Capiert

Yes, (chemicals=molecules, their reaction's) complexity influencing (which) speed (=rate) thus tilting which (tendency) direction, thick or thin. Thanks red is well loved in China.

I get the idea the body can't deal well with (some) molecules like fructose or starch & so stores them as fat. (Versus e.g. glucose.) Instead muscle is broken down easier (or let's say faster, than those difficult fat deposits). During childhood & teens those specific fat deposits might not become noticeable. But later (in life, accumulating) things like "beer bellys" & "bread baskets" become noticeable on some human bodies. Those rounding curves don't get smaller on their own (either). The (natural) tendancy seems to be: getting "fatter" (no matter how hard trying to reduce (fat) weight). Considering: (many processed) foods have fructose (_glucose sirup) added as a sales gimick to get people to eat them (more). Youtube video "Sugar the bitter truth". & that some livestock are eating those foods too, to recycle the waste(d food)s, thus getting more fat. ..& reused. Then the getting fatter tendancy in life, might be explained. E.g. recognized (partially). & a thorough natural fat reduction of the final last fat pounds seems like mission impossible. The bad bugs (=bacteria) are being fed ("faster") by refined (=pure) carbohydrates, meaning they have no stumbling blocks (like vitamins, minerals, ..& other complex things) & we feed on their (bacterial) waste products. What I've observed is various mild acids help reduce body fat: Lemon juice (citric acid) in water, black or green tea (tannic acid), apple cider vinegar (acetic acid), green coffee extract (chlorophylic acid). Some also (reduce) hunger. Ascorbic acid (=Vitamin C (+Zn, time release) + sausage seems to produce muscle! Excess protein? Anti_bacterial? Or is the saltpeter affecting that? Fat is made of fatty acid(s) & glycerin. Maybe the (acidic) pH tips the scale & the body tries to rid or eliminate fat (osmotically: higher concentration to lower? seems doubtful). Competative acidity, as solvent? Or just too much acid sensed, & reserves must be reduced? Maybe (also) bitter (toxifies) body fats, so the body wants to get rid of it, throwing out the fat (bound to bitter) too? I'd be interested in what we could naturally add to e.g. beer; bread; butter which would NOT ruin their flavour, but would also reduce body fat. (Sweet) Beer's strategy with bitter hops does NOT seem to be enough when also eating too. Martin Luther's wife probably boiled the (toasted (=roasted)?) bread crumbs (pieces left over from the mass's loaves) & let it sit (weeks?) to ferment, for beer. ? Otherwise she did NOT rebake the bread pieces & the (fresh=grape juice) wine had the yeast, & she (had) only put the crumbs into water. Cheers

Hi Looking at your data, it looks a little screwy when fully charged (& then discharging) between 26.7 V - 25.8 V = 0.9 V difference is not much mileage (1.8 Miles). ~2 Miles/V. But between 25.7 V - 24.4 V =1.3 V difference you're getting almost a straight line & travelled 13.24 Miles ! You're getting (very) ruffly ~10 Miles per (that) volt discharged. So you can throw away (=forget) the first top 1 volt (as overcharge); or else you have typing errors in the table. Let y=Voltage x=miles b=25.7 V (starting voltage, after the 1st 2 Miles) m=-0.1 V/Mile (slope) y=m*x+b =(-0.1 V/Mile)*13.2 Miles + 25.7 V =24.4 V. That's NOT a curve, so (I guess) it probably will not help you. If you insist on x being the total mileage (but ignore the first 2 miles), maybe y=~(-0.1 V/Mile)*(x-1.8 Miles) + 25.7 V, for when x=1.8 .. 17.1 Miles. I hope that helps a bit. Mofa's_Miles_vs_Battery_Voltage_test data_2018_05_22_2305_PS_Wi.xls

What do you need or want to see. I set up the equation, I'm an interpreter. What doesn't work? The crux is probably angle. Do you have an equation (e.g. y wrt) for angle (not a Taylor series) that I can deal with? I'll assume you have interpretted mass "defects" differently from me. Do you mean (various) communication delays (against their synchronizations)? I can't quite imagine what the problem(s) is. Analogy, math multiple (or fraction, depending on how you want to do the math, is) to ruffly the G period. The result is closer to G than A. It's only a comparison.

Sorry I didn't get your pun. Now I've got it. All I can say is math fractions to the musical note frequencies can be calculated as periods, even though those periods are not acoustic notes. See above again, please. The G is an annalogy. Please excuse my mistakes. Or worse per year. Pity.

