Water,a manifestation of WHAT?

[dolphin]

Quoting an earlier comment by North:

"by discussing i think I'm getting better at relaying what I'm thinking(or really,what I'm picturing).i can picture at a microscopic level ( in the theory of chemistry at the moment) elements that come together and that the electrons bring them together.but i have a hard time thinking that the electrons and protons ALONE account for liquidity,hardness.it's like i think that when they do come together that they release something(some form of energy,a key themselves which opens up a source)which flows,sort of a energy flux,which transforms, Because of the electronic configuration of the element and/or molecule."

Simplifying things to extremes:

"a" meeets "b":

this is so far "hard" (as "a" bumps up against "b" you might say) yet also liquid (as "a" swims in "b" space and vice versa) yet also gas ("a" and "b" could be anywhere in each other's space).

Like two categories meets (so far unknown number of meetings between them).

Like a bell ringing (so far the hidden variable is the variation between "a" and "b" and not hidden at all; but to see it you would have to split this "a" meets "b" micro-cosmos and allocate one coupling of a:b as Bell inequalities (where "a" and "b" retain their differences) and the other coupling of "a" and "b" as a mixture (a superposition of "a" and "b") where the variation between them is by definition concealed from view (muddled together).

To see both "hidden variables" AND "Bell inequalities" in the same viewpoint you would (say) have to muddle THESE concepts together in one place and separate them in another.

So you get a superposition of a:b that rings of hidden inner structure; and distinctive aspects of "a" and "b" that ring in your ears so to speak; and a blend of a:b that looks well mixed say.

If you see isolate the ringing inner structure (atomise it) you could lose track of some aspects of "a" and "b" that ring and may notice something seems uneven about the blend of a:b.

So you get atoms of "a" and "b" with surrounding electron clouds (losing track of some aspects of "a" and "b")(electron is fuzzy space; or "modification"); the something uneven about the blend is the promoted perspective, the proton.

To identify protons and electrons (electrolyise "a" and "b") you would need to partly de-atomise them (form them into molecules), un-fuzzy the fuzzy space (get more aspects) to some degree (heat it: make it jiggle back a bit) and even up the uneven blend a bit (make lumps: neutrons).

(careful analysis brings up three generations of particles: cancel (original a:b effect (Hall effect); not-cancel (original "a" chat to "b" effect (Aspect experiment); uncertain ("a" and "b" meet the universe: quantum spin effect); and things like neutrinos, muons, etc. haven't some notes with me here)

To identify all these together (atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons) you would need to
divide them up and allow them to swap places.

Dividing them up gives eight groups; allowing them to swap places gives a musical chairs game with one missing place left over (when the music stops you have seven periods).

To see all that in one view you will need to allow your 8 groups and your 7 periods to mix together. You could split the 7 into two groups to give 14; but combine the 8 into one overall coupling: this delivers two batches of 14 elements. These are the Actinide and Lathanide series.

Now you can re-combine the two 7s while redistributing the couple-view of 8; this breaks up the periods into a simple combination that is spread wide as two angles on the 8 groups: gives you hydrogen and helium.

Split the 7s again and ... well I figured it out elsewhere but haven't got my notes here.. (potential mistakes)

Returning to "a" meets "b": this meeting could be called "quantum"

To analyse this meeting you need "quantum-electrodynamics" (QED) which is apparently same idea as "quo erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to be proved").

Take "a", take "b":

Do they belong together? Look at some other view of "a" and look at some other view of "b": do the other views harmonise with first views of "a" and "b"? If so you get a new perspective on "a" and "b" that is logically consistent with your initial conditions.

Details written up not yet typed. (Thankyou Dr. Stafford for giving the game away!)

(QCD is fuzzy logic: expand/contract a:b in a sample a:b space (aysmptotically flat anti-de Sitter space): get nuts and bolts of an argument (of the a:b sample)(See Prof. Stephen Hawking's work on "Taub nut", "Taub bolt" , and translate the simplicity out from it)

(QCD leaves you with three fuzzy possible a:b samples (colours); a muddling of a:b / a:b as 8 gluons, a muddling of both colours and gluons as anti-colours plus a plug-the-leak of renormalisation that leaves you with one difference (Back where you started "a" meets "b")(The square root of minus one sample, reconciled with the square of plus one other problem)

If a:b is solid (hard up against); liquid (swim in each other's space); gas (could be anywhere in each other's space):

if "a" and "b" are not alone:

get a:b chat, see new view a:b
so hard:hard = liquid; and liquid:liquid = hard

so a:b / a:b gives gas (the hardness is the pressure; the liquidity is the volume; the uncertainty is the temperature )

Here "a" and "b" swim through each other's space but come hard up against each other occasionally.

(Heat it greatly and "hard up against" can swap places with "swim" so get un-swim (electrons: fuzzy space) and less-hard (protons: spacy fuzz)! This gas called a plasma.)

a:b alone: not alone (free to associate)(space is time stands still)("eternity lies still")

hard:hard became liquid, plus hard: gives pressure

liquid:liquid became hard, plus liquid: gives volume

so have a gas.

a:b alone; not alone; either (freedom to take a break)(to have a home and a front door)(hospitality)

This is what chemistry is about.

get h:h: as l ,+ l + hard/or liquid
l:l: as h, + l + hard/ or liquid

Now have an alternatives barrier (energy barrier).

A triple point (hamiltonian mechanics?)

a:b: alone/not alone/alone

h:h: as l; + h + l pressure release (into liquid as it must swim somewhere new)

l:l: as h; + l + h volume release (into solid as it must push against something)

So provide a container and this gas inflates it. Provide no container and this gas swims against its own pressure: it condenses into liquid (in a container alive-dead space (a Shrodinger's cat space)(where containment is possible so the gas expands against the universe)(Fischer sampling?) A liquid is its own container, so can not be compressed much.

A liquid is direction in space (locality)?

A directed liquid is non-local (flows from a to b)

Water may be a self-directed liquid (as it has a second way of self-referring, via hydrogen bonds) so have high internal cohesion (resistance to being directed) (takes a lot of heat to evaporate it).

-Alan

 

[north]

it is the flexiblity of mind and the want to know is the crux of the problem here, to UNDERSTAND DEEPER WHAT IS GOING ON,so there is a discredit of myself because of my lack of certain knowledge.this is a cop out.the reluctance to do the first experiment i proposed,because it is "pointless" is absurd and ridiculous, nature does not recognize who knows this or that,only that the the question is asked and explored in the first place. i concluded that there is a fear,i may be right,but how, who really knows.although i maybe not totally right,in how i vision this state,there is something to of which i ask to done,this is SCIENCE after all, SO JUST DO IT. understanding is not resticted to those in the higher know but also from the outside. so the challenge stands JUST DO THE EXPERIMENT. because if you don't I'm sure someone eventually will who has flexibility of mind and the want to go deeper and has the curiosity to just give a chance. what aspect of science has not been questioned over time? are we going to stay stuck in the "box" or expand our thought? HMM...for those who don't question, will be left behind to "produce", but this is hardly SCIENTIFIC in the true sense of the word. it is time to reexplore what seems obvious and question and challenge our imagination,again,for a more complete and deeper explanation.

