Water,a manifestation of WHAT?

[north]

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?
___________________________________________

from what i understand,they relised their mistake but it seemed that they were forced to because,i think it was a university in Utah(can't remember the name)was going to publish their results before them and they had to hurry there findings before they were ready,hence they unorthodox method of announcing their findings. a shame really.but there has been research since then.
i mentioned politics and money because there was a loby by certain people to denounce it because of the money that was going into hot fusion(40 billion dollars)this employs a lot of people, i believe at MIT alone.so it seemed to me(the DOE was involved here to) which had asked that this be looked into but was discouraged to do so. the book by Eugene F.
Mallove "Fire from Ice"(who by the way has died recently,which at this point is being perceived as a homicide)is a good read on the events that took place. it has been recomended by;

Dr.Frank Sulloway former MacArthur Fellow Science historian,MIT program in Science,Technology,and Society.

and also Dr.Henry Kolm, cofounder of MIT's Francis Bitter Magnet Laboratory.

and as well Julian Schwinger, Nobel Laureate in Physics.

All i have ever asked is an open mind.
by the way if you or anybody else is interested in Eugene's book it can be bought on the infinite-energy web site.

___________________________________________

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.
___________________________________________

yes it has been a fantastic and a fascinating ride has it not!? no argument here! but there never was,really! this is not so much a challenge to what we know but now that we know this, let's just carry on and go further in.

___________________________________________

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. 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.

___________________________________________

you are right, i don't know as much as a lot of others. and that has been my down fall in getting respect for my ideas,but I'm well into my 40's and have enjoyed science all my life, just can't do the dam math!,oh-well, life gives us our path.

but I've made it my goal to be as open to as many theories as possible,with critizism,so I'm used to different ideas and theories,there are so may out there really!

for instance Tom Van Flanderns book, Dark Matter Missing Planets & New Comets(he has a website by the way http://metaresearch.org,his book is availible on his site too) i wish you or someone like you would join this site because your knowledge is greater than i think any others on the site as far as challengeing his ideas,THIS NOT ABOUT ANY DISCREDITING YOU OR TOM, but simply a discussion of different perspectives.

by the way for myself i don't agree with all that he puts forth especially about scales

 

[north]

the basis of my experiment is to not take what we know for granted.we could miss the smallest detail,maybe not,but at the same time nobody has. that could add to what we already know.no harm there, is there?really.

 

[dolphin]

Hi,

first may I run a test:

I typed this sentence on an old Apple lap-top computer:

"the cat sat on the mat"

hopefully it will appear which means I can type off-line.

To Russel:

I take your point re: the rubber brick.
I was not disputing your perspective but trying to find clarity as there is the possibility in physics debates that there is a way of looking at the scenario where what look like clashing views might be able to be seen as different perspectives on a bigger picture such that both parties are right.

On the face of it North seems to be looking for "liquid" state in a single atom which appears to be a contradiction in terms as in science "liquid" and "single atom" appear to be mutually exclusive.

However a group of molecules comprising several atoms can have a liquid state; but it appears that the attempt to observe any individual atom would require an injection of energy such as to interfere with what you are observing so as to give you just a typical looking atom with no "liquid" properties.

However one could analyse the "obervation process" itself and the interference required to separate the atom to look at it, and compare that with making such an observation of an atom in a gas. One could then propose that the difference in what you need to do to see one atom in a gas compared to seeing one atom in a liquid; this difference in how you have to go about observing IS ITSELF one could suggest a way of looking at what "liquid" means.

Speculating here:

a molecule might be regarded as a "liquid atom"; a group of molecules in a liquid state might be considered to be "liquid atoms, liquid again" ; if so this double-defining of "liquid" would lead the logician to propose that molecules in a liquid exhibit some atom-like properties not shown in non-liquid state.

This highly speculative theory would be testable: is there any atomic property of hydrogen, and of oxygen; that re-appears in liquid water but is not present in gas or solid water? The property might be distributed over the entire liquid, may be coded in some way.

Here is another thing:

This is not fully thought out but:

It appears that there is a super simple way to unravel mathematics, physics, and chemistry. It is reminiscent of what we are told about the Kingdom of Heaven: where "every stone is overturned"; "I will give you a logic that needs no rehearsal"; "ask and it will be given you, knock and the door shall be opened to you"; "He shall come in glory at the end of time, and His kingdom will have no end"; there appears to be a "consciousness space" where all is known and transparent, where "the wolf shall lie down with the lamb":

This super simple approach reminds me of these sayings.