1 siderial day~86164 s (23 h 56 m 4 s) stars side divided by 2^41 gives 389.425 Hz (as harmonic, but lower than concert pitch (A4 440 Hz) G4 391.995 Hz). http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-notenames.htm That frequency has a period, (&) it'(i)s a rythem, which is part of (the) music, The drummer has to hold (=maintain) the beat (rythem) (synchronized) to keep the song working right. Rythems are sub_harmonics. Seen from the rythem (=lower frequency, perspective), the musical notes are the harmonics (octaves, of (the) circle of 5ths (=3x the fundamentals, =2nd harmonics). (Sorry, I didn't catch the pun. ?) Yeh, the French didn't have digital watchs back then, & more than 5 (decimal) digits is needed to do (=convert, time) seconds well. I think we get by, don't we? Everybody knows what 24 hrs is, just to get to work. It's only a (math) conversion (for atomic clocks). But that( all i)'s only a precusor (=substitute) for binary decimal time.

Thanks for the links. Btw The "decimal (earth) day" (=24 hrs, which is a lowered musical G) could also be used as a (new alternative) notation for time, with the same (decimal) method. Unfortunately, that does NOT work well for an earth year (which is a musical C#, +/-2 days).* Maybe a (small) "d" prefix, (could be used, indicating (earth) "day"); not to be confused with (large) "D" (Diameter), hieroglyphic. The only thing missing now for (new) standards of "space"(&)time orientation**, would be maybe a (simple) hydrogen wave"length". *1900 Planck believed the atom was musical =harmonically constructed. (I can't find the (German) quote.) ** Better sequenced: (angle) length time. (To be thorough=consistent.)

Hi Strange thanks for the links. Please continue. You sound like you have an interesting life. What do you do?

Unfortunate, that you didn't notice I used 4 (*1/4=1), so you complain when you don't understand. Because it is a well known & used standard. Habit? But since you don't know my preference, it would not have been acceptable (for e.g. you). You are (conservative, &) NOT interested in anything new that will also do the job. It's (a compacter syntax, &) just another (syntax) way to express angle. 1 cycle=360 degrees, so you can imagine o.5=180 degrees o.25=90 degrees. The o (for circle) comes before the decimal (dropping the redundant zero); as most left side (unlike the raised degree symbol written (on the) right above) o1=360 degrees o2=720 degrees. o1.25=450 degrees. It's useful when discussing wavelength's & their phase angle delay, as a non_integer composite=combination (without plus symbol). Unfortunately, I have to tell you (to your discuss[ion]=discussed=disgust) I made it up, = I created it because I have NOT found it anywhere else, & I know how much you do NOT like my creations=works=efforts. But you asked for it. No. Not related. Should I call you Father (=Daddy, or Rev(erend), for your belief (in Physics))? Please suggest a few. You've got a pretty good idea where I stand, or at least you think you do. You can not stop my head from turning off, when there are so=too many counter intuitive ideas, as a mess. Mission impossible, & your learning strategy is old outdated. Nowadays you hook people with curiosity, NOT old fashsioned dicipline. Many many decades ago, teachers stopped beating (up) their pupils. Nowadays a bit of psychology is used, marketing & advertizing. Humour & entertainment are important. "Thou shalt not bore." 11th commandment of TV, Radio, & profit_see. Ok daddy.

What do you mean there? That 1 doesn't look useful (=interesting, for my intentions). Those look interesting. Yes if you mean the binary relations. That's the interesting thing, orientation. The do's & don't's. I firmly believe, we learn from our mistakes (too); & if we have learned our lesson in life well, (then) we will NEVER make the same mistake again. The do's & don't are both ends of the arrow. The don't (=errors) reinforce & confirm which direction correct should be. E.g. "Which direction is warmer", not necessarilly hot, (if you want to put it into child's language). I generally stumble into every pothole that is possible. But that's subjective testing. At least I'm reassured I don't have to go that way again in the future. I suppose (with a few clues) we (=I) can evaluate which direction is right. Indicatores exist. But I suppose your problem is you are impatient with such a method because it does NOT fit you timing scheme, & expectations. We're all learning, & each at their own speed. Each person has there own strengths & weaknesses. You may be an ace in physics, & the fastest bunny on 2 feet; but an absolute looser in some other faculty, or quality of life. That's all part of being human. I thought they were a convenient unit for calculating stellar distances, (similar to the way wavenumbers are convenient notation). The degree is also NOT my preference. Decimal cycle is. How can non_sense be ignorant? (when People are). What purpose is info (to me) if I can NOT use it. I can only digest info that "I" am capable of. What is the purpose to learn things I will never use nor need? Should education be infinite for a finite life? I think it is meaningful to attack=tackle things from where we are. Are you trying to play the parental role? Yes, that is an interesting proposal. But who can afford it, where do I find it? & will I be bored? (Boredom is a diluted form of pain, & is (emotional) stress, & noticed as uncomfortable. Boredom is NOT rewarding, & turns off the mind, so the message doe NOT sink in. I doubt that I am a masochist; although being here sometimes I have my doubts. Especially with the software.) I wouldn't be this way if I didn't get bored or loose track (in all the confusion). You guys blew it with a (scattered=) "non"_unified field. Oh! Now we're getting subjective. (I prefer my 6th.)

