I heard of him from Ivor Catt, who included him on his list of science suppressees. I doubt if I'd have ever heard of him without Catt's list. Ivor was indignant and angry about what he saw as being ignored; but Phil was amused and cheery.
He worked for most of his life (I think) at Windscale, later renamed Sellafield, in north-west England, west of the Lake District National Park. He told me it was all he knew how to do. In what was supposed to be the exciting and dangerous new field of nuclear power. I only personally developed doubts about its possibility from about 2010—see https://big-lies.org/nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/index.html on this.
This page, on How much of modern physics is a fraud? was written by me, including some of his material, for example on 'superfluid helium'. I gave a joint copyright claim, though I'm uncertain if it has legal status.
Phil told me he'd never worked on nuclear weapons. I don't think he worked on the nuclear part of nuclear power, which seems dominated by Jewish companies, as would be expected by jadar-equipped people. His work was in such fields as experimenting with liquid sodium as a coolant to move large amounts of heat. And with fluidised bed catalysts, sintered metals for so-called fuel rods, alloys, liquid crystals, properties of elements in the obscurer regions of the periodic table, and very low temperature work.
Phil was influenced by John Dalton, inventor of atomic theory in its numerical form, who was also from the north-west of England. Phil had a personal local landscape interest in weather, clouds, storms, and climate, which was something of a hobby. He became a critic of establishment science so far as it dealt with states of matter, and submitted posts to established scientists, who rarely replied. One of his interest was weather: the analysis of air pressures, mixed gases/ liquids / solids, ocean currents and such things as tornadoes and warm and cold fronts and clouds might have made him a joint leader in weather and climate investigations.
In the interests of truth, I recorded him in taped conversations, mostly on the phone, once is person. I have digitiseds these and present them here. For three of them I include notes I made, in smaller typeface here.
In date order, from the earliest, these are the recordings, in mp3 audio format. No videos. They were made on tape, with simple equipment, and therefore have tape hiss, with other noises, which are a bit irritating, but not very intrusive. Total of about 10½ hours.
Audio recording May 25 1996 (1 hr 28 min)
Audio recording
June 8 1996 (2 hr 23 min)
[Very interesting; I worked through a fairly carefully-prepared script, which is printed out in his file. NB: I was careful to avoid Darwin and evolution. | Following brief notes (may be expanded) jotted on insert while listening...
< | SIDE A. (Side 1 of 3 of this phone talk.) | Mason talking at Kew on climate. PH has read Mason's book on cloud physics. PH's suspicions. | Going thru my letter: | (1) Gibbs phase rule and Euler? | (2) Ice? Snowflakes and (H2O)6? Different ratio? Flakes in one type of cloud same size; don't grow, suggesting some sort of resonance | (3) Silica goes into water easily. Ice at 20 degrees interested military | (4) Amoeba membrane? Hillman also wondered | (5) Trace elements; blood? | (6) Particle physics? PH says photons are imaginary, based on the idea that light can only interact with single atoms. If the unit is multiple atoms, there's no problem; light can eject an electron from a group. | | * [Long..] Sun's atmosphere and refraction. 1919 starlight not refracted, as no evidence of spectra? But plasma bending diff from eg water. Xray image of sun and problem of size of image, which PH thinks shows xrays refract. So figures not mentioned. Marble in a fish bowl: can't tell its size or distance. PH thinks quarks are artefacts, in some sense: fragments, oddments. But mu-mesons (about 1/10 proton) seem OK. Pi mesons. | * Atomic numbers, spectra. Inner electrons. Balmer series etc. 2-8-18 etc. of electrons | * NaCl - PH long story about school students not getting to next stage; puzzled by end of NaCl- "but sir it should fall off." | * UO no fixed ratio. [He mentions stoichiometry of UO also in the tape Oct 99 on 'e=mc^2'] | * Electrons arranged not in shells? But like bones? | * Ions [ionisation in atmosphere an interest of Phil's. Low pressure tends naturally