Idea:

Mathematics is built around the idea that "1 + 1 = 2". But obviously they can not exactly be the same, or you would have just one. Mathematicians get around this by inventing "base" and "number".

Physics: physics notices that in the real world "1 + 1 might not be 2"; it deals with this by assuming "1+1" is split into "this aspect of 1 + 1" and "that aspect of 1 + 1".
Physics doesn't claim to know how big each one in this four is. When the initial two ones exchange some of each other, who knows how much each gives to the other?

This expansion and contraction is the basic model of physics: it is logic. "prove a car is blue": you look at other things that are blue (expand "blue") and see if "car" is like that other blue thing (does "car" look like "Earth's sky on middle of a sunny cloud-less day"?)

Here "blue" has expanded to include "sky"; "car" has been contracted to "like sky".
But "expansion" (mass: uncertainty) and "contraction" (charge: bias) seem interchangeable here. But introduce some other problem (re-normalisation)(make everything stringy: with strings attached) (gravitate the categories via a loop that quantises their coming together: loop quantum gravity): "who's car is claimed to be a blue car? Joe's car or Bill's car? "

Now we have a "double slit experiment": "Joe" and "Bill" are two slits in the screen of "some other problem". The "photon" (the juggling of "car", "sky" and "blue": being three it is "self referent reference i.e. time-standing-still" being juggled (so with space) is passing through two slits.

If you were to split the photon "car1sky1blue1" and "car2sky2blue2" you would have to collapse the two slits into "Joe or Bill" that is an expansion-contraction space. This is called "The EPR experiment". If photon 1 is spun left to Joe, you cannot see "spin up, spin down" that is whether its "sky" component is bias to "car" or "blue".

If you can see that it is spun up or down (has internal bias), you can not see "Joe; Bill" bias because of the problem of induction (the expansion-contraction uncertainty principle). So we have "non-locality" and "entanglement" possibly explained. Also quantum spin explained and the relationship between scale and direction?

What physics does: QED tracks information to cover all bases; it is about swapping the operations of addition (which requires a same-difference between addends so virtual multiplication) and multiplication (which assumes an exchangeable difference such as the extra 1 in 3 compared to 2 can (though "2" implies a background so already a hidden 1) be swapped in "2 x 3" so involves virtual addition".) Virtual addition is "direction" of the arrow and virtual multiplication is "ratio" (probability): compare with other arrows and you get Feynman QED (adding of arrows on a piece of paper).

Physics collapses the problem of induction into "alpha: the fine structure constant" which is an attempt to fix the expansion:contraction. The price of doing this is to require a constant of comparison ("C" the spoeed of light constant); a constant of difference (non comparison) ("h" the Planck constant); and a constant of boundary to expansion contraction: G: the "set" constant which covers lumps" gravity: curved space.

The standard model of physics can be extensively mapped by this approach, it appears. This is just a bit typed up; subject to debate!

Chemistry: chemists seem to tackle the "does 1 + 1 = 2?" problem by saying:
instead of talking of a fuzzy four like the physicists; we will make a Pauli exclusion principle and say the two ones exchange information but then exchange it again so could be back where they started but might not be". This gives the possibility of four zeroes (called "four quantum numbers") and 8 groups.

But is anything uneven amongst the 8 groups? How big is each group? This is solved by chemistry by saying something could be exchanged among the 8 groups; so call this 8-1 = 7 periods describing the fuzzying of scale by the 8 groups. (These 8 groups turn up in physics as 8 gluons). So we have 7 periods x 8 groups = 56 transition elements in the periodic table.

I am speculating somewhat here and do not claim to have all the answers. Why 104 basic elements? The initial 4 in physics: splitting "1 + 1 = 2" into four; with uncertain scale: so split this aspect off and call it the "5"; then multiply the 4 by the 5 get 20; but now the "4" is 16 with the fuzziness as an extra 4? So multiply by 5 get 20 x 5 = 100 and the extra 4 is redistributed among the 5 so as to not dictate whether the fuzziness is real or not; then add 4 more (100 + 4 = 104) so as to make a Higgs field? A field where the scale difference can appear and dissapear? Rather messy trying to work it out!

