Water,a manifestation of WHAT?

[russ_watters]

You know, I remember you asking this in the Chemistry forum, and I think the answers given there were adequate.

...and reading over that thread, we gave much the same answers here. If the properties we describe with chemistry can be adequately described by chemistry, then is meaningless to look for some other cause.

 

[north]

Well, ok - then ask questions and propose experiments to find the answers to them. I expect what you'll find is that the questions have already been asked and the answers already found. Reading a chemistry textbook may help prevent your wasting time by spinning your wheels in place.

___________________________________________

i would start with an experiment in which you take one hydrogen and oxygen atom,separately, in as complete vacuum as possible, slowly bring them down,in temperature, to the known liquidity state and analysing,i mean in minute increments with control,from as many points of view as possible,electromagnetic,movment,electron change(form),geometry of atom (form),and any energy out put or the trying to draw in energy or any shape that might imply this.also if necessary add one atom at a time and with each atom added, analyze results,slowly methodically. and if possible give it as much time as possible.

then introduce one hydrgen and one oxygen atom together at room temperature,under as controlled conditions as possible,even to the point of speed of bonding,with analysis at every point,with increments as minute as possible.with the ability of holding a set position,slower the better.

 

[north]

Russ

i was wondering,do you know what I'm really trying to get at? you've described the production of water.since you agree that the electrons don't change and the atoms themselves don't change in any way,i find that your answer is not deep enough. you mentioned that when hydrogen and oxygen get together that they "burn", well then WHAT burns? surely electrons don't and the atoms themselves don't,so what does? so the "burn" involves well nothing explainable?

 

[russ_watters]

i was wondering,do you know what I'm really trying to get at?

I suspect that not even you know what you are really trying to get at. Your question about burning is evidence that you don't understand what one means when it is said that something "burns." Ignorance is fine (everyone is ignorant of something), but you'd be well advised to learn such things before trying to push the envelope beyond them.

since you agree that the electrons don't change and the atoms themselves don't change in any way,i find that your answer is not deep enough.

What about my house analogy? A pile of wood and nails doesn't make a house, but if organized correctly, you can make a house without changing its constiuent parts. Why can't you apply that resoning to molecules?

you mentioned that when hydrogen and oxygen get together that they "burn", well then WHAT burns? surely electrons don't and the atoms themselves don't,so what does? so the "burn" involves well nothing explainable?

All it implies in chemistry is that two hydrogen and one oxygen molecule got together and are now sharing some electrons. Energy (in the form of heat) is released when this happens.

What do you think is implied by the word "burns?" Why do you believe something more must be happening? Where does "surely electrons don't..." come from? Who suggested that they do? What do you think should be happening to them? Doesn't the fact that the process is reversable, repeatable, and predictible using the tools of chemistry indicate that chemistry's explanation is sufficient?

i would start with an experiment in which you...

That's not bad. What do you think would happen in this experiment and why?

 

[north]

You know, I remember you asking this in the Chemistry forum, and I think the answers given there were adequate.

___________________________________________

actually the answers are not adequate,if you have read the forum throughly you will find a surface explanation.for as of yet "WHERE" or "WHAT" the form of liquid comes from is beyond "production". and as of now it has been a purely productionest understanding. this is beyond production,it is understanding it's(liquid,water) essence of existence,not the cause and effect(of chemistry) but rather the existence of the state after the cause and effect react, with neither having any change in themseleves and in any way change the shape or form of the constituents and yet bring forth a form completely different from themseleves.

 

[north]

I suspect that not even you know what you are really trying to get at. Your question about burning is evidence that you don't understand what one means when it is said that something "burns."
___________________________________________

and yet nobody has tried to explain! I've asked this before but it has been over-looked.please explain!

___________________________________________

Ignorance is fine (everyone is ignorant of something), but you'd be well advised to learn such things before trying to push the envelope beyond them. What about my house analogy? A pile of wood and nails doesn't make a house, but if organized correctly, you can make a house without changing its constiuent parts. Why can't you apply that resoning to molecules? All it implies in chemistry is that two hydrogen and one oxygen molecule got together and are now sharing some electrons. Energy (in the form of heat) is released when this happens.
___________________________________________

but WHY is my point,if something burns does it not mean something is the fuel? WHAT is the fuel?

___________________________________________

What do you think is implied by the word "burns?" Why do you believe something more must be happening?
___________________________________________

Why? for instance we know that at extremely low temperatures there can be a burning.if one substance is lower in temperature than the other there can be a burning effect when the two combine.

___________________________________________

Where does "surely electrons don't..." come from?

___________________________________________

nobody made the comment that they do, otherwise i would know that electrons would change form,but since nobody said anything to contrary i assume they don't,if they do tell me, if I'm wrong no problem.

___________________________________________
Who suggested that they do?

___________________________________________

nobody.
___________________________________________

What do you think should be happening to them?

___________________________________________

not necessarily anything,maybe something,it's just a possiblity perhaps. but if not then what is happening?

___________________________________________
Doesn't the fact that the process is reversable, repeatable, and predictible using the tools of chemistry indicate that chemistry's explanation is sufficient?

___________________________________________

No, because i think that production is one thing the true essence is another.
also, is this not just a basic understanding,for i find that perhaps we can get more(energy) out of atoms than we do now.

___________________________________________
That's not bad. What do you think would happen in this experiment and why?

___________________________________________

what i think would happen in this experiment is that we would find that there is a release or flow of energy that was not expected and as well, this out flow could be shaped by the passing of the out flow by the electrons themselves or maybe electrons do change,i would not be surprised and perhaps even the frezzing of magnetism into a fluid which makes it wave, which to me always was, but condenses it, also there is a depth to inside the atom it's self, could it's self flow energy,which is what i suspect.frezzing just makes it easer for the energy to flow. of course there could be ambient influence too.

but if we take it one slow step at a time the dynamics I'm sure will come apparent.even if not clear why.i'm sure the experiment will show interesting results. i wish i could be there if this done!

north

 

[north]

Russ

i would also like to know hydrogen and oxygens resting temperature,pressure and electrodynamics per atom at room temperature. and contrast this info. with liquid states at very low temperatures."WHAT" change is there, is there change in each atom!? if so,how does the change manifest it's self? in what form, specifically?