 

[north]

Quoting an earlier comment by North:

"by discussing i think I'm getting better at relaying what I'm thinking(or really,what I'm picturing).i can picture at a microscopic level ( in the theory of chemistry at the moment) elements that come together and that the electrons bring them together.but i have a hard time thinking that the electrons and protons ALONE account for liquidity,hardness.it's like i think that when they do come together that they release something(some form of energy,a key themselves which opens up a source)which flows,sort of a energy flux,which transforms, Because of the electronic configuration of the element and/or molecule."

Simplifying things to extremes:

"a" meeets "b":

this is so far "hard" (as "a" bumps up against "b" you might say) yet also liquid (as "a" swims in "b" space and vice versa) yet also gas ("a" and "b" could be anywhere in each other's space).

Like two categories meets (so far unknown number of meetings between them).

Like a bell ringing (so far the hidden variable is the variation between "a" and "b" and not hidden at all; but to see it you would have to split this "a" meets "b" micro-cosmos and allocate one coupling of a:b as Bell inequalities (where "a" and "b" retain their differences) and the other coupling of "a" and "b" as a mixture (a superposition of "a" and "b") where the variation between them is by definition concealed from view (muddled together).

To see both "hidden variables" AND "Bell inequalities" in the same viewpoint you would (say) have to muddle THESE concepts together in one place and separate them in another.

So you get a superposition of a:b that rings of hidden inner structure; and distinctive aspects of "a" and "b" that ring in your ears so to speak; and a blend of a:b that looks well mixed say.

If you see isolate the ringing inner structure (atomise it) you could lose track of some aspects of "a" and "b" that ring and may notice something seems uneven about the blend of a:b.

So you get atoms of "a" and "b" with surrounding electron clouds (losing track of some aspects of "a" and "b")(electron is fuzzy space; or "modification"); the something uneven about the blend is the promoted perspective, the proton.

To identify protons and electrons (electrolyise "a" and "b") you would need to partly de-atomise them (form them into molecules), un-fuzzy the fuzzy space (get more aspects) to some degree (heat it: make it jiggle back a bit) and even up the uneven blend a bit (make lumps: neutrons).

(careful analysis brings up three generations of particles: cancel (original a:b effect (Hall effect); not-cancel (original "a" chat to "b" effect (Aspect experiment); uncertain ("a" and "b" meet the universe: quantum spin effect); and things like neutrinos, muons, etc. haven't some notes with me here)

To identify all these together (atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons) you would need to
divide them up and allow them to swap places.

Dividing them up gives eight groups; allowing them to swap places gives a musical chairs game with one missing place left over (when the music stops you have seven periods).

To see all that in one view you will need to allow your 8 groups and your 7 periods to mix together. You could split the 7 into two groups to give 14; but combine the 8 into one overall coupling: this delivers two batches of 14 elements. These are the Actinide and Lathanide series.

Now you can re-combine the two 7s while redistributing the couple-view of 8; this breaks up the periods into a simple combination that is spread wide as two angles on the 8 groups: gives you hydrogen and helium.

Split the 7s again and ... well I figured it out elsewhere but haven't got my notes here.. (potential mistakes)

Returning to "a" meets "b": this meeting could be called "quantum"

To analyse this meeting you need "quantum-electrodynamics" (QED) which is apparently same idea as "quo erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to be proved").

Take "a", take "b":

Do they belong together? Look at some other view of "a" and look at some other view of "b": do the other views harmonise with first views of "a" and "b"? If so you get a new perspective on "a" and "b" that is logically consistent with your initial conditions.

Details written up not yet typed. (Thankyou Dr. Stafford for giving the game away!)

(QCD is fuzzy logic: expand/contract a:b in a sample a:b space (aysmptotically flat anti-de Sitter space): get nuts and bolts of an argument (of the a:b sample)(See Prof. Stephen Hawking's work on "Taub nut", "Taub bolt" , and translate the simplicity out from it)

(QCD leaves you with three fuzzy possible a:b samples (colours); a muddling of a:b / a:b as 8 gluons, a muddling of both colours and gluons as anti-colours plus a plug-the-leak of renormalisation that leaves you with one difference (Back where you started "a" meets "b")(The square root of minus one sample, reconciled with the square of plus one other problem)

If a:b is solid (hard up against); liquid (swim in each other's space); gas (could be anywhere in each other's space):

if "a" and "b" are not alone:

get a:b chat, see new view a:b
so hard:hard = liquid; and liquid:liquid = hard

so a:b / a:b gives gas (the hardness is the pressure; the liquidity is the volume; the uncertainty is the temperature )

Here "a" and "b" swim through each other's space but come hard up against each other occasionally.

(Heat it greatly and "hard up against" can swap places with "swim" so get un-swim (electrons: fuzzy space) and less-hard (protons: spacy fuzz)! This gas called a plasma.)

a:b alone: not alone (free to associate)(space is time stands still)("eternity lies still")

hard:hard became liquid, plus hard: gives pressure

liquid:liquid became hard, plus liquid: gives volume

so have a gas.

a:b alone; not alone; either (freedom to take a break)(to have a home and a front door)(hospitality)

This is what chemistry is about.

get h:h: as l ,+ l + hard/or liquid
l:l: as h, + l + hard/ or liquid

Now have an alternatives barrier (energy barrier).

A triple point (hamiltonian mechanics?)

a:b: alone/not alone/alone

h:h: as l; + h + l pressure release (into liquid as it must swim somewhere new)

l:l: as h; + l + h volume release (into solid as it must push against something)

So provide a container and this gas inflates it. Provide no container and this gas swims against its own pressure: it condenses into liquid (in a container alive-dead space (a Shrodinger's cat space)(where containment is possible so the gas expands against the universe)(Fischer sampling?) A liquid is its own container, so can not be compressed much.

A liquid is direction in space (locality)?

A directed liquid is non-local (flows from a to b)

Water may be a self-directed liquid (as it has a second way of self-referring, via hydrogen bonds) so have high internal cohesion (resistance to being directed) (takes a lot of heat to evaporate it).

-Alan

___________________________________________

Alan

you have a way to put things! tomorrow i will think about what you have said above. i think i get it, but not sure.

thanks for your perspective,get back to you!

in the mean time could you summarize?

 

[dolphin]

Thanks North!

I was having to remember stuff that I've got written up; I hope to post it soon.

But some underlying ideas are:

to identify something you need to be able to tell it apart from other things ("colour it" some way, say)

This is like give it accomodation: so hospitality: chemistry (sharing).

to identify two or more of something you need to tell them both apart (as a group) (called a "lie group" in physics) from other things; this creates a local group and everything else.

This is like give them breathing space; somewhere to think and talk; keeping the peace; physics.

to compare local groups you need to tell the groups apart from everything else (so identify their regional space).

This is like play games; make things; math.