-Alan

 

[north]

Alan

what are you trying to say,specificly?

 

[russ_watters]

the basis of my experiment is to not take what we know for granted.we could miss the smallest detail,maybe not,but at the same time nobody has. that could add to what we already know.no harm there, is there?really.

That's fine, north. All I'm saying is that without the expectation of finding anything, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone to do the experiment. Most will want you to make a prediction about what will be observed.

 

[dolphin]

To North:

Scientists' DEFINITION of liquid requires several atoms. To them it is nonsense to talk of one liquid atom on its own.

In your experiment you would have to not just add atoms one at a time; you would have to contain them in a limited space (pressurise them) and you would have to add some spark of energy they say. Also you would have to cool them.

Actually that sounds like a contradiction: cool them yet add a spark. But the spark perhaps alows the "cool" and the "pressure" to swap places partly: cool under pressure: liquid?

A liquid has its own built-in pressure (it is self-contained) and its own built in cooling: the molecules swap some of their individual jiggling for group jiggling (I theorise).

I'm theorising that this group dance of the molecules puts pressure on each one to "sail the ship": so pressure is internal.

But actually pressure is relieved by cool-ness / pressure exchanges? This is achieved by surface area minimisation (in space you get a ball of liquid).

There is maximum choice of molecules changing position in synch with the rest in a ball? And group jiggling has minimum requirement in a ball? So no internal gravity needed? In a gravity field the liquid plays with gravity and surface (it flows) to achieve its free-est state it seems?

If you tried to keep tabs on each atom individually while you did all that cooling and pressurising and spark-adding; you would have to keep the atoms apart which would prevent them from becoming a liquid! Hot under pressure: your experiment would produce a plasma.

In fact you would have to contain it in a magnetic bottle and you might get nuclear fusion!

About physics:

it appears to be patterns of logic.

About maths:

it appears to be logic of patterns.

About chemistry:

it appears to be about hospitality (making rooms for things)

If you look at what I have written about the double slit experiment and the EPR experiment and M theory and F theory and QED (logic) and QCD (fuzzy logic) and compare with the scientific literature you may see that what looks like complex science can be mapped it seems in a very simple way?

-Alan

 

[north]

That's fine, north. All I'm saying is that without the expectation of finding anything, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone to do the experiment. Most will want you to make a prediction about what will be observed.

___________________________________________

the hydrogen atom will become a liquid it's self. so why? because the electron will condense.and if you fire an electron at it in it's liquid state does it bounce off,or be absorbed.baring that, what are it's characteristics in this state.what does it do,not do,if you use X-Rays what does it look like? but more than this i just want to know WHAT HAPPENS.look we know that both oxygen and hydrogen are liquids at very low temps. and yet when brought together a liquid forms at higher temps. but why, i think that one or the other acts as some kind of catalyst and that has something to do with electrons,notice that oxygen has a lower liquid state than hydrogen.oxygen having more electrons than hydrogen.something is going on but what? like i said before, i think there is a transformation of electrons themselves. something new i thought of, is there a density of the liquid state between hydrogen and oxygen, i predict that oxygen will have a denser liquid state in it's pure form than hydrogen.

 

[north]

To North:

Scientists' DEFINITION of liquid requires several atoms. To them it is nonsense to talk of one liquid atom on its own.

In your experiment you would have to not just add atoms one at a time; you would have to contain them in a limited space (pressurise them) and you would have to add some spark of energy they say. Also you would have to cool them.

Actually that sounds like a contradiction: cool them yet add a spark. But the spark perhaps alows the "cool" and the "pressure" to swap places partly: cool under pressure: liquid?


A liquid has its own built-in pressure (it is self-contained) and its own built in cooling: the molecules swap some of their individual jiggling for group jiggling (I theorise).


I'm theorising that this group dance of the molecules puts pressure on each one to "sail the ship": so pressure is internal.

But actually pressure is relieved by cool-ness / pressure exchanges? This is achieved by surface area minimisation (in space you get a ball of liquid).

There is maximum choice of molecules changing position in synch with the rest in a ball? And group jiggling has minimum requirement in a ball? So no internal gravity needed? In a gravity field the liquid plays with gravity and surface (it flows) to achieve its free-est state it seems?