to ionise, he thinks; as e.g. in neon lights. I think he means it's a natural effect of low pressure to tug atoms apart] | * Multimers - after a number of years he realised they must have (or could have?) low density | * Colours of clouds; cp of coal, diamond with dark and light clouds | * Liquid is base state | | SIDE B. (Side 2 of 3) | Helium, solid hydrogen, not much published. Neon. Argon a bit like helium (when 'solid' it flows easily). Superconductivity? Military interest. And industrial. Helium prob monatomic; attempt to explain led to quantum story. Lancaster, Oxford two places where studied. Fluidised bed very liquid. PH on 'deductions from observations'. Polarising sunspecs useful in viewing clouds. Radar: wet clouds, dry clouds distinction. | *Fred Hoyle paper, Darwin. Reviews can be misleading. | *Critical point error | *Reynolds number mistake | *'Polywater' and (H2O)1 etc [but not (H2O)6] by a German 'the basis of mine'. Felix Franks drew his attention | *Raman excitation | *Convention of starting papers with maths (papers used to be more readable) | *Periodic table and stable isotopes; odd numbers usually unique, even ones common. PH has no explanation | *Shapes of atoms. Tetrahedral? | *NENDOREC. Definitions? 'The nucleus of a tree is a cell'. Resonance? Electron cloud?? | *Clouds: why do they stay in a clump? Clouds as a sort of precipitate or marker: they may become visible where air has some property, as a LCD takes form from only a tiny bit of energy. No such thing as water gas; just multimers, sometimes visible, sometimes not. | *Buckminsterfullerene | *Multimers. H2O slightly polarised. toms 10 times separation of water (my guess; he agreed). Mason said cloud a dynamo; PH says a van de Graaf generator. | *Clouds that cause air to move; hurricane driven by clouds changing - shrink, and also give out much heat. Hurricane a natural fan - low pressure in middle, gases moving out. They have measurements, but possibly wrong deductions. | *Wind farm. Fans, gear boxes; where does the power come from? A steam engine or a wind engine? | *Coriolis effect; what is it? .. rotation.. | | | SIDE C (A of new tape) = Side 3/3 | *Phases of water in deep ocean? Rantzen; layers? 'Air has nothing in common with the earth.. water resonates..' 'Atmosphere.. a steam engine drives the air..' | *'I have no doubt cloud.. multimer..' Would like to know density, and latent heat of change from one phase to the next. | *Latent heat? No real problem. .. Triple point. Temperature on the kinetic theory wrong.. NENDOREC. What is temperature? Nernst got it wrong (but was one of the very few to examine the question). Temperature of the sun. More ionisation at low pressure? Known, but not taken into account. Ordinary gas no charge; in a vacuum get +ve and -ve. +ve ions sharp, -ve ions fuzzy in mass spectrometers (as -ve ions get bigger). Thunderstorm - ions due to rubbing, van de Graaf - lots of -ve ions - less dense - tons of water and yet barometer says low pressure - lots of charge - v low pressure ions... | *Shape of electron? 'Must be a tetrahedron' | *Deans' hook theorem - no comment from PH | *Jupiter. Venus. PH expects liquid. 'Nearly as much CO2 as water' in the atmosphere; much less than O2 and N2; yet water is the only thing you see. | *Liquid crystals. Lots of strings in there; all the current does is orientate them. Polarised viewer to reveal. PH's diagram was pinched by a professor (long correspondence followed). Watched a film - noticed the eutectic phase. 'Nearly molten'. | *SUBLIMATION. [As on tape 1 of 3]. PH's explanation as phase change from solid. Melts, but is then above boiling point. 'Thing that can't melt, can't sublime. Like glass.' | *Surface tension: measure of energy as go thru boundary. Experiment which PH recommends: Beaker of water, small drop of carbon tetrachloride and trichloroethylene. A drop of each in a beaker. If they touch, they become one sphere. Try colouring one with dye; get a rocking man effect, then goes uniform. PH doesn't know whether they mix, or whether dye is non-specific. Could try.. | *Simple rules of amalgamation | *Final notes...] &
Audio recording
June 22 1996 (3 hr 13 min)
[96-06-22 PHIL HOLLAND: 3 HOUR PHONE CALL TAPE
| -4 sides, on 3 separate tapes, the first of which is one the other side of the last 8th June tape. Long Saturday; supposed to have been 2 p.m. I think at this time weekend calls were 1/2p per minute.