I don't follow you there. Would you like to state a few examples (please)? Maybe it would occur to me then, why they would NOT be interesting to me & why I prefer my selection, in order to explain (to you) my preferences. 1 reason (=goal) is also to establish the (decimal) cycle (notation, syntax) for angle. I suspect I might better interpret binary angle (for myself). Said differently, looking at things from a different perspective (in a simpler syntax) I might get an aha (experience). I'm not cean on the astronomical radian syntax, because it is redundant. I.e. there is too much (garbage=luggage) there. We live with many metric & decimal units. But NOT everything is done=measured so to that=those standards. I prefer to experiment with other( method)s, & simplifying. Quite right. If I can follow (=understand, or comprehend) 1 component, then the 2nd component is (almost) guaranteed (to be similar, (but) just delayed by 90 degrees e.g. 1/4 of a cycle. Thus the 1/4 selection (& the factor 4) is not random but instead with intention. You simply had not recognized that it was (so, for my choice). Yes, but I still can NOT follow only the parts to my satisfaction. Yes, that's why I am disappointed & pursue my search to make it (=Cartesian x & y) work=fit as I would like to have=see it. Maybe you could explain what you mean there? I assume you mean angular speed (there, e.g. polar coordinates); & (there, you mean) the vectors (e.g. Cartesian x vs y components) of the ((polar) angular) speed. I hope that helps (you, as an explaination)? Does it?

If that's not clear, I mean the non_linear ("part of") acceleration is maximum at 50 degrees. I.e. Excluding the linear (acceleration) portion. It is a more dynamic part of acceleration. I do NOT know its properties well enough yet. I.e. Changes of changes (of changes..). That's understandable (for me) til here. But the y "component" (of the mark on the rotating disc) has non_linear acceleration. So that statement sounds ambiguous, & confusing. (COM & COE Balance without trig.). The y_component's speed(s) & acceleration(s). A disc rotating at constant angular speed has x & y components which are variable (changing) speeds. I'm curious how I can solve (what values) the angle, the speed & the accelerations (are) for a single component, e.g. y component. Later they get applied to the mass in the disc. E.g. a single atom on the circumference. Both components are at 90° to each other, but you use the 3rd axis (virtually) for problems like that. I want irrational exponent(ial) acceleration capability.

The linear part is a straight line drawn from 0 degrees (value y=0) to 90 degrees (value y=1) using the fraction of a cycle (angle theta in degrees divided by 360 degrees) then multiplied by 4. Let the decimal angle A=theta/(360 degrees). That linear (straight) line('s y value) is 4*theta/(360 degrees). The non_linear part (=Difference) dif=(Sin (theta) - (4*theta/(360 degrees)) is simply the sin of the angle theta (then) minus the linear part. I've split them in 2 so I can look at each separately. I haven't seen non_linear (acceleration) physics delt with much. I also have NOT seen a simple equation for angle, either. Most are Taylor series. You probably know I do NOT like endless series very much. E.g. The sooner you start to solve them (by counting to infinity), the sooner you will be finished. I don't like approximations (for precision) either unless I am lazy, &/or (when) things are too complicated. The main reason is I do not (yet) have a (simple) continuum between linear & rotational motion. So I have split up the structure (of motion) to interogate more. Physics has split things into non_ & Eulclidian geometry to get around that big problem. I.e. built a wall, not a bridge. I see the problem similar to the Stern_Gerlach experiment. An electron moving thru a (static) magnetic where the intensity changes wrt position, is acted on like a moving magnetic field exists to push the electron either up or down depending on which side of the (gradient) change (left or right) is an increasing or decreasing magnetic field. Shoot the beam only into 1 half of the gradient (either left or right side) then the beam will go in only 1 direction either up or down; but it won't split into 2. I attempted to break up the acceleration into its (linear & non_linear) components, also. At least you're honest. The formulas are repeated in the cells, & produce trackable results to figure things out if needed, e.g. a working example if doubt arise. The results speak for themselves, we get the same results with more (e.g. 6) decimal accuracy. =So my values are NOT wrong, but instead confirm yours. 0.011111 Linear +0.006341 non_linear =0.017451 total 0.555556 -0.544444 =0.011112 linear 0.210489 -0.210265 =0.000224 non_linear 0.01222 linear +0.000224 non_linear =0.011336 total I'm sorry, but I still can't trust it completely yet. I can't say I can enjoy that statement for variable (non_constant) acceleration. SIN_minus_4DA_max_50_degrees_2018_05_21_1552_PS_Wi_(6_Decimals).xlsx

