...For that matter I assume it isn't taking into account acceleration (note to physicists: does non-gravity acceleration cause time dilation?).
Still it is free, and makes me feel very very very slightly younger!
IAAP (I am a physicist), so I can confirm that non-gravitational acceleration causes time dilation, under some circumstances. Since I'm waiting for some calculations to finish running through Mathematica, I'll also try to explain.
Non-gravitational acceleration does cause time dilation, at least when viewed in the frame of the accelerated observer. When analyzed in the frame of an inertial observer (read: if someone who isn't accelerating calculates how much time has passed for you based on how you are moving), these effects appear to be the result of your velocity, and *not* your acceleration.
A fun example of this is the Langevin twin paradox problem. Two twins, floating in space, synchronize their watches. Then twin A uses a rocket to travel out a certain distance d at a more or less constant velocity v, turn around, and return, also with velocity v. He only uses his rocket for a very brief period upon leaving, during turnaround, and finally to return to rest relative to his twin. Twin B just sits there. They then compare their clocks.
Twin B sees that twin A spent essentially all of his time moving with velocity v, and figures that time-dilation has caused twin A's clock to record less time than twin B's. This is correct.
From twin A's perspective, it was twin B who moved with velocity v, and so he figures that time-dilation has caused B's clock to record less time than A's. This seems paradoxical until twin A accounts for the fact that he was accelerated at the far end of his trip. During that acceleration, everything not attached to his rocket (including twin B) seemed to accelerate in the direction his engine was pointed. There's a bunch of math one can do to justify it, (see chapter 13 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's "Gravitation", if you want the full scoop) but the short version is that acceleration acts just like gravity (and vice versa). So twin A figures that twin B's clock must be gravitationally blueshifted relative to twin A's clock (twin B is 'higher' in the apparent gravitational potential produced by the acceleration). It turns out that over the amount of time twin A must accelerate to return to his twin, twin B's clock seems to gain exactly twice as much time as he seems to lose while twin A is coasting, which is just enough to bring each of the twins' calculations into full agreement upon their reunion.
Relativity is fun.
I doubt that much of that 700 lbs would *not* be riddled with rust long before that lease would run out.
If you RTA you'll see that the bodywork is made from carbon composite. I don't think it's that unreallistic for a car to still be going after 20 years - how many cars are there around on the roads from 1989/1990? Still quite a few (esp. Japanese made), in some parts of the world the majority of cars are that old or older.
And every one of those cars has a couple of dings and dents in them. Dings and dents that become gaping holes in carbon fiber bodies. gaping holes that drastically degrade the vehicle's aerodynamics, which in turn have an outsize impact on the vehicle's fuel efficiency. While it's true that there are plenty of cars that are still going after 20 years, none of those cars are the lead models of an entirely new and untested design.
But this post is a great illustration of how many people view cars as throwaway, disposable products, good for only 10 years. Cars don't just impact the environment with CO2 emissions, the material and energy cost of production, maintenance and disposal have to be taken into account, and it's about time seeing a manufacturer taking responsibility in this regard, rather than cashing in on the easy profits of throwaway consumerism
Nice try for putting words in my mouth. My concern is whether the damn thing will still be running in 20 years, or whether the company which is supposedly paying for all your fuel will be around for 20 years to make good on its side of the bargain. If I had any reason to be confident in both of those points, I'd be all for purchasing this kind of rollerskate (provided that the price made sense, of course). Based on the cursory descriptions presently available, which do not address these issues at all, I tend to the conclusion that this whole thing is more PR fluff than substance.
A 20 year lease sounds like a dumb gimmick.
But you could drive the car in a climate that gets snow and salted roads - the body is carbon fiber - no rust!
Not everything can be made of carbon fiber. The metal parts (engine, exhaust system, etc) will still rust. Plus, 20 years is a very long time to commit to a car. Lots of expensive components tend to wear out over such a long period. We're supposed to believe that the company (which has zero track record building, selling, and maintaining cars) is even going to be here after that amount of time?
Of course, based on the fine article, it rapidly becomes clear that this is a vaporware economic model for a vaporware car design. This isn't a plan for designing and building a car --it's a plan for getting media attention for the design firm. As such, it's been successful.
Pretty soon, people will get used to a bright flash between the previews and the start of the film. Add to that an infrared video camera, and they can keep track of people changing seats during the movie.
Of course, the natural response of the wittier bootleggers will be to wear a Guy Fawkes mask to the theater.
fortune: cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.