"You're"Your good at this...since it's all you have left.
Evidently someone having a decent vocabulary is as strange to you as someone knowing how to do math.
You mean the bit where you don't know the meaning of either term?
Nobody, and that includes Ziggurat, has claimed that you can use gas and plasma interchangeably. You have been told this over and over, but you still forget.
More of this strange dementia-like behaviour. You really can’t remember what has been said?
Because it’s a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ press release, meant for general readers without a scientific background, and most people will understand it better that way. There’s no mystery here.
Plasmas are a kind of gas. It is not wrong to describe them as a gas, even if it's incomplete. But an incomplete description is perfectly justifiable in a press release.
That isn't the correct term for anything.
You tell me. You're the one who thinks the distinction between gas and plasma is so important. But you can't actually describe what either gas or plasma actually is.
No. The fact that they don't use your preferred terminology isn't a problem at all.
No, actually, they do not. The ideal gas law is only an approximation for real gasses, which is why it's called the ideal gas law and not the real gas law. In many (but not all) cases the ideal gas law is a very good approximation, but real gasses actually deviate from the ideal gas law, sometimes significantly. For example, the Van der Waals equation is more accurate than the ideal gas law for many gasses.
Everything baffles you. And you keep bringing up gas, not me. I'm just pointing out your misunderstanding of the concept.
None of our exchanges can accurately be described as a discussion. I tell you thinks, and then you ignore them. That's not actually a discussion.
Again, what you mean "we", white man? I've been using correct terminology all along. Terminology has never really been the problem. Your lack of understanding of even basic physics has.
If that were true, stars would never form at all.
No. That's stupid, and only an idiot would just accept that conclusion categorically. Whether or not electromagnetic force dominates depends on the strength of the electromagnetic field, the strength of any other fields, and what charged particles you are talking about. Since you have specified none of these, no comparison of forces is even possible. In some conditions, electromagnetism will be the strongest force on a charged particle. In other conditions, some other force will be the strongest force on a charged particle. There is no categorical answer.
You talk about them, but you don't understand them.
You obviously again had a relapse back to a lack of understanding. To take your own example: are polygons kinda like rectangles?
Yes, you are correct, steenkh. Appologies.
And yet you still think you can find support in mainstream articles.
Yes. What is the problem here? You don’t understand that gravity-produced magnetic fields can be strong enough to defy gravity locally?
Again, what is the problem here?
If you have better maths, please show them. The argument that you can’t understand physics, and therefore there is something wrong with physics is not worth anything.
Literally years of evidence.
No you don't. The researchers you refer to have not concluded that your "electric universe" is correct. The Electric Universe is in fact incompatible with their conclusions. You could only actually believe they are correct if you had abandoned your electric universe nonsense.
No, I'm not going to answer. For one thing, you aren't worth the effort. None of my past efforts have taught you anything, I would be a fool to expect that now. For another, you could just read actual journal articles and textbooks (not press releases) if you were actually serious about learning. But you won't, because you aren't.
You said it was caused by an electric field. Now you're providing a quote which says it's a magnetic field.