If you tried to keep tabs on each atom individually while you did all that cooling and pressurising and spark-adding; you would have to keep the atoms apart which would prevent them from becoming a liquid! Hot under pressure: your experiment would produce a plasma.

In fact you would have to contain it in a magnetic bottle and you might get nuclear fusion!

About physics:

it appears to be patterns of logic.

About maths:

it appears to be logic of patterns.

About chemistry:

it appears to be about hospitality (making rooms for things)

If you look at what I have written about the double slit experiment and the EPR experiment and M theory and F theory and QED (logic) and QCD (fuzzy logic) and compare with the scientific literature you may see that what looks like complex science can be mapped it seems in a very simple way?

-Alan

__________________________________________

from what i understand it is density that allows for the cooling,less dense more the cooling.

 

[russ_watters]

the hydrogen atom will become a liquid it's self. so why? because the electron will condense.and if you fire an electron at it in it's liquid state does it bounce off,or be absorbed.baring that, what are it's characteristics in this state.what does it do,not do,if you use X-Rays what does it look like?

None of that will have any meaning to any scientist you talk to. Its just a jumble of unrelated words.

but more than this i just want to know WHAT HAPPENS.

I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough.

look we know that both oxygen and hydrogen are liquids at very low temps. and yet when brought together a liquid forms at higher temps. but why, i think that one or the other acts as some kind of catalyst and that has something to do with electrons,notice that oxygen has a lower liquid state than hydrogen.oxygen having more electrons than hydrogen.something is going on but what? like i said before, i think there is a transformation of electrons themselves.

This is all ground already covered. Scientists already have reasonable explanations that work for them and you're going to need something to convince them their explanations are inadequate.

something new i thought of, is there a density of the liquid state between hydrogen and oxygen, i predict that oxygen will have a denser liquid state in it's pure form than hydrogen.

You don't need to predict that, you can look it up.

 

[dolphin]

Hi,

Quoting North:

Originally Posted by north

"the hydrogen atom will become a liquid it's self. so why? because the electron will condense.and if you fire an electron at it in it's liquid state does it bounce off,or be absorbed.baring that, what are it's characteristics in this state.what does it do,not do,if you use X-Rays what does it look like?"

To North and Russ:

something really curious seems to be going on in physics. I came across a paper by a nuclear-physics-phD (called "Foundations of Physical Reality") where he (Richard Stafford) claimed to have derived close approximations to physics laws by a model where he tried to minimise assumptions.

I seem to have differences in opinion with him but maybe he doesn't quite follow my extreme simple approach. When he debated with Chroot at this forum; I fond how they could both be right (haven't posted details).

In discussion forums I eventually realized that the complicated-looking math could be apparently bypassed. I showed his paper to a mathematician and he agreed that you didn't have to use math; that it could be mapped as being about definitions; which involves categories and intersecting categories.

Now vast areas of physics appears to have kind-of disintegrated into simple patterns of logic. Numerous mysteries in physics become transparent.

I found that often ordinary English uage of a word used in physics could often give the insight on the simple underlying pattern.

Also sometimes people write things that I can see wouldn't make sense to a classically trained scientist yet they can be seen in a way that reconciles their view with classical science.

I found that the word "electron" fits the simple pattern of the word "modification".

So in this way North can be right though perhaps I seem to have added an unusual twist here:

To see one atom in "liquid state" would require several atoms; or the energy to separate that from from the others would if modern science is right presumably neutralise the liquidity of it. But if "liquid" requires several atoms (as modern science says); then by definition it involves modifying those atoms (by each other acting as "honorary" electrons?)

By predicting the electron would condense; North may be on to something: but this is what the electron might look like when condensed: it would be a magnetic bottle containing the atom and holding it apart from the others. And all the others would need magnetic bottles too.

I'm suggesting that the apparatus needed to do North's experiment is itself the "condensed electron": namely if "electron" is "modified space" which fits hyperwave's point-geometry look at "electron"; then the condensation of "modified space" is what North's experiment would do!

One could argue that such a structure is a kind of proton-neutron-eectron; that you would have an apparatus that was a single honorary hydrogen nuclei?

So North can be right yet totally consistent with hyperwave and Russ!

The apparatus to do the experiment is the condensed electron?

Fire an electron at that and you get a modfication colliding with a structured modified space; my guess is it would emit a proton.

-Alan