swansont

“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.

Provide some evidence that this happens, or some reason - backed by some physics - to think it would happen That does not result in negative energy. Trivially so; we define a zero-energy condition (typically potential energy), and remove some energy. But that zero energy is an arbitrary choice - we choose zero for convenience - and are usually interested in energy differences between states, so the negative sign doesn’t matter. Some energies are positive definite, such as mass energy and kinetic energy.

What does the testosterone range have to do with sex being a continuum? The fact that there is a range supports the notion that there is a spectrum.

I was just about to add a comment about how the article was centered on reproduction, and yes, for humans, it’s binary situation. But we aren’t discussing that particular sport.

Even this article acknowledges that there are a lot of biologists who consider sex to be a spectrum. It’s right there in the abstract, where they appeal to the slippery slope. They are arguing, basically, that everybody else is wrong, despite the many details they admit to in the article. “For example, in 2015, Nature published an article entitled “Sex redefined,” stating that the concept of two sexes is too simplistic and that sex is actually a graded spectrum” But, hey, Nature is just some second- or third-rate journal.

This is circular reasoning. Most of us are one sex if you only have already limited the options to two. We’re back to biology-for-beginners, ignoring the more nuanced picture. “Sex refers to a set of factors that determine whether an individual is considered biologically female, male, or intersex. These factors include chromosomes, genes, internal and external sex organs, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics (such as breasts for females or facial hair for males).” https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/ If you limit it to chromosomes, you have two options that cover ~98%. If you include genes and hormones, etc, you have a spectrum.

“yet” implies we expect to. We don’t. We have added large amounts of energy to particles - many times their rest energy - and they travel at speeds close to, but not meeting or exceeding c. As expected by the theory of relativity. At c, the gamma is undefined. IIRC the Casimir effect can be solved without encountering infinities; you don’t sum the series. You look at the terms left over when you exclude a finite number of modes of the vacuum. Transforming anything into dark energy or dark matter is a huge leap that would require some testable mechanism rather than a waving of the hands.

We won’t care, because they will all have married their dogs.

“It is estimated that up to 1.7 percent of the population has an intersex trait” https://www.americanprogress.org/article/key-issues-facing-people-intersex-traits/#:~:text=It is estimated that up,identifiable sexual or reproductive variations.

Alternatively, it could be A. "I want to be regarded as a woman" B. "Fine.”

It wasn’t a yes or no question EVEN IF we go with the simplistic biology-for-beginners definition based on chromosomes, there’s the underlying question, noted a few posts back by The Vat, of the more complicated genetics - that there are genetic differences between these nominal categories of men and women, and differences between cis- and transgender people. Studies have shown this*. But that doesn’t come up because of the refusal to engage in any actual science discussion and instead relying on “as far as I’m concerned” and “this doesn’t match the reality that I observe” which sidesteps the science. * for example, see https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm

We’ve been over this. Did you not understand my response, did you forget, or is there some third option?

You haven’t shown that this isn’t about some other rare case, so this claim isn’t true. You’ve just asserted that it’s true. You continue to avoid the fact that you haven’t defined what makes one to be a man (or woman). It’s a problem of trying to treat a complex issue as if it were a simple issue. iNow has highlighted one manifestation of this. Swyer syndrome is one example of being intersex, not the only one.

Google scholar might be a way to find more citations, which would tell you something about this.

Hans87 has been banned as a sockpuppet of gamer87, mariob87 and carlosfan87

I wasn’t sure what you were pointing towards. It’s why I asked for clarification. All I did was give a definition. If anyone made you look like a bigot, it’s you, with what you wrote. Well, “targeted above any other” isn’t what I claimed; that’s your strawman. I claimed they were targeted for who they are. Brown and black people have been targeted for the color of their skin. Jews have been targeted because they are Jews. This issue isn’t that trans people are targeted more, it’s that they are targeted at all. It’s not like there is some (non-zero) acceptable level of such behavior, IMO. It’s hard to imagine that one could participate in this discussion and need such a citation. https://www.hrc.org/resources/fatal-violence-against-the-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-community-in-2022 “In 2021, the Human Rights Campaign tracked a record number of violent fatal incidents against transgender and gender non-conforming people — with 50 fatalities tracked.” One can’t answer them without having defined the categories. And a definition that covers most but not all people does us no good, because the discussion is about the people that fall into the grey area.

In my educational path, you were expected to know algebra when you took calculus. It was a prerequisite. Pre-calc included algebra and trigonometry

You’ve covered the fact that you have no definition, and I’m not claiming there is one. Without a definition, any assertion about “real” men or women is a bad-faith argument Because the thread is about gender (specifically, transgender), so sex is moot, and yet you keep referring to it. Which is a slippery-slope argument. It’s not like cheating and/or subterfuge is a new thing. No matter what set of rules are adopted, there will be people who try to cheat, so potential cheating isn’t a legitimate reason for not adopting a rule. Any attempt to divide sex or gender into two categories will fail, because there will always be exceptions. It is, as I already stayed, a false dichotomy. The evidence for this has been presented in the thread more than once. Beyond that, my position is that your claims are largely unsupported. If someone other than you has asserted this, feel free to point out where. I think one of the differences here are things that some people want to be true, but can’t actually support with science or evidence, and the people asking for that evidence.