-alan

 

[north]

Quoting an earlier comment by North:

"by discussing i think I'm getting better at relaying what I'm thinking(or really,what I'm picturing).i can picture at a microscopic level ( in the theory of chemistry at the moment) elements that come together and that the electrons bring them together.but i have a hard time thinking that the electrons and protons ALONE account for liquidity,hardness.it's like i think that when they do come together that they release something(some form of energy,a key themselves which opens up a source)which flows,sort of a energy flux,which transforms, Because of the electronic configuration of the element and/or molecule."
___________________________________________

Simplifying things to extremes:

"a" meeets "b":

this is so far "hard" (as "a" bumps up against "b" you might say) yet also liquid (as "a" swims in "b" space and vice versa) yet also gas ("a" and "b" could be anywhere in each other's space).

Like two categories meets (so far unknown number of meetings between them).
___________________________________________

sort of ,but go from there,your flexibility is there,now let's see if it true,don't let me deter you,i'm trying to understand what you think but i admit I'm not sure! go with it.
___________________________________________
Like a bell ringing (so far the hidden variable is the variation between "a" and "b" and not hidden at all; but to see it you would have to split this "a" meets "b" micro-cosmos and allocate one coupling of a:b as Bell inequalities (where "a" and "b" retain their differences) and the other coupling of "a" and "b" as a mixture (a superposition of "a" and "b") where the variation between them is by definition concealed from view (muddled together).
___________________________________________

could be,Bell's point of view could be the Key! local variations(this is new to me) maybe missed by quantum-mechanics.
___________________________________________

To see both "hidden variables" AND "Bell inequalities" in the same viewpoint you would (say) have to muddle THESE concepts together in one place and separate them in another.
___________________________________________

interesting, but explain your thinking here.

___________________________________________

So you get a superposition of a:b that rings of hidden inner structure; and distinctive aspects of "a" and "b" that ring in your ears so to speak; and a blend of a:b that looks well mixed say.
___________________________________________

this tough from me to follow,superposition of a:b that hints of a inner structure but yet keeps the distinctive features of each,your stretching me here, no problem,keep going!

in the spirt of Bell,is this a hint of in away of what he was saying,in that quantum-mechanics does not go deep enough in it's explanation of all things!?

___________________________________________

If you see isolate the ringing inner structure (atomise it) you could lose track of some aspects of "a" and "b" that ring and may notice something seems uneven about the blend of a:b.
___________________________________________

not sure here what you mean,sort of do, but not enough to give a comment.
___________________________________________

So you get atoms of "a" and "b" with surrounding electron clouds (losing track of some aspects of "a" and "b")(electron is fuzzy space; or "modification"); the something uneven about the blend is the promoted perspective, the proton.
To identify protons and electrons (electrolyise "a" and "b") you would need to partly de-atomise them (form them into molecules), un-fuzzy the fuzzy space (get more aspects) to some degree (heat it: make it jiggle back a bit) and even up the uneven blend a bit (make lumps: neutrons).
(careful analysis brings up three generations of particles: cancel (original a:b effect (Hall effect); not-cancel (original "a" chat to "b" effect (Aspect experiment); uncertain ("a" and "b" meet the universe: quantum spin effect); and things like neutrinos, muons, etc. haven't some notes with me here)
To identify all these together (atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons) you would need to
divide them up and allow them to swap places.
Dividing them up gives eight groups; allowing them to swap places gives a musical chairs game with one missing place left over (when the music stops you have seven periods).
To see all that in one view you will need to allow your 8 groups and your 7 periods to mix together. You could split the 7 into two groups to give 14; but combine the 8 into one overall coupling: this delivers two batches of 14 elements. These are the Actinide and Lathanide series.
Now you can re-combine the two 7s while redistributing the couple-view of 8; this breaks up the periods into a simple combination that is spread wide as two angles on the 8 groups: gives you hydrogen and helium.
Split the 7s again and ... well I figured it out elsewhere but haven't got my notes here.. (potential mistakes)
Returning to "a" meets "b": this meeting could be called "quantum"
To analyse this meeting you need "quantum-electrodynamics" (QED) which is apparently same idea as "quo erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to be proved").

Take "a", take "b":

Do they belong together? Look at some other view of "a" and look at some other view of "b": do the other views harmonise with first views of "a" and "b"? If so you get a new perspective on "a" and "b" that is logically consistent with your initial conditions.

Details written up not yet typed. (Thankyou Dr. Stafford for giving the game away!)

(QCD is fuzzy logic: expand/contract a:b in a sample a:b space (aysmptotically flat anti-de Sitter space): get nuts and bolts of an argument (of the a:b sample)(See Prof. Stephen Hawking's work on "Taub nut", "Taub bolt" , and translate the simplicity out from it)

(QCD leaves you with three fuzzy possible a:b samples (colours); a muddling of a:b / a:b as 8 gluons, a muddling of both colours and gluons as anti-colours plus a plug-the-leak of renormalisation that leaves you with one difference (Back where you started "a" meets "b")(The square root of minus one sample, reconciled with the square of plus one other problem)

If a:b is solid (hard up against); liquid (swim in each other's space); gas (could be anywhere in each other's space):

if "a" and "b" are not alone:

get a:b chat, see new view a:b
so hard:hard = liquid; and liquid:liquid = hard

so a:b / a:b gives gas (the hardness is the pressure; the liquidity is the volume; the uncertainty is the temperature )

Here "a" and "b" swim through each other's space but come hard up against each other occasionally.

(Heat it greatly and "hard up against" can swap places with "swim" so get un-swim (electrons: fuzzy space) and less-hard (protons: spacy fuzz)! This gas called a plasma.)

a:b alone: not alone (free to associate)(space is time stands still)("eternity lies still")

hard:hard became liquid, plus hard: gives pressure

liquid:liquid became hard, plus liquid: gives volume

so have a gas.

a:b alone; not alone; either (freedom to take a break)(to have a home and a front door)(hospitality)

This is what chemistry is about.

get h:h: as l ,+ l + hard/or liquid
l:l: as h, + l + hard/ or liquid

Now have an alternatives barrier (energy barrier).

A triple point (hamiltonian mechanics?)

a:b: alone/not alone/alone

h:h: as l; + h + l pressure release (into liquid as it must swim somewhere new)

l:l: as h; + l + h volume release (into solid as it must push against something)

So provide a container and this gas inflates it. Provide no container and this gas swims against its own pressure: it condenses into liquid (in a container alive-dead space (a Shrodinger's cat space)(where containment is possible so the gas expands against the universe)(Fischer sampling?) A liquid is its own container, so can not be compressed much.

A liquid is direction in space (locality)?

A directed liquid is non-local (flows from a to b)

Water may be a self-directed liquid (as it has a second way of self-referring, via hydrogen bonds) so have high internal cohesion (resistance to being directed) (takes a lot of heat to evaporate it).