|
| SIDE 1 of 4
| -Xmas chat and the Lake District
| -Rantzen photocopies. Statistics; trying to sort out order from number. Basically nothing new. Second, atmosphere, layer idea a great advance. Meteorology books only have layers of clouds and tropopause. But Rantzen wrongly picked temperature, not pressure as his order [I think 'order' is a Nendorec term]... If the order was temperature, observations would be different day and night, winter and summer.. if you take clouds as a measure of layer, not much difference between day and night. They don't move up/down markedly. Pressure doesn't either. So layer more related to pressure. Similar winter/summer. Yesterday at talk on Andes: about 6000 feet above clouds. Layers level. Rantzen problem: looked in that way, and found he had a lot of problems! It's like getting off the road. [Then follows long allegory about train journeys; different stations going south to north. I think he wrote to me with this, too] Rantzen keeps talking about randomness. Had he looked at it pressure wise.. the variations are remarkably small. 1 bar doesn't vary much between .97 and 1.02. You go vertically, it's varying at 1 millibar for every 10 metres. [I point out he's a radio engineer: signal + noise]. Right idea, but related it to the wrong stuff. And he was using kinetic temperature.
| -[He asks me my age, degree etc. I don't have much to do with statistics, I deal with order! You're looking for order. He has 5 kids: farmer, accountant, BT, engineer. And a daughter? His philosophy on exams, like Hillman, is to tell the examiner what his views are. Lord Dainton, one of PH's tutors, disagreed strongly; he refused to teach PH eventually. Couldn't take challenge. When it came to exams, PH had no qualms... Double first [first in parts 1 and 2; he says double firsts are generally diff subjects.]
| -PH did mineralogy too, which taught him about solid geometry. Single crystal of zinc.. 2mm by 1mm by 10cm.. yield point.. you could see it extend but not retreat.. it came out striated longitudinally.. they said slipping along atomic planes.. all roughly the same separation.. beautifully regular.. rhomboids.. but they were stuck.. why not slip off altogether?.. It was only when I came to Nendorecs.. in my paper 'Order Without Chaos'.. look at my diagram on a single crystal.. yeh. I've drawn the thing [shuffles his papers] page 25..
| -Sintering connection? What happens is you've got 27.. number across a b c and 1 2 3 down. As you raise the temperature, a joins up with b, not a bit at a time, when you get to a particular temperature, they just go together, ping! But because it's now an odd shape it slightly spheroidises, becomes rounder, and then as you raise the temperature the next lot join together and it keeps doing that. What's more difficult to understand. Nendorec hypothesis says when it cools it splits into bits downwards because a nendorec is only stable at a particular temperature. At a lower temperature, it's only splits. You can't distinguish between a and b, and you can only distinguish different orders. I found various techniques to make this order show up. E.g. put it in a reactor. Some of the U atoms became gas. [All ceramics, and all metals, anything sold. Works for salt.] Molybdenum oxide.. non stoichiometric.. make crystals that waved in the wind. Copper wires, gold foil.. neither are rigid! Molybdenum oxide. Vapour phase pretty easily.. at different temperatures of cooling gave different things.. lowest was large crystals.. at the very cold bit, powdery, pretty well amorphous.. a lot more oxygen than the high temperature stuff.. So I was pleased when I saw Rantzen's look at temperatures. .. wrong variable.. easily done.. I've got the wrong variable hundreds of times!.. [Not local spots of high pressure?] I can assure you it amalgamates then splits down afterwards.. I have no doubt on that. Another thing. Anisotropic fields make a world of difference. E.g. snowflakes, nuclear reactors with ceramic fuels. Outside of fuel rod quite cold relative to inside - 500 to 1000 Centigrade diff over less than half an inch. All sorts of strange things inside the ceramics.. grains long in one direction, short in the other.. fibrous.. you can't quite tell whether they are sheets stuck together or pencils.. I never resolved it. Degrees of order, yes, totally different once anisotropic. In crystallography.. 3 axes.. but in triclinic not at right angles.. other thing it taught me.. that the unit in each direction was like measuring inches in one direction, cms, some other unit.. Millerian index.. so you could relate one lot of measurement to another.. tremendous degree of order. It was related to little balls in lattices. I thought it was peculiar even then, because they could only explain the simple cases. They couldn't solve quartz.. now I could tell you quite a different answer.. nendorecs could be used to get a much better explanation.. left and right handed.. number of facets extremely large.. Like MO and UO you're actually dealing with an interlocking lattice..
