Water

I did not realize what a mystery water represented until I read a story on the subject at www.livescience.com
Evidently we do not understand why ice floats or why water expands when it freezes etc. So an understanding concerning the basic principles determining the behavior of water are still a work in progress. But maybe, just maybe, we can shed a little light on the subject.

To start, a water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one atom of oxygen and as hydrogen has the highest underlying energy potential of any known element water is indeed very special.

Water evaporates into the sky and descends as rain, snow and or hail etc. so water goes up and down, in that it has the ability to defy gravity.

If you are in the mountains at an altitude of 10,000 feet above sea level you will find that water boils at 90 degrees C instead of 100 degrees C at sea level, which is usually attributed to a change in atmospheric pressure. Also, in the mountains water will remain frozen at a higher temperature than at sea level, which is also attributed to a drop in atmospheric pressure.

Of course there is a relationship between atmospheric pressure and the boiling and freezing of water, but this is not the whole story.

The inherent underlying energy of the water relative to the condition of field in which the water exists determines the condition of the water.

In this respect the underlying energy I refer to as Non-linear Time Field Frequency Acceleration, (ntffa), which is explained in detail on earlier posts.

Water at a high elevation above sea level has more underlying energy relative to the condition of field, existing at this high elevation, than at sea level.

It is the underlying energy potential of water which is the key factor in determining the behavior of water and not atmospheric pressure.

We also ascribe atmospheric pressure as being responsible for steam rising from a boiling kettle, where we say the steam or gas is lighter than air, but in making this reference we miss what occurs at the underlying level. Consequently we are puzzled by the behavior of water.

Why does ice float? Ice floats due to the increased ratio of energy per unit of mass associated with frozen water and the colder the ice the higher is the underlying energy potential in relation to the ratio of energy per unit of mass.

Ice has a higher ratio of energy per unit of mass than liquid water, which is determined by the relationship existing between the water and the field in which the water is situated. Therefore we can determine that ice floating in liquid water at an elevation some distance above sea level is going to be more buoyant than ice floating in liquid water at sea level.

The changes in water from liquid to solid or from liquid to gas depends on the energy of the water relative to the condition of field in which the water is situated. In this respect a decrease in the energy of field will affect a proportional increase in the ratio of energy per unit of mass associated with the water.

Why does ice expand? Ice expands due to the increased energy of the water molecules relative to the condition of field in which the ice is situated. The spacing of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms is increased due to an increase in their underlying energy relative to the condition of field in which they are situated.

At very low temperatures ice actually shrinks, but it does not actually contract, as this has to do with the dispersion of atomic components as opposed to the idea of the ice actually contracting. This process requires a study in itself, which would be best left for another post.

In relation to Covalent bonds and Hydrogen bonds the hydrogen bonds are 10 times weaker than the covalent bonds. Why?

Covalent bonds correspond to the two bonds between two hydrogen atoms and the one oxygen atom in one water molecule, whereas the hydrogen bonds correspond to the bonds between one hydrogen atom of one molecule and one oxygen atom of another molecule.

The relationship existing between the two hydrogen atoms and the one oxygen atom are many times stronger than the hydrogen bonds existing between molecules, which is due to an inverse relationship.

To understand this we must realize that each atom exists as a unified field system unto itself, much like the earth or moon existing relative to the sun etc.

In relation to a single water molecule, there are 6 relative relationships existing between the three atoms. There are two oxygen/hydrogen systems, two hydrogen/oxygen systems and two hydrogen/hydrogen systems. The relative relationships existing between the oxygen atom and each of the two hydrogen atoms are not the same as the relationships existing between each of the hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atom, while the relationship between the first hydrogen atom and the second hydrogen atom is not the same as the relationship between the second and first hydrogen atom.

On top of this there is an underlying force of energy which is continuously accelerating relative to the system of reference, which determines the form and function of each atom and their relationship in a molecular format.

