>Hi Frank.
>
>Sorry I've been tardy in my responses, business is actually
>picking up over this summer ( rather than diminish as is usually
>the case ) and my plate is full at the moment.
That can't be bad. I happy for you 8-)
>You write,
>> CHARGE
>> 1 0
>> 1 Proton Neutron
>>MASS
>> 0 Electron ???
>Actually, Mendeleev did consider such a thing. That is,
>that the aether itself is a "particle" and deserves a place
>on the periodic table. Rex Research used to carry a paper
>of Mendeleev that gave some details, I'll snoop around for
>the reference later today.
Hang on a minute, sonny. The Mendeleev Table relates to
atoms, not nuclear particles; a whole different ball
game, I think you must agree.
=====================================
On January 20, 1907 at the age of 73,
while listening to a reading of Jules
Verne's Journey to the North Pole,
Mendeleev floated away, peacefully,
for the last time.
====================================
So unless his ghost came back a quarter of a century
later, he can not possibly have "considered such a
thing". From what I know of the Mendeleev table I
can't imagine that anything M might have suggested
could be in any way as compelling as the proposed
completion of the minimalist Mendeleev type table above.
>From a purely aesthetic point of view, the congruence
with the fundaments of living organisms is immensely
appealing.
>As regards your previous post;
>I'm still very hazy about this notion of the beta aether.
>You were kind enough to provide some paper ref's, which if
>I can ever get out of this chair and into Manhattan I'll
>look up. Better would be some internet accessible instance;
>I see you have a website of sorts ( cake??? ) so how
>about "liberating" one of those journal articles for
>the proletariat??? Then we ( meaning the list ) can
>all be on the same page...>
If you carefully read my archived post of 13 July 2004
you will see that in reply to your request,
===================================
>can you point to some basic papers
>or posts which describe it?
===================================
I replied,
=====================================
Sure can - See end of this post. I
seem to have mislaid my CD with the
page scans, but Jones has copies and
I sure he'll be happy to oblige. He's
got a high speed line too.
=====================================
Now if you e-mail Jones and ask nicely, I'm sure he will
be quite happy to download a paper for you to chew over.
As for putting the scanned pages on a web-site, there are
copyright considerations involved. Sending a copy to an
individual with a legitimate research interest can be
justified on fair usage grounds - in the same way as
providing a photocopy of a paper to a fellow researcher.
Widespread dissemination cannot be justified as I'm
sure Jed would agree. I can't imagine he would be very
happy if I started to scan pages of his Mizuno book and
posted them on a website.
I recommend you get the Southampton paper first. That
will be quite enough to start with in view of your other
commitments While you are reading it you might do me a
favour and point out where the printer's devil has had
his way.
>I gather from your posting that, because you can fit those
>experimental curves with several power functions, .....
That really rather misses the point, old man. They are only
curves if you are ignorant enough to use anthropomorphic
variables to measure the phenomena. If you use matereomorphic
(forgive the neologism) they are straight lines. If you use
the proper scales, logarithmic scales, then they are not
power functions at all, but linear relationships.
Geddit now? <g>
I only refer to them as power functions coz it ain't no
use speaking French when you are talking to Englishmen -
especially American Englishmen. ;-)
>you conclude
>that the zero of each function is an "absolute" zero of the
>system. Do I understand that correctly? If so, would
>it be possible to ( taking H2O for example ) get it to reach
>those alternate zero points? The phase changes as you
>reduce temperature, making this a seemingly daunting task.
>That a system is nonlinear should not preclude a unique zero point;
>consider for example a ferromagnetic system. The permeability changes
>with applied field, and we can make a rough analogy of the basic
>unit of permeability to temperature. ( I know, very rough, but I
>think you see where I'm going with this ). Using your approach,
>we could talk about several unique values for the vacuum permeability,
>depending on where on the BH curve we are and extrapolating to zero.
>That model may have some novel uses, about this I must think a bit
>more, but for engineering purposes it helps to assume that
>there is one zero point and allow the relative permeability of the
>material to change.
I think it would be best if you read some of our BRS work before we
delve into the above interesting topics. That these kind of relationships
infest the whole of material science I have no doubt whatsoever.
In 1986 I wrote an Internal Note (N47/86) entitled,
=========================================
THE UNIVERSAL POWER LAW
SUMMARY
Attention is drawn to the universality
of both simple and complex power laws
in physics and technology. The hypothesis
is advanced that these laws arise from a
failure to fully understand the functional
relationships of the phenomena being
studied. Symmetrical treatment....etc
=========================================
And if you don't believe ME, I suggest you read:
Ubiquity:
The New Science That Is Changing the World
Mark Buchanan
published 2001
ISBN: 0753812975
If you are as interested in the subject as you seem
then this is an essential piece of kit. I only wish
it had been written in the early '60s. I would arrived
at the promised land a lot earlier and been spared
those 40 years in the desert.
# All day we faced the barren waste
Without the taste of water
Cool, clear water
Nigel and I with throats burned dry
And souls that cried for water
Cool, clear water. #
>Sorry I can't devote more time to this, it's nice to see some
>actual discussion again on vortex.
No need to apologise - You're doing far better than most people.
>Your posts are certainly a delight to read.
You say the sweetest things <g>
>K.
>PS: That would be Animal Farm, not 1984. Double plus ungood!
Oh dear. You've really caught me out there. Thanks very
much for picking that nit out of my graying locks.
Cheers
Frank
Incidently, the web site is not mine, but that of my
daughter-in-law. I didn't want people to be distracted
by sniffing around on my web site. 8-)