| -Piezo electric effect? That's basically, you take a single crystal, some are to do with anisotropic systems - you can say a, b, and c, 1 and 2 join together. Nendorecs would work, other systems are so inflexible.. strain.. opens up but you can't see it. people say if you can't see it it isn't there. In meteorology, they talk about boundaries, fronts, wind shear, tropopause. You can see why with nendorecs you have a lot of boundaries you can't see. You can't see a front; you can detect it, but not see it. That's why.. amoeba.. if it's got a boundary, it must have a membrane! But that's not true.. Plant cells have got a skin.. precipitated out of the cell.. Once you say the cell is a living thing you don't have this problem.. Immiscible liquids. You soon find.. boundaries.. not true membranes. The other one.. ball idea, kinetic theory, ball and lattices, heck of a job is you can have 12 or certainly 8 immiscible liquids on top of each other (aniline, water, impure thallium?, mercury..) shake em up.. they all separated out.. nuclear reactors.. meltout.. not publicised.. all the uranium sank to the bottom, and all the magnesium floated.. not Sellafield.. somebody had the brilliant idea.. drill it out.. uranium was harder than iron.. what they hadn't thought .. to distinct layers.. metals are not all miscible.. uranium has a density about 20..
| -Electron clouds.. you can partly measure with the surface tension.. all different surface tensions.. for the degrees of order of the nuclei..
| -Spheroidisation doesn't use surface tension. It's just natural, automatic. In 9 cases out of ten it goes rounder. It always loses order. It's really the inside, not the outside, that's doing the trick. There are some things that move in a different direction. These memory metals, where they remember where they were at another temperature. Greenhouse opening things work on those sort of ?angles..
| -Sandstone. I looked at that.. many books.. tried to explain about sandstone.. the one that have done experiments couldn't explain it.. nor could they explain ironstone.. I was quite amazed.. experiments.. studied the whole problem.. basically no real idea.. You might think a standard sintering operation.. I had a look.. a year or two ago.. yes, there's no doubt it's sand.. I read other books.. they can't think of any conditions in which this stuff would join together in this way.. local buildings.. sandstone.. I spent a few weeks on the subject, a few months getting the books from the library.. it all piles up under the sea.. once you find someone who tries it out.. no conditions on earth would ever produce sandstone.. not even volcanic heat.. in quantity.. [Coal?] I didn't try coal! Coal strikes me as even more difficult.. my father coming home from the pit.. samples of coal with fossils inside them.. We've a lot, lot, lot to learn.
