uncool

I don't see the word "vector', which is the relevant part of the statement I am asking about, in those posts. You are the one who first used it in the context of whether the Lorentz factor is one.

I'll ask in a slightly different way: what point were you trying to make with the statement "Besides that the Lorentz factor is not a vector."?

17 minutes ago, TakenItSeriously said:

I really don’t know. Ask Strange, he brought it up.

No, you did. You are the one who said "Besides that the Lorentz factor is not a vector." I'm asking you, who said it, how that statement is relevant.

The Lorentz factor is always taken to be positive. 

How does the Lorentz factor being a scalar affect this argument?

Whether 0^0 = 1 is a matter of convention, and depends on the context. For example, if the power is held constant and the base variable (as in the case of Taylor series), the convention is 0^0 = 1. If the base is constant and the power variable (but positive), the convention is 0^0 = 0. 

I found several more by googling <bijection 0 1 1 infinity> (without the braces), so...

Infinity is usually not thought of as a number; though there are some cases where you can think of it as a number, those cases treat infinity in different ways, meaning that to answer your question, I'd have to ask what you are trying to do with these "numbers".

From what I've seen lawyers saying, that's not what the bill says. Specifically, the relevant portion of the bill says:

Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work.

It says they can't be penalized based on religious content. Not that they can't be penalized for getting the question wrong, or for not answering the question in the relevant way. 

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

It is also the begin of the hexadecimal system for measuring time. Less than a second are measured in /100. Which is completely bogus.

sexadecimal. Hexadecimal = base 16; sexadecimal = base 60. Also, time is measured in very mixed base; 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day, 365.25odd days in a year, and (mostly) decimal from that point on. 

13 minutes ago, Clay Gillespie said:

Well it’s sort of disagreeing with rocks grind together and form planet theory. 

So your dispute isn't with subatomic physics, but with cosmology (and cosmogony) alone?

3 hours ago, uncool said:

So is your "theory" a new theory which disagrees with current physics, or is it an explanation of some outcome of current physics?

17 minutes ago, Clay Gillespie said:

All right F is force G. What’s that.

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

G is the gravitational constant

1 hour ago, Clay Gillespie said:

It admits itself to easy investigation. This is what we already know, these are more like tenets.

So is your "theory" a new theory which disagrees with current physics, or is it an explanation of some outcome of current physics?

Do you have any evidence to back up this "theory"?

8 minutes ago, Clay Gillespie said:

And yes it is well tested. 

Can you cite those tests?

Gravity does not "always act[...] as an opposing force to inertia", which you'd know if you ever went skydiving. Gravity is a conservative force, and in a universe with just gravity, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are possible. The force that "opposes inertia" (more precisely, that equalizes velocities) is friction. 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

You obviously can't do it for primes, by definition.

You seem to be assuming only integer solutions are acceptable, which seems unwarranted.

You can find a real a and b as long as x is at least 4 or negative.

1 hour ago, Edgard Neuman said:

Hi,

 

I read an article about infinities, and as always, I don't get it.
The writer says : "℘(ℕ)" and "ℕ" are not in bijection..

but, it seems easy to me to create a bijection :


You take the binary writing of a number, and you take the rank integer that correspond to each 1

0 <=> {}

1 <=> {0}

2 <=> {1 }
3 <=>  {0 ; 1 }
4 <=> { 2 }

...
259 <=> { 0; 1 ; 8  }
..

etc and so on

you have an integer for each set of integer and vice-versa, isn't it a bijection ?

So what did I got wrong ?

 

 

Because for any integer n, the corresponding subset of N will be finite.

Which integer corresponds to the set of even integers?

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

Ya, he founded quantum mechanics, so anything that deals with his work has to be quantized.

No.

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

I have read from different authors in theoretical physics that what Max Planck did is the definition of quantization. 

"What Max Planck did" included many things beyond defining a set of units. 

29 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It just doesn't need to be quantised by other special methods, which I don't much about.  Then it doesn't have to be quantized by any special means, because it is already quantized.  

It isn't quantized, because what you've said isn't what "quantized" means. 

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

There you go, quantum gravity made easy. 

No.

3 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I would say that the gravitational constant of the universe being put into Planck Units would surely qualify for that one.

It doesn't. 

What values or states are restricted by choosing a unit system?

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

I wasn't aware that he quantized the gravitational constant of the universe, so that is why I asked. 

Again, he didn't, because that's not what "quantized" means.

"In 1898, Max Planck discovered that action is quantized, and published the result in a paper presented to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in May 1899.^[24][25] At the end of the paper, Planck introduced, as a consequence of his discovery, the base units later named in his honor. The Planck units are based on the quantum of action, now usually known as Planck's constant. Planck called the constant b in his paper, though h (or ħ) is now common. Planck underlined the universality of the new unit system [...]"

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

Do you know if it was Max Planck that created this expression, or was it done by someone else?

"this" expression?