At 11:01 am 11-07-04 -0700, you wrote:
>Excellent post, Frank...
>
>And some clever research work on the 'power'
>correlation. I urge anyone who has not looked
>into this carefully to do so, before saying
>something idiotic like "just curve-fitting".
>
>And just for the heck of it, I wrote to Prof.
>Chaplin to see if he knows of other anomalies
>in previous isotopic analysis of water from
>various sources which might relate to "something
>in the water" i.e. something in the PPM range
>which 'came from outer space'... I think that
>ultimately he is a little too staid to indulge
>me in this pursuit, but what the heck...
<snip>
Thanks for your comments Jones. I wish you luck
with Prof. C. But as "Head of Food Research"
suggests, he's more applied than bleeding edge.
However, I'm sure in Caplin's work there's a
bleeding edge struggling to get out. 8-)
By now everyone with the slightest interest in
the properties of water will have had an
opportunity to visit Professor Caplin's web site
and assess the vapour pressure experimental data
for themselves.
You do not need to be a maths John McEnroe
to yell at anyone who suggests they are
coincidences,
YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS! 8-(
Or as Jones suggests more trenchantly,
you would have to be a bit of an idiot.
Why haven't the significance of all those simple
relations between VP and T been spotted before?
After all, that data must have been chewed over
by loads of people scratching around for empirical
formula.
I'll tell you for why.
It is the conceptual model of Temperature
that's up the spout.
People think of Temperature as an absolute concept.
(pun intended)
In other words they think the Kelvin scale with its
Absolute Zero of -273 is the only game in town.
They think that you can't have negative temperatures
and that all temperature have to be positive.
This is because they have based their concept of
temperature on a simple boundary model, the model of
the ideal gas - a model which can be conceptually
reproduced by ball bearings rattling around in a
container - a model to which light atoms, such as
helium, closely approximate to at alpha-atmospheric
temperatures - a model which excludes the existence
of the Beta-atmosphere [not to mention the Gamma-
Delta-...etc.]
Guided by mathematical form and the hierarchical
systems philosophy of the cyberneticists, I have
implicitly abandoned that model. For me there
are many temperature scales and these scales have
zero points which are not absolute
BUT RELATIVE TO THE MATERIAL.
The conventional Kelvin scale is like an arrogant
anglophone who refuses to think in any language
other than his own, BB, the ball bearing language.
If anyone wants to succeed in life they have to learn
HIS language; they have to learn BB. Every temperature
has to be translated into HIS temperature,
BB temperature, before he will regard it as "fundamental".
He is like a monoglot child, quite incapable
of understanding any language other than his own.
To such a child, French is just a string of
incomprehensible grunts and squeals.
"Why does that funny looking man with a string
of onions call our door, a "porte", mummy?
It's a door! - Is he a nutter, mummy?"
Consequently the only power laws the quasi-Anglophone
discovers are those having the same zero point, or
nearly the same, as the boundary model of rattling
ball bearings.
Energy = a constant x T^4 ,
for example. Or more simply,
E � T^4
(where the Imperial Pound symbol has been chosen to
represent proportionality on the basis that my
keyboard has no proportionality symbol and the
Imperial Pound symbol will become redundant when
England adopts the Euro currency).
Unlike the idealized BB gas, real gas monads don't
just lie down and quietly die as the temperature
drops to zero degrees Kelvin. Real gases find
themselves being pushed together by the surrounding
Beta-aether. Eventually they collapse into a wriggling
heap at the bottom of an energy pit.
Now it takes a lot of energy to climb out of this
pit. And this energy has to be supplied before the
gas monads can start to behave like idealized BB
units. In other words, real substances can have
negative temperature providing temperature scales
are used which are relevant to the real gas and not
simply some foreign idealized BB model. These
negative temperatures will of course refer to
different orders of existence, just as -$100
refers to a different order of existence than
[$100]. There are no [-$100] dollar bills.
And the correct temperature zeros for substances
are those which the substances choose for themselves,
not puppet zeros which are foisted upon them by some
power mad top hatted fat director.
For mathematical relationships between variables to
be revealing they have to start and end at locations
which are significant in relation to the physical
object being measured. This was implicitly realised
ages ago by Copernicus and that lot. If I'm measuring
the strain of a concrete specimen, say, then I measure
the change in length between one end of the specimen
and the other end of the specimen; not one end of the
specimen and you; or one end of the specimen and me;
not even between one end of the specimen and the
doorknob.
With temperature, this does not generally happen,
except in the case of the ball bearing "gas" and
its doppelgangers. For historical reasons, in the
case of water there is a "natural" temperature scale.
In my younger days it was called Centigrade. It has
now, in a fit of unhelpful meddling by the scientific
oligarchy, been changed to Celsius.
The power relations given on Professor Caplin's water
site are just a few of thousands waiting to be brought
to light.
Like the inhabitants of Gray's village,
===========================================
Full many a gem of purest ray serene
The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
===========================================
And why has this happened? One can't help feeling that
the philosopher, Simone Weil, had the situation bang
to rights when in her essay, "La Science et nous" she
wrote,
======================================================
What is disastrous is not the rejection of classical
science but the way it has been rejected. It is wrongly
believed it could progress indefinitely and it ran into
a dead end about the year 1900; but scientists failed
to stop at the same time in order to contemplate and
reflect upon the barrier, they did not try to describe
it and define it and, having taken it into account, to
draw some general conclusion from it; instead they rushed
violently past it, leaving classical science behind them.
And why should we be surprised at this? For are they not
paid to forge continually ahead? Nobody advances in his
career, or reputation, or gets a Nobel prize, by standing
still. To cease voluntarily from forging ahead, any
brilliantly gifted scientist would need to be a saint or
a hero, and why should he be a saint or a hero? With rare
exceptions there are none to be found among the members
of other professions. So the scientists forged ahead
without revising anything, because any revision would
have seemed a retrogression; they merely made an addition.
==========================================================
Nuff said.
Frank G
================================================
We all believe fairy-tales, and live in them.
Some, with a sumptuous literary turn, believe in
the existence of the lady clothed with the sun.
- G. K. Chesterton -
================================================
