in external 
literature where such a definition is proposed.

I've given you the proper definition of State of Matter, which you 
disregarded.

I've asked you whether your definition is something you came up with 
yourself, or whether it is something you learned in your studies from 
other writings.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#573347 — plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:37:04 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/24/2016 5:03 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > What is State of Matter? It is simply a classification, and no more. And it is defined
> > as to the degree of chemical bonding by EM forces upon atoms.
> 
> I disagree with this definition, and can find no place in external 
> literature where such a definition is proposed.
> 
> I've given you the proper definition of State of Matter, which you 
> disregarded.
> 
> I've asked you whether your definition is something you came up with 
> yourself, or whether it is something you learned in your studies from 
> other writings.
> 

Why should it matter where it came from. I guess to a nonscientist, it matters because their idea of science is follow what the big shots of the moment say, and not follow reasoning and logic.

The idea that states of matter do not include plasma comes from my meandering through the Maxwell theory.

If the EM bonding of helium is virtually nil, virtually zero, and thus helium atoms form a gas unless at very low temperatures, then we cannot say that alpha particles are a state of matter with 0 or near 0 EM bonding. Helium is the near 0 EM bonding.

Now, to support my idea of the Plasma as not a state of matter but rather as a energy classification, all we need do is see if the Sun exists with its radius and other parameters as obeying fully the force of gravity as mass of atoms. Is the size of the Sun obedient to mass as state of matter, or, is the size of our Sun anomalous with gravity and state of matter that includes plasma.

What I am saying is that Plasma is EM and that the alpha particles and beta particles as energy, not as state of matter as mass, makes the Sun the radius size it is.

In other words, the alpha particles and beta particles are traveling around the Sun, forming the Sun radius, not that Gravity of mass. Although gravity of mass plays a minor role, but the major role is Plasma which like an electron or proton goes around in a closed loop of wire in Faraday's law.

So that in Spiral Galaxies, near the center, we see most of the Plasma of that galaxy and it is this Plasma in Faraday's law that creates Solid Body Rotation of those inner stars and not the force of gravity, which has only a negligible influence on those stars revolving around the center of the galaxy.

So, fools of physics, who classify plasma as "state of matter" have much to answer for, as to why stars do not obey gravity for their size and why stars have solid body rotation in many galaxies. It is because the plasma follows Maxwell theory of having stars obey Faraday law which is 10^40 stronger than the force of gravity in GR or Newton's law.

Now, the attacker above keeps wanting to find things in the literature, but has he found the literature that says-- the size of our Sun, its radius and mass are in disagreement. That disagreement is caused by the fact that the size of the Sun is determined more by the fact that Plasma is not a state of matter.
And another anomaly of plasma as state of matter is the fact that the surface or outer surface of the Sun is the most hot place of the Sun. If plasma was a "state of matter" then the hottest part of the Sun would be in the interior, not the surface. If Plasma was energy and not state of matter, then the most energy of plasma would be where the alpha and beta particles had the most freedom of movement-- the surface and outer surface.

AP

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

#573375 — Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars

On 4/26/2016 1:38 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:37:04 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/24/2016 5:03 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> What is State of Matter? It is simply a classification, and no more. And it is defined
>>> as to the degree of chemical bonding by EM forces upon atoms.
>>
>> I disagree with this definition, and can find no place in external
>> literature where such a definition is proposed.
>>
>> I've given you the proper definition of State of Matter, which you
>> disregarded.
>>
>> I've asked you whether your definition is something you came up with
>> yourself, or whether it is something you learned in your studies from
>> other writings.
>>
>
> Why should it matter where it came from. I guess to a nonscientist, it matters because
> their idea of science is follow what the big shots of the moment say, and not follow reasoning
> and logic.

This is where I think you are taking a large risk. What you are in 
effect doing is REDEFINING "state of matter" to your own whim and 
through your own reasoning, without reference to what that term means to 
the scientific community.

You are free, I suppose, to invent your own language by using the same 
phrases but creating new definitions for them. You could for example, 
redefine "tiger" to mean "any animal with stripes", in which case a 
zebra and a chipmunk and a bumblebee would be classifiable as tigers. Of 
course in doing so, you lose your ability to communicate with 
scientists, as what you mean by a phrase will be different than what 
scientists understand by the same phrase.

The purpose of language, after all, is not to conform to your own 
personal logic and reasoning, but communication.

>
> The idea that states of matter do not include plasma comes from my meandering through the
> Maxwell theory.

