Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

reply to post by dragonridr


I have yet to see you prove me wrong on anything.

You make lots of claims, are frequently flat out wrong in those claims, and then throw out the statement that you proved me wrong somewhere back in the thread.

Show a quote where I have been wrong.

poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I have yet to see you prove me wrong on anything.

You make lots of claims, are frequently flat out wrong in those claims, and then throw out the statement that you proved me wrong somewhere back in the thread.

Show a quote where I have been wrong.

Thats easy so will do it again electricity is a force of nature it is not a form of matter. You claim electricity is a plasma making it by definition an alternate form of matter. So to prove to you electricity is a force and not plasma i suggest you start with Coulombs law we use this in physics when discussing electrostatics. Now feel free to tell us where physics went wrong and its a form of matter.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by dragonridr


Nothing I am describing about the role of plasma in force violates Coulomb's law.

It compliments the concept of charge.

Where is your proof that the realization that plasma is the source of charge, violates Coulombs Law?

Are you implying that matter does not have force?

poet1b
Where is your proof that the realization that plasma is the source of charge, violates Coulombs Law?

I think it's more dictionary abuse. You didn't like the definition of antimatter, and now you don't like the definition of plasma, so you're calling things plasma which aren't plasma, not even to your definition of a distinct 4th state of matter.

This picture should serve as proof:

Static Electricity

It's coulomb's law that is repelling the strands of hair from each other, yet only three phases of matter are present: Solid, liquid, and gas.

The distinct 4th state of matter known as plasma is not present, but Coulomb's law is evident.

poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Nothing I am describing about the role of plasma in force violates Coulomb's law.

It compliments the concept of charge.

Where is your proof that the realization that plasma is the source of charge, violates Coulombs Law?

Are you implying that matter does not have force?

edit on 20-3-2014 by poet1b because: Add last statement.

Why should plasma be needed for an electrical charge? For a better discussion, could you give us your definition of a plasma?

I will start to make it easier: A thermal plasma is a gas heated up so far that its atoms lost their electrons, therefore a gasous mass of ionized particles.

A non-thermal plasma is a gas under a very low pressure so that the particles don't interchange their temperatures (equal to their relative velocities) and by external electromagnetic waves are stripped of their electrons, resulting in ionized particles.

poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Nothing I am describing about the role of plasma in force violates Coulomb's law.

It compliments the concept of charge.

Where is your proof that the realization that plasma is the source of charge, violates Coulombs Law?

Are you implying that matter does not have force?

edit on 20-3-2014 by poet1b because: Add last statement.

your problem is your insistance on redifining anything you dont like. See if you understand Coulombs law positive and negative charges is nothing more than a property of matter.Charge is a property just like its weight or mass its a way to describe an individual particle. You cant claim charge is a different form of matter when it is a description of matter.Everything in the universe has a charge doesnt matter if it solid,gas,liquid or plasma. Some things allow charges to flow easily through it like gold and some block it all together like glass. If you want to rename plasma electricity you are happy to do so the name is irrelevant really all that matters is there not the same thing.

Once again, the definition of plasma that I consistently follow.

A plasma is a distinct state of matter containing a significant number of electrically charged particles, a number sufficient to affect its electrical properties and behavior.

www.plasmacoalition.org...

What part of "electrically charged particles" don't you people get?

I am sorry this is over your head, and the only response you can muster is to attack me personally, or claim I posted things I did not.

poet1b
What part of "electrically charged particles" don't you people get?

I get that part.

Charged particles can also exist in solids and liquids in addition to plasma.
"electrically charged particles" may or may not be in the form of plasma. The fact that there is some overlap in the terminology doesn't mean they are synonymous. In other words, all plasma includes charged particles, but not all charged particles are considered plasma. This is a matter of definition so it's kind of pointless to claim the definitions are wrong...the definitions are what they are whether you like them or not, and as pointed out previously you seem to ignore the part of your plasma definition that refers to a distinct state of matter.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


And a copper wire has a number of ions sufficient to affect its electrical properties and behavior.

That is exactly what is happening.

You are the one who wants to change the definition to meet your beliefs.

poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

And a copper wire has a number of ions sufficient to affect its electrical properties and behavior.

