joigus

Thanks for the references and for adding the genetic perspective, @Arete.

I'm waiting for the REAL religion to come around. So my faith is postponed. But he's building a temple, made of styrofoam. I'm looking forward to worship.

C'mon. You know you are his Nemesis. Infinity must have an end! You owe it to numbers. It's easy as pi.

But you're just using awareness as synonym of interaction. I prefer to say "interaction." What brings about the decay of the muon is the W- weak boson.

That's a great answer. I remember when I was a kid my summer holidays felt like an alternative life. Full of experiences that seemed like brought from another world.

I was going to say that from where you stand, you can't even see the box, but Hanke and Phi have read my mind. Get in the box as soon as you can, study it, and then learn how to open its doors/windows. That's the last thing I can say, honestly. Life is too short.

I'm not sure, but I suppose you mean biological evolution. The most general theory (I'd say meta-theory) is the one under the name "dynamical systems." It studies everything that changes. The Volterra model is a good place to start. Two competing species with situation not depending on time in the simplest case. Easy enough to understand, and solutions are intuitively clear. A good motivational video (centered on another simple model of change) could be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovJcsL7vyrk But you haven't said what your level of maths is. Maybe you can tackle a book technical enough.

No. You don't understand mathematics, that's all.

Are you aware that you don't make any mathematical sense? Your sentences are like dadaist poems with mathematical words in them.

You seem to be under the impression that 0.99999999999999999... is the closest number to 1. This proves that you don't understand real numbers. That number, 0.99999999999999999... with infinitely many 9's in its digits, is exactly 1. Number one seems to get past you. Why don't you accept the help of people who know more than you?

Universal constants don't change. What is p?

If constants change, then they're not constants; they're variables.

I think there should be no reason in principle to be surprised that the mathematical description of a physical system requires even an infinite amount of dimensional numbers to account for its behaviour. Why not? What is surprising is that we can get away with so much from just a limited number of universal constants.

He would have the benefit of time. Americans would get used to this "new style," until American democracy would be distorted beyond recognition.

For example, if you have a constant with units (length)-1, you multiply it by a variable with units of length, and you get a dimensionless number. You've started by considering a limitless power of a physical quantity. Now, that is not possible unless your model or theory has a number that 'absorbs' those dimensions. Consider, e.g., length. If your unit of length is L. In the limit of infinite powers, you would have, \[\left(\frac{x}{L}\right)^{\infty}=0\] if, \[x<L\] But if your unit were smaller than the quantity you're considering: \[\left(\frac{x}{L}\right)^{\infty}=\infty\] if, \[x>L\] So you would need a constant to absorb those dimensions and give a sensible unit to measure in a laboratory: \[k_{n}\left(\frac{x}{L}\right)^{n}\] These constants normally arise because of Taylor series expansions. It's going to take me some time to read all other comments from members. This is the key, @CuriosOne. You're getting tangled in a concept that requires the notion of convergence.

How can a comment about units be personal? In my opinion, @MigL and @swansont are investing very valuable time in telling you what's wrong with your "ideas." You should be thankful. Free electrons in QM, e.g., have no characteristic radius, though they have velocity.

There are plenty of posts in these forums about time travel and the problems it poses: https://www.scienceforums.net/search/?&q="time travel"&search_and_or=or&sortby=relevancy Why don't you take a good look at them? You talk about time travel as if it were a familiar thing. How come? Are you coming from the future?

Do you mean theoretical models or laboratory (experimental models)? There are both, and I think the range of validity varies depending of the model's faithfulness. For laboratory models I think scaling properties are very important. Theory having some more leeway to construct very simple-minded toy models to better understand the theory. And I think @Ken Fabian makes a very good point, that sometimes models are built just to understand this very important "what if."

An infinite power of a dimensional quantity makes no sense unless there is a constant to absorb the units to make it a sizable thing. Otherwise, you could use a bigger unit, so that the number is zero, because it's below the unit, or a smaller unit, so that the number is infinite, because it's above the unit.

Yeah, you sound like the epitome of humbleness. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Baseless claims require nothing, mean nothing, and prove nothing.

Echo-chambering: I'm not aware that muons are aware, and it's elementary that muons are elementary.

Forget about time travel. I wish ordinary travel were restored.

Yes, please, keep me informed. I'm glad to have you here, proposing interesting problems. Welcome to the forums!

Knowledge is good. But understanding reigns supreme. You will learn, and then forget, and then re-learn, and then forget again. Understanding can recover lost knowledge.

A good reason that comes to mind is the existence of air traffic controllers.