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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#573901 — 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

Now some silly argue that if you take a gas and heat it enough it becomes a plasma. So, is a lightening bolt heated atmosphere has, and not a plasma of electrical charge.

Is a radioactive ore solid when heated turn into a liquid then heated more into a gas and heated more into a plasma? Or is the alpha beta particles from the ore a plasma that needs no heat.

Fools of physic often make mistakes by not knowing that classification is not science but merely a helper tool in doing science. The three bonds of chemistry, ionic metallic covalent is merely classification with thousands of gray patches. To call plasma a "state of matter" is like calling magnetism a chemical bond to include with ionic covalent metallic.

It is a shame that most in physics are really poor in logic.

iPhone post

AP

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

#573981 — 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> writes:

>Now some silly argue that if you take a gas and heat it enough it becomes a
> plasma.

Why the insults? This should be about science.  A simple scientific 
experiment would take a gas and apply extreme heat and see whether it
forms free electrons and positive ions.  Then cool it and see if it 
becomes a gas again.

Do you agree this happens?

> So, is a lightening bolt heated atmosphere has, and not a plasma
>of electrical charge.

Two separate things here, the lightning discharge itself (an electrical
current) and the atmospheric gas along its path.  The lightning discharge
greatly heats this gas and it becomes plasma. The plasma cools very 
quickly, becoming gas again in a fraction of a second once the current is
gone.

>Is a radioactive ore solid when heated turn into a liquid then heated more 
>into a gas and heated more into a plasma?

Yes, heat it enough and it will first melt, then become a gas and then a 
plasma.  Just like any other matter (though some skip the liquid state
and others decompose when heated becoming different matter during the 
process)

>Or is the alpha beta particles from the ore a plasma that needs no heat.

States of matter are really a bulk state, you really shouldn't talk about
what state of matter an individual atom/ion is in.  But having done so,
plasma is the best state since those particles are ionized matter.
Obviously not at thermal equilibrium, they'll quickly lose their energy in
a bulk mass, pick up electrons and alphas become helium gas in bulk mass,
which may or may not leak out over time.

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

#574037 — 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

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 12:03:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Now some silly argue that if you take a gas and heat it enough it becomes a
> > plasma.
> 
> Why the insults? This should be about science.  A simple scientific 
> experiment would take a gas and apply extreme heat and see whether it
> forms free electrons and positive ions.  Then cool it and see if it 
> becomes a gas again.
> 

How do you explain Mars planet with no atmosphere having lightning?

How do you explain a solid rock containing radioactive decay as a solid, and the decay particles as plasma?

Your problem is that you have little to no logic, and so when you see a Classification, your dumb science mind thinks the classification is reality, when a classification is no more than a helper in understanding of the true underlying reality. But you are too dumb to know when something is a artificial classification and not the reality itself. Cheers to all the illogical people in science.

AP

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

#574039 — 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

On 4/28/2016 5:21 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 12:03:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Now some silly argue that if you take a gas and heat it enough it becomes a
>>> plasma.
>>
>> Why the insults? This should be about science.  A simple scientific
>> experiment would take a gas and apply extreme heat and see whether it
>> forms free electrons and positive ions.  Then cool it and see if it
>> becomes a gas again.
>>
>
> How do you explain Mars planet with no atmosphere having lightning?

Mars has an atmosphere.

>
> How do you explain a solid rock containing radioactive decay as a solid,
> and the decay particles as plasma?

They're not. Charged radiation is not plasma. Charged radiation is not a 
fluid.

>
> Your problem is that you have little to no logic, and so when you see a
> Classification, your dumb science mind thinks the classification is reality,
> when a classification is no more than a helper in understanding of the true
> underlying reality. But you are too dumb to know when something is a artificial
> classification and not the reality itself. Cheers to all the illogical people in science.
>
> AP
>


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

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

#574103 — 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

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 5:25:33 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/28/2016 5:21 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 12:03:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> Now some silly argue that if you take a gas and heat it enough it becomes a
> >>> plasma.
> >>
> >> Why the insults? This should be about science.  A simple scientific
> >> experiment would take a gas and apply extreme heat and see whether it
> >> forms free electrons and positive ions.  Then cool it and see if it
> >> becomes a gas again.
> >>
> >
> > How do you explain Mars planet with no atmosphere having lightning?
> 

I think Messenger satellite found lightning on Mercury, and Mercury has no atmosphere.


> Mars has an atmosphere.
> 
> >
> > How do you explain a solid rock containing radioactive decay as a solid,
> > and the decay particles as plasma?
> 
> They're not. Charged radiation is not plasma. Charged radiation is not a 
> fluid.
> 

Alpha particles from plutonium, uranium are radiation, yet you want to call alpha particles of the Sun as either a fluid or gas. Do you not think your desire to classify plasma as a state of matter is just a crazy desire.

