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."?

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: 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.

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.

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

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"?

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.

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.

Because for any integer n, the corresponding subset of N will be finite. Which integer corresponds to the set of even integers?

No.

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

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

No.

It doesn't. What values or states are restricted by choosing a unit system?

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 [...]"

"this" expression?