As I just said, this is not how SCIENTISTS have associated meaning to 
"states of matter". Whether you choose to do this is up to you, but you 
do it at the risk of no longer being to communicate effectively.

>
> If the EM bonding of helium is virtually nil, virtually zero, and thus helium atoms form a gas
> unless at very low temperatures, then we cannot say that alpha particles are a state of matter
> with 0 or near 0 EM bonding. Helium is the near 0 EM bonding.
>
> Now, to support my idea of the Plasma as not a state of matter but rather as a energy classification,
> all we need do is see if the Sun exists with its radius and other parameters as obeying fully the
> force of gravity as mass of atoms. Is the size of the Sun obedient to mass as state of matter, or,
> is the size of our Sun anomalous with gravity and state of matter that includes plasma.
>
> What I am saying is that Plasma is EM and that the alpha particles and beta particles as energy,
> not as state of matter as mass, makes the Sun the radius size it is.
>
> In other words, the alpha particles and beta particles are traveling around the Sun, forming the
> Sun radius, not that Gravity of mass. Although gravity of mass plays a minor role, but the major
> role is Plasma which like an electron or proton goes around in a closed loop of wire in Faraday's
> law.
>
> So that in Spiral Galaxies, near the center, we see most of the Plasma of that galaxy and it is
> this Plasma in Faraday's law that creates Solid Body Rotation of those inner stars and not the
> force of gravity, which has only a negligible influence on those stars revolving around the center
> of the galaxy.
>
> So, fools of physics, who classify plasma as "state of matter" have much to answer for, as to why
> stars do not obey gravity for their size and why stars have solid body rotation in many galaxies.
> It is because the plasma follows Maxwell theory of having stars obey Faraday law which is 10^40
> stronger than the force of gravity in GR or Newton's law.
>
> Now, the attacker above keeps wanting to find things in the literature, but has he found the
> literature that says-- the size of our Sun, its radius and mass are in disagreement. That
> disagreement is caused by the fact that the size of the Sun is determined more by the fact that
> Plasma is not a state of matter.
> And another anomaly of plasma as state of matter is the fact that the surface or outer surface
> of the Sun is the most hot place of the Sun. If plasma was a "state of matter" then the hottest
> part of the Sun would be in the interior, not the surface. If Plasma was energy and not state of
> matter, then the most energy of plasma would be where the alpha and beta particles had the most
> freedom of movement-- the surface and outer surface.
>
> AP
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#573390 — Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars

On 4/26/2016 1:38 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> The idea that states of matter do not include plasma comes from my meandering through the Maxwell theory.

Archimedes, what has become clear to me is that at some point in the 
past, you decided to stop trying to learn what physicists were saying 
about nature. Instead, you decided to start from scratch, relying on 
your own reasoning power and intellect to work everything out from the 
beginning, relying only on data you can fetch from the internet. In 
this, you hope to come up with a whole new physics, on your own.

The traps here are associated with isolation. Without constant 
communication with others in the field, it is easy to wander into the 
weeds, either because you are not aware of important experimental data, 
or because your assumptions have already been shown to be incorrect by 
others in the field, or because you have made a mistake that you haven't 
been able to see yourself.

I further, surmise, however, that you've been working in this mode of 
isolation for quite some time, so that not only is it a habit that would 
be hard to break, but that you don't really have a way to restore 
communications with others in the field. So I imagine it's going to be 
really hard to avoid the traps of isolation.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#573393 — Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars

If you take a gas and heat it enough, you'll get a plasma.  If you take a 
plasma and cool it, you'll get a gas (or liquid, or solid).  Plasma has
mass, it has momentum, it (as stars) orbits other things and things orbit
it.  That certainly sounds like a state of matter to me.

You certainly can argue that plasma _has_ energy, lots of it.  It doesn't
make sense to say it _is_ energy.  You certainly can't convert plasma
into a bunch of photons (another form of energy) and have the plasma
disappear when the photons go elsewhere, or a bunch of photon becoming
plasma.  (Ignore antimatter annihilation or pair production as this
involves antimatter, which is an entirely different can of worms)

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

#573847 — radius of Sun conform to gravity? Re: plasma is not a "state of matter" but is energy, and evidence of this comes from size of Stars

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 1:39:01 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Now I am searching to see if there is a anomaly in the Sun's dimensions due to plasma taking over that of gravity force. Is the radius of the Sun conform to gravity?

AP

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web