| -[Is that what got you interested in science?] No, no. Only thing I could do! [Laughs]
| -[Series of questions on physics; OK?]. [end of side]
|
| SIDE 2 of 4
| -Superfluidity. Two Internet things: 'exploit capillary forces.. small caesium orifices..' As I say, simply a fine powder. .. fluidised bed catalytic crackers. Blowing air through it? That's what I thought. Send the catalyst through a regenerator.. into that hot catalyst.. oil at high temperatures.. oil reacts on the catalyst.. absorbs heat.. cracks it.. oil changes into gas.. that fluidises it.. flows out of the reactor as dirty catalyst.. carbon on it.. blow through it I think steam.. drops into the riser of the regenerator.. powered by hot air.. generated from cold air by multi stage compressor.. just through being compressed.. [I try to ask whether the idea of compression was known to generate heat; how was it found? Adiabatics was well known] .. to control the amount of air.. had to take samples.. little tap on the side.. you can see it in egg timer, salt cellar.. finer? I doubt it; like grains of sand.. it flowed forever.. the whole place.. black layer.. heck of a job cleaning it.. the perfect dust.. superfluidity on a massive scale! That's how I noticed it.. wasn't all full of air.
| Another one: 'the sun's low radiation of neutrinos.. superfluid helium.. very brief explanation.. the degree of freedom becomes so low.. no temperature gradient or velocity gradient.. my suggestion.. internal pressure of the sun so high.. similar..' I can answer both. Can't get a temperature gradient because it flows. A temperature gradient is isotropic; it just moves! As soon as you try to put a velocity gradient, extra pressure at one end, it just moves like mad. Another thing a bit more difficult to explain, related to clouds. Clouds and the multimer phase has another property: capability of taking up heat is enormous, because it isn't a spherical drop, it's a tremendous surface area relative to its volume. That's what blew up Chernobyl.. water.. formed in a lump.. absorbed the whole heat out of the graphite core.. blew the reactor to bit.. same in the Titanic.. blew it into two bits. i think the drinking water toppled over and got into the burning coal. They were still generating power right to the end.. split 40,000 ton ship into two lots. You don't do that very easily.
| As far as the sun.. the sun is solid basically, like the earth. Most unlikely to have helium! .. so hot.. I used to think millions, I now think a few thousand.. Herschel.. I read a paper.. water on the sun at 2000 centigrade. I would say the sun is probably made of silicaceous materials. [Is the earth solid? Core?] I don't think anyone knows what it is
| -[Neutrons. Simple question, she apologises for asking. If they're all positive, how can they all be together. Condescending answer about the fundamental forces, inc strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. .. It takes over when things are close.. Any sense?] Yes, you're dead right, verbal excuse. My bit on neutrons and photons. Basic unit is N + P unit. That is a tetrahedron. Sets of tetrahedra.. slightly truncated.. the most common meson is the k meson which is basically half a proton or neutron.. four k mesons made 1 positive charge for reasons I don't know. What I found.. as you go higher you find.. more spare space.. I made neutrons as long sausages.. could fill the gaps happily.. tetrahedra which fit quite well to give 8-fold periodic table pattern.. further out you need more.. why ?10 I never solved.. why 14 rare earths easier.. in practice there are three different sets.. they're so rare, you see.. amusing bit was.. when you look at the periodic table.. 8, 8, 8+10, 8+10+14. Plus 2 in middle. After that.. actinides.. books all tell you actinides are like lanthanides.. they don't bear any resemblance! Whichever properties.. minimal resemblance.. ?Glen ?Seaborg said they were related. My system found the actinides were a new group altogether.. constituted 8+10+14 which we've never seen, plus I gorget about 18 of what would be actinides. Related to group 1 or 2.. Lanthanides related to group 3.. transition elements related to group 4. P and U.. studied them to my heart's content.. if you handle anything properly.. [story of compressed air being deadly, burning badly] .. I was able to check with stacks and stacks of literature.. only books purely on lanthanides you find out all sorts of variations until you see.. haven't looked for 15 years..
| -'Magic numbers'? [Like asking me about sandstone]
| -Mendeleev.. periodic table is 'the' periodic table. M produced 'a' periodic table. Vast bulk have iron, cobalt, nickel together; that's the common one. Snag is cobalt and nickel aren't like iron. Platinum, iridium and gold are similar. But osmium's nothing like platinum. But if you look at ?periodic ?tables ?with Chromium, manganese and iron together. Cobalt, nickel and copper.. electronics.. next three are connected with the earths.. remarkably similar.. from thereon a different look to the transition elements..
