studiot

You're right. Well said. +1

The problem is that the way fertiliser ingredients are specified is not the normal chemistry way but rather specialised. It is further complicated by different national bodies laying down different specifications for doing this. And further made difficult by the general lack of articles about this subject on the web. So it would help if you could post a label photo or extract the ingedient list exactly as presented. The UK Royal Society of Chemistry has a couple of articles available that might help. And also the Royal Horticultural Society. I have a link for the RHS one, and am attaching the pdf of the others as I ran out of my allocated access for this month when I went back to get the second link. https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?pid=451 rsc2_nutrient.pdf rsc1.pdf

Really? What about this?

I am thinking about the OP question and the balance between aggregation or accretion processes (bigwards) contrasted with dispersion processes which break thing down and spread them out. The OP seems to favour the former, but we actually encounter both. There is also the issue of the observed expansion of the Universe and therefore the question of diminution of density. My chicken and egg comes from the idea that coagulating small things makes big things ; disintegrating big things makes small ones. An apparently endless cycle repeated in so many ways in Nature. Geology being a good example. So yes it's a which came first the chicken or the egg situation. The Ring of Ritornel or the Die of Alea, if you know that story. BTW did you see my reply to your recent post in the quantum section ?

Yes indeed, energy also plays a part. Those who study Thermodynamics will know that there are two competing thermodynamic drivers, (energy and entropy) which usually pull in opposite directions. We don't have elephants in Somerset.

This is a tantalising muse +1 But I am not sure it is on topic, and in any case I think it deserves a thread of its own so I am going to ask the mods if they agree. However I think it is worth discussing if the underlying premise is true. How about aggregation v dispersion ? There is a continual chicken and egg cycle of aggregation and dispersion in our universe and entropy increase usually favours dispersion.

What exactly is a 'graded time dilation field' ? Have you changed your thoughts since this? https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/gr-as-a-graded-time-dilation-field-in-euclidean-space.742809/ I'll do it for you. Marcus has just told the OP what he was told 7 years ago.

I dug the correct interpretation out of the dustbin of history from an old Hitchikers Guide.

It isn't only the nucleus that can define the volume of a particle. Using the reciprocal or k space of Brillouin zones for a crystal lattice you can calculate the number of electrons that will 'fit' into a given space (volume). Since the electron can roam the entire space does this mean that dividing the volume by the number of electrons gives an estimate of the volume of an electron ?

I don't often suggest books But I thought I'd make an exception. How to be an Alien (1946) is a humorous book by George Mikes, illustrated by Nicolas Bentley. It was Mikes' second book and is the most famous of the 44 he wrote. It is a classic of British humour and by its 32nd impression in 1966 had sold over 300,000 copies. How to be an Alien - Wikipedia

Not this time, I was waiting to gauge the interest. I am not sure who introduced the terms, I met them in Thermodynamics, but they have wider application. The Mathematics and Physics started developing with the probing of distributed forces (pressure, stress...) leading to the introduction of the Dirac Delta function, and the unit impulse function. These are not true functions because they are 'multi valued'. This was resolved by the introduction of a wider class of 'generalised functions' called distributions. This all links into QM and SM So once again the theory started in the macroscopic domain which we can more easily grasp, before being transplanted into the microscopic. But it is a big subject. So the OP asked a good question, albeit a little flippantly, perhaps deeper than he realised.

Lots of good points in this response. +1 Insects, for instance, don't 'breath', they use diffusion. Bit dogmatic don't you think? ( pun intended) If you had said one of the reasons some people don't believe in aliens is because some think they would breath oxygen right? Wouldn't that have been a better question?

Sure, but it was part of the whole response. An intensive property (of a system or body etc) is one that has a single value to represent the whole body. For example the temperature of a poker has meaning when the poker is standing quietly unused by the side of the fireplace and all parts of it are at the same temperature. But the 'temperature of the poker' has no meaning when one end is red in the fire and the other is cold in the hand. Set against that an extensive property is additive in that every small or large part of the body contributes to the property. So the volume or mass of a gallon of beer is twice that of half a gallon and so on. This summation leads directly to subsidiary properties such as density which is summed over the length to obtain the mass or volume or other extensive property/area/volume. Density, of course, needs a limit since it is the ratio of properties one or more of which approach zero at a point. So bingo you need the Calculus. So this brings in Continuity.

Is 'the governor' a doctor?

Please stop flinging wild accusations about That has nothing to do with the rational analysis of your statement which was a wild accusation. Of course it is not all doctors do, whether they lie or not about anything at all, and I know some do sometimes, they are human after all. And you still have not acknowledged your previous nonsense, was that due to ignorance or deliberate?

