John Cuthber

As far as I can tell, yes, you are right about this "the Glycemic Index is a measure of the glycemic response only of the carbohydrate in the food being measured with the rest of the constituents of the food being ignored. " But not about this "This would mean that if the GI of coconut flour is 50, the glycemic response of 100g of coconut flour would be 50*0.272 which is 13.6" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index

If I read the wiki page right, in testing the GI, they compare the effect of 50g of carbohydrate as bread or glucose with 50g of carbohydrate from the food under test. So they would compare the effect of 50g of glucose with 50/0.272 g of coconut flour.

Did you consider googling "mirror paint"? Another option would be electroplating, possibly with a copper undercoat or something. I don't think the usual "electroless plating systems work well on steel but it's worth asking the people who make them. Another option is to polish the steel to a mirror finish and then varnish it.

I didn''t notice any who looked like Native Americans...

Well, yes... but it didn't happen to anyone. Nobody was robbed of an election victory of any sort. And all the republicans who have not pointed that out are jointly responsible for the death of the woman shot at the Capitol.

Interesting tweet from Trump, a while ago " Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · Jul 27, 2020 Anarchists, Agitators or Protestors who vandalize or damage our Federal Courthouse in Portland, or any Federal Buildings in any of our Cities or States, will be prosecuted under our recently re-enacted Statues & Monuments Act. MINIMUM TEN YEARS IN PRISON. Don’t do it! @DHSgov" Let's hope he sticks to his word.

I'm not in a position of power, so I can not be making threats. So your post is childish nonsense. On the other hand, I still have a very simple and useful thing I can do. I can keep on pointing out that you are wrong, and why you are wrong. And, let's try counting them. One Two Three. So, it looks like, in addition to not knowing science, you can't count to three. Isn't it time you faced the fact that you are wrong?

I can believe it. Well, the rest of us would recognise that it depends on the external magnetic field too. But you don't seem to understand science so, as I said, I'm not surprised that you had to ask. Why do you keep posting this stuff, even though it's clear that you are wrong?

I already explained why that gives the wrong answer. And that's why you can't demonstrate your claim. It isn't true. The decision about positive and negative was arbitrary. And a positively charged object will attract bits of fluff because, no matter what you say, both positive and negative charges attract things. If you keep posting stuff that's just plain wrong, the mods might do something about it.

It clearly says they were analysed (among other things) for ash by AOAC 942.05 There's a copy of that method here. https://academic.oup.com/jaoac/article/95/5/1392/5655282 It's not saying that there is x% of ash in the flour. It is saying that if you burn the flour, you get x% ash.

"Researchers Find a Way to Pull Carbon Out of The Air And Turn It Into Jet Fuel" Grow plants and burn seed oil? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_biofuel_demonstrations

It was an arbitrary choice. We know who made the decision. And we even make jokes about him getting it wrong. https://xkcd.com/567/ The biggest problem with your "evidence" is that it involves currents flowing through things like air or water where the situation is more complex because both charges are involved- the current is carried by both positive and negative ions. You have been told this before. Please do not keep posting the same mistakes.

If you burn the stuff, you get ash. They weigh the ash from a known amount of flour.

Bad idea. No I suspect that no laser, or maser, is powered by a magnetron. Certainly most are not. You can not get nanoscale resolution with Raman spectroscopy. You can not do Raman spectroscopy with microwaves. You can not get nanoscale resolution with microwaves. And, because the skull is in the way, you can't do Raman spectroscopy on the brain. What do you think you are talking about? No, they did not. Nonsense.

I imagine it will have changed but I couldn't find details.

The implication of what it says here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_barbasco_trade#End_of_the_barbasco_era is that they steroids are now derived from soy.

The reaction can not work. It's impossible to balance it. The electrons won't add up.

Well... most people can. But you do need to start by learning science. Have you tried that approach? I have seen no evidence that we need to try at all, never mind "very hard". What "LIES" have you seen? It's not possible for me to pollute the OP. I can't change it. Do you know what the abbreviation means? You didn't answer my point about cooperation; you went off at a tangent of moaning about me correcting your spelling. You did exactly the thing you accuse others of doing...

The issue really isn't nativity plays. You are posting on a science site. Many- perhaps most- of the people here are atheists. What does Islam say about us?

Fission reactors produce power. Do you recall what the Z stands for in the acronym ZETA?

Science has always relied on cooperation. And, as the areas of science that are open to small scale experiments are sorted out, we move towards a world where massive collaborations like CERN are the way forward. If scientists don't cooperate with you, it can't be because scientists are uncooperative, can it? It's not a matter of "jumping"; you have made your lack of understanding really crystal clear. A notable example is that you didn't spell "knowledge" correctly.

It is true that cosmic rays will occasionally spall neutrons off nuclei and give rise to an unstable nucleus or two. However that's going to happen on Earth just as much as on Mars. Since it's not a problem here, it won't be a problem there.

If you answered him, and you remember answering him, then you should be able to quote your answer. Can you?

The windows of charity shops used to be covered with a yellow film that blocked all the UV and some of the visible blue/ violet light. It stopped sunlight fading the goods on display. Black paper will almost certainly block all the UV. (In principle it would be possible to make a "black" paper that didn't absorb UVA, but it would be more difficult and more expensive than using carbon black as the pigment so nobody will bother) Practically all commercial white paint uses titanium dioxide as a pigment. That will absorb all the UV but reflect the visible light. (By a helpful coincidence, the reflection cut off for TiO2 is practically the same as the cut off for visible vs UV light.) If you have blinds with white slats so that the light coming in has to bounce off two slats to get through, practically none of the UVA will get through, but you won't be in the dark.

It might be a good idea if you learned some maths- at least the sort that is available on a 2$ pocket calculator- before you set out to disprove physics. That's not a check mark, it's a square root symbol. OK, so science changes in the presence of new information more than you want it to. OK so science changes less than you want it to. It seems you have a problem that is nothing to do with science.