 

[russ_watters]

...the existence of the state after the cause and effect react, with neither having any change in themseleves and in any way change the shape or form of the constituents and yet bring forth a form completely different from themseleves.

You have yet to comment on my house analogy. What is it about this analogy that you consider insufficient?

and yet nobody has tried to explain! I've asked this before but it has been over-looked.please explain!

For some reason, you quoted my explanation but didn't respond to it. Here it is again: All it implies in chemistry is that two hydrogen and one oxygen molecule got together and are now sharing some electrons. Energy (in the form of heat) is released when this happens. That's combustion: burning.

but WHY is my point,if something burns does it not mean something is the fuel? WHAT is the fuel?

The hydrogen is the fuel, the oxygen is the oxidizer. Are you under the impression that the fuel must be consumed and cease to exist? It isn't.

for instance we know that at extremely low temperatures there can be a burning.if one substance is lower in temperature than the other there can be a burning effect when the two combine.

Yes. So what?

nobody made the comment that they do, otherwise i would know that electrons would change form,but since nobody said anything to contrary i assume they don't,if they do tell me, if I'm wrong no problem.

No, electrons don't burn. Refer to my bolded explanation of what it means to burn. Electrons merely change their orientation (energy level) around atoms.

not necessarily anything,maybe something,it's just a possiblity perhaps. but if not then what is happening?

Again, its explained above in bold.

No, because i think that production is one thing the true essence is another.

Huh? What do you mean by "true essence"? Again, chemistry's explanation works. If there was something else behind it, chemistry's explanation would not work.

also, is this not just a basic understanding,for i find that perhaps we can get more(energy) out of atoms than we do now.

We can: through nuclear reactions. But you need to get a handle on chemical reactions before you can have any hope of understanding what goes on in a nuclear reaction.

what i think would happen in this experiment is that we would find that there is a release or flow of energy...[emphasis added]

You use the word "energy" a lot and the context you use it in makes it apparent that you have no idea what it means. HERE is an explanation of what the various forms of energy are. Note, it breaks them apart a little more than necesary: sound is not really a form of energy, but a combination of potential and kinetic.

but if we take it one slow step at a time the dynamics I'm sure will come apparent.even if not clear why.i'm sure the experiment will show interesting results. i wish i could be there if this done!

It is difficult to contain a single atom for this purpose. A chemist would say such an experiment is unnecessary because you can glean all the relevant chemical information from watching groups of atoms. In fact, nothing much of interest would happen to that single atom in your experiment: Pretty much everything we experience in our everyday world except for the sun, nuclear power, and gravity comes from chemical interaction.

But in any case, what would happen is the electron would slowly reduce its energy level in the steps predicted by chemistry. That's it.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm going back over the thread to see if I can find more of the source of your misunderstanding. Here's a biggie:

okay it is a state. but let's go back to why then that hydrogen and oxygen both go to a liquid state at very low temperatures. there are no bonds,molecules or configurations there. what happens here?

Yes, there are bonds, molecules, and configurations there. Two hydrogen atoms stick together to form a hydrogen molecule. Why do hydrogen molecules enter a liquid state at a different temperature than water molecules? Different molecules contain different strength bonds.

Also, I keep thinking about this post:

fair enough, I've ordered the book, my math skills,well let's put it this way i have one year university,tried chemistry 3 times failed 3 times,so needless to say it is my math skills that have prevented me from being where i should be, so i hope i can at least understand the philosophyof what their getting at.

There is very little math in 1st semester chemistry. The problem you are having, as I see it, is you just plain are not listening to the explanations given to you. You are spending all your time asking these questions and not spending any time learning what is actually known. I wouldn't normally recommend it, but even if you were to simply memorize and regurgitate what your chemistry teacher was teaching you, not only would you pass the course, but you'd likely pick up at least some understanding of the subject. Right now, it seems like you're ignoring the subject of chemistry entirely. It may even be due to frustration - you had some trouble the first time, so now you don't want to try agan. Maybe you hope that by asking these questions, you can avoid learning chemistry. Sorry, but you can't. Chemistry is tough. It takes some effort. If you truly want to understand the nature of molecules and atoms, you're going to have to learn it.

And even if there is some 'deeper meaning' to all of this or something else going on, it doesn't matter: you must learn the chemistry first. I'll let you in on a little secret: there is more going on (though its really not all that relevant here). But you are nowhere near ready for it.

 

[north]

I'm going back over the thread to see if I can find more of the source of your misunderstanding. Here's a biggie: Yes, there are bonds, molecules, and configurations there. Two hydrogen atoms stick together to form a hydrogen molecule. Why do hydrogen molecules enter a liquid state at a different temperature than water molecules? Different molecules contain different strength bonds.
___________________________________________

bonds are important otherwise water would not exist.
and bonds in my chemistry book is ALL they talk about. the book does not tell us why the end result leads to water other than the bonds involved.there is a "cause"-the bonding of H2&O,the "effect"-liquid state, if this true then from here it follows that for this liquid state to exist then the bonds must remain intact.so looking at this from a different perspective WHAT would happen if you were to slowly break this bond,slowly pull them apart? how would it's liquid state behave? it would cease to be, but just before the bonds break, what changes in the liquid's state form would happen? once the liquid ceases to be then slowly bring them back together so that,at minute increments,the liquid state forms again and repeat this until we can see precisely what happens. just keep going back and forth,in this way we could see why the bonding of H2&O brings forth a liquid state in the first place.
___________________________________________
Also, I keep thinking about this post: There is very little math in 1st semester chemistry. The problem you are having, as I see it, is you just plain are not listening to the explanations given to you. You are spending all your time asking these questions and not spending any time learning what is actually known. I wouldn't normally recommend it, but even if you were to simply memorize and regurgitate what your chemistry teacher was teaching you, not only would you pass the course, but you'd likely pick up at least some understanding of the subject. Right now, it seems like you're ignoring the subject of chemistry entirely. It may even be due to frustration - you had some trouble the first time, so now you don't want to try agan. Maybe you hope that by asking these questions, you can avoid learning chemistry. Sorry, but you can't. Chemistry is tough. It takes some effort. If you truly want to understand the nature of molecules and atoms, you're going to have to learn it.
___________________________________________

my chemistry course which i took was concerned more with how many moles to produce such and such.
___________________________________________

And even if there is some 'deeper meaning' to all of this or something else going on, it doesn't matter: you must learn the chemistry first. I'll let you in on a little secret: there is more going on (though its really not all that relevant here). But you are nowhere near ready for it.

