studiot

This is the same nonsense you posted in post 3 but you have not answered any of the comments by Strange or myself. For your information, systems identified with entropy and/or energy tend to a state of minimum energy or maximum entropy. Sometimes these objective coincide, sometimes they conflict as with you single cell. Cells obtain nutrients by diffusion, which is driven by increasing entropy. However this is not at the cost of energy expenditure, as you suggest. Cell potential energy actually increases as the diffusion sets up a reverse pressure.

Drunk you say Occifer? I 'aven't 'ad ah drop 'onest. Look you are you an optimist or a pessimist? A pessimist I see. Well I am an optimist and I will show you it's the same thing. You say the glass is half empty, I say it is half full. 1/2 empty = 1/2 full Multiply through by 2 empty = full or 6 empty glasses = 6 full glasses and I have therefore have drunk only 6 empty glasses. (Perhaps this really belongs in the lounge)

Don't you think there is anything else to mathematics then?

Depends what you mean by logic. You have to start with definitions.

Why start with a 'value' and why does existence need to come into it? We define operations, not postulate them. Definitions come first then postulates come after. Postulates refer to something more fundamental than value. Postulates refer to the relationships between defined objects. Preferably one relationship per postulate. A good example of a relationship is connectedness. For instance in a triangle vertex A is directly connected to both other vertices B and C, but in a quadrilateral it is only directly connected to B and D but not directly to C. In fact the triangle is the only polygon for which every vertex is directly connected to every other. You can build up a whole branch of mathematics based on this.

I see what I wrote was ambiguous, apologies for the confusion. Your post#8, specifically the 'container' implies the existence of absolute time and absolute space, both of which are forbidden by relativity. So to rephrase my question Why are you offering absolute time and absolute space?

That sound clever even for cohesive soil. So I assume you have more details about confinement, Coulomb pressures etc? Can you offer a sketch?

So how are you not offering absolute time and absolute space?

Yes that's true but an oscillatory waveform, however complicated, periodically repeats itself. Incidentally I often have to remind myself to say complicated instead of complex in mathematical contexts, to avoid confusion.

Actually post#1 is not a picture of damped linear or non linear oscillations. The point about ian oscillation being periodic is that a frequency can be defined. It is not possible to associate a frequency with the above plot, but thank you for the reply.

While we are on the subject. Molecules are electrically neutral, as are atoms. So even if we could obtain some positively charged ions in the water, why would they attract the carbon dioxide molecules? I did offer you the positive ion that exists even in water and was more completely described by John Cuthber, but you rejected it. So when you offer an explanation of your second failure of logic please do not be as rude as your post #13.

I'm just as concerned as the dynamic duo and can't see how this answers any concerns.

That did not answer my question. How would the water molecules be positively charged and why would they remain so?

Why are the water molecules positively charged or are you referring to what are commonly called the hydroxonium ions in the water?

So you are arguing semantics or terminology, not the effects themselves, which is (I think) what the OP wanted to discuss. If you can agree that the effects themselves (often called time dilation in special relativity) occur and what to call them then the discussion can proceed. Surely this is better than just telling someone they are wrong because they used the wrong word?

Isn't that what is observed by an observer in relative motion to the observed? I think the question arises because for lightspeed relative motion time dilation is infinite or time 'stands still'. There is some 'lively discussion' about what his means in technical circles.

It is interesting because it is nowhere periodic. I was just reading some detail from 'Quadling' who takes great pains to say this is not oscillatory, although it is alternating. I think his point is that a wiggly plot is not necessarily an oscillation.

That is is this function oscillatory?

Perhaps Peter has been reading an article by John Polkinghorne, it sounds like his point of view. On Space and Time Chapter 6 The Nature of Time J Polkinghorne. Editor Majid : Cambridge University Press Isham and Polkinghorene 1993 The debate over the Block Universe Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature Editors Russel, Murphey and Isham : Vatican Observatory

Theoretical, when you presented a mathematical derivation, I started to work through it line by line with the intention of doing this with you. However you were so rude in the thread (to various members) it was closed.

From your other comments I would say yes or that you have been confused by other authors who are pseudo scientific. FYI, Light diffracts round corners (nothing to do with relativity). Its speed depends upon the medium through which it is travelling.. The path of light can also be 'bent' by variations in the medium, we call this refraction. The phrase 'the speed of time' has no meaning, unlike the phrase 'the speed of light', which does.

I don't know of any measurements of the actual values of the constants involved though doubtless the confectionery industry has measured this, but here is a case for invoking Fick's Law. At any given temperature gaseous molecules such as oxygen will have a mobility through chocolate (which can be called a semisolid). The rate of diffusion through a barrier of chocolate will depend upon the diffusion coefficient, the thickness of the barrier, the partial pressure difference of the diffusing gas on each side of the barrier. https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=Fick%27s+Law&gbv=2&oq=Fick%27s+Law&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0l10.1329.3750.0.4282.10.6.0.4.4.0.203.765.0j4j1.5.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..1.9.923.PJYwtUz7Tzs This should be enough to to research the subject further.

Skeptical is one thing, but if all you want to do is sneer this discussion is a waste of time.

How many construction lasers have you seen, used and experimented with? What do you know about the focusing optics of these devices? The one I am referring to was bought for the UK Department of Transport from the Swedish Geodimeter company. It was the first one of its type in the UK. The variation was an oddity I noticed at the time and showed it to several colleague Charterd Engineers. As it caused no difficulty with the job in hand we did not take it further at the time. This actually was not the most dramatic problem with alignment lasers I have come across in my career. The most dramatic was probably the occurrence in steps in the line due to double refraction in a pipe laying trench.

I have no problem understanding the expression Modern and Theoretical Physics. Suppose this was 1864 and Maxwell had just said I have proved some equations about known and observed electric and magnetic phenomena. These equations further lead me to predict that certain conditions will give rise to electromagnetic waves. Since he did say this and it was another couple of decades before Hertz proved his prediction practically I would say that Maxwell's work should have been posted in Modern and theoretical physics, the waves being the theoretical part, since the waves were only known to exist in theory at that time.