I must go down to the sea again,
To the lonely sea and the sky,
And all I ask is a tall ship
And a star to steer her by,
And the wheel's kick and the wind's song
And the white sail's shaking,
And a grey mist on the sea's face
And a grey dawn breaking
And whilst on the subject of "grey mist" I must
now complete the interpretation of the water vapour
power laws with which this thread started.
The exogenous powers, one, two and three have
already been dealt with in terms of the connectivity
of the phase monads. The remaining endogenous powers
are all the same and have the power four. How are
these to be understood?
Thinking outside the box again we can bring on the
three olympians introduced into the first post, Let's
give them some memorable names to amply brainstorming.
Asterix, Obelix and Vitalstitistix, say, since they
are travelling from France to enter the 2004 Greek
Olympics. I don't know the events but judging from
their physiques I would guess Obelix for the shot,
Vitalstitistix for the discus and Asterix for the
javelin. This puts Obelix on cloud 4, Vitalstitistix
on cloud 8 and Asterix on cloud 12.
So what aspect of Obe, Vit and Ast can our fourth
power refer to. Well, though their physiques are
very different their internal temperatures must be
all near enough the same so I guess T^4 must be
just that.
Now what Scientific Law immediately springs to mind
we see the term T^4? Since we are dealing with absolute
zeros as revealed by the mathematical form of the
temperature relationships, then this simply has to be
Stefan's Law. Whilst on the subject of Absolute zero,
I much appreciate Keith's contribution to this thread
and I would like to reproduce this extract from his
reply to my post.
====================================================
>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.
Not true. If you are describing just the translational
motion of atoms, the positive temp model applies.
When you take into account spin, a negative temperature
model can also apply. This is due to the anisotropic nature
of spin. For example, we can spin polarize a substance
in a static magnetic field, wait for the system
to stabilize, and call that a positive (spin) temperature.
We then reverse the static field faster than the
decay rate of the system. Now we have a spin system
at a negative temperature. This is part of the standard
physics as taught in university.
=======================================================
Accepting what Keith says, it would appear that "Absolute Zero"
is no longer as absolute as it once was. Since one can't be a
little bit pregnant, zero degrees Kelvin (he of the "imperialist
lackey running dogs") it is no longer an ABSOLUTE absolute but
only a relative absolute; an absolute relative to a particular
model.
Now unless Keith is going to argue 1984 style that though
all relative absolutes are equal, some are more equal than
others, then I claim that in the home of the brave, and the
land of the free, the relative absolute zeros of life
sustaining water have just as many rights as the relative
absolute zeros of life supporting air.
What about the Ultraviolet Catastrophe? In the case of the
vapour pressure powers I believe this problem does not
arise. In effect each phase consists of two parts, a dominant
emitter phase and a submissive absorber phase. As temperature
increases to a phase discontinuity the difference between
the emitter phase and the absorber phase decreases.At the
boundary of the two phases the roles switch. The absorber
phase becomes the dominant phase and the emitter phase
becomes the submissive phase. thus the power is always
that of the dominant phase.
What about the Kelvin (he of the "imperialist lackey
running dogs") relative absolute zero? What absorbs the
radiation as its radiation intensity races ever upwards.
Theoretically there ain't one, is there. The curve should
race on per ardua ad astra. The only trouble is it don't
which was a great puzzle to all. They couldn't call for
help upon mother aether coz they had already committed
matricide by bumping her off. So what did they do?
As Kolya remarks in Dostoevsky's, The Brothers Karamazov,
"........if there were no God He would have to be invented."
And if there is no submissive phase, one would have to be
invented. And that is precisely what happened. Failure to
recognise the existence of the Beta-aether meant that in
the first year of the last century Max Planck had to invent
the quantum.
================================================================
The new physics was steeped in higher mathematics. Its concepts
were often in contradiction with common sense. It rapidly became
increasingly abstract and complex to such an extent that even those
well versed in classical physics were often unable to follow its
labyrinthine turns and twists.
- Banesh Hoffmann -
===============================================================
I believe that recognition of the Beta-aether will inevitably
lead to the collapse of the quantum, and all his works, and all
his pomps. For like Lazarus and the rich man, there is an
unbridgeable gulf between them.
I don't know how easy it would be to reverse engineer, so to
speak, the black-body radiation curves, but just for fun I
graphed the difference of two fourth power curves with different
origins.
http://www.coldcall.plus.com/fjg/4th_Power_difference.jpg
Mmm....It's in the right street 8-)
And now a potted history of the beta-aether for KN
who wanted to know if we had a telescope but doesn't
seem to want to look through it.
The stress-strain power curves, later to be included
in the Southampton International Conference paper,
were first presented at a seminar in the Building
Research Station (BRS). We showed that measuring from
a material stress datum rather than the usual
anthropomorphic stress datum, gave an excellent fit
for a wide range of concretes.
The seminar participants included several from various
universities. At the point we demonstrated the accuracy
with which the theoretical relations fitted the
experimental results, one chap jumped to his feet and
launched a impassioned criticism of our work. We waited
till he had got it out of his system and then continued
with the lecture. Afterwards, he came up to us an
apologized for his outburst. He explained that he had
spent the last three months working on canonical equations
for the same class of experimental results as we had
presented. The sight of all his hard work being rendered
absolutely futile upset him rather. To be fair, he did at
least recognise that to fit a polynomial to experimental
points which accurately fall on a power curve will
necessitate almost as many arbitrary constants as there
are experimental points.
A year later, Hewitt and I submitted our paper to the
conference. Coincidentally our "canonical equations chap"
was the conference editor. In view of the highly
controversial (to put it mildly) conclusions we had drawn
from our experiments we would have quite understood had
he rejected the paper. He didn't.
We were expecting fireworks. Instead - not a sausage -
not a single solitary voice of dissent. Not a voice of
assent either. Nothing.
Now what was it Keith wrote in a previous post. Ah, yes.
"The flaw in your hypothesis is that a real solution
will be recognized as such. It will most certainly not be.
Not because the solution sounds insane, but because it
sounds so solid."
I am forced to agree. Sad but true.
Mind you, We did get one response of a kind. After the
conference dinner a frowning delegate came up to us and
said,
"That paper of yours. It was a hoax, wasn't it"
We fell about laughing - in some ways quite relieved that
we hadn't got a "canonical" roasting.
"No", we assured him. "We were deadly serious."
He went away looking very puzzled. I don't think he believed us.
Looking back on the incident I suppose his suspicions were
not that unreasonable really. We had gone to an enormous amount
of trouble to refine our experimental techniques and consequently
results were suspiciously good for the kinds of material we were
researching. The results had to be that good in order to head off
the kind of idiots who dismiss experimental data they don't like
as curve fitting or coincidence.
How could such a staid organisation as a British Government
Department have allowed such a publication? To be frank, I don't
think my immediate boss read past the first two pages. His boss
was steamed up when he read it but by that time there wasn't
much they could do about it.
For subsequent papers we never bothered to get the permission
we were supposed to. This put the onus on them to take positive
action when they found out. And bureaucrats hate taking action,
so we were fairly safe. Indeed, when it came to writing up a
list of publications for the annual report our papers even got
included. This covered our backs nicely when it came to high noon.
Cheers
Frank Grimer
