studiot

SR most certainly predicts no such thing.

Sounds more like (horizontal) photogrammetry to me. Have you heard of it ? https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=U-H0X9HwN-eOlwSx8JiQDA&q=photogrammetry&oq=photogramm&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgAMggIABCxAxDJAzICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADoFCAAQsQM6CAgAELEDEIMBOggILhCxAxCDAToICC4QxwEQowI6CwguELEDEMcBEKMCOgsILhCxAxDHARCvAToCCC46BQguELEDOgsILhCxAxDJAxCTAjoICC4QxwEQrwE6BAgAEApQpAdYki9gokJoAnAAeAGAAdIHiAG0GJIBCTEuOC4xLjYtMpgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXo&sclient=psy-ab I see you spotted the tiny individual generators. Did you understand what I mean by in phase ?

Thank you for this extra information, But this is now the third time I have asked what would be the count on each clock if you had left clock A at the given 'location' and moved the rest of the universe in motion somewhere and then back to the given location ?

Clocks or taps it makes no difference. You are describing a version of the 'Twins Paradox' but leaving half the details out. How do you explain the other half of the experiment. This is the second time I have asked you this so I am reporting your post for failure to engage.

But you have specified that one clock is moving relative to the other.

So far as I know, magnetrons are not coherent. They produce microwaves continuously in a process that does not lend itself to coherent production> The radiating particles that generate the microwaves are free electrons. Magnetrons produce directed radiation because of the focusing effect of their geometry. But focused or directed is not the same as coherent. Coherent radiation is produced when lots of tiny individual generators all act to produce their little wave packets so the packets are in phase with each other. This can either be a pulsed or a continuous effect. Laser and maser radiation is coherent. Magnetron radiation may be turned on and off, but is continuous whilst on. The coherence in a laser or maser comes from the fact that the generating particles are excited atoms or ions that can be 'triggered' to return to a lower state in unison, establishing the coherence of the emitted radiation that results from de-excitation. Of course the part of the atom that is excited and de-excited is an electron, but these are bound electrons, not free electrons.

That's good, so please start your own thread. +1 It should be noted that Markus is talking about spacetime ,not separate space and time. What he is also referring to is the invariant quadratic [math]{{{\left( {\Delta x} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta y} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta z} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta ict} \right)}^2}}[/math] or its square root which is called 'the interval' and is what is rotated in the Lorenz transformation rotations. [math]\sqrt {{{\left( {\Delta x} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta y} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta z} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta ict} \right)}^2}} [/math] What he means is that the projection of this invariant length onto each axis changes with the rotation.

Please note my interest in Chemistry is and always has been Physical Chemistry. Obviously I need to have some knowledge of the rest of Chemistry for this but I rely on other experts for detailed matters. Here is a study on the composition of coconut flour from such experts. https://www.pgia.ac.lk/files/Annual_congress/journel/v18/12.pdf

Yes that is a point I have been trying to make. There are two different set of labelling laws in play in the UK. Thank you for putting it more clearly. +1 Tim, when it comes to biochemistry CharonY is way ahead of me so well worth listening to. A little bit of history is in order however. The 'list of ingredients' required information has been in force in the UK longer than the EU has been in existence, let alone since we joined and left. I call it "The cast in order of appearance", borrowed from the theatre, although the fit is not quite exact it demonstrates the meaning. When these UK regulations were first drafted, fibres were not considered digestible or of nutritional value. In fact the official term was "inedible waste" (in the first edition of the manual of nutrition)! Subsequently it was discoverd that some fibres are digestible and some are not and later editions of 'the manual' reflect this. In relation to your question, there are two principle vegetable polysaccarides cellulose and lignin. Neither are digestible but either are edible in that they can be eaten and will not harm you. Generally it is other minor chemicals in plants that are harmful. Going back to the carbohydrate general formula (C.H2O)n , these are open or non cyclic or chain molecules. There are also cyclic molecules with the same formula. I do not know if any of these are harmful, but I would not be suprised if that were the case. Perhaps CharonY , Sensei or Chenbeier has more information here ?

Since you have directly referred to time and the slowing of time, I take it you now accept the existence of time. I know I said you made a fair summary of (special) relativity, but this statement shows a misunderstanding of the most fundamental point of SR. There are at least two frames of reference involved, in this case one for each clock. An observer with each clock would see the other clock slowing down. This is because each clock designates its own frame (including time) in which it does not see itself as slowing down. SR answers the question "How does each clock view circumstances for the other clock?" This is probably the most difficult part of SR to grasp and has been responsible for countless misunderstandings and arguments over more than a century. Perhaps Markus (+1) or swansont can explain it better than I can for you, if you will let them.

I could point out that the Uk is not a member of the EU or necessarily subject to the E-numbers system. But yes, the E-numbers table certainly contains a lot of compact (hidden from the public ?) information. But E-numbers refer to additives not basic ingredients.

Indeed so. Especially if it is misused. What do you think a 'quantum space' and a 'quantum particle' might be ? Are they real or imaginary ? Don't you think that 'quantum' is being overused ?

