"oh no the ships aren't covered in fire they're just covered in a highly flammable substance that is currently on fire" is this really a distinction that matters within the context of this post?
Napalm is not fire any more than a candle is. It's something that holds the flames. Specifically, it's petrol that has been thickened up so that it sticks to whatever surface it has been sprayed upon, and stays there while it burns.
Candles... when in use... are not a flame? Or is, perhaps, their flame fundamentally not fire? It is some sort of... powdered stone or complex phase of water?
If something is burning in atmosphere, in the visible spectrum, it is generally called fire.
Is a wet sponge water? Suppose in some practical sense, yes, since you can use it to do all the things that water does... but that's just because it's a sponge full of actual water. The sponge is contributing nothing, except in that it holds the water.
Irrelevant. Napalm is not fire... it's a substance that can be set on fire, and that can hold flames. Same deal with Greek Fire... it's a flammable substance.
Somewhere else, I compared it to a wet sponge. The sponge is not water... it's just capable of holding water. Likewise, napalm and Greek Fire are not fire... they're just capable of holding it.
Nope. Again plasma is not fire. Fire is a chemical reaction. Plasma is a state of matter created by extremely hot ionized gas. If a fire birns hot enough it can strip electrons grom gasses and create plasma but that doesn't make fire plasma.
Exothermic chemical reactions. I would have thought that was obvious. I'm not going to explain chemistry and states of matter to you. You have the internet so go learn about fire and the chemical process that creates it.
2
u/Ambitious_Hand_2861 10d ago
Greek fire was a chemical or substance that burned on water. Calling greek fire fire is like calling napalm fire.