[Fredrick]

Thank you Lloyd for your reply. I think I understand where you are trying to go, but I must admit that I cannot follow you well enough to indeed follow you there. The language is a severe problem here, especially when you are somewhat undermining the word abstract while using it later on nevertheless. For me the abstract is just one part of reality, very similar to being able to create a painting that is only what it is (art for art's sake). Math is another example of an abstraction of reality. 1 + 1 = 2 means nothing if we do not indicate what the 1's stand for. Helpful, however, it certainly is. Yet, I agree with you that we should not get lost inside the abstract, rather we need to use it as a tool to help us understand the whole picture.

I'd like to build a hydrodynamic pyramid, but I have sincere doubts hydrodynamics is in itself enough to deliver an overall delivery. Next to it, my knowledge about it is truly limited. I see how temperature of water can be split up in hot/steam and cold/ice on two sides, with in the middle fluid/water. But I feel I am only working with black/white-formats then, not the entire picture. Even when adding pressure — and seeing for instance that ice-formation is repressed when the pressure is higher ánd seeing that steam-formation, too, is repressed when the pressure is higher — is not enough to make me get unstuck. Anybody out there able to take this further? Should ice be the bottom, and steam the top? What parts of hydrodynamics need to be mentioned to describe the overall aspects of it. I am looking for five, six or seven descriptions, and I only have a few: pressure, temperature, condition. I almost say hydrodynamics cannot be all for a real overall delivery.