Only single atoms of hydrogen have a higher ratio of energy per unit of mass than a single molecule of water, which sets water apart from all other known matter. A water molecule is the basic molecule, nothing simpler is possible in relation to a molecular structure capable of remaining stable. Also it is not possible for a molecule to possess more energy than that associated with pure water.

As water vapor disperses into the upper atmosphere the hydrogen bonds break down and at an even higher altitude the covalent bonds finally break down as well, which allows free hydrogen atoms to escape into space, while allowing some of the oxygen atoms to fall back into the atmosphere.

The underlying energy of the earth's field is focused to the center of the earth's core whereby there is a proportional decrease in energy extending isometrically from the center of the earth's core to the furthest reaches of space. Therefore it is natural for hydrogen to rise skyward, as up is the path of least resistance for hydrogen due to its high underlying energy potential relative to the field of the earth in which it exists.

On the inside of the earth the reverse is true, as the internal dynamics effect inverse responses. Therefore, hydrogen within the earth tends to migrate to the center of the earth, while the heavier elements migrate toward the surface.

Water is a good coolant, because it takes a great deal of heat to lower the underlying energy of water molecules. In other words it takes a higher proportion of heat, (resistance), to heat water than it does most other liquids.

Hot water radiates heat, which is a factor of resistance, but the water does not radiate its underlying energy, as the energy is always focused to the center of field.

In relation to a single molecule of water, the oxygen atom represents the bulk of the molecules mass, and in relation to the increased mass of a water molecule consisting of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, the increase in mass causes a reduction in the ratio of energy per unit of mass.

One single hydrogen atom has a higher ratio of energy per unit of mass than two or more atoms of hydrogen forming a molecule of hydrogen, while a single atom of oxygen has a higher ratio of energy per unit of mass than when it is in combination with two atoms of hydrogen forming a water molecule.

On top of this it is important to note that the internal dynamics of each atom effect inverse responses inversely proportional to the external dynamics.

Of course this all sounds very complicated and to a point it is, but on the other hand it certainly simplifies our understanding in relation to the properties of water.

To demonstrate this clearly we could imagine water in an environment of low energy, which would effect a huge energy differential between the water and the field in which the water is situated. This situation would cause the water to disperse in to single molecules and if the energy of the field were low enough the molecules would break up into hydrogen and oxygen.

On the other hand where the energy of the field is increasing the opposite would be true.

In relation to the work of Nilsson and Saykally attempting to determine what happens when ice melts, it would seem strange indeed if liquid water retained the same structural dynamics as ice.

Of course water is water regardless of its state, but when ice melts it must lose a certain percentage of its underlying energy otherwise it would not melt.

The bonds, covalent and hydrogen, are the effect of field dynamics as determined by an underlying force of dynamic energy.

Only a fluctuation in the underlying dynamic force can affect change, therefore a change in the condition of field must affect a change in the structural dynamics of physical matter situated in that field.

If liquid water retained the tetrahedral arrangement of water molecules in ice, it would not be liquid water, but ice. In other words, the liquid water would not flow, but would be move more like a dragging chain.

Water flowing down hill loses energy as it flows, which keeps it flowing. It is only a decrease in the underlying energy of the water which allows it to flow from high ground to low. To flow from low ground to high would require the water to be gaining energy as it flowed relative to the field in which it was flowing.

Ice is an energy state of water, change the energy state and you change the condition of the water. Such a change in energy must also change the dynamic structure of the water molecules.

Therefore I am inclined to agree with Nilsson and his group of researchers.

It must also be noted that X-rays represent a non-uniform potential which distorts the uniform field continuance of water molecules, which is going to give one a distorted view of the situation. Making the assumption that at higher temperatures the bonds will bend and stretch where this should be seen through a microscope is a stretch in itself. In relation to the continuance of field frequency acceleration this might not be the case at all.

So, the X-ray argument is not very helpful in understanding the nature of water.

(c) 2006 David Barclay