| -[Trace elements .. whole collection..] Life is very much more complicated! That's why I don't deal with it.
| -Related to resonance, on a small scale. .. No explanation for magnetism; only thing I can tell you is, related to atoms, not Nendorecs. The domain, yes. Domain by magnetism, you get one particular pattern, which you can change by temperature. Not the same as a grain in a metal. Nendorec depends partly on what you're looking for.. [my cp with group of people, divided by clothes then by sex, met with PH's approval]. So complicated PH hasn't taken an interest.
| -Tornadoes. I've just finished the book. They associate wind with cloud motion! Once I'd thought.. rather odd.. to summarise, they talked about winds, not clouds. Looking for circulating gases...
| -Dissidents in physics. Kohn (False Prophets) on polywater: deliberate mistakes, fraud. Misinterpretation examples: antigravity in superfluid helium [perpetual motion]/ critical point [because guy couldn't see phases, said they weren't there]/ photons a misinterpretation. Einstein had to invent something. They said the unit of matter is one single atom. But if it's say 10^6 atoms the size of the light beam is a lot bigger; you don't need the concept of a photon at all. Says he'll send his ditty on light without photons. PH thinks polywater a fraud. Buckminsterfullerene: PH on allotropes, ?orthonitrotoluene, lithium nitrate have allotropes.. freezing and melting point are not the same.. you're dealing with different systems.. Carbon: diamond, graphite, I suspect soot is another form. The other one is smectic crystals.. lots of allotropes.. people thought they were liquids so they didn't observe the different allotropes quite so readily.. they thought they were dealing with liquids..
| Plasma membranes in amoebas. E=mc^2 another classic frauds.. if you ever read the original proof you would know! He even admits it's wrong! .. Nuclear power.. atomic power being converted into kinetic power.. The last on my list is entropy. I thought it was something. After a while I twigged it was a mathematical hoax. Jiggery-pokery. When you get down to the details.. there is nothing..
| -[My questions:] Electromagnetism. Catt. PH: related to light.. electromagnetic wave fits in very nicely.. I did point out a long time ago.. if an em field is related to light, and it is, then a magnetic field should have the velocity of light. An electric field should have a velocity. To detect the velocity of light took a long time.. problem.. Galileo, Rohmer.. a little magnet a million miles away.. pal has to say oh yes!.. heck of a job detecting it.. electric field I would think even more difficult. Both should move at the speed of light.
| -[Velocity of light and reflections:] Also great fun! Once you're in waves that's all right
| -[Quantum physics] Question is, what do people mean by quantum? Simply means unique! Water is unique. Superfluid helium is a quantum solid! They're upset.. super mystery of helium goes, they've lost their quantum theory.. [Are you sure?] Spectra.. as being quanta.. they are.. an electromagnetic field splits it [i.e. line] in two.. My model of atom.. resonances.. any field puts pressures.. you do change the spectra.. Raman spectroscopy.. infra red.. Critics? No. I don't think most people know..
| -[Relativity. Wallace. 1950s: Dingle, Essen. Feeble?] Two forms: special and general. Special related to e=mc^2. All sorts of mathematics, matter converted to energy, twin paradox. A load of rubbish. General relativity in my paper order without chaos I define what it is, all the laws of the universe to apply to all frames of reference.. that's what Nendorecs are based on. Does apply. Problem is, like Millerian indices, if you don't have the right frames of reference you get nowhere. One that Einstein couldn't cope with is the frame of reference that there can be nothing. The moon.. no atmosphere. .. When they first thought they were going to the moon.. they thought.. powder.. they'd just disappear.. But once you looked at the moon via Nendorecs and general relativity you could have some idea.. [Are you saying you could infer the moon was solid?] Yes. .. Gas planets.. they're not gas! 12 g/cc.. outside diameter.. knowing the weight you can work out the inside diameter.. Jupiter.. spinning thing with atmosphere. Go back to Rantzen. I hadn't known.. one little bit of information.. that if this object is spinning.. you'd expect the equator to have a higher spin than poles.. height above equator higher than poles? Rantzen says.. funny thing is troposphere higher at equator than the poles.. Due to spin? Or colder at poles, so given volume lower? I've been in touch with Essen.. 10, 15 years ago.. He got quite a number of papers published.. most of them weren't...