That is exactly what is happening.

If the copper is at 20,000 degrees, yes, it's probably plasma, a distinct state of matter which is not a solid, liquid or gas.

At room temperature, copper is solid and therefore not plasma. The behavior of the electrons in copper at room temperature can be considered plasma-like in some cases, but it's not considered plasma, even by your definition.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


My interpretation is that the electrons flowing in the wire and on the surface of the wire are in the plasma state.

What I am pointing out is that plasma can flow through a solid under the right conditions.

This is a considerable break from the way mainstream science looks at electricity, but the facts do add up.

poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

My interpretation is that the electrons flowing in the wire and on the surface of the wire are in the plasma state.

What I am pointing out is that plasma can flow through a solid under the right conditions.

This is a considerable break from the way mainstream science looks at electricity, but the facts do add up.

As far as I can see the only break is in your dictionary abuse.You and mainstream both say charged particles can flow in metal, so there's no difference in concept unless you can explain the difference better.

It's just that you are using the term plasma in a way in which it is not defined, to refer to electron flow in solids.

Mainstream also acknowledges that some plasma type properties can be observed with electrons in solid copper, for example, Langmuir waves. But other properties of plasma are not observed with electrons in solid copper, like the plasma-solid interface I mentioned earlier for example, and what about double layers, do you see that plasma behavior in solid copper?

poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

My interpretation is that the electrons flowing in the wire and on the surface of the wire are in the plasma state.

What I am pointing out is that plasma can flow through a solid under the right conditions.

This is a considerable break from the way mainstream science looks at electricity, but the facts do add up.

The only right conditions a plasma can go through a solid is if it melts its way through.This of course would turn the solid with a hole through the middle of it. Look ill try this another way plasma takes energy to make it.Because energy is needed to strip electrons from atoms, Now this energy can be of various origins: thermal, electrical, or light (ultraviolet light or intense visible light from a laser). With insufficient sustaining power, plasmas recombine into neutral gas.So heres my question if electricity is a plasma why can we use electricity to make plasma (think carefully about that)?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Good to see you are doing some actual research, and thinking about the concept. You are a good contributor Arb.

Langmuir waves are a good example.

Think about it. You have electrons flowing through a copper wire, behaving in a distinct pattern throughout the circuit. In a power grid, there are electrons moving in sync, at a specific frequency in a sine wave over thousands of square miles. This demonstrates a distinctive state of matter.

So I may be the first person to figure it out, but the pieces all fit together.

reply to post by dragonridr


Yeah, it is called plasma arc welding.

Pretty much everyone knows about this. The plasma arc has been recognized for a long time now.

poet1b
Think about it. You have electrons flowing through a copper wire, behaving in a distinct pattern throughout the circuit. In a power grid, there are electrons moving in sync, at a specific frequency in a sine wave over thousands of square miles. This demonstrates a distinctive state of matter.

By your logic I can claim liquids and gases are the same thing because the assume the shape of the container they are in. Since this is obviously false, your similarly based claim regarding plasma and electricity is also false. Pointing out two different things have some things but not others in common doesn't prove those two things are the same. Then I could say "there are different kinds of liquids" and imply that gas is just another form of liquid with different properties. It turns out we have a term already to describe that similarity, as we refer to both as fluids (plasma is also considered a fluid).

So I may be the first person to figure it out, but the pieces all fit together.

I've been reading pseudoscientific stuff posted by MaryRose for years and she has paraded one charlatan after another after another here on ATS, and I've noticed that many of them like to usurp words from the dictionary and assign meanings to them which are not defined. For example there are charlatans using the word "vortex" who don't even seem to know what a vortex is, they just think it's a cool sounding word. The guy who founded the "over unity" energy company MagnaCoaster couldn't even spell it, for goodness sake. This doesn't promote any kind of communication, it impedes it. One of the earliest to do this who also made up new words as part of his hoax was Keely of the Keely motor company back in the 1880s, and I doubt he was the first to do this but you are definitely not the first to do this type of dictionary abuse. I would encourage you to not engage in this type of behavior for two reasons:

1. As noted above, dictionary abuse impedes effective communication, especially in science which often uses precise definitions.
2. People who commit dictionary abuse find themselves in the company of a plethora of charlatans and hoaxers who have used this technique to further their hoax.