Why cannot you see that Classification is not science but a help to humans trying to understand the underlying science. Oops, you are not a scientist so you cannot see any of that.

Time to move on rather than argue with a nonscientist.

Time to focus on the anomaly of Sun radius because plasma is not a state of matter but rather a EM energy.

Having searched the web, I found the Sun radius anomaly.

AP

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

#574161 — 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

On 4/29/2016 12:32 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 5:25:33 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/28/2016 5:21 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 12:03:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Now some silly argue that if you take a gas and heat it enough it becomes a
>>>>> plasma.
>>>>
>>>> Why the insults? This should be about science.  A simple scientific
>>>> experiment would take a gas and apply extreme heat and see whether it
>>>> forms free electrons and positive ions.  Then cool it and see if it
>>>> becomes a gas again.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How do you explain Mars planet with no atmosphere having lightning?
>>
>
> I think Messenger satellite found lightning on Mercury, and Mercury has no atmosphere.

Only in the region of volcanic activity, where there is of course the 
expulsion of gases, which while not a persistent atmosphere, would 
support lightning.

Here's an example where reasoning and logic (which you are fond of) are 
only as good as the facts that would support them.

>
>
>> Mars has an atmosphere.
>>
>>>
>>> How do you explain a solid rock containing radioactive decay as a solid,
>>> and the decay particles as plasma?
>>
>> They're not. Charged radiation is not plasma. Charged radiation is not a
>> fluid.
>>
>
> Alpha particles from plutonium, uranium are radiation, yet you want to call
> alpha particles of the Sun as either a fluid or gas. Do you not think your
> desire to classify plasma as a state of matter is just a crazy desire.

Well, that's your opinion. I would say your desire to classify states of 
matter according to your own whim, rather than how scientists class 
states of matter is also a bit of a crazy desire.

I also think that any desire to reinvent science in solo isolation, 
using only reasoning and logic, is a bit of a crazy desire. The fact 
that you think your ability to apply reasoning and logic is bounds ahead 
of what scientists can do makes it more than a bit crazy.

>
> Why cannot you see that Classification is not science but a help to
> humans trying to understand the underlying science. Oops, you are not a
> scientist so you cannot see any of that.

How about we ask scientists whether taxonomy is science or not? Hmmm?

>
> Time to move on rather than argue with a nonscientist.
>
> Time to focus on the anomaly of Sun radius because plasma is not a state of
> matter but rather a EM energy.

There, you see? You are determined to work through your OWN thoughts on 
what the classification out to be, without regard to what scientists say 
on the matter. And you say that my comments on this can be disregarded 
because I'm not a scientist, even though it is what scientists say that 
you are disregarding. Face facts: you are disregarding what ANYONE 
(scientist or nonscientist) says regarding your thinking and your 
conclusions. That now being an inescapable observation, what do you make 
of that?

>
> Having searched the web, I found the Sun radius anomaly.
>
> AP
>


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

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

#574040 — 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

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 5:21:23 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
> 
> How do you explain Mars planet with no atmosphere having lightning?
> 
> How do you explain a solid rock containing radioactive decay as a solid, and the decay particles as plasma?
> 
> Your problem is that you have little to no logic, and so when you see a Classification, your dumb science mind thinks the classification is reality, when a classification is no more than a helper in understanding of the true underlying reality. But you are too dumb to know when something is a artificial classification and not the reality itself. Cheers to all the illogical people in science.
> 

In my long life, I have found that scientists rarely display good logic, and more often display a bandwagon or herd mentality of accepting of ideas rather than accepting ideas due to a thorough run through of reason, commonsense and logic.

The idea that plasma is a state of matter as the 4th state after solid, liquid, gas is a fine example of where a Classification is not reality but only a wrong simplification.

We Classify to find what the underlying true science reality is. We are wrong when we think the Classification itself is the reality.

Plasma is not like a solid, liquid or gas but is something totally different. It is mostly energy and not a state of matter. The alpha particle and beta particle that is radiation from a uranium ore is plasma as well as the Sun's electrical particles of helium and hydrogen stripped of their electrons-- beta particles.

To argue that plasma is a state-of-matter is like arguing the 4th most common Chemical Bond after ionic, covalent, and metallic is the magnetic bond. Here again, the bonds of chemistry are a Classification system to help guide us to the reality, but not the reality itself.