Please stop flinging wild accusations about : It does not help what is a difficult situation for everybody. You have yet to acknowledge my refutation of your last totally incorrect statement in this thread. Here is the naked truth about another one. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/929771?faf=1&src=soc_fb_200506_mscpmrk_ous_int_uk_single_covid_inactive&fbclid=IwAR3gt1kN1nW6P4U2I6jsG8hd_9h1mghFELmF6oYTC3oNJkyz69Dx4lbZVdU

Both mass and volume are extensive properties. The issue of the point value of extensive properties has been investigated for centuries and several ways to dealing with the problem have been used. Considering a previous answer it is interesting that mass is said to be imparted by a boson. If so here is a discussion of the size of the Higgs. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-physical-size-of-a-Higgs-boson I will be interested to see answers by Mordred and Joigus in due course.

Before I answer this please note two things. When you signed up here you may have bothered to read the rules which require members to be have enough information to answer without going offsite. References are good but they are a backup, not the principle. Secondly note that new members have 5 posts in the first 24 hours, so don't waste your last one today. I am posting this quickly and will follow with some detail about your actual questions which you can think about before you can post freely. These are not games, they are the rules here. 2) Here is a definition of homology (and an example of how to post offsite materal here) Note the words I have underlined "often attributable". In my book that means not always so there must sometimes be other explanations. So there is your debunking answer to (2) in a nuteshell. But this is a discussion site and we like to say a bit more. I am always suspicious of snappy presentations that take something out of context in a mocking fashion and move on before the viewer has a chance to think properly about it. That is how stage magicians and politicians work. But also the author links Darwin and 'Evolution' - A common misdirection. In Darwin's day 'Evolution' was a nautical term and Darwin was a sailor. And his proper use of 'Evolution' would have not been at variance with a Creator. Darwin's actual book title was 'On the origin of Species by means of Natural Selection' Natural Selection is a process by which evolution or species origin can be achieved. Reading his book provides compelling evidence that such a process is at work, even if there are also other ones at work. You should distinguish between creation and evolution as they are not mutually exclusive. All or nothing arguments are generally wrong. You have asked about evolution, not creation I will not dwell on creation further. 1) I gave you a geological term to look up, if you did not know it. Did you do so? Google is your friend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton's_Unconformity It was unconformity and this was the original discovery that kicked off modern Geology. The discovery that rock formations are (very) often jumbled up. So finding another one is easy and no evidence against any particular proposal (except the null one that there are no unconfomities). So here is your second debunking.

To be focused, you want the answers so it is up to you to spell out the questions. So 1) Why is it suprising to find fossils "in the wrong order" ? What actually does that mean? Do you know the basic geological term for this - Unconformity. 2) So post a specific claim about DNA 'Contradicting Evolution'.

I note you use page 109 of one of Eddington's books as a supporting reference. In his later book, 'The Mathematical Theory of Relativity', Eddington refers to this page and provides the mathematical derivation of the formula shown. (pages 90 - 91) He also explains why the analog system is easier to calculate (he was a great calculator in the days before computers) and warns about the difference in coordinate systems employed in this analog and the local coordinate system of GR.

Uncertainty is not the same thing as dispersion and in any case I think this discussion is wandering off topic.

Since the details in your other thread indicates this is not homework I will work it for you. 1lb = 453.592 grammes. Divide this by the atomic mass of potassium to get number of gramme-moles. Multiply by the number of atoms in a gramme-mole (Avogadro's number) Number of atoms in 1lb potassium = (453.592/39.0983) *(6.02214 x1023) = 6.986479021 x 1024 atoms.

Looks like you have reached the position of the Ancient Greeks with their idea of Actual and potential infinity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity Mathematics has moved on since that time.

A system or body is said to be in stable, unstable or metastable equilibrium, depending upon what happens if a small chage or displacement is made/given to it. So consider the ball in my picture. 1) At the top of the hill it is in unstable equilibrium because a small push either way will cause it to roll down the hill ( a big change) 2) On the level bench it is in metastable equilibrium because if pushed one way (uphill) it will roll back, but if pushed the other it will eventually roll down to the bottom. 3) At the bottim if pushed either way it will roll back to the bottom. Acrobatic rotations are like this. They can either carry you over or flip you back or balance you against falling. In boats there is a thing called the metacentre, the position of which relative to the centre of gravity, indicated whether the boat will self right if it rolls over.

Eigenstates are like overtones or harmonics on a musical instrument. They all add up to the create the individuality of the sound of a given note played on that particular instrument.