swansont

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.

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.