-Alan

___________________________________________

Alan

your beyond me! much of this i DON"T UNDERSTAND but if your willing show me,i'm all eyes! i may not always agree with you but I'm sure it will be interesting!

thanks,north

 

[Lama]

Symmetry

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

 

[north]

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

___________________________________________

Lama

give me time here,i'll get back to you.i apologize for seemingly to ignore you earlier,all inquaries and efforts are appreicated.

how symmetries could be involved here I'm not sure.but I'm in no position to deter you.keep exploring your angle please.

just one thing though,as with you or Alan.to start with the liquidity of both hydrogen and oxygen at very low temps. and following through with their ability to bring the state of liquidity at room temperature i think is the key here,i could be wrong,but i have no problem if i am. to get to the bottom of the liquid state,the essence of the form or WHAT and/or WHY this form is possible in the first place is the challenge. chemical reactions open and close the door,whats behind the door??

but i will get back to you in any case!

 

[dolphin]

Hi North and Lama,

Unfortunately I have a problem: I do not have my own computer or internet! I was staying somewhere while traveling where I had access. I hope to find a way of typing off-line so occasionally I could use an internet cafe.

I would like to elaborate more but am constrained by present situation.

A physicist, Stephen Wolfram, has been reported as saying when physics is figured out it will be incredibly simple. Maybe that is already the case?

It seems that science involves: someone takes some ingredients, changes something, looks to see if something else changed or not.

They also measure the ingredients and try to measue the changes.

They also use maths, they talk of numbers. Numbers involve base and units.

They also try to confine their definitions while broadening them sufficiently so as to give the impression that they are repeating an experiment to see if they get what they think looks like the same result, again.

They also compare notes with other scientists.

What I have found:

it seems that Dr. Richard Stafford's idea that physics might involve circular reasoning (like look up meaning of a word in a dictionary, get more words; look those up, get more words...etc. till you seem to be going round in circles at least quite a lot) has provided a serious insight into what is going on.

You can go beyond dictionaries and talk of "comparing and matching patterns".

One could say that words are defined by intersecting categories. If you look (like the explanation on defining words given in John Hosper's book "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis") at the process of broadening and narrowing the region where categories intersect: it looks a lot like the patterns of physics (you get generalisation (categorising) as "electro-"; specification (intersection of categories) as "magnetic"; strings attached as like string theory, defined lumpiness (sets) as loop quantum gravity, and so on.

Example: what if you didn't know what "cat" meant?

But what if you knew it was somehow connected with "mat"?

All you know is they "swim" as it were in each other's definition space.

What if you didn't know what "sat" meant?

But you knew that it has something to do with "cat" and with "mat".

Since we now have three categories, we have the possibility of placing them in different orders. Before, you could have put "cat" and "mat" anywhere as it were as they are only directed to each other as it were.

When you add "sat"; there is the possibility of bias, of one-sidedness; of "cat" coupling with "mat" THEN with "sat". The simple logic of cat:mat has become fuzzy.

This basic three seems to be what "colours" refer to in quantum chromo-dynamics.

(Couple "on" to "cat sat" but before "mat" and you get "cat sat on mat": an internal swim space for the items to define themselves: a volume that pushes in on itself and out against the world but is pulled back by its own space: a liquid. Give the liquid another way to self-organise (say hydrogen bonding) and it looks like water? )

Physics appears to be about tracking information. It appears to be about patterns of logic.

Mathematics appears to be about categorising things, about lumping them all together in one same-difference (it assumes numbers are equal sized and spaced units).

With three categories we can start to have math: we could say in the" world" of "sat" there are two concepts: "cat" and "mat".

Math doesn't tell you more than what you tell it; its about freezing everything.

Physics says: you could have different couplings of "cat", "mat", and "sat"; maths just says you can have ANY couplings of "cat", "mat" and "sat".

Quantum electro-dynamics appears to be about logic: about freezing math. Since math is already frozen, QED warms it up slightly (by one hop). Logic involves take two items, see how they look with other items; check that there are no contradictions in how they mix outside themselves and with how they mix together again with how they may mix to start with and how the outside things can mix to start with ("which was what was wanted").

It says "cat" meets "mat" (so each quantizes the other say) then in the say "calibration-"yawn"!" space (Calib-yau space) of "sat" you have options (alternatives)(energy): how they couple (who came first ? cat-mat, cat-sat, mat-sat? sat-mat? sat-cat?mat-sat? these six options are called "six quarks for Mr. Mark" (YOU are Mr. Mark say) They allow you to mark (notice) some other item as entangled with this group.

If you divide this other item into the six quarks you have got to allocate it to some of them. Physics then calls the resulting mixture "8 gluons" as you get the 6 quarks muddied by you (observer) mixing with the new item. So now have "8 gluons for Mr. Muon". When they discovered the muon someone said "who ordered that?".

The muon is the "who ordered that" particle, you might say. As it arrives when SOME OTHER item turns up. It is 40 times the mass (the uncertainty) of the electron (the electron is the potential fuzziness between you (Mr. Mark) and the third item ("sat").
To be seen it requires a new item (to tell it apart): so a hidden muon; to see the hidden muon requires a fifth item. To see the fuzziness (mass) of the muon requires a sixth item; this is confused by the six quarks so you end out with a fifth that is fuzzy in the 8 gluons giving 5x8=40 compared to electron.

Physics tracks order, and deflates the potential expansion of possibilities. Maths loses track, and inflates the possibilities. Physics mixed with maths is partly muddled (mathematical) while partly unmuddled (physical).

Maths: say 53 oranges: doesn't tell you much. Number is like a black-hole: from the observer's perspective: the "event" of you meet orange is muddled by 53. However, given what Professor Stephen Hawking has just told an international conference: the information (of what circumstances were involved when you met orange) need not be considered destroyed, only mangled.

The mangling is done by 53.

What physicists appear to be doing is rediscovering their own assumptions looking back at them in disguise. It is possible they will conclude that the information is not completely mangled, but has a protocol. Example: you: 53 oranges; protocol: 4 oranges now inside you.

They might next find the protocol involves addresses (splits in information into definite regions); then that it has homepages (content at addresses); then that there are exchange-places (calib-yau spaces)(chat-rooms); then specific exchanges that place limits on what happened; then that the black-hole is full of information; then that it is a memory that rings and "number" (53) has "evaporated" as actual reality (differences) takes over from math type fuzzying of things (over categorising); then that the "sound of silence" anyone can hear in their head in ultra-quiet surroundings is a superposition state of everything they ever experienced in their body.

(I discovered this about the singing of silence through an exploration of consciousness)

A basic idea in looking at understanding science:
finding the common ground, the background where two ideas are like different ways of looking at the same thing. Christopher Langan has developed the idea of "same-difference" in a paper on what he calls "conspansive duality".

My post is saturated with the very idea that Lama is talking about: symmetry and symmetry breaking.

A Fibbonacci series involves adding the previous two numbers to get the next one. It is a one-step slipped version of same-difference in a way.

This is dashed off; is costly so maybe post some more stuff then take a break.
(Also: takes time to develop water theory from liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen platform; not sure when)

-Alan

 

[dolphin]

Hi,

some more ideas:

the sixth quark in the previous post should have been "mat-cat" (although since you have to start the series somewhere it is perhaps not surprising it is fuzzy as I started with "cat" ; to solve this I would need to start with a coupling perhaps (like "cat-white") so that the sixth quark (Sith Lord in Star Wars movie you might say) can have a double-edged light ( as "comparison") sabre!