I.e. For the ideal body mass. We can round k~18 for simplicity.

Scalability[edit] BMI is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the square of the height. So, if all body dimensions double, and mass scales naturally with the cube of the height, then BMI doubles instead of remaining the same. This results in taller people having a reported BMI that is uncharacteristically high, compared to their actual body fat levels. In comparison, the Ponderal index is based on the natural scaling of mass with the third power of the height. However, many taller people are not just "scaled up" short people but tend to have narrower frames in proportion to their height. Carl Lavie has written that, "The B.M.I. tables are excellent for identifying obesity and body fat in large populations, but they are far less reliable for determining fatness in individuals."[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index BMI scales poorly. It's poorly proportioned for the human body. I'll assume most people are neither round like a ball, nor flat like a pancake. Sensei, the same wiki page (chart) also include BMI=25 as normal (limit), as well as overweight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index So there is chaos in (either wiki? &/or) BMI. International variations[edit] These recommended distinctions along the linear scale may vary from time to time and country to country, making global, longitudinal surveys problematic. Hong Kong[edit] The Hospital Authority of Hong Kong recommends the use of the following BMI ranges:[16] Category BMI (kg/m2) from to Underweight 18.5 Normal Range 18.5 23 Overweight—At Risk 23 25 Overweight—Moderately Obese 25 30 Overweight—Severely Obese 30 The waist to height ratio indicates fatness better. That only needs some factor(ing coefficient) to set the ratio to 1=100%. but use k=18.1 (instead of 20) we will get: sqrt(1.9)*1.9*1.9*18.1 = 90 kg.

0.011 Linear +0.00634 non_linear =0.01734 total 0.556 -0.544 =0.012 linear 0.21049 -0.21027 =0.00022 non_linear 0.012 +0.00022 =0.01222 total I suspect you are complaining about the inconsistent number of decimal places & rounding errors in excel. How do you deal with non_linear acceleration? (Numerically). Especially when your calculus is an approximation?

Not necessarilly. You can bend the details as you need. Yes, which BMI to use for the ideal is a matter of choice. I've selected 20 (rounded up), because it's an easy number to remember for calculators (instead of accurate). But you can use the (exact) smaller BMI value, if you want; nobody is stopping you. I've showed how I set up the (simple) formula, so it can be fine tuned. BMI is a guideline, but I find it extremely awkward especially for people who don't know it. My (major) point is the height exponent works better with 2.5; NOT 2 ! Why NOT setup the formula (as a ruff rule of thumb) on that basis? I know the exponent "2" is simpler mathematically, but it failed for the purpose of a simple (universal) formula that gives a mass anywhere near what is needed without changing BMI's (=the coefficient radically). Naturally, The devil is in the details, fat %, age, sex, health. Sometime we're going to have to modernize.

My results indicate the y acceleration is non_linear. But that's obvious.

m [kg] = 20 * (h^2.5) The ideal body mass (ibm) in kilograms is (ruffly) the height h in meter(s) to the exponent 2.5, multiplied by the (nice) BMI (body mass index) ~20 [kg/(m^2)]. E.g. m=k*(h^exp), Both constants(' values, & (their) units): k=BMI (with per rooted meter), e.g. 20 [kg/(m^2.5)]; & exponent exp (2.5) can be varried for differences in age, sex, fitness muscle training. I don't see why we should perpetuate such an awkward system as the BMI (tables etc) when people simply want to know what they should weigh (in mass) for good health. Good luck Best wishes. P.S. Simply type your height (in meters) in a calculator, root it, multiply by your height, multiplied by your height, multiplied by 20. (root h) * h * h * 20 = m. Formally: m [kg] = 20 [kg/(m^2.5)] * ((h [m])^2.5).