___________________________________________

where this "meaning" comes from i don't know,it's as I've said before a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" oh i know more is going on but it's ALL related to bonds and with geometry,temperature,electronics,pressure etc. and obviously what I'm asking must be beyond all this because the question that I've asked has not been answered and neither is the question "what burns" when they get together,for you have not answered it still as of yet. you brought it up but fail to give an explanation,i can't help but think that you don't really know the answer.as for what I'm ready for or not ready for, i can't be doing to bad since I've asked a fundamental question that as of yet can not answered! sometimes someone looking in from the outside or someone within but stepping back a bit can see things others don't. because it can be easy to miss the obvious or if not obvious then a different perspective.

 

[russ_watters]

bonds are important otherwise water would not exist.
and bonds in my chemistry book is ALL they talk about. the book does not tell us why the end result leads to water other than the bonds involved.there is a "cause"-the bonding of H2&O,the "effect"-liquid state, if this true then from here it follows that for this liquid state to exist then the bonds must remain intact.

That's all correct.

so looking at this from a different perspective WHAT would happen if you were to slowly break this bond,slowly pull them apart? how would it's liquid state behave? it would cease to be, but just before the bonds break, what changes in the liquid's state form would happen?

That's called a "gas."

once the liquid ceases to be then slowly bring them back together so that,at minute increments,the liquid state forms again and repeat this until we can see precisely what happens. just keep going back and forth,in this way we could see why the bonding of H2&O brings forth a liquid state in the first place.

"Why" is not a question science is really equipped to answer. That's just the way it works. If you're religious, you could choose to believe God designed the 3 phases of matter to work that way. Its not relevant to the question of HOW it works though - and the explanation given (which, it appears you understand, its just that it isn't satisfying to you for some reason).

where this "meaning" comes from i don't know,it's as I've said before a "DEEPER UNDERSTANDING" oh i know more is going on but it's ALL related to bonds and with geometry,temperature,electronics,pressure etc. and obviously what I'm asking must be beyond all this because the question that I've asked has not been answered and neither is the question "what burns" when they get together,for you have not answered it still as of yet. you brought it up but fail to give an explanation,i can't help but think that you don't really know the answer.

"What burns"? Hydrogen burns in the presence of oxygen. I've answered it a number of times now - you just aren't accepting that that is all that's going on. I can't help you with that.

as for what I'm ready for or not ready for, i can't be doing to bad since I've asked a fundamental question that as of yet can not answered!

No. You've asked basic questions that have been answered, a handful of meaningless questions, some unanswerable questions, and some irrelevant questions. If I accomplish anything here, helping you see the difference would be key.

sometimes someone looking in from the outside or someone within but stepping back a bit can see things others don't. because it can be easy to miss the obvious or if not obvious then a different perspective.

I'm sorry, but the reason you are failing chemistry is you refuse to look at it from the inside. If you can't understand something, you can't know its wrong or incomplete. You must get a complete understanding of the known meaning before you can look for deeper one. That should be obvious - how can you know what "deeper" is unless you have a more basic explanation from which to reference it. How deep is a pool that is 3 feet deeper?

 

[north]

That's all correct. That's called a "gas." "Why" is not a question science is really equipped to answer. That's just the way it works. If you're religious, you could choose to believe God designed the 3 phases of matter to work that way. Its not relevant to the question of HOW it works though - and the explanation given (which, it appears you understand, its just that it isn't satisfying to you for some reason).
___________________________________________
really,WHY is not the answer that science is equipped to answer? is that not the question,of WHY, we've been asking ourselves all along.we've discovered the HOW which is a start,now it is time for WHY. to place it to god or whatever is a signal to me that there is a lack,limit, of imagination here,it is time to dig deeper.
___________________________________________
"What burns"? Hydrogen burns in the presence of oxygen. I've answered it a number of times now - you just aren't accepting that that is all that's going on. I can't help you with that.
___________________________________________

that is the first time you have actually answered the question.

___________________________________________
No. You've asked basic questions that have been answered, a handful of meaningless questions, some unanswerable questions, and some irrelevant questions. If I accomplish anything here, helping you see the difference would be key. I'm sorry, but the reason you are failing chemistry is you refuse to look at it from the inside. If you can't understand something, you can't know its wrong or incomplete. You must get a complete understanding of the known meaning before you can look for deeper one. That should be obvious - how can you know what "deeper" is unless you have a more basic explanation from which to reference it. How deep is a pool that is 3 feet deeper?

___________________________________________

the key here is that this is beyond simple bonds etc. for the essence of HOW is known,but the essence of WHAT and WHY is not. it reminds me of an architect,in that here are the materials,we learn about the materials,strengh,flexiblity,shapes,endurance and yet does not need to know or necessarily want to know their essence.

so chemistry has become a form of architecture,we know how but no longer have the desire nor the want to know WHAT or WHY this form is so, since logically to chemists, there is no deeper answer than bonds,when in reality bonds in themselves are not enough to answer the question of,WHAT,is water the manifestation of? if you knew then your explanation would go beyond bonds etc. but the explanation does not, it is much like the carpenter knows that a screw will join to pieces of wood together,yet has no desire to understand the screw itself nor cares too!

the word science is from the GREEK language to know,we have lost the desire to know and now are technicians of what is known.