Physics:

Consider:

"a" meets "b"

The EVENT is "a" meets "b".

The EVENT HAPPEN: something went on when "a" met "b": so they exchanged greetings say. Have two perspectives on "a" meets "b":

a:b
a:b

To see this event happen: requires noticing a difference in a:b so put a circle around one of the two perspectives on a:b.

GAUGE the meeting: observer compares "c" with a:b; new a:b.

The comparison is "photon" exchanged between "c" and a:b against background of new a:b and observer (or simply a stopped clock where the change in a:b is frozen at the change in observer:c giving a sharing outside time. Labeling the items would generate the impression of a ticking clock but its just the label-machine ticking away say...?).

The "c" and a:b exchange is modified by new a:b so call this modification "electron".

So an electron is a fuzzying of the space a:b has to be different-looking a:b to the observer, via observer gauging that new look a:b via "c".

The role of "c" as a constant of comparison between a:b and new perspective a:b is an exchange medium, or photon. This appears why physicsts say that space is null lines along a light beam.

To see the possibility of emission or absorption of the photon:

need "d", another gauge. This gives the electron mass, if you don't give the photon mass (uncertainty).

To see whether the photon is emitted or absorbed requires "e", another gauge.

Now the photon can be emitted OR absorbed. This is because your three gauges are now establishing their own localisation which is invariant relative one photon exchange with the two perspectives on a:b.

"e" gives fine structure to the space in which the event happened:

event is "a" meets "b"
happen is something went on so there are two perspectives on "a" meet "b":

so "event happen" is a:b; a:b

to gauge this event happening need "c" (a point of comparison to see it against which requires a ripple in "c" which is hidden as the new "a:b" seen on "c" background with observer (called a "wave function")

to collapse this wave function (get a handle on what happened when a:b became new a:b seen against background "c" by observer) you need "d". This allows a modified view of a:b becomes new a:b by seeing how c:d changed (the ripple in "c" hidden by new a:b can now show up in d (BUT DOESN"T HAVE TO: the laws of physics are voluntary it seems).

If we add "e" then we can lose the c:d perspective on a:b; a:b and call it "fine structure" in the c:d room that a:b had to reconfigure from a name-the-spaces perspective (math perspective; cateorising perspective).

Can now define distance within a:b becomes new a:b as the "e" in the invariant gauge (two gauges locked together) of c:d.

If add "f" can lock the fine structure "e" to "f" and call it "fine structure constant".

OR can call a deal between gauge e and f : the speed of light constant (as the light that "c" perspective sheds on a:b; new a:b seen in movement space d:e perspectives for observer to think about the event he is seeing; can be held constant in "f" as this gives an alternative way to balance the views available to him.)

(Need "g" to know speed of light constant: Michelson-Morley experiment is a "g" (graviton)(blind to direction)

OR could have a "d", "e", "f" deal (which gives a fixed local space to gauge event a:b; new a:b against a fixed alternative mixing space "c": so that d:e:f makes a:b; a:b appear 3 dimensional against "c" background; or makes the a:b seem to form a square in space-time with added length from observer's share-space and depth from its own share-space re: observer: so get a square root (a:b; a:b) of minus one (the background where observer meets event-happening)(the "time before time" as physicists may say) (beyond the infinite: the elongated square with depth as a door to outer space from inner space: the black monolith in the movie "2001 A Space Odyssey"! :Planck's constant (A constant plank for the observer to walk on: the mutual given space say)

OR could have a deal between perspectives "c", "d", "e", "f" which leaves the event a:b; new a:b to form lumps (masses) lumped together constant (gravity constant: the four in four).

String theory:

event happen a:b; a:b

the string attached is "c" condition on new a:b from old a:b

an "f" perspective allows the string to become theoretical.

If the "f" is distributed over perspectives c:d:e on the event a:b, new a:b;

get a "brane".

Brane theory:

The "f" perspective now hidden in the event a:b; new a:b (so a "no-brainer") requires two string theories to project it (or five string theories allow the event to disappear or reappear: so the five string theories have to have a duality (on-off switch) connecting them if the event is real) (or have two times if the duality is switched to on)(or have two spaces (loops) if the duality is switched to off i.e. if gravity (the event) is split (quantised)... or something like this!)

(Two string theories is involved in f-theory: so since logic involves comparing strings: f-theory is "physics" re-appearing in disguise! (Physics is apparently patterns of logic).

M theory: "the cat comes back": the event a:b; new a:b comes back as the mother of the gauging of the event when you have 5 string theories living with duality and with time and imaginary time. This can be called "imaginary event" or "the time before time".

(Since math assumes equal-size numbers and multiplication law; M-theory (return of the event a:b; new a:b) looks like math dressed up and reappearing to scientists)

(Total recall: admit all that is; and one's stem cells might re-activate and bring new life?)

Pea brane:

A mix of m-theory and f-theory:

FM: may be actually like radio frequency modulation ("radio" as communication; have an a:b; new a:b event modulated by its own two strings (logic possibility space) so get all kinds of actual possibilities (baby universes in a:b space) .

These gravitations of a:b; a:b into local loops (lie groups say)(sets); so a:b lumps in an a:b matrix if seen from a hop perspective (named spaces perspective) = variables in a fixed a:b grid, so matrix algebra in a non-commutating space (a hop space).

The above is very rough; I've got tidier stuff elsewhere!

-Alan

 

[dolphin]

Hi North,
Sorry I did not directly address your comments before.
I am under severe financial constraint so may have to drift away soon.

Quote N: "by discussing i think I'm getting better at relaying what I'm thinking(or really,what I'm picturing).i can picture at a microscopic level ( in the theory of chemistry at the moment) elements that come together and that the electrons bring them together.but i have a hard time thinking that the electrons and protons ALONE account for liquidity,hardness.it's like i think that when they do come together that they release something(some form of energy,a key themselves which opens up a source)which flows,sort of a energy flux,which transforms, Because of the electronic configuration of the element and/or molecule."

A: My guess is that what we call "electrons" are time-frozen ideas but that when the electrons of neighbouring molecules get together in the case of liquid you get like a single electron (like if "electron" is "modification of space" isn't a liquid a "modified space" as it has internal boundaries (it pushes and pulls within itself: it flows).
What is it that the electrons release to become a single electron (a liquid) in certain situations?
My guess is that they combine their respective protons as a single proton which becomes the localisation of space in the liquid as a single space; by releasing their respective neutrons as a single neutron. This gives the universe a neutral view of the liquid so allows the liquid to be self-contained.

I'm guessing that a liquid has an electron, proton, and neutron distributed over the whole thing.
___________________________________________

A: Simplifying things to extremes:

"a" meeets "b":

this is so far "hard" (as "a" bumps up against "b" you might say) yet also liquid (as "a" swims in "b" space and vice versa) yet also gas ("a" and "b" could be anywhere in each other's space).