What's wrong? I've used an alternative method to test the validity of your math. I've eliminated the linear portion to examine (e.g. magnify) the curvature better. That's what I did, (but) subtracting the linear part 1st. I.e. 4 times the quarter cycle=1 (=100 %). 4 times zero cycle=0 (0 %). From 0 to 100 % was a straight line, which I removed, to see the curve better. Linear+curvature=total (y). That (method of mine) leaves (=left, only) the curvature (=non_linear part) remaining (as fine tuning). (Are you saying your own proposal is non_sense?)

My intention was only to satisfy my curiosity if Relativity was necessary because of rotary motion because I don't get further on the idea. I did not include the 50 degree problem except to indicate the type of answers I was looking for. As you can assume non correlation unless Mach's ideas are still open. Your slopes may be that, but my calculations show y speed changes: (from increasing) to decreasing, at 50 degrees. Maybe you can suggest an appropriate (new) thread name (& where), to clarify the error.

Thanks for the link. It does seem to be (rather) involved just to describe a Foucault pendulum. E.g. The tendency to continue moving in (apparently) a straight line wrt the stars (average position) approximated as (ruffly) fixed. (We all know they are moving, & very fast, though.) As you can see from the excel table (given), a mark on a rotating disc would have a variable y speed. Assuming the radius has 1 unit (e.g. 1 m). The y distance travelled per degree varries. The largest distance is between 49 to 50 degrees, & 50 to 51 degrees. I've assumed the time duration is identical between each (single) degree (for constant rotational speed). I've only (manually tracked=) compared the y displacement for the 1st quarter of a cycle assuming constant rotational speed. The other parts of the cycle can also be done in the same way, if needed. I wanted a feel (ruff idea) for the real speed, component(s). Does the derivative look like my graph's (asymmetric) curve? No? I've discussed that I don't trust your calculus (in other threads), concerning the +C error's definition (=my derivation).

Rotational Velocity defies COM (conservation of momentum) & COE (conservation of energy) & is 1 of the strangest things to solve because of its non_linear acceleration. Based on Pythagoras('s 90 degree triangle) coe & com don't add (up). (But) Is that why we need relativity? Einstein made a peculiar remark in ch21 (1920) commenting (that) Ernst Mach (had) recognized the rotational energy problem the most.(?) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_General_Theory/Part_II#Section_21_-_In_What_Respects_are_the_Foundations_of_Classical_Mechanics_and_of_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity_Unsatisfactory Does anyone know what he was talking about there (about what Mach had recognized, exactly)? I've been trying for years to make coe & com balance (linearly) but it just doesn't work. I also know the Sine's acceleration peak's at 50 degrees. E.g. Which reminds me of the Tornado region for Oklahoma & Kansas latitude (angle). Thanks in advance. SIN_minus_4DA_max_50_degrees_2016_12_15_1313_PS_Wi.xlsx

But they are (related) equatable. That from the the h*f (equation), 1 of the units "per second" must represent frequency. Why doesn't the other, also? I'd say back engineering. I'd say: leads you back "up" to (pinpoint) the errors. =The errorful path. Or in your version: get (down) to the bottom of the problem. Bingo! You said it: consistent. We both know angle(s) plays an important role there, too often underestimated as not being its (=an) own parameter. Instead you use vectors. c=f*L substitution. Why should that substitution be restricted to only once, when twice is possible? You argue that "per second" does not have to be frequency, but we have recognized f in the h*f=KE equality (=substitution), KE~m*(v^2)/2, or E=m*(c^2). That if we substitute c=f*L (once), what pervents its 2nd substitution in E=m*(c^2)?

Please identify which "per second" of the (kinetic) energy('s equivalent) is the frequency's; & which "per second" is for e.g. a speed from the h*f formula. I can NOT distinguish it. Can you? What is the reason for the break in symmetry & the discontinuity? Are you sure? I see the units, as excellent clues (=hints), when consistency is disrupted. Why should nature make exceptions (to her rules)? Please explain the asymmetry.