Leaderboard

Yes, there is an error. After you set c=v on line 5, you get m0c/0 on line 6. Anything after that is meaningless, because there is no such thing as dividing by 0.

Your link, didn't you read it? They assert that: They elaborate on this, but the point is that: I.e. if biological sex is a process, we cannot use it to categorize individual persons as a whole throughout all the stages of their life. I.e. trying to apply it would mean to classify a menopausal woman to a different biological sex as she was before. Also the binary classification would exclude sterile/asexual individuals, which makes sense to a certain degree from an population evolutionary viewpoint. But it becomes useless on an individual level (remember in evolution we think about populations, not individuals). I.e. they assert that there are only two biological sexes in humans (large and small gametes), yet they also say that we cannot use it for the types of classification we try to do it here, at which point the authors point to the use of gender, instead. Also important to note, the authors make not claims regarding other sexual features beyond gamete development, in fact, they assert they can change between species or even within species throughout their lifetime.

recently a dialogue about webb telescope findings has been going on speculating that the age of the universe is twice previous estimate of 13.7 b years. The discrepancy seems indicated by early star and galaxy formations appearing much older than standard bb model. Since light is affected by gravity, could not the mass of the early universe cause an additional red shift factor adding to the well measured expansion of space? Would not such a far away and immense combined mass function as to simulate a dispersed black hole effect acting upon light beams observed here?

My Dunning-Kruger effect sensor went off the scale here. Your handling of units and zero/infinity is appaling.

! Moderator Note No. They don't have the same units. You've had 5 pages to persuade us that your idea has merit, and this isn't the first mistake you've made. You aren't going to be able to convince anyone unless you show more rigor in your explanation. If you can't do that, we'll have to close this thread.

Embarrased or not, your teacher was not so far wrong. Car Tyres are indeed an entirely different case. Not only that but there are further complications I will try to elaborate. The friction theory they teach at elementary level only refers to the contact of dry solids. Some textbooks and teachers make this point, some do not. A car tyre is in general neither solid nor dry ! The study of forces involved between bodies in contact is called tribology. Furthermore a car is a dynamical system, with constantly changing velocities, directions and accelerations. More of this later. Here is a well produced table by Professor Sir Charles Inglis of Cambridge University. Note very carefully what he says about reactions and contact area. You were taught only the left hand column. Once again car tyres are neither solid nor dry. They are actually a mixture of all three types (type 3 = partially lubricated) - about as complicated as you can get. Why do I say all this ? Well the forces of interest for car tyres and the road surface are collectivelly known as the grip. Here is a simple summary from https://www.racecar-engineering.com/tech-explained/tyre-grip/ Note that they describe tyres as having viscoscity. Solids don't have viscoscity, liquids do. Viscoelastic refers to a mixture of characteristics. But even this does not tell the complete story. You are asking why early racing cars and modern road cars have thinner tyres. Well road cars have a dry coefficient of friction of 0.8 dry and zero to 0.6 wet. Modern racing cars enjoy a coefficient of 1.4 to 1.7, on their fatter tyres. Cars are not like your diagram of a solid block with full or nearly full contact area and a simple C of G load point. The loads are distributed to the four extreme points. They are dynamical systems (when running) which means that the loads are also constantly changing with the overall motion of the car as it goes not only forwards but twists and turns as well. So the parts suffer accelerations not only due to the car's overall motion, but also due to load transfer. With modern cars this transfer is modified by being transferred through springs. For example a racing car's coeffiecient of friction can drop to 1.2 when also suffering sideways loads from cornering. As noted in the linked article the tyres themselves have an internal dynamical structure which also modifies the friction laws. There is even more to the subject as the tyres distort and recover and use energy, heating up in the process, leading to the so called rolling resistance or coefficient of rolling friction. Also the wider tyres give a safety margin against slipping and locking which is needed for the higher speeds and stresses involved in F1.

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

despite the deleted post, I still wish to discuss the question as to why recent webb findings seem to indicate a longer age of the universe than previously thought. If the gravitation in both distant and proximate masses acting upon light coming to us from a great distance causes a pseudo red shift due to a non linear affect upon a light beam traveling toward us, in that a red shift effect predominates any blue shift occurring in the overall travel path. Could gravitation affecting light coming to us from the early universe be a factor here, and is illusory, making the universe only13.7 billion and only appearing much older

if gravitation is causing red shift, would not observations of distant objects within space get red shifted by even more distant mass during he first half of it's travel to us, and then blue shifted by proximate gravity of our local universe on the second half? I thought red shift was caused by a yet to be determined mechanism, and an expansion of space in real physical terms, not just appearance due to any gravitational distortions.

You have shown it to this Mathematician. And I thought there were too many misunderstndings in it to be worth detailed consideration. So +1 to Genady for the patience to do this. +1 also to PhiforAll who got in before me when I was about to complain. A word of advice. You can expect ridicule as answers when you make such wildly and obviously incorrect statements. Such as claiming the non existence of zero. Consider this sequence of integers ...-4, -3, -2, -1, 1, 2, 3, 4... ...Even, odd, even, odd, odd, even, odd, even... Do you notice anything missing ? It implies that there are more odd numbers than even numbers. By the way do you understand the ... symbol? It is called an ellipsis. You have also been arguing wrongly about the meaning of the equals sign. It stands for two different properties - Identity, and simple equality. Sometimes the identity symbol with three bars not two is used instead for this.

I think infinities are just as simple as 0 to 1 is infinite. The speed of light is a joke.. its much much faster. Humans have attributed numbers made up of tokens or lines.. "light" or energy is on or off. not created nor destroyed. just added energy and minus energy I guess.. We see light travelling because our "space ship" Earth is not stagnant in the Universe... Tip of what I think.

The formula was not invented; it is derived from a physical equation and provides an explanation for a physical observation: dark matter and dark energy. If it is possible to test it, I propose applying this negative energy (with E=-(M(c-1)+m0^c^2) and c-1=299,792,458-1) to an object to see if it transforms into dark matter or dark energy. Only after this experiment can we affirm or refute this theory.

I don't see anything ridiculous about x+2=1/c-v, as x, 2, and 1/c-v all have the same unit. Even if I write x+a=1/c-v, I still obtain M(c)=-M(c-1), even if the unit of c changes. So, regardless of the units used, it doesn't pose any problem, and I always get M(c)=-M(c-1). In essence, x+a=1/c-v is valid for any value of a, so even if the unit of c changes, it doesn't pose any problem because it corresponds to a specific value of a where this equality is always true x+a=x+2=1/c-v at v=c . here exemple c=3^10^8 and c=1 x+2=1/c-v with x et 2 and 1/c-v have the same unit is true.😁 becouse infinty=infinity=a*infinity=infinity+a 😁

Not really but more that you are God and all energies are a percent of that energy which is God.

It seems like you are searching for errors where there is no ,mathematical demonstration that is 100% correct. In this discussion, those who understand mathematics and physics very well have highlighted the only flaw in this proof, which is to assume x+2=1/c-v without considering the unit of c. However, the counterproof was very strong because the relationship remains valid regardless of the unit of c, just like the equation c/c=1, which is always true regardless of the unit of c. The discussion about the non-existence of 0 in physics is just off-topic. Here, you are talking about mathematical zero, while I am talking about the non-existence of a physical zero.