Like two categories meets (so far unknown number of meetings between them).
___________________________________________

Quote N: sort of ,but go from there,your flexibility is there,now let's see if it true,don't let me deter you,i'm trying to understand what you think but i admit I'm not sure! go with it.

A: The idea is that there is a super simple way of looking at this where you can choose which perspective: if "a" meets "b" they are solid, liquid, or gas; depending on how you look at it.

A: The idea
Like a bell ringing (so far the hidden variable is the variation between "a" and "b" and not hidden at all; but to see it you would have to split this "a" meets "b" micro-cosmos and allocate one coupling of a:b as Bell inequalities (where "a" and "b" retain their differences) and the other coupling of "a" and "b" as a mixture (a superposition of "a" and "b") where the variation between them is by definition concealed from view (muddled together).
___________________________________________

could be,Bell's point of view could be the Key! local variations(this is new to me) maybe missed by quantum-mechanics.
___________________________________________

A: I found "quantum" to fit the idea "meeting"; and "mechanics" to fit the idea "mechanical" or a "fixed structure that can adjust" (like a mechanical digger).
So "quantum mechanics" becomes: "meeting fixed adjustments" or "logic" (every way (the meeting) adjustment can be fixed)

A: To see both "hidden variables" AND "Bell inequalities" in the same viewpoint you would (say) have to muddle THESE concepts together in one place and separate them in another.
___________________________________________

interesting, but explain your thinking here.

A: If the event "a" meets "b" involves something happened ("a" said "hi" to "b") if you were to describe this as a bell ringing (as something vibrated: "Hi" was heard) you would have dificulty saying that "a" and "b" were unequal (that ONE of them said "Hi" and one listened to "Hi")
But if you muddle these ideas (by having someone observe the event) you can then talk of the ringing Bell (a vibration in a:b space AND the inequality (one of them said "Hi").

Sorry this internet cafe closing now...
-Alan

 

[north]

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

___________________________________________

symmetry could be the angle needed.for there seems to be a symmetry between hydrogen and oxygen when brought down to very low tempteratures and that when brought together,the liquid state reapears,but now under different,outside environmental circumstances.(their combination-energy-heat) which now allows the state of liquidity at much higher temperatures,WHY? its like to me the liquidity state is always there but held until temperature(which changes something but WHAT?) allows it to flow again. so let's start at low temps. for hydrgen>liquid state>raise temp.>liquid state no longer>combine with oxygen>liquid state again.both change, i think the same thing(s) within them but in different ways. the symmetry is broken(no longer a liquid state) to the H2O combination>liquid state>symmetry but now the reason FOR the symmetry has changed.the state of liquidity is ALLOWED to happen SOONER(higher temps.)

no reason that i can see says this is not a path to be explored here to see the deeper symmetry between H&O which i think is hidden in the space between the outside and center of the atoms themselves.i wouldn't be surprised that because of the symmetries found that something completely unexpected is going on! form(s) change to something which change to something else which...etc.

 

[north]

i've been trying to think of a way to better relay what it is that I'm try ing to get at.

lets expand the hydrogen atom to a size we can see.using the football(English version of the game) as representing the electron and the proton being 1840 or so times this size,i can now stand and see this atom.now let's bring the temperature down,i'm not affected,now suddenly(perhaps not,i suspect not suddenly),at the right temperature,it has a liquid state,now the thing is,is that, there is nothing in our present state of knowledge that would PREDICT this state of liquidity.we know this to happen but could we PREDICT this to happen,for i find that there is nothing within the atom that gives any hint of the possibility of a liquid state. my question is WHY then can we not PREDICT this. because if we could predict WHAT causes a liquid state in any element(s) and combinations thereof then we would truly answer,WATER, a manifestation of WHAT.

we should be able to say that this element(s) and combinations thereof will form a liquid state in such and such circumstance without actually having to do an experiment. could we even now if it had not already been known PREDICT that Hydrogen would become a liquid a low temperatures? we can not,but WHY can't we? what else should we know about HYDROGEN that should have told us this?

 

[terrabyte]

temperature IS energy level at an atomic level.

you can't say bring the temperature down and let's observe what happens to the atomic level because the atomic energy level DEFINES temperature. it also defines matter "states" vis-a-vis solid,liquid,gas

 

[russ_watters]

I'm wondering if I should bother, but...

...now let's bring the temperature [of one atom of hydrogen] down,i'm not affected,now suddenly(perhaps not,i suspect not suddenly),at the right temperature,it has a liquid state...

What about this thread would lead you to that conclusion? It has been explained, by now a dozen times, that the properties of a liquid are based on the interactions of multiple molecules. One atom of hydrogen at any temperature will not display properties of a liquid. That is not a failing of physics or chemistry, it is a failing of your understanding of physics and chemistry.

Since the premise you base your question on is wrong, the rest of your description there is meaningless. You are spinning your wheels in place and asking meaningless questions.

we should be able to say that this element(s) and combinations thereof will form a liquid state in such and such circumstance without actually having to do an experiment.

We can do precisely that, with the obvious caveat that we can only make predictions about liquid properties when liquid properties exist. You are faulting physics for not being able to predict certain properties when there are no such properties to predict.

could we even now if it had not already been known PREDICT that Hydrogen would become a liquid a low temperatures? we can not,but WHY can't we? what else should we know about HYDROGEN that should have told us this?

Yes, as a matter of fact, we can make such predictions. Do you know why? If you've been paying attention, you should. I'm not optomistic...

 

[russ_watters]

Since the premise you base your question on is wrong, the rest of your description there is meaningless.

I'm not sure you'll understand this, so I'll explain with an example:

Premise: I'm God.
Question: What powers do I have?

Clearly, since I'm not God (or am I? ), I don't have any powers to investigate, therefore asking "What powers do I have?" is a meaningless question.

 

[dolphin]

Just quickly:

In other words: if one of the minimum ingredients required for defining "liquid state" (at least in chemistry) is "several atoms or molecules interacting" (someone said six are required for water); then to talk of "one atom becoming liquid" is like talking of one brick becoming a house.

You could wait all day but never see a brick be anything other than a brick even after it was added to many others to form a house? Not quite; the brick would have undergone some pushes and pulls as it was moved into position with the other bricks.
It would become part of a circuit of strain in the building: you could perhaps measure a slight strain on the brick after the house was built.

If you did North's experiment and added hydrogen and oxygen atoms one by one; once you had enough of them and enough pressure and containment and a spark of energy to overcome the energy barrier you could get water.

Would the hydrogen and oxygen atoms be any different then? To measure one of them surely you would have to separate it out by doing electrolysis of water (pass an electric current through the water and see what happens at a zinc and a carbon electrode diped in the water).

But whatever hidden stress or strain was in the individual atom would presumably be released via electrolysis, so your collected hydrogen and oxygen would look just as they usually do?

Similarly pull a brick from a house and whatever strain it is under is gone. If the brick was made of rubber it might expand a bit after you pulled it out. It is conceivable that atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are slightly squashed when in liquid form but that they avoid this by synchronising their respective squashed-ness by tumbling all over one another so some expand a bit while squashing others; but with an overall net lower volume than before the liquid condensed?

