It uses rotors for lift (yes, even at high speed) so it's a "copter" and it's got four of them, so it's a quadcopter.
It doesn't have any aerodynamic planes (i.e. wings) so it's not a "plane" and it certainly doesn't have any rockets.
There's nothing particularly different about interpreting general relativity as curved space and the way we describe the rest of the forces. General relativity is a field theory with "curved space" being the gravitational field. Maxwell and quantum electrodynamics are both field theories, and you can give them a similar geometric interpretation if you want.
Einstein apparently didn't like that geometric interpretation, by the way, but non-Euclidean geometry was new and sexy at the time, and a lot of people around Einstein were geometers. The actual "gravitation field == curved space-time" interpretation was promoted by people like Weyl, and then John Wheeler basically taught the entire post-WWII generation of American physicists that specific interpretation.
Einstein said things like:
According to the general theory of relativity the metric tensor determines the behaviour of the measuring rods and clocks as well as the motion of free bodies in the absence of electrical effects. The fact that the metric tensor is denoted as "geometrical" is simply connected to the fact that this formal structure first appeared in the area of study denoted as geometry.
However, this is by no means a justification for denoting as "geometry" every area of study in which this formal structure plays a role, not even if for the sake of illustration one makes use of notions which one knows from geometry. Using a similar reasoning Maxