3 ms·

Don't be pedantic. So what if fire isn't plasma. They categorized the world by states of matter, but in a way which is not exactly parallel to modern people. Ac

Don't be pedantic. So what if fire isn't plasma. They categorized the world by states of matter, but in a way which is not exactly parallel to modern people. Acknowledging that there world is made of mixture of fundamental elements was a great scientific achievement, even if it was wrong about how it worked.

benchaney 9y ago
GP isn't being pedantic, although I believe there was a significant misunderstanding. I think that ramchip meant fire, earth, air, and water, when he said "four classical states of matter, where as GP thought he meant solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  >> So what if fire isn't plasma. They categorized the world by states of matter > I think that ramchip meant fire, earth, air, and water, when he said "four classical states of matter" That was the best interpretation I could come up with too. I wasn't saying fire isn't plasma, though of course it isn't. I was saying fire is not a state of matter. "They categorized the world by states of matter" is not correct. For example, the ancients were well aware that ice was a form of water, not a form of earth.
  - bryanrasmussen 9y ago
    since fire is not a state of matter, they were incorrect in what they admitted to their category of the various states of matter, but they still categorized fire as a state of matter and as such categorized the world by states of matter. The interesting part was supposed to be that they came, with their categories relatively close to the actual classical categories - however I suppose that the classical categories were actually intellectually derived from (or their conception inspired by) the ancient 'elements'.
    - thaumasiotes 9y ago
      > they were incorrect in what they admitted to their category of the various states of matter, but they still categorized fire as a state of matter and as such categorized the world by states of matter. No they didn't. Why do you say so?

benchaney 9y ago

GP isn't being pedantic, although I believe there was a significant misunderstanding. I think that ramchip meant fire, earth, air, and water, when he said "four classical states of matter, where as GP thought he meant solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.

thaumasiotes 9y ago
>> So what if fire isn't plasma. They categorized the world by states of matter > I think that ramchip meant fire, earth, air, and water, when he said "four classical states of matter" That was the best interpretation I could come up with too. I wasn't saying fire isn't plasma, though of course it isn't. I was saying fire is not a state of matter. "They categorized the world by states of matter" is not correct. For example, the ancients were well aware that ice was a form of water, not a form of earth.
- bryanrasmussen 9y ago
  since fire is not a state of matter, they were incorrect in what they admitted to their category of the various states of matter, but they still categorized fire as a state of matter and as such categorized the world by states of matter. The interesting part was supposed to be that they came, with their categories relatively close to the actual classical categories - however I suppose that the classical categories were actually intellectually derived from (or their conception inspired by) the ancient 'elements'.
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    > they were incorrect in what they admitted to their category of the various states of matter, but they still categorized fire as a state of matter and as such categorized the world by states of matter. No they didn't. Why do you say so?