A liquid might be a self-referring volume, a single quantum (meeting) state of volume. A solid might be quantised area.

If this were the case then "water: a manifestation of what?" might be answered:

a manifestation of an ongoing exchange among its molecules re: their volume so that the sum of the volume of all the molecules added up based on statistics would be greater than the actual volume of the water divided by the number of water molecules.

You could suggest water is a manifestation of quantum tunneling.

-just some ideas thrown around!

-Alan

 

[dolphin]

another thing:

IF chemistry is holographic:

like each phenomenon is a language that the others can "speak"; than "oxygen" can "speak" hydrogen and hydrogen can "speak" oxygen.

And "temperature" can speak both "hydrogen" and "oxygen"; and "pressure" can speak all three and so on.

Actually in broad terms it may be like this by default: to know two things are different requires that they be distinct against a mutual common background.

If you couldn't tell the difference between oxygen and pressure how would you get far in chemistry?

"water" is a language spoken by hydrogen and oxygen you might say, when seen against the background of certain atom quantities, pressure, temperature, and historical breaking-of-energy-barrier conditions.

So you could ask: what conditions are needed so that hydrogen can speak "liquid"?

Some items might "speak" a certain "language" only when certain items are excluded from the conditions with others included; so as to avoid contradictions in how each is defined.

-Alan

 

[russ_watters]

If you did North's experiment and added hydrogen and oxygen atoms one by one; once you had enough of them and enough pressure and containment and a spark of energy to overcome the energy barrier you could get water.

I didn't see that in north's proposal.

But whatever hidden stress or strain was in the individual atom would presumably be released via electrolysis, so your collected hydrogen and oxygen would look just as they usually do?

Correct.

Similarly pull a brick from a house and whatever strain it is under is gone. If the brick was made of rubber it might expand a bit after you pulled it out. It is conceivable that atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are slightly squashed when in liquid form but that they avoid this by synchronising their respective squashed-ness by tumbling all over one another so some expand a bit while squashing others; but with an overall net lower volume than before the liquid condensed?

I'm not sure you realize this, but you're arguing my point here, not north's. Yes, the brick only has measurable stresses associated with being part of a house when it is part of a house - similarly, a molecule doesn't exhibit any properties of a liquid unless it is part of a liquid.

 

[north]

I'm not sure you realize this, but you're arguing my point here, not north's. Yes, the brick only has measurable stresses associated with being part of a house when it is part of a house -
___________________________________________
similarly, a molecule doesn't exhibit any properties of a liquid unless it is part of a liquid.[/QUOTE]

___________________________________________

maybe for a molecule but not necessarily for a lone atom.right now the basis for understanding liquids is based on behaviour and why.for instanace, in most cases, dense gases are considered the same as liquids.there is pressure-compression,thermodynamics,magnetism,electronics etc.to consider, and it is considered that a liquid state could not happen unless there is a minimum cluster of atoms.it may take a minimum amount of atoms for us to detect the state of liquidity but that does not mean that it does not happen i say that this is an "ASSUMPTION" there is a possibility that a liquid state can exist in a lone atom.

try the first experiment and STUDY its behaviour.

in the book "States of Matter" David admits they not only do not fully understand liquids, he says and i quote "The fact is that if one inquires closely enough,even our elegant and eminently successful theories of solids have their quantitative shortcomings.Their success lies in that we believe that we have a firm grasp of the basic principles of the problem.It is that kind of grasp that we lack in the liquid problem.All the formalism we have gone through is no substitute for the intuition we need.The hope, rather, is that it may lead us to that intuition."

intuition is precisely what guides me here.right or wrong my first experiment is valid.the minimum to be gained is knowledge.

 

[russ_watters]

maybe for a molecule but not necessarily for a lone atom.

On what observation do you base that? What properties could they display? Viscocity? Melting point? If I were a plant, what color would my eyes be?

in most cases, dense gases are considered the same as liquids.

Yes... what does that have to do with anything?

there is pressure-compression,thermodynamics,magnetism,electronics etc.to consider, and it is considered that a liquid state could not happen unless there is a minimum cluster of atoms.it may take a minimum amount of atoms for us to detect the state of liquidity but that does not mean that it does not happen...

Well, you tell me: what happens on a molecular level when you compress a liquid or solid? What, precisely is being compressed?

...i say that this is an "ASSUMPTION" there is a possibility that a liquid state can exist in a lone atom...

What you see as an unfounded assumption is something so basic that its hard to express in words. I'm having a hard time understanding how you could not understand it. It seems that you are simply refusing to accept reality at face value.

try the first experiment and STUDY its behaviour.

in the book "States of Matter" David admits they not only do not fully understand liquids, he says and i quote "The fact is that if one inquires closely enough,even our elegant and eminently successful theories of solids have their quantitative shortcomings.Their success lies in that we believe that we have a firm grasp of the basic principles of the problem.It is that kind of grasp that we lack in the liquid problem.All the formalism we have gone through is no substitute for the intuition we need.The hope, rather, is that it may lead us to that intuition."

intuition is precisely what guides me here.right or wrong my first experiment is valid.the minimum to be gained is knowledge.[/QUOTE]

 

[north]

i have no observation,just my curiosity,i'd just like to see for myself what happens when one hydrogen atom is brought down to it's liquid state.and as of yet no one has done this.

i also found that it is curious that a liquid is considered the same as a dense gas.i can understand this comparision.the thing that struck me though is that, there is a change of state.

for compression in what i have read so far, David was talking about the incompressibility of condensed matter because atoms don't like to enter each others core.

the trouble is Russ,when i first proposed the first experiment,you said not bad,with no feed back from you on the validity of the experiment.now you have changed your tune.what I'm refusing to believe is that when someone says "not bad" at first then makes a complete turn around and shoots it down or appleals to my not accepting things as they are,(of course not, this is science after all, in it's true spirit,some question things as they stand,some like your self don't,and people like myself do) makes me wary of really where you stand.i would expect that if there was a problem with the experiment in the first place i would expect the objections right then and there,not further down the road.

the fact is what "works" isn't enough.and it's just not me who thinks so whether you like it or not.i think it's you who has the difficulty accepting the fact that we don't "know it all" and THAT is the reality.

 

[russ_watters]

i also found that it is curious that a liquid is considered the same as a dense gas.i can understand this comparision.the thing that struck me though is that, there is a change of state.

No, there is no change of state. Its just that at a certain pressure and temperature (but not an exact temperature and pressure) the properties become indistinguishable. This should be easy to understand: a liquid is essentially a dense, viscous gas.

the trouble is Russ,when i first proposed the first experiment,you said not bad,with no feed back from you on the validity of the experiment.now you have changed your tune.what I'm refusing to believe is that when someone says "not bad" at first then makes a complete turn around and shoots it down or appleals to my not accepting things as they are

I probably should have given you more feedback and for that I apologize. It isn't a bad experiment, it just won't tell us anything (of course, that may be exactly what you need to see).

i would expect that if there was a problem with the experiment in the first place i would expect the objections right then and there,not further down the road.