They certainly are for ingredients. Perhaps I did not make the distinctionbetween ingredients and chemical analyses clear. As I said you are not required to declare the amount of say protein where there is a statutory minimum or a statutory addition.

It's true that in the past the religous establishments sponsored and promoted the best of human arts in pretty well all artistic fields, writing, painting, architecture, sculpture, drama....etc. They still do so today but less prominently. +1

The microwave equivalent of a laser is called a maser. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser

Why are these two statements not in direct opposition ? First you say time is only something which is measured by clocks. then you say it is something which can't be observed, which of course measuring is ? Note I haven't agreed with your opening gambit that the definition you attribute to Physics is correct. Instead I have supplied a definition which more fully, though not necessarily completely, describes the functions and properties of time. Actually I think you will find that Physics (do I know him?) says that time difference is what is measured by clocks, not time itself. There are, in fact, many such quantities that appear twice in the register, once as a difference and once as the quantity itself. Voltage is a classic one, height is another. Failure to make the distinction is the source of much misunderstanding.

Thanks for the informative reply. +1

The rules are quite complicated, as you might guess. Simply put, the basice rule is that every ingredient, except water, must be listed in order of %age composition. So if it's in there, it must be stated. I don't think actual values need be stated, but I would not think much for the reputation of a producer that wouldn't do this. However something described as say beef stew must have more beef in it than anything else ie beef must be the largest single ingredient. The complication comes where there are statutory regulations requiring the inclusion of a certain substance eg B vitamins in bread. Or the regulations may require a minimum content as in pork sausages. In these cases our good government assumes that everybody knows all the regulations, therefore there is no need to print them. So if your 11.1g of non sugar and some of it it was not starch they would have to tell you what it was since edible food ingredients don't contain other carbohydrates, such as the aldehydes chenbeier listed. Do you have reason to believe there is something nasty in it ?

Do you know what you are doing Or are you just creating a smokescreen to avoid penetrating comment? You have not linked anything to my post as you have only posted once (plus of course the quote I have just made) following my post and that single post of yours carries no reference whatsoever to anything I said. Must I wave the rules at you and complain that you refuse to discuss your outrageous proposition that time does not exist ?

In the UK they would have to tell you, though many EU and other foreign suppliers have been allowed to get away with inadequate food labelling in recent times. If you are interested in what is in food and what sensible explanations of the terminology here are two books I recommend. 1) The current version of The Manual of Nutrition, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) Lists official tables of contents/ingredients per 100g and per Kcal and provides a few pages of text explaining technical terms. 2) What Are you Eating ? The food fact file by Isabel Skypala Again UK practice, but the tables are much more comprehensive and includes many branded products. Isabella is a dietician and, as might be expected, offers more detailed advice in comparing.

What a pointless diversion from your topic. Physics and other Sciences observe a myriad of phenomena in the real world and use mathematics to describe them and that same mathmatics to predict the future course of these phenomena. That mathematics uses a common parameter variable we call time. Now how about addressing the comments of myself and all those other members who bothered to read your thread ?

I hope you noticed that the %ages do not add to 100% ! This is because suppliers in the UK are not required state explicitly the water content of foodstuffs. Also the carbohydrate is often split into sugar and starch, with only one declared, so we have Starch = Total carbs 27.2 - Sugars = (27.2 -16.1 ) g Your list also includes a lot of 'fibre'. Now fibre covers a number of substances, some edible, some inedible. Of that fibre most foods have fibre as "non starch polysaccharides" or NSPs. NSPs are chemically also carbohydrates, some of which are edible (eg pectins) some are not (eg cellulose). But some foods, and I think coconuts come into this category, have fibres material that are not strictly carbohydrates So there is this category Fibre which crosses over with the Carbohydrates category. So your lineup is Fat 11.3 Sugars 16.1 Starch 11.1 Fibre 36.5 Protein 15.8 Minerals 02.6 Total 93.4 So the remaining 6.6% must be water. You might like to compare this with standard bread flour which is kept to 14% North Dakota State University has an analysis unit who might have also done coconut flour https://www.ndsu.edu/faculty/simsek/wheat/flour.html If you are interested you might like to email them. So there are no 'missing' carbohydrates in your coconut flour, though some definitely are included under the fibre heading, not the carbohydrate heading. Please also note that if you do a web search to look for water content of foodstuff, using 'moisture' is a better search word than 'water' as 'water' will return mostly recipe information of how much to add in cooking.

I will try to find a fully explained example for you and also look at yours. Meanwhile a photo or scan of the full data on the packet would be helpful please. Edit I also note my formula for carbohydrates got mangled It should of course be (C.H2O)n where is is usually counted as being greater than 4 and represents un unspecific multiple. Sorry about that.

No it's now ancient history. Check the OP date.

Indeed it does, all the way round. Because if it doesn't there would be an accumulation of charge somewhere. Now consider this. Consider a submarine's battery (since bufofrog likes naval examples) Say 12 feet between the negative and positive terminals. So I connect a one inch test resistor between the terminals. Conventional current flows from negative to positive in 8.5% of the circuit and from positive to negative in 91.5%.