Although I've made a huge deal in this thread about how loosely the term "plasma" is defined, I'm afraid it's not defined broadly enough to cover the movement of electrons in solid copper. I noticed you didn't address my questions about the properties of plasma not observed in solid copper.

Don't misinterpret my post, I'm not calling you a hoaxer, as I think you have honest intentions here, I'm just pointing out that you're using the same technique that hoaxers use. When non-scientists delve into science they can be frustrated due to their lack of understanding of how much importance scientists place on the definitions of words they use which not only have verbal, but also mathematical definitions which are not subject to hand-waving arguments about semantics. Your claim that you've come up with anything new besides dictionary abuse has not been demonstrated.

If you want to pursue these debates in a scientific manner, it's a prerequisite to learn what the scientific terms mean to scientists, and to use terms as they are defined for effective communication. To use a word in contradiction to its scientifically accepted definition and then claim you may be the first person to figure out how to do that is almost worse than trolling. I think you can and hopefully want to do better than that.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You mean like calling plasma a gas?

Let's look up the term fluid.

a substance, as a liquid or gas, that is capable of flowing and that changes its shape at a steady rate when acted upon by a force tending to change its shape.

Even a solid can be fluid.

If I am not interpreting the definition of plasma as I have posted it, then you need to articulate how I am abusing the definition.

There are different types of plasma, just as there are different types of gases, liquids, and solids. You keep trying to claim that all plasma must be the same, which is not true, and is not a part of the definition of plasma.

Yes, there are tons of charlatans out there, and they are most often very easy to spot, because the flaws in their claims are easy to point out.

There is nothing more for me to point out here, except that if you have been paying attention, you would notice that in more and more places, the term electric is being changed to plasma. It was an electric arc, now it is a plasma arc. I am just pointing out the obvious, where we are going, not putting up anything new.

poet1b
If I am not interpreting the definition of plasma as I have posted it, then you need to articulate how I am abusing the definition.

For about the 4th time, your own definition says plasma is a distinct state of matter. The state of matter of solid copper is solid.

The only attempt I've seen to try to rationalize this discrepancy is citing plasma arc, but as dragonridr pointed out, a plasma arc forming a hole in a solid only means that the plasma arc in the hole consists of plasma. It doesn't mean the solid is plasma.

poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

You mean like calling plasma a gas?

Let's look up the term fluid.

a substance, as a liquid or gas, that is capable of flowing and that changes its shape at a steady rate when acted upon by a force tending to change its shape.

Even a solid can be fluid.

If I am not interpreting the definition of plasma as I have posted it, then you need to articulate how I am abusing the definition.

There are different types of plasma, just as there are different types of gases, liquids, and solids. You keep trying to claim that all plasma must be the same, which is not true, and is not a part of the definition of plasma.

Yes, there are tons of charlatans out there, and they are most often very easy to spot, because the flaws in their claims are easy to point out.

There is nothing more for me to point out here, except that if you have been paying attention, you would notice that in more and more places, the term electric is being changed to plasma. It was an electric arc, now it is a plasma arc. I am just pointing out the obvious, where we are going, not putting up anything new.

First plasma can be gas like that doesnt make it gas any more then electrons being able to flow through copper makes it a plasma.You just cant admit when you're wrong can you? And your arrogance is truly amazing like when you said you were the first to figure out electricity is a plasma wow you just throw out hundreds of years of science. Heres your quote "So I may be the first person to figure it out, but the pieces all fit together. " . Did it ever occur to you your just wrong have very little understanding of particle physics. I've explained multiple ways to try to get you to understand why electricity is not plasma so lets switch it you show me proof in the form of an experiment, All science has to to be backed up by experimentation. Maybe in your search for proof youll realize you're mistaken.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I have never stated that the copper wire is a plasma. That is your misinterpretation.

The electricity flowing through the copper wire, pumped by the generator is the plasma. The free flowing electron ions are the plasma. I have repeated this over and over, I don't see how you don't get it. At this point I don't care.