AP

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

#574135 — 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

On 4/28/2016 5:35 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> In my long life, I have found that scientists rarely display good logic, and more
> often display a bandwagon or herd mentality of accepting of ideas rather than
> accepting ideas due to a thorough run through of reason, commonsense and logic.

This, I think, is a bad sign, Archimedes -- that you would conclude from 
your disagreement with scientists that scientists are unthinking sheep 
incapable of the kind of logic and reasoning power that you are able to 
do. If I were you, I would be worried about such a red flag.


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

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

#574100 — 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> writes:

>On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 12:03:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >Now some silly argue that if you take a gas and heat it enough it becomes a
>> > plasma.
>>
>> Why the insults? This should be about science.  A simple scientific
>> experiment would take a gas and apply extreme heat and see whether it
>> forms free electrons and positive ions.  Then cool it and see if it
>> becomes a gas again.
>>

>How do you explain Mars planet with no atmosphere having lightning?

Mars does have an atmosphere, albeit quite thin by earth standards.  It's
mostly carbon dioxide.

It's also easier for electrical discharges to ionize low pressure gases
than higher pressure gases.  Neon light tubes are a partial vacuum for 
that reason.

>How do you explain a solid rock containing radioactive decay as a solid,
>and the decay particles as plasma?

Again, not thermal equlibrium as the plasma matter is continuously being
added and either escaping or "cooling" to the temperature of the rock.  
But what is wrong with mixed states of matter anyway, solids and liquids
regularly have solids, liquids and gases dissolved in them.

>Your problem is that you have little to no logic, and so when you see a
>Classification, your dumb science mind thinks the classification is 
>reality, when a classification is no more than a helper in understanding 
>of the true underlying reality. But you are too dumb to know when 
>something is a artificial classification and not the reality itself. 
>Cheers to all the illogical people in science.

Again, what is with the insults.  Real scientists argue the facts, they
don't insult each other when they disagree.

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

#574025 — 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

How do I get my photo onto these Google posts?

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

#574050 — 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

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 1:57:18 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> How do I get my photo onto these Google posts?

  Are you absolutely sure you want to do that?

  If so, go to your Google "My Groups" page.

  Next to each listed group you'll see your email address as it appears in the group. Next to each address there's an "Edit" link. Click that and get a dialog box that among other things links your posting address to your Gmail account so that others can see the photo you've associated with that account.

  You have to have an image associated with your account for that to work, obviously.

  It doesn't have to be a picture of you. My image (which I didn't bother turning on for this group) is an image of my right retina from a recent eye exam. It's my "eyecon", ha ha.

  You can set that for each group you frequent independently but as far as I know you have to use the same image for all groups.


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#574108 — 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

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 6:28:37 PM UTC-5, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 1:57:18 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > How do I get my photo onto these Google posts?
> 
>   Are you absolutely sure you want to do that?
> 
>   If so, go to your Google "My Groups" page.
> 
>   Next to each listed group you'll see your email address as it appears in the group. Next to each address there's an "Edit" link. Click that and get a dialog box that among other things links your posting address to your Gmail account so that others can see the photo you've associated with that account.
> 
>   You have to have an image associated with your account for that to work, obviously.
> 
>   It doesn't have to be a picture of you. My image (which I didn't bother turning on for this group) is an image of my right retina from a recent eye exam. It's my "eyecon", ha ha.
> 
>   You can set that for each group you frequent independently but as far as I know you have to use the same image for all groups.
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

Are you saying the photo is installed first in Gmail, then I go to the Google groups? If so, hand walk me on installing the photo on Gmail.

AP

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

#574117 — 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

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 6:28:37 PM UTC-5, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 1:57:18 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > How do I get my photo onto these Google posts?
> 
>   Are you absolutely sure you want to do that?
> 
>   If so, go to your Google "My Groups" page.
> 
>   Next to each listed group you'll see your email address as it appears in the group. Next to each address there's an "Edit" link. Click that and get a dialog box that among other things links your posting address to your Gmail account so that others can see the photo you've associated with that account.
> 
>   You have to have an image associated with your account for that to work, obviously.
> 
>   It doesn't have to be a picture of you. My image (which I didn't bother turning on for this group) is an image of my right retina from a recent eye exam. It's my "eyecon", ha ha.
> 
>   You can set that for each group you frequent independently but as far as I know you have to use the same image for all groups.
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

Thanks, testing to see if it works

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

#572968 — 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 10:52:12 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 8:33:39 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > 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.

  You are partly in violent agreement with OB. The particles you refer to are what Bodkin specifies as fermions, in other words matter.

> Plasma has no EM bonding.

  So what? It's the fermions that make it matter, bound or not. If the fermions weren't there to support the EM fields of their intrinsic charges there'd be no plasma.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web