There are some practical issues with carying it out, but the main objection is that most scientists wouldn't consider it useful. It may be useful to you to see the experiment produce nothing, but a scientist isn't going to run an experiment like that just to show you that nothing happens.

the fact is what "works" isn't enough.and it's just not me who thinks so whether you like it or not.i think it's you who has the difficulty accepting the fact that we don't "know it all" and THAT is the reality.

Yes, there are a lot of people who believe that: philosophers, theologians in particular. But not scientists. To a scientist, the one and only critereon for determining the vailidy of a theory is how well it "works."

 

[north]

just a point to be made.what would you have thought if someone came to you and said that they would like to try an experiment to show that "cold fusion" is possible.going by how you come across here you would have said it won't happen, so what's the point, you would be wasting your time,a lot of scientists would have agreed with you,and yet in time all of you would be proven wrong.there are scientists all over the world that are doing just that,producing cold fusion even though at this point they may not fully understand why.but to understand it is still going on.

if we stick to what just works(which really has not been the question here in the first place,since it does work,no argument)then we would never come across cold fusion in the first place.all I'm trying to do is open up the POSSIBILITY that we JUST MIGHT unexpectedly come across something and not close the door until we absolutely know for sure,rather than assuming that nothing will become of it,based on what we know now,what ever that something is. so just look at it this way,simply why not anyway.i mean really, why not? if I'm wrong that nothing happens so be it,but if I'm right... you see what I've always liked about science is discovery.that i think is the difference between you and me,i like discovery-you on the other hand like what works(although without discovery you wouldn't have what works! kind of a paradox for you,wouldn't you say!)

 

[russ_watters]

just a point to be made.what would you have thought if someone came to you and said that they would like to try an experiment to show that "cold fusion" is possible.going by how you come across here you would have said it won't happen, so what's the point, you would be wasting your time,a lot of scientists would have agreed with you,and yet in time all of you would be proven wrong.there are scientists all over the world that are doing just that,producing cold fusion...

Wow. No, sorry, no one is producing cold fusion. It doesn't work. Cold Fusion research exists today as crackpots reproducing the work of frauds (Pons and Fleischman). Your issues with science run far deeper than I realized. Sorry, but I cannot help you.

 

[north]

Wow. No, sorry, no one is producing cold fusion. It doesn't work. Cold Fusion research exists today as crackpots reproducing the work of frauds (Pons and Fleischman). Your issues with science run far deeper than I realized. Sorry, but I cannot help you.

___________________________________________

WOW, a little behind the times are we! of course you can't help me(thats plainly obvious) you are what works,thats just not deep enough.!

for those open minded enough, a website to visit on Cold Fusion is http://www.infinite-energy.com ,there are links as well.

 

[russ_watters]

WOW, a little behind the times are we! of course you can't help me(thats plainly obvious) you are what works,thats just not deep enough.!

for those open minded enough, a website to visit on Cold Fusion is http://www.infinite-energy.com ,there are links as well.

Not just me - why hasn't the Nobel Prize comittee weighed-in on this yet? Its the greatest discovery in the history of science (it really would be, if true). And where can I buy a generator? I'll make a fortune selling power back to my power company...

I honestly, sincerely hope you come to your senses some day soon. I just hope it doesn't take decades of continuing failure. Failing chemistry class won't hurt you much in the long run, but the further down this path you go, the greater the failures and their effect on your life.

 

[Deeviant]

Russ, your patience is amazing. North is so close to being a forum troll I can't tell the difference.

 

[north]

Not just me - why hasn't the Nobel Prize comittee weighed-in on this yet? Its the greatest discovery in the history of science (it really would be, if true). And where can I buy a generator? I'll make a fortune selling power back to my power company...

I honestly, sincerely hope you come to your senses some day soon. I just hope it doesn't take decades of continuing failure. Failing chemistry class won't hurt you much in the long run, but the further down this path you go, the greater the failures and their effect on your life.

___________________________________________

as you know, seeing as that your some what familar that there is politics therefore money involved here i can't think you are that naive as to ignor this fact.those with flexibility of mind are always feared by those who have no hope of understanding their theory and history proves this.your a conformist pure and simple.you fear what you can't understand,don't worry your not alone. insult me all you want but there are people out there that are more intelligent and imaginative than you, that are beyond you,period!

 

[north]

Russ, your patience is amazing. North is so close to being a forum troll I can't tell the difference.

___________________________________________

youv'e lost your focus,think about the experiment and what I've quoted from "STATES of MATTER". all the rest is a matter of the universe being flexible and whether we are. is there science in the true sense of the word or stagnation. so "we know it all"? really! so we can explain absolutely everything now and into say, next 100,000 years of observation,detection and study. well that is a revelation, well then there are "NO MORE SURPRISES" we can explain things so well, let's now look into the future and i suspect that you will be coming out with this book or whatever soon. is there a Noble Prize here,there's got to be, i mean who knew, i'll be looking!

 

[russ_watters]

as you know, seeing as that your some what familar that there is politics therefore money involved here i can't think you are that naive as to ignor this fact.

Conspiracy theory? My god, north, take a step back and think about what you are saying here. This is 2004 and you are on the internet: the government or evil rich people cannot suppress such information. Besides, you gave me a link to some such information (bad information, but information nonetheless) - don't you see the contradiction there?

Perhaps you also need a history lesson: do you know the history of cold fusion? When it was first announced by Pons and Fleischman in 1989, do you know where they announced it? Scientific American? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists? No, they announced it in The Wall Street Journal! That should have been a red-flag, but despite that breach of the scientific method, the entire scientific world stopped for a month to try to duplicate the findings: that kind of response was unprecidented. The scientific community was met with nothing but deception and evasion from Pons & Fleischman. After a month of unanswered questions, the scientific community concluded the idea was bunk - some say P&F were just incompetent, but by the end, it really did become fraud. P&F did NOT observe fusion and cold fusion research since then hasn't either.

North, you are decending into a rapidly tightening crackpot death spiral of self-reinforcing delusions. You need to stop, back up, and regain control. I'm not saying this to insult you - I hate to see this happen to people who have potential.

North, in the past 100 years, science has taken us from riding horse-drawn carriages to riding cars, riding planes, and riding rockets to the moon. You cannot ignore the fact that this science you despise so much has produced everything that is part of modern life today.

is there science in the true sense of the word or stagnation. so "we know it all"? really! so we can explain absolutely everything now and into say, next 100,000 years of observation,detection and study

North, you are not in a position to say such things as you have refused to learn anything of what we do know. Its hypocritical.

there that are more intelligent and imaginative than you, that are beyond you,period!

Absolutely. I'm not Einstein and never pretend to be. And you could be! But you need to realize the same thing. You need to realize that far from Einstein, the aveage college freshman knows more about real science than you do. You have a long way to go before you are beyond anyone. You could become the next Einstein, but do it the way Einstein did it. Its not possible the way you are doing it.