If you think about it, Aristotle wasn't so wrong. Rather than chemical elements, he describes the state of 'matter'

If you think about it, Aristotle wasn't so wrong. Rather than chemical elements, he describes the state of 'matter'

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

If Aristotle was a Greek philosopher, why is the pic written in Latin?

PEDOPHILOSOPHERS BTFO

He was Roman

Also long boob is long

If he was Roman, why did he live in Greece and before Rome was anything significant?

Fire isn't plasma. It's just gas so hot that it is incandescent. You can make it a plasma if you put say sodium ions in it.

Second, according to aristotle vacuums don't exist:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics)

He held physics back for years by failing to realize inertia is an inherent property of matter

>according to aristotle vacuums don't exist
He was proven right a few years ago, you know

>He held physics back for years by failing to realize inertia is an inherent property of matter
Right, because this is so intuitive and obvious.

O'rly?

Archimides seemed to understand it.

State of matter is described by much more things.

Is that a condom

> its a plasma is the fourth state of matter episode

>>He held physics back for years by failing to realize inertia is an inherent property of matter

>he held it back

im wondering if there's anyone else that tried to say he was wrong around his time. that or science is swayed much more by political authority than some here would like to admit

Archimides and many others were doing mechanics.

Post one respectable physics book that says otherwise.

Chemist here. Plasma is just ionised gas particles, nothing more.

if he was obviously wrong then his work would have been thrown out immediately. none of this "stalled progress" thing should have happened

>Fire is not a plasma. It's a plasma.

Being wrong in science is still progress.

is a glowing metal rod plasma?

if you actually go through the complete combustion reaction and calculate the temperatures along the way, you'd see what was making fire give off light.

fire doesn't conduct, fire can't produce a strong magnetic field.

IS THE SUN A MASS OF INCANDESCENT GAS OR A MIASMA OF INCANDESCENT PLASMA? I NEED TO KNOW

Its lava you cuck

Both dumbass.

Fire does conduct you nigger

Surely you mean intellectual authority.
And yeah no shit he swayed everyone for two millenia. "Magister dixit" and all that.
Science is hard, bruv.

Did plasma even exist back then lol

I don't know why does she wear the bun on her head?

but not very much unless you put say an alkali salt in the flame. Even then, that's a bit questionable in terms of plasma. Sure you end up with free ions, but you also get free ions in salt water and molten glass

And Xeno very nearly figured out calculus, and Thomas Aquinas figured out there is an interchangable balance between potential and kinetic energy. Both would have found a goldmine of science if they pushed just a little bit further.

Cowfee.

yes but no one knew what it was

It's a bunny

Gween tea~

No they didn't.