At 01:32 pm 13-07-04 -0400, you wrote: >On Tuesday 13 July 2004 08:06, Grimer wrote: >> 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 - >> ================================================
>A while ago at a yard sale, I came across a small book. Written by >Albert Einstein, it was his original 1905 dissertation concerning his >new views on cosmology and energy. Unfortunately for me I did >not buy the book. However I found other terms to his energy >equation: "E=mc^2". I found this curious that these other terms >have been left out of virtually all science since. In his day, Einstein >had to overcome 'conventional wisdom' with his new idea. Having >become victorious in a battle that time and history seems to have >conveniently forgotten, his ideas became the new 'conventional >wisdom'. They really became more than that. They are a religion >every bit as restrictive and dogmatic as the Catholic Inquisition. >Only now instead of burning bodies at the stake for 'transgressions', >we now burn careers instead. > The above letter mentions a distaste for anglophone philosophies >yet quotes only English philosophers. > >A better and ironically more fitting reply to arrant scholasticism would >have come from a Frenchman, Francois Marie Arouet (Voltaire) concerning >the inevitable corruption that power brings. Doubly ironic because the >scientist that Einstein displaced, Sir Isaac Newton, had his own troubles >in his own time of the early 1700's. Newton's greatest defender....... >Voltaire. So now Francois's words reach down through history and beyond >the grave to defend those who would challenge Einstein...... > >Standing Bear The problem with relativity is that ultimately it involves Einstein and the possibility of anti-semitism. Jews are understandably proud of Einstein and sometimes in danger of treating his theories as holy writ. This is very unfortunate as it means that it is not possible to argue the subject without people getting emotionally involved. Many years ago when Dr Essen of NPL ......... http://www.npl.co.uk/about/famous_names/louis_essen.html ............................invited my to his home to discuss some of my work he gave me a paper he had written on relativity and I was horrified to find that it had been published in a manifestly anti-semitic journal. I was surprised Essen had done this but perhaps he found, as many others have found, that it was difficult to get anything which questions the dogmas of relativity published in the mainstream. Having a name like Essen didn't help either I suppose. Frank Grimer