 

[reilly]

North -- I hate to say it, but you are either pulling our collective chains, or being seriously disingenuous. Liquids are much harder to understand than either solids or gases -- the molecules are neither highly constrained, and have little kinetic energy, nor are they quite free with their gaseous state energy being primarily kinetic, gases typically live as they do in long-range potentials, and quite nicely described by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribition (no electron gases until second or third year physids and chemistry). The various states of water have a lot to do with the strength of hydrogen bonds.

If you want to understand water and the fluid state, you must, repeat must be able to master first year chemistry. If you don't, you very likely might not even recognize a valid discussion of water. No wonder you posit the possibility of electrons changing-- it does not happen. Fluidity depends on the details that apparently you could not grasp in your chemistry course, basics like atomic theory, chemical bonding and the like. You have a lot of homework to do.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Gokul43201]

north, do you understand what makes something a liquid ? The liquid state is typically characterized by its viscosity, which is a macroscopic manifestation of inter-molecular forces. Water (H2O) is a liquid because the strength of the intermolecular hydrogen bonds is just right to make the viscosity be in the requisite range.

 

[terrabyte]

yes and nothing is "burned" and "consumed" in the creation of water H2O from Hydrogens and Oxygen. Energy is released from this reaction. it's a strong bond and it takes a lot of energy to "break" this bond, which is where conservation of energy comes into play.

 

[north]

North -- I hate to say it, but you are either pulling our collective chains, or being seriously disingenuous. Liquids are much harder to understand than either solids or gases -- the molecules are neither highly constrained, and have little kinetic energy, nor are they quite free with their gaseous state energy being primarily kinetic, gases typically live as they do in long-range potentials, and quite nicely described by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribition (no electron gases until second or third year physids and chemistry). The various states of water have a lot to do with the strength of hydrogen bonds.
___________________________________________

Reilly, it is not the bonds i have trouble with,for they are IMPORTANT,Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is a mathematical function of state of Quantitiy of change,which is statistical statement of position and velocity particles at any time,according to my dictionary(chemistry).and the physics dictionary is no different. this to me is beyond STATISTICS. my challenge is this, try the experiment which i proposed with the minute increment freezing of hydrogen and oxygen separately, and go from there,before anybody debunks me,with i hope an open mind and honour for i find,no insult intended,but with the Cold Fusion mess,which by the way is being performed all over the world,i have my doubts whether the truth will be openly admitted to me, i don't want to here about preconcived conclusions,just do it! and see what happens.!
___________________________________________
If you want to understand water and the fluid state, you must, repeat must be able to master first year chemistry. If you don't, you very likely might not even recognize a valid discussion of water. No wonder you posit the possibility of electrons changing-- it does not happen.
___________________________________________

my proposal of electron change was simply an idea, not written in stone.

___________________________________________

Fluidity depends on the details that apparently you could not grasp in your chemistry course, basics like atomic theory, chemical bonding and the like. You have a lot of homework to do.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

___________________________________________

this not details of atomic theory nor is it, the lack of understanding of basic chemistry.it is the understanding of when they(H2&O) combine,WHY and then WHAT is the reason this combination brings forth the state they do! atomic theory and basic chemistry give a bonding concept of the dynamics involved to bring forth the state of liquidity. this is cause and effect only. now WHY does this cause and effect have this result, that is my question. the cause of the frame of the house to be, is the effect of the screws with wood.but what is the cause and effect of before the frame, before the shape,that which gives it it's shape, there exists the forms(energies) which allow the states to be,which brings forth,in the end, the end result because of the cause and effect before the chemical cause and effect allows this to happen.

in other words the frames becomes,but it is the nature of the elements essence of the frames which allows the forum of the frames(ecssence,shapes) to become in the first place. which takes certain combinations and ordered structures of their outer essence to bring forth their form.

 

[terrabyte]

people have said electrons MANY times this thread.

someone post the "stone deaf" forum warrior :D

 

[north]

Reilly

forgive me if i may seem distrusting. but as the way science is nowadays and the way reality is, these are real concerns.

 

[dolphin]

Hi, this is my first post to this forum.

Unforunately I do not have a computer or internet. I want to see if this actually works when I try to post this. I have skim read some of the discussion on water but this computer is too slow.

Suggest try a GOOGLE search on: water, structure, hydrogen bonds.

I found out that if it wasn't for hydrogen bonds, water would boil at - 90 degrees C.

They say that extremely temporary connected groups of water molecules form and break up again in water. The H3O+OH- decomposition reaction is the fastest in all of chemistry (15 million known chemicals) if I recall what they said.

There is a way of understanding things which can simplify physics and maths; haven't got my notes here but here are some clues:

Mathematics assumes numbers are made of equal-size and equal spaced units. This assumption looks self-referential like Zeno's Arrow where the halving of each remaining gap from the arrow to its target per each moment involves defining each moment in terms of the halved gaps. The "imaginary wall" the arrow supposedly hits in midair before reaching the target is made of the "bricks" of assumed-equal-size moments that actually had no size other than what was defined on, by saying "the next moment the arrow went half the remaining distance".

I came across Dr. Stafford's work, he claimed much of physics was circular reasoning. He seems to be on to something. What we call "physics" appears to be patterns of logic (about "scattergories")(how to break things up and put them back together).
(example: claiming 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2 but could equal 2 requires a third element that could associate with either of the ones)(this basic structure looks like H20 molecule)

What we call "mathematics" appears to be logic of patterns (so about categories)(conservation of separations)(example: claiming 1 + 1 = 2, involves requiring the ones remain separate in the 2)(This basic structure looks like three H20 molecules? two are hydrogen bonded, one is outside; they take turns in which is bonded) (for 1 + 1 to equal 2 requires supersymmetry: a mutually shared space?)

