swansont

E =-m0c^2 is just something you made up; it’s not what the equation says ! Moderator Note And you were told not to bring this up again.

This is intersex, so this is outside of the binary categories. If you read and understand the article you’ve mentioned, you’d possibly gain a clue. I don’t see how 0.018% is all that divergent from 0.02%–0.05%. One obvious difference in the definitions (in articles 17 years apart) is that one includes hormonal abnormalities and the other doesn’t Yeah, you’d have to read the abstracts of a couple of citations in the Wikipedia article, in addition to the article. Truly Herculean.

I didn’t write the wikipedia article, so I’m not claiming anything about the numbers, but if you read (and understand) what was written, you might notice that the numbers are referenced to specific descriptions, which differ. i.e. if you use one particular definition of intersex, you get one range of numbers. If you use another, you get different numbers. Which is consistent with the later comment “There is no clear consensus definition of intersex and no clear delineation of which specific conditions qualify an individual as intersex”

Yes, really. It says “Other conditions involve atypical chromosomes, gonads, or hormones” meaning that the ambiguous genitalia category is a subset of intersex individuals. That’s what “other conditions” implies And, since this hasn’t sunk in, I will repeat: the spectrum discussion isn’t about intersex individuals.

I’ll ask you to define “woke” as well. That’s not the extrapolation. Ambiguous genitalia is a subset of the intersex category. (you can read the next passage in the wikipedia article, where they discuss “other conditions”) That wasn’t what the discussion of a spectrum was referring to. Yes, your strawman was silly.

Two observations I recall from discussing locks with colleagues: 1. Locks keep honest people honest (i.e. they won’t succumb to temptation). Locks make it more difficult to gain access, not impossible. 2. One function of a lock is to make it obvious that someone has broken in. (Important e.g. if you are safeguarding information, which is something that could be copied without being physically removed.)

This came up in another thread https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132052-tired-light-split-from-entropy-energy-and-the-speed-of-light/ They did a fit to some data, but now what has to happen is seeing if other data fits the model.

When you write down a function it needs to be valid for any value of the variables. Not just at one, particularly when it diverges. Units matter. ! Moderator Note Since you’re just repeating this nonsense, there’s no point in the thread remaining open. Do not bring this up again

If v=c you do not have a valid equation 1/c-v is a function, valid for v≠c. If you choose v=c (or any fixed value) you do not have a function. You can do one or the other. Not both. Functions are not equal simply because they both diverge to the same limit. x and x+2 both go to infinity, but x ≠ x+2

We’ve been discussing it for some time now. You refuse to acknowledge it, but you can’t arbitrarily add or subtract numbers that do not have the same units. “2” is unitless 1/c-v is not infinite; you can graph it and see that it tends to infinity as v approaches c, but you wrote is as a function. x+2 is not infinite either. You can’t arbitrarily set them equal to each other, and can’t use them as equations where x and v are variables, because you aren’t treating them as variables. It also looks like you are saying that two functions that tend to infinity in some limit are equal, which is just wrong.

Which isn’t a language issue; the math is just flat-out wrong.

It doesn’t work that way. The notion that you can multiply one side of the equation by some factor and think it remains an equality underscores how ridiculous this assertion is.

x+2 = 1/(c-v) isn’t valid, because the units don’t match.

Then provide this derivation.

You did not “arrive” at your equation from accepted physics principles. You made it up. Particle accelerators test what happens when you accelerate particles all the time. Your formula can’t be tested because it’s not a valid equation.

! Moderator Note Material for discussion must be posted, and speculation must be supported with evidence

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum, not your blog

“arrive at” implies it was derived. You’ve just written it down.

How much are they going to charge you?

Physics uses math, so it is kind of silly to say that zero exists in math but not physics. We set terms in equations to zero all the time. Repeating this doesn’t make it true.

If the tire skids, the friction is doing work, which will heat the tire. This will possibly change the coefficient of friction, and also possibly damage it. A larger tire minimizes the temperature increase. A larger tire can also have a lower pressure; a temperature increase could also cause problems, possibly rupturing the tire. And the equation F= uN is likely an approximation, so there may actually be an increase in friction for such high-performance tires.

c = 3 x 10^8 ms, but also 3 x 10^5 km/s and 186,000 miles/sec. You could convert it to furlongs/fortnight. You can represent it in many ways with different units. c-1 makes no mathematical sense E=mc^2 is true only at rest You still have not derived your equation - you just wrote it down. That’s not how physics is done.

I don’t know what this means. c has units, so c-1 makes no mathematical sense. And it looks like you just threw a minus sign in there, with no justification. Perhaps it would be better to ask if you can derive the equations.

You mean like the proton-antiproton collider that operated at CERN for a decade, with no hint of any missing particles?

And it’s not the only variable. It doesn’t include how efficiently the body utilizes the testosterone, for one.