Waves are not a property of water, but neither is water…
if you put water particles in space they would be in the form of ice – crystalline. The classifications of liquids and gases in the periodic table, are not then a classification of those elements in their natural state!
Is it not possible to turn anything into liquid then a gas, given enough heat?
Are there only crystalline structures? If we remove the warmth factor.
Are the waves not the property of the owner of the water?
Waves and water are not a property of H2O.
Water is a state of H2O aggregated within a temperature range, as are ice crystals and vapor.
Waves are an inherent behavior of water.
“Natural state” merely means the state commonly found, “not unusual/unnatural state”.
Ice crystals are not a function of agitation of the particles [heat] though.
Surely its a behaviour of energy [from wind] acting upon a body of fluid, and not in the nature of water.
Sure, but if we are going to make an accurate periodic table, then the ‘natural state’ should be what the compound is like, aside from external things affecting it. That way we get a different set of classifications for atomic structures, one for when unaffected by external things, and another to describe how those substances act under conditions set externally.
_
I said “aggregation”, not “agitation”.
Every behavior has components that combine to cause the behavior. In the case of water, it is impossible to have a perfectly energy free, disturbance free, environment, thus where there is water, there is ALWAYS a degree of wave (hence “an inherent property”).
The periodic table is about the number of subatomic particles involved and their valance. It is not about natural states, although sometimes includes natural states as an FYI addendum.
ok
It is segmented into metals, fluids, gases and what have you, no?
Al I am thinking is that the periodic table would have different patterns, if we went purely by atomic numbers and not by how they behave?
Only for sake of FYI. The particular chart construction displays how common metals or gases are related to each other. The table is not dictating that this or that element MUST BE a metal or gas. It is merely showing that it USUALLY is found to be a metal or gas and all of those usually found to be metals are related by their atomic number. It is showing that atomic number and aggregate behavior is correlated in commonly found, Earth-typical states.
Certainly. It would be merely a list. The table is displayed in that common manner merely to give a little more information. If you correlate the elements with gender, you would have yet another table form showing how females and males differ in their atomic makeup. You could do the same with liberals and conservatives or dogs and cats. It was merely more interesting to chemists to know that certain elements should be expected to behave similar to other elements because of how they end up being situated in that table. Alter the table and you merely hide such information. You don’t change the fact of it.
This would imply my aether theory.
You see water in space is compressed by aether. This causes it to compress into ice structures.
An area of heat is actively resisting and pushing out the aether, heated areas are simply less dense buckets of aether, therefore particles in them can move more freely.
Light can travel in space because it is aether.
Light gets distorted through areas of 100 percent heat.
My thing is falsifiable, alls you have to do is put a super heated object in space (that emits no light.) Light should have a distorted path the closer it gets.
Science is simply looking at it backwards. Distorted by feelings of hot and cold, we cannot see it for what it is.
Aether theory has been proved wrong, I was only watching an experiment the other day. …At least that it has a measurable effect. On the other hand, rather than being an energy it could be something else which becomes energy, ~ kinda like energy is eh!
No it self compacts, and not compresses [except where there’s a force doing that, which I assumed you weren’t meaning].
That is absolutely not true.
The Michelson-Morley experiment proved merely that IF there is an “aether wind”, that wind does not have the end effects expected. The idea that the experiment disproved aether is a flat out lie used to promote relativity theory.
In fact, as water freezes to form ice, it expands (most school children know that). The emptiness of space actually causes the individual H2O subatomic particles to be very minutely smaller, due to attrition. In strong gravity fields (concentrated affectance or “concentrated aether” if you like), particles grow very slightly and the distance between them compresses slightly more (aka “General Relativity”). It is difficult to measure the change because the measuring instruments undergo the same changes.
As a matter of fact all three of us have not been doing our homework.
I was supposed to research an experiment posted that wasn’t Michelson Morley and I never got around to it.
Amorphos, what was the name of the experiment that supposedly disproved aether again?
It was on a documentary and there were a few, from memory…
it began here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson … experiment
and has gone on to e.g. here…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_cavity
In what way are optical resonators supposed to disprove aether??
No. It has merely been replaced by the relativity theory.