| -[Formal arguments against?] The things it comes up with are all wrong: photons, e=mc^2 and matter being converted into energy, sun so cold that the concept as a plasma fusion reactor is totally absurd
| -[High energy physics. Traynor on junk, castle of cards. Carlo ?Robbia on artefacts.] I don't know anybody on that. My own views.. fantastic equipment.. tremendous amount.. if you think of the nucleus as a brick.. omega minus favourite bit to find.. 10,000 photos to fit their omega minus... then somebody comes up with another theory.. If you use a nendorec and look for k mesons [roughly half a proton] and mu mesons [1/10 of a k meson or proton - can't recall], they would turn up fairly frequently. 1950s or so. The Rubber Handbook would have info..
| -[Thermodynamics and entropy.] Entropy is simply mathematical jiggery-pokery. If you use an entropy chart you have to convert it back into total heat or energy. You convert it into this entropy thing, then convert it back. Prof Fells at Newcastle University. Entertaining. 'Take Nobody's Word For It' on TV. The ?Holliday-Wild lecture. Big Cumbria event. 'Energy, Education and Entropy'. I wrote and told him it was rubbish, and pointed out why. Wrote back to say it really was OK. .. Told us about energy, and education, mainly about Indians. When it came to entropy, didn't mention it. What is this 2nd law of thermodynamics. But I had to leave.. People like to talk about.. means nothing at all.
| [Free energy in biology?] Related.. the less I find of real value. The three laws of thermodynamics in my paper 1974 [Order without Chaos?] pp 10 & 11. .. Entropy basically decrease in order. Other paper.. consevation of energy.. etc.. 1 plus 1 equals 1.. 1 goes to 1 plus 1, splitting.. 1 goes to 1 but more spherical.. binary code is what nendorecs are about.. really only one law of thermodynamics..
| [Popular presentations? Heat won't pass from the cooler to the hotter?] .. astronomy.. relating observations to what's there.. funny little thing.. further from the sun, the hotter it gets.. this is because what they're measuring is the ionisation in the solar wind.. they infer that to get ionisation it must be very hot.. not true at low pressure..
| [Radio telescopes. Nothing?] That's why they're always asking for money.. they don't seem to be producing anything. .. helping with the early satellites. .. I don't know.. the data.. little bit like high energy physics.. people are not willing to say we have financed a white elephant.. [chap at same time as Lovell.. better results from ground system..] .. I've never looked at them.. I'm interested in Jupiter, Venus, Sun.. moon.. my paper.. in a scrapbook.. [later I typed this in] .. Essen.. thought it was OK, but unhappy about principle of general relativity.. [it turned out he has a strange idea of 'Einstein's general relativity'].. only thing .. no contradiction of, is data.. from Venus.. stated there was no liquid on Venus. I thought there should be liquid on the surface. [I asked him what he meant by 'general relativity'] .. can see clouds, but not gas.. very minor constituent.. mainly oxygen and nitrogen.. same scale.. Venus has clouds.. should be related to a liquid on the surface of the solid.. but all the data etc.. I found that sublimation was really a melting process.. surface very smooth.. might be a sublimation process.. Same with magnetosphere.. Halley's comet.. I think 1910.. went between us and the sun.. should have had its tail into the earth.. but its tail whipped past.. then thought earth + troposphere.. now known all these layers.. up to the magnetosphere.. tail flicked to one side.. And this is why the kinetic theory of gases is hopelessly wrong.. space with balls.. I think.. rather large units which you can't see in resonance with one another.. totally different picture.. [H G Wells story]
