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

Groups > sci.physics > #573375

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

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web