swansont

! Moderator Note You were asked for evidence. i.e. an experiment that has been performed that supports this notion and (preferably) excludes alternate models. Absent that, a proposal for such an experiment could be discussed. A re-hash of your conjecture is not evidence This is a requirement for discussion.

The equations do not indicate that any particular base must be used. We do in in base 10 when we calculate by hand. Computers do it in base 2 when they calculate. The answers are the same. Can you give a legitimate reason to expect otherwise? What angle relationships incorporate direction? Acceleration is dv/dt. There’s no inherent angle-based relationship. I think one of your difficulties is that you are unable to draw distinctions between independent areas of math and science. Dubious claim, given the evidence. For base n, the digits from right to left are n^0, n^1,n^2, etc. i.e. for base 10, it’s 1, 10 (10^1), 100 (10^2), etc. 123 in base 10 is one hundred, two tens (i.e. twenty) and 3 ones If I instead chose base 8, 123 would represent one 64 (8^2), two eights, and three ones. 123 in base 8 is equal to 83 in base 10

I rather doubt many people doing work at the Nobel-worthy level have the time or inclination to muck around on discussion boards. Here is the crux of one of the problems - you assert something as true without evidence. It's up to you to provide that evidence. It is not the case that you are right until proven wrong, rather, you are assumed to be wrong until you provide evidence that you are correct. I assume the translation here is that you don't have any evidence, because you just made up the assertion, but won't admit to it. It's not an uncommon tactic when someone gets caught spouting BS.

It's real https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unary_numeral_system In the original use of the word, a "computer" was a person who did computations. That died out as mechanical and then electronic machines were developed to do these things. I'm not sure what computations Newton would have been doing. Calculus uses functions, and a lot of work can be done without doing any computations (i.e. no number manipulation)

As you say, it's not a first generation star, so there could be trace amounts of heavy elements (as MigL indicates). They make a negligible contribution to any energy release. Stars function via fusion of light elements.

So much for your claim that you don't assert things as true. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean others don't, and just because you think you understand something doesn't mean others "understand" it the way you do. You don't understand it - you should investigate and ask questions. This kind of dismissal is lame. You have quite the fascination with pi, and seemingly have imbued it with certain powers, but despite this, math is not mysticism.

I guess I disagree with how you used predecessor; to me that suggests one basically became the other with a large overlap of membership and purpose. The articles seem to agree that the alt-right founders were not prominent atheists, and the ones aligned with the alt-right are in the minority of the atheist movement. They’re atheists who just happen to be bigots, with that having little to do with their atheism. I don’t find it all that surprising that one ideology that has a spectrum of ideas would have an overlap of adherents with another ideology that is largely orthogonal in its views. Indeed. The right in the US is often associated with being religious, and yet only about a quarter of liberals fall into categories I’d associate with atheism or agnosticism. It’s just that it’s only ~5% among conservatives https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/political-ideology/ And, of course, none of those groups are monolithic in their specific beliefs

! Moderator Note You’ve been told to stop posting this “X reverses order” nonsense

Considered by whom? (citation needed)

Where the f@%& did this strawman come from? I made no claims about any of these topics.

3/5 is a fraction - portrayed as a ratio of two whole numbers 3/5 = 0.6 0.6 is a decimal, which is the result from evaluating the division of that ratio, in base 10 When you state something as true, without support, it is an assertion. Math is math. Physics uses math, but is not math. They let you keep track of physical parameters. Usually. The choice often one of ease of use, or possibly convention. Base 10 is the default in many cases, as I said.

Really? Can you cite some of them? At best I suspect you mean correlation rather than connection, which implies some kind of causality has been established. They would likely not count as valid scientific studies Yes, I would say so. How is there a control group if you have already limited the population to people with fertility problems? You’d have to show the studies, but I’m not seeing how you can determine cell phone use as a cause if all of your subjects have fertility problems. And regardless of what you might be able to show, you have to confirm that cell phone ownership or use isn’t representing some other variable. (a famous example is the correlation between owning a pickup truck and voting republican. The pickup isn’t the cause of one’s political leanings)

You will need to clarify this. Radiant? Ominous? Those are constants. As is a=2, or b=16.3 It doesn’t matter. Base 10 is the usual way of expressing numbers in a lot of fields, but you could express a constant in any base, and certain disciplines use other bases. d= 10110 is a constant expressed in base 2, for example.

Are you still confused, or did your search answer the question? Questions are fine, if based on reasonable premises. The main issue I have is when you make assertions, without supporting them.

But we’re talking about math Um, no. Just 6.67, which is expressed as a decimal, not a feaction. You need glasses, then. Which are not numbers Sometimes. Sometimes it’s energy. Sometimes it’s neither. Depends on the context. Gee, imagine that...metric uses base 10 “closer to base 10” is meaningless. The number is expressed in base 10. Who are the others?

There aren’t plenty of radioactive isotopes, and nothing formed that’s heavier than iron until after a star goes supernova. So basically no fission on the main sequence.

The issue will be how much buoyancy you can achieve, and whether this will exceed the weight of the balloon, so you get lift. The balloon mass depends on surface area, while buoyancy will depend on volume. So the ratio gets bigger with larger balloons. Helium allows you to lift ~1g per liter, IIRC. A hot air balloon’s lift derives from (approximately) PV = nRT, and depends on the temperature difference you can achieve. Aluminized mylar balloons might be able to withstand some heating. Inflate it partway (or put a few drops of water inside), seal it, and then warm it up.

For the same reason numbers between 1 and 2 can be fractions. Or rather, possibly can be expressed as fractions.

A lot of furniture is made of wood, which is a good insulator. While it’s true that you can be injured is the described ways, this risk is pretty low, less than 1 in a million per year (data from the US). The point is that the injuries are preventable. ~100-150 people hurt indoors annually from lightning strikes, but it could be zero.

Of course it’s a variable. What would be the point of finding a difference quotient for constants?

Another vague, unsupported claim, implying a widespread truth that is instead merely a personal opinion. Maybe you feel dumb and worthless, and that’s too bad, but you speak for only yourself. And without specifics, this is a worthless observation, since there is no way to fix anything that might be wrong. It’s criticism but not constructive criticism. We get plenty of traffic from people sharing their out-of-the-box ideas, so the evidence does not support your assertion with regard to this site. You have provided no evidence that this has happened. (not surprising to me; I don’t think I’ve ever seen you do this. It’s getting old.)

! Moderator Note These are political issues, and you’re not posting in the politics section, so I’ve moved it. Discussion should now be limited to politics

How do you test/falsify your idea?

! Moderator Note String theory is physics, you appear to have a thread already, and please review rule 2.7 regarding the need to summarize when you post links and documents

The temperature increase depends on the amount of CO2, not CO2 per capita. That’s the climate science impact (where this was posted) CO2 per capita is more of a political issue of who is taking action and who isn’t. As is shaming the US for insufficient effort.