Genady

Not sure in this case. They refer to 8.6 keV, which assumes a precision of 10% rather than 100%, I think. Also, they compare to the previous max of 5 keV, which means that a factor of ~2 is not ignorable.

What part don't you understand?

Google it.

But not F.

This is what happens if the pencil is pulled to the right: and to the left: How to get it out?

I can speculate in good faith. You don't do it in good faith, this is a point. You are playing, not discussing.

You are right. At least, it is agreed that it is incorrect to say, degrees Kelvin, isn't it?

This is math.... simple math. Pointing to 4/2 = 2 as math in this thread is one more evidence that OP doesn't discuss in a good faith.

Here, the OP is trying to sneak their religious believes into the science discussion.

"It appears the colonel's comments were taken out of context and were meant to be anecdotal."

Your thinking is mistaken. You have never explained it, partially or fully. You have only declared it. Nothing. You get nothing. Do you understand the logic: "particles are excitations of something" does not mean that "excitations of something are particles"? I have looked at your answer again. You have not explained what you say you have. You are not discussing in a good faith. You violate the rules of discussions on this forum.

You are right. OTOH, e.g., Kelvin - Wikipedia

Here comes the GOD.

I was taught that the correct phrase is "100 million kelvins" rather than "100 million degrees Kelvin."

Please, do. This is just another meaningless statement.

No respect to the meaningless blabbering.

I've prepared a simple toy: It consists of a pencil and a string that goes through a hole in the pencil and makes a loop. The ends of the string are glued together. The loop is shorter than the long end of the pencil: so, it can't be moved over it. Then, I insert the pencil through the buttonhole like this: This is how it looks from the other side: I can separate them again and repeat without cutting, breaking, untying, etc. Can you figure it out? I can take more pictures, from different angles, if you need. There are no hidden cuts or anything like it. You can make it yourself.

Rito.

I wonder, who is the author of this article. It says, Marinos Spiliopoulos1 1Biology Professor but I couldn't find anything about this "professor" on Internet. Professor where? What does he do? There is another unpublished paper of the same author a bit later in the same year, https://scholar.archive.org/work/y36sw2o7znbc5b2cbzudoyydkm, also about a relation between numbers (not prime this time) and biology. Rather than "Biology Professor" it says, Marinos Spiliopoulos1 1Affiliation not available Fake?

I doubt there is any meaningful relation between biology and prime numbers. I am sure that in my MSc program in biology, prime numbers have been never mentioned in any of the classes.

If you understand what is dx, then dx is just f(x)dx in the case when f(x)=1.

It is an expression which has a meaning as a part of something, e.g., of an integral.

You do not calculate it. It is not a number.

It also might help to be familiar with this theoretical physicist's advice: How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist (goodtheorist.science)

Your question is too vague. Also, it is in a wrong forum, so it is not even clear if you're talking about time in physics, time in psychology, or something else.