There are little bits of physics (of logic) floating in maths (in categories): called "axioms". These are a math-kind of wave-funtion: "wave" is "group"; "function" is "group"; a "wave-function" is a group-group; that is expansion-room.

An axiom allows expansion in math. It is like an "axion" in physics: it is self-referential.

There are little bits of maths (of categories) floating in physics (in logic): called "wave functions". These are a physics kind of "axiom": they are constrictions (since physics involves logic so expansion-room; a superposed expansion will restrict it).

These are seen as conservation laws. They are like prime numbers in math; they only have two factors, themselves and one.

If you make physics look like math by dealing with lots of little bits (atoms); you may end out with math looking like physics (broken into big chunks)(so the math becomes irreconcilable; separated; too hard).

This is got around by making physics and math swap places (via "re-normalisation" groups: take any other problem and asociate it with your current problem)(looks like H30+OH- reaction?)

If you measure anything you see sub-atomic particle patterns: measure a chair-arm with a book: call them "c" and "b": how can you measure them: so far just have 1 to 1?

So you divide one (make one at least 2 to the other): this threesome is called "colour" as in quantum chromo-dynamics.

How conserve your measurement? Need divide both: but which division came first? This "time" issue introduces anti-colour.

How conserve again? Need another division. This reconciles colour and anti-colour: have one "mark" and six quarks. But to see the quarks and the colours requires a further division: get 8 gluons.

Eventually you end out with "Higgs particles" the concept "particle" requires a unit on a background.

Science involves: take some ingredients. Change something, see if anything else changed or not. Carefully describe the basic process of doing science and you seem to get the patterns we call the standard model.

The five forces of physics appear to relate as:

electro-magnetic: + / -
weak/ strong: x / divide
gravity: =

loop quantum gravity appears to be disguised set theory; string theory appears to be disguised number-lines.

-just a hint of what I found

Alan

 

[russ_watters]

forgive me if i may seem distrusting. but as the way science is nowadays and the way reality is, these are real concerns.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but sceince, especially in the past century has been enormously successful in explaining how the natural world works. If science was wrong, none of our modern technology - including the computer you are using now, would work.

I know you are frustrated by your failure thus far, but you're just going to have to get over it and make the effort to learn the way things really are if you really desire to learn how the natural world works. We've done all we can to help you short of trying to teach you all of 1st semester chemistry.

 

[north]

Hi, this is my first post to this forum.

Unforunately I do not have a computer or internet. I want to see if this actually works when I try to post this. I have skim read some of the discussion on water but this computer is too slow.

Suggest try a GOOGLE search on: water, structure, hydrogen bonds.

I found out that if it wasn't for hydrogen bonds, water would boil at - 90 degrees C.

They say that extremely temporary connected groups of water molecules form and break up again in water. The H3O+OH- decomposition reaction is the fastest in all of chemistry (15 million known chemicals) if I recall what they said.

There is a way of understanding things which can simplify physics and maths; haven't got my notes here but here are some clues:

Mathematics assumes numbers are made of equal-size and equal spaced units. This assumption looks self-referential like Zeno's Arrow where the halving of each remaining gap from the arrow to its target per each moment involves defining each moment in terms of the halved gaps. The "imaginary wall" the arrow supposedly hits in midair before reaching the target is made of the "bricks" of assumed-equal-size moments that actually had no size other than what was defined on, by saying "the next moment the arrow went half the remaining distance".

I came across Dr. Stafford's work, he claimed much of physics was circular reasoning. He seems to be on to something. What we call "physics" appears to be patterns of logic (about "scattergories")(how to break things up and put them back together).
(example: claiming 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2 but could equal 2 requires a third element that could associate with either of the ones)(this basic structure looks like H20 molecule)

What we call "mathematics" appears to be logic of patterns (so about categories)(conservation of separations)(example: claiming 1 + 1 = 2, involves requiring the ones remain separate in the 2)(This basic structure looks like three H20 molecules? two are hydrogen bonded, one is outside; they take turns in which is bonded) (for 1 + 1 to equal 2 requires supersymmetry: a mutually shared space?)

There are little bits of physics (of logic) floating in maths (in categories): called "axioms". These are a math-kind of wave-funtion: "wave" is "group"; "function" is "group"; a "wave-function" is a group-group; that is expansion-room.

An axiom allows expansion in math. It is like an "axion" in physics: it is self-referential.

There are little bits of maths (of categories) floating in physics (in logic): called "wave functions". These are a physics kind of "axiom": they are constrictions (since physics involves logic so expansion-room; a superposed expansion will restrict it).

These are seen as conservation laws. They are like prime numbers in math; they only have two factors, themselves and one.

If you make physics look like math by dealing with lots of little bits (atoms); you may end out with math looking like physics (broken into big chunks)(so the math becomes irreconcilable; separated; too hard).

This is got around by making physics and math swap places (via "re-normalisation" groups: take any other problem and asociate it with your current problem)(looks like H30+OH- reaction?)

If you measure anything you see sub-atomic particle patterns: measure a chair-arm with a book: call them "c" and "b": how can you measure them: so far just have 1 to 1?

So you divide one (make one at least 2 to the other): this threesome is called "colour" as in quantum chromo-dynamics.

How conserve your measurement? Need divide both: but which division came first? This "time" issue introduces anti-colour.

How conserve again? Need another division. This reconciles colour and anti-colour: have one "mark" and six quarks. But to see the quarks and the colours requires a further division: get 8 gluons.

Eventually you end out with "Higgs particles" the concept "particle" requires a unit on a background.

Science involves: take some ingredients. Change something, see if anything else changed or not. Carefully describe the basic process of doing science and you seem to get the patterns we call the standard model.

The five forces of physics appear to relate as:

electro-magnetic: + / -
weak/ strong: x / divide
gravity: =

loop quantum gravity appears to be disguised set theory; string theory appears to be disguised number-lines.