| -Standard science book will tell you sublimation is when it doesn't melt; that's exactly what it does do [why doesn't it all boil?] Well it takes time
| -[Atoms and molecules. Haemoglobin etc. Is this correct?] My paper on fluid crystals, I showed the shape of the molecule changes between the different phases. That occurs with everything. Structure of the nucleus; we talk of valency. I found as a rule the higher the temperature, the lower the valency. Fe, Cr, Mn series. C, N oxides. Only the spheroidisation of the nucleus of the atom. Same principles apply to molecules as well as atoms. My son-in-law.. DNA. I read the original paper.. couldn't see how they could deduce a double helix.. I thought a big extrapolation.. stretched out it's a tremendous length.. so it must be all curled up. It's a totally different system. .. Crick wanted to make a code.. difference between Nendorecs and Cricks idea.. I'd look for a genetic music score.. all the performers etc you can have what the scores tell you.. a resonating thing.. [how does it duplicate?] Oh well this is back to basics.. 1=1 plus 1.. the whole of things are all based on this.. When I studied crystals,, very early papers.. similarity between cells and crystals.. [D'Arcy Thompson?] Hence my interest in the geometry of systems.. quartz.. to me it is a wonderful material.. an the basis of the electronics industry
| -[Why no silicon based life?] We've got plenty with carbon.. NASA had a big project to define what is life.. they couldn't do it.. crystals will replicate themselves..
| -[Molecular structures. Are they right?] .. close circuit.. keeping anybody out.. like Joe Bloggs and the sodium ion on the end.. if you're not one of us you're out..
| -[The solar system] .. rings of Saturn? .. flyby of ?Voyager.. amazing order of rings.. all in one plane.. almost as though a mind.. [asteroids are tattier aren't they] .. yes.. almost artificial.. made by humans.. not only ordered in a plane, but they've to be ordered by velocity to be dead right.. ]
|
Audio recording
July 10 1996 (1 hr)
[He was returning to the Lakes after visiting family in Redhill. He was smallish, with abundant brushed white hair and a green blazer with a rather faded badge (and some scurf) on it. Reminded me of Albert Zinn - chatty, cheerful. His wife has arthritis and is immobile; she stayed in his car for the whole hour or so...
|
| -Dinner-table and kidney lecture [Well, that's what my insert note says!)
| -Hillman, Catt; his meetings with them
| -PH phoned Lancaster re superfluids; some consternation..
| -Clouds. Since 1974..
| -Maths addiction?...
| -Nendorecs. 1 plus 1 equals 1. Nendorecs are Dalton's atoms.
| -Melting and freezing points aren't the same
| -The reason is quite simple.. liquid alloys
| -Wind. Tornadoes. Most last 15 minutes or less. Meteorologists think they know the answer. Radar..
| -Superfluid helium. Infinite lattice of Bragg wrong. Neon..
| -Adhesive powders of uranium fuels
| -Infinity endless
| -Dalton called gases elastic fluids
| -Electron microscopy: light without photons
| -Venus clouds. Liquid. Moon's surface.
| -Melting and sublimation: evidence against the kinetic theory
| -Electromagnetism priesthood. Particle physics?
| -His piece on the solar system (which I put on PC) pre-moon landing
| -Herschel, Eddington, Hoyle, on the sun. Not all gas.
| -X ray images of the sun
| -Astronomers neglect refraction
| -Seeing part way round back of sun
| -Problem with kinetic theory is box-in nature..
| -Diffusion of uranium hexafluoride empirical
| -Multimers. Latent heat
| -CH, C2H, C3H... in separating columns. Some of those came out the wrong way
| -Periodic table. And his model (why 10 transition elements). 3-d view of atoms
| -Darwinism. Auschwitz, death certificate story. Importance of love. Darwin's theory gives immortality.]
|
|
24 August 1996 (1 hr 28 min)
14 July 1999 (1 hr 1 min)
© Raeto West 20th July 2023