-just a hint of what I found

Alan

___________________________________________

Alan

thanks for your input. to say that it is fascinating is an understatement. if i got you right,in summerizing, math needs points to be of value and to be, but in a wave function points lead to little understanding.to be honest i was thinking this( that perhaps molecules don't actually move but despite heat,i saw things more as a wave,not points ) but i darn't go there yet, i was having trouble where i was as it is!

i will read more of this site later.

i saw liquid as a coating persay,a function of inner energy, transforming depending on outside conditions,which effects the inner(the so called empty space between the electron and proton) atomic energy,the flow of energy between the outer and inner of the atom.

i was also thinking that.....superconductivity!

 

[north]

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but sceince, especially in the past century has been enormously successful in explaining how the natural world works. If science was wrong, none of our modern technology - including the computer you are using now, would work.
___________________________________________

you know exactly what i mean that there is dishonesty in the science circle,ego,money. you are not that naive I'm sure.

as for the second part, "if science was wrong", you just don't get it, you are confused as to my point,what "works" is not the point,my question is beyond what works,this is an out of the "works box" understanding,period!
___________________________________________
I know you are frustrated by your failure thus far, but you're just going to have to get over it and make the effort to learn the way things really are if you really desire to learn how the natural world works. We've done all we can to help you short of trying to teach you all of 1st semester chemistry.

___________________________________________

simply do the first experiment i proposed and do it professionally, with all that,professionalism, implies.that is my challenge to you,up for it??

actually to anybody that can, just try the experiment,why not?

 

[dolphin]

Hi North,

I have use of a computer again I'll try and figure out what you wrote:

(quote) "if i got you right,in summerizing, math needs points to be of value and to be, but in a wave function points lead to little understanding."

I found that ordinary English usage of words can be very revealing as to what the scientific usage really implies. Take the phrase: "what is the point of this discussion?": this means "what is the purpose,,," so "what is the overall direction..." so what is giving structure..."

A "pointless discussion" wanders all over the place with no apparent structure (but by virtue of its own wanderings self-referring among themselves you get a default structure built up gradually yet invisible as it is time itself i.e. it is only seen if you freeze observer time from beginning to ending of the experiment so the experiment duration is seen as a whole)(which is interesting because that IS memory: seeing a spread of time at a single glance)

(the experiment you proposed for gradually adding single electrons and protons etc, IS ITSELF the very definition of emergent structure and a "perfect liquid" as liquids are structure (solid)(pressure) without structure (gas)(volume).

(Pressure without volume occurs at a surface: a surface is a hyper-space (Michio Kaku's "flat-land" IS potential hyper-space it seems; his kinetic hyper-space is mathematics (math is flat-land as it treats all ones as same size)(to accommodate both views of flat-land have to overly flatten one (curled up dimensions) and overly inflate the other (attach strings: filter the math through re-normalisation groups)(result is area of a black-hole (uncertainty in defining a number) (Lee Smolin breaks the black-hole in two so area gets quantised, volume gets quantised; but pressure becomes uncertain (time stands still). To get time (gravity)(coming together) to move he breaks gravity into number, gravity, and time (graph, gravity x 2, time x 2) (graph, imaginary space, imaginary time). Stephen Hawking keeps the imaginary time but collapses the imaginary space into the fixed space (graph) giving a "1 + 1 = 2" (pea instanton).

The superposition of solid (fixed association)(pressure) and gas (free association)(volume) is possible because the solidity is only seen (the specific (solid!) groups that formed now and then) when the free association (freedom to form different groups) is seen (the gas is seen): (requires TIME)

that is by seeing for example your proposed experiment as a whole (from beginning to ending) it is seen to be both gas (free association) and a solid (specific groups associated).

To see BOTH the specific groups and the freedom of their constituents to freely associate in different group arrangements requires seeing the internal freedom among constituents of a group to break away (you called "inner energy") and the external
constraint among groups to associate the members of each group only as "teams" (you call "coating").

To see your proposed experiment AGAIN (to have two perspectives on it) would require breaking up the free association into two sides (placing a barrier between them) and potentially disrupting some of the temporary groupings.

By gradually adding single items together and allowing them to freely associate you get
potential temporary groupings that form and break up again. (Interestingly this free association to form and break groups is precisely what scientists have found occurs with the forming and breaking of hydrogen bonds in water that gives temporary structures of bonded groups of water molecules).

To observe your experiment would require containing it and placing a barrier between it and you the scientist (or how do you know where it stops and you begin?)

Containing it gives it internal room to change (by definition as it is an experiment not a static blob); placing a barrier gives it a coating (you the observer "surround " it you might say (or you plus whatever is not part of the experiment).

Since the experiment is itself "liquid" and its means of control is "hyper-liquid" there is the possibility of the experiment self-controlling (condensing as a real liquid from the two imaginary liquids) when you are not looking (when you exercise self-control).

This you call "transforming depending on outside conditions".

Quote: "to be honest i was thinking this( that perhaps molecules don't actually move but despite heat,i saw things more as a wave,not points ) but i darn't go there yet, i was having trouble where i was as it is!

i will read more of this site later.

i saw liquid as a coating persay,a function of inner energy, transforming depending on outside conditions,which effects the inner(the so called empty space between the electron and proton) atomic energy,the flow of energy between the outer and inner of the atom.

i was also thinking that.....superconductivity!"

If two people watch the experiment they must both exercise self control which requires "super conducting" the lab experiment?!

Thanks: I made discoveries as I went along trying to figure out what you said.

-Alan

 

[reilly]

Reilly

forgive me if i may seem distrusting. but as the way science is nowadays and the way reality is, these are real concerns.

__________________
Science is today pretty much like it has been for a long time. Sir E.T. Whittaker's History of the Aether and Electricity, Prof Schweber's QED and the Men who Made It, Watson's The Double Helix will confirm this, as will Histories of Science with a broader time scale.

Reality -- what's your problem?

I know with almost certainty that a detailed and exhaustive study of the physics of liquids, including the basic chemistry, the basic statistical mechanics will answer most of the questions you have. Having been a professor of physics I will tell you with all due respect that your questions, laudable as they are, are those of a bright beginner -- one whom most teachers will point out what to study, so that your scientific vocabularly and intuitive conceptual grasp of science will allow you to be far more specfic in you questions. Further, it is often the case that such study leads to a growth of reality based self confidence. When you know your stuff, people will be far more likely to respect your ideas, orthodox or not. When you don't know the basics, respect and attention will be difficult to obtain.

For example, the why and what of things have been the topic of some of the most brilliant and innovative, orthodox and nonorthodox thinkers of the past many centuries. Do your homework, they might teach you something.

Enough,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Lama]

Hi north,

Maybe the deep thing that you are looking for can be found by the symmetry concept.

By symmetry we sometimes can find the deep connections that exist between so-called different things.

We have learned during the last 100 years that the power of simplicity that is expressed through symmetry can be found in the basis of many interesting abstract and non-abstract systems, for example:

Mendeleyev periodic table (http://www.nfinity.com/~exile/periodic.htm),

Hadrons family (http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/particles/hadron1/hadron1.html),

Fibonacci series (http://goldennumber.net/links.htm),

Gauge theory (http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/228_45.html ).

Fundamental constant http://comp.uark.edu/~strauss/sym.2/sym.4.2.html

In this address http://plus.maths.org/issue10/features/topology/ You can see how the symmetry which stands in the basis of a Donut, can be transformed to a Cofee cup, and vise versa.

The physical laws of nature are also described in terms of symmetry and broken symmetry states.

Please tell me if I am in the right direction before we continue.

Yours,

Lama

 

[dolphin]

Hi again,

I located this question on the internet:

"How come you can't take one canister of hydrogen and one canister of oxygen and spray them at each other to make water?" www.Newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99148.htm

Now there may be a clue in a typo I made but corrected: I first typed "spray then" but "corrected" it to "spray them".

I once heard a music expert being interviewed (Brian Eno) who had this idea "honour thy error": if he made a mistake he would take another look as it just MIGHT open up a new perspective. Then again it just might not help much.

However in this case I can dream up an idea: "then" leads me to ask: who goes first?
If spraying hydrogen and oxygen at each other: who sprays at who? Does the oxygen have a jump-start on the hydrogen, or vice-versa?

One of them has to have a head-start? Or do they both combine with equal velocity from equal positions? But that would mean they were already combined in a third party that defined them as equal? Because what does "combined" mean if not "sharing"?

So we seem to have an "alternatives" barrier to getting this show on the road. How to overcome this barrier?

Well: we need a spark: a bright spark to break down the barrier; break the ice as it were. How about we add some heat: have the hydrogen and oxygen move out of their comfort levels by experiencing some externally-sourced influence; now they start bouncing off each other and juggling this third influence.

Suppose someone is juggling balls and you bump into them. Consider this juggler juggling balls "makes water" (metaphorically) (keeps his "liquidity": doesn't drop the balls) after you bump him, by speeding up his juggling act.

(Why would he speed up his juggling act just because you bumped into him? If you gave him another space to juggle in (a hyper-space); he could categorise his list with it (so in the case of hydrogen and oxygen you could lower the energy (the alternatives) barrier by providing a hyperspace to keep track of things (like providing another juggler to share the load). Solid platinum is a catalyst here I learned; it gives hydrogen and oxygen a "chat room" to get to know each other (to "break the ice"; lower the energy barrier).

What if you bumped him in such a way as to speed him up? Now the bump is hidden in the heat (hidden variable!)(Bell inequalities: he is "ringing" like a bell you might say: ringing the changes)

He is now effectively juggling the balls AND the external influence (from when you bumped him), but that influence is hidden in "ringing the changes".

If this juggler was occassionally swapping balls with other jugglers, you could get a chain reaction and eventually the external-influence of you bumping one juggler, could become very diluted in the exchanges spread over many jugglers.

("Jingle bells, jingle bells; jingle all the way. Oh what fun it is to ride on a one-horse open sleigh!")

Overall the liquidity (ability to carry on juggling)(The one-horse open sleigh if you work/play? with the metaphors here, using your imagination) of all the jugglers could be maintained with just a slight increase in their overall speed ("temperature" concept here).

If they could find a ready means to give off this heat they might transfer it back to the external world; then the fact that you disturbed one of them becomes just a memory, encoded into the large-scale structure of groups of balls spread among the jugglers.

Your collection of jugglers is effectively now a Bose-Einstein condensate; as they now all share the same meeting state (quantum state) as the beginning (you bumped one of them) and the ending (they collectively bumped you: i.e. gave you + outside world some heat) are what contains them. They now know you ("We
've met before: you bumped into me, and we juggled that bump and gave it back carrying knowledge about our society of jugglers" you could imagine this Bose-Einstein condensate saying)

The answer given at the web-site does say that there is an energy barrier, that the hydrogen and oxygen need added heat or a catalyst to get the reaction started.
Once a couple of molecules are kicked over the barrier the H2 and O2 molecules can break apart and form H2O.

-Alan

 

[dolphin]

If I may add to my previous message:

Sometimes seemingly irrelevant remarks can be worth a closer look; they might contain the pattern we are looking for (then again they might not? Or is everything a perspective on everything else? So whatever you say about something, in some maybe unexpected way it may not only tell you what it does about the thing in question; but could shed light on other aspects (it may have common ground with some other perspectives (if you are not restricting your awareness).

(If restricting your awareness (tunnel vision) you might see the other possible connections as broken into individual tunnels (a straw metric!). If you put up "straw men" you put up individual tunnels that are really one tunnel and offer no resistance to being broken down into constituent items?)

If you bring any two perspectives on a thing together; all the other perspectives may break up into groups (chat-rooms!) where they also have mutual space in which the original perspectives I mentioned can be seen under a new light( can be differentiated and integrated).

Reilly wrote: "...gases typically as they do in long-range potentials, and quite nicely described by the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution".

"...no electron gases till 2nd or 3rd yr. physics and chemistry"

Now this seems a liitle radical to do what I do here but for fun I tried it:

Physics is patterns of logic.
Mathematics is logic of patterns.

Chemistry is the math implied from two views of logic (frozen math)(hence Pauli exclusion priciple: effectively 1 + 1 = 2 (also an inclusion principle: the 1s are excluded as 1 + 1 yet included in the 2).

To count chemistry requires an alternative 1 + 1 = 2. To keep counting chemistry requires an overall 1 + 1 = 2 distributed over four ones (quantum numbers) and two twos (quantum electro-dynamics: fine structure constant (like a pump: expand: contract)

To see fine-structure constant and four quantum numbers requires a periodic table of the elements (the fine-structure four plus the quantum number four: gives a table (area)(a x b) with four legs (2 + 2 but what is "+" and what is "2" as have both a and b views on 1 + 1 giving a square root of minus one times the other view as your point of comparison (renormalisation with external view)(collapse of wave function).

(Re-normalisation involves take your problem and some other problem; so can call these y and x and call that "the square of plus one")(The anti-dote to the square root of minus one"!?)(gets you back to square one?)

Which is which? Isolate compare of compare (speed of light) from mutual ground (Gravity constant) from non-mutual ground (Planck jump).

Biology is the chemistry implied from physics and math (logic and categories) sharing together (so involves growth opportunities in niches in environment).

Man? Jesus Christ has said (if I recall reading/ hearing): "thou art Peter and to you do I give the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. As you bind on Earth consider it bound in Heaven. As you loose on Earth consider it loosed in Heaven".

"no electron gases till 2nd or 3rd year physics and chemistry":

A radical interpretation!:

list physics and chemistry (logic and categories) 2 or 3 times:

logic; logic; (logic) gives the first two logics projects chemistry (math from 2 logic)
the third logic might break it up?

categories; categories; (categories) gives first two projects structure that could conserve in the third.

"electron gas" is "modification modifications" so potential structure.

We have potential structure that could conserve mixed with might break up but build/break are in suspension: sounds like "potential structure" that is "electron gas"!

Actually since water boils at minus 90 deg. C if not for hydrogen bonds; perhaps water is "cold plasma"; after all if H3O+OH- decomposition is the fastest reaction in all of chemistry?

North wrote: "math function of state of quantity of change (typo: I wrote "quality" at first) (but my hand scribbled note was hard to read)(i.e. I'm not superstitious)(don't have to see hidden messages left right and center!)(but not wanting to block any bright ideas) re: Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.

Translating: "math" as categories; "state" as "category meets category" (surface effect); "quantity" as "category"; "change" as group group:

A category meets category is a group (cars meet buses = vehicles with members at least one car, bus say)(to meet they must share so be grouped together)

A group group is a category (car, bus group meets bicycle, stage-coach group get category: wheeled vehicles)(they need a meeting place and that can categorise them as one?)

So we have: ("function" is "group"):

"category group of group category of category"

reduces to: (occam's razor?)
(cutting the straw metric?)(manufacturing tunnel vision?)

category group of group group (as two "cats" make a group)

gives:

cat group of cat (as two groups make a cat)

gives a list of a cat (a catalyst!)

"Statistical statement of positions and velocities of particles at any time" is "every way the quantum event can happen (that 1 + 1 can "equal" 2)(i.e. be 1 + 1)(share space without treading on each other)(like have eternal life in Kingdom of Heaven where everybody can be at peace?)

It seems that H2 plus O2 plus spark gives: they can swap roles after the spark by encoding the spark as a collection of H2O; the water cnains a hidden circuit of H2, O2?

But hydrogen bonds resist this superconductor of H2, O2 reducing it to a semi-conductor. Water as a H2, O2 semi-conductor? Moving water as a computer of space and time or something?

Speculation!

-Alan

 

[russ_watters]

___________________________________________

simply do the first experiment i proposed and do it professionally, with all that,professionalism, implies.that is my challenge to you,up for it??

actually to anybody that can, just try the experiment,why not?

I rather suspect a typical physicist or chemist would find your experiment pointless. But if you still think it will be informative when you're working toward your pHd, then by all means, do it. But I rather suspect that if you get far enough in physics (or chemistry) that you understand what is already known, you'll agree that it isn't very informative.

Either way, this doesn't change what I said before: you need to learn basic chemsitry before trying to expand on it (or discard it).

 

[dolphin]

Curiously the experiment would be indeed pointless: it is an attempt to investigate the prior assumptions in science.

In normal science you would try to interact water with other things and learn about it (epistemology)(what can we say about it); in investigative science you might want to see what is the essence of water (ontology)(what is the minimum necessary logical /mathematical structure to define water; what is the water-point? (the zero-point energy say).

What is the place where we are one with water?

If something has a point; it has an overall structure; a goal that directs it.

The experiment is a deliberate attempt to locate the inner guts as it were of water; it is trying to uncover if water has any structure other than what scientists paint on to it, and what is the least "painting" possible? Is there an oversight in the scientific story; did they miss something?

It is designed to be non-informative in that it is not supposed to tell you anything about water as such; but to break apart the scientific model of water and see what holds it together.

The interesting thing is:

"you need to learn basic chemistry before trying to expand on it (or discard it)":

this is, at one level; precisely what North is doing.

What we call "learning basic chemistry" IS expanding on it (or discarding it); that is: sorting the wheat from the chaff as to what belongs to chemistry you might say; when compared to the essence of chemistry: which is that 2 = 1 + 1 (in everyday English we talk of a "chemistry" between people when there is a 2-ness between them, i.e. a mutual understanding apparent between them say).

Of course I know what Reilly means; but North is maybe stepping outside the box is it were.

-Alan

 

[russ_watters]

...North is maybe stepping outside the box is it were.

-Alan

The problem is that north has never even seen the box, wouldn't recognize it if he did, and thus has no way of knowing if he were inside or outside. He needs to learn about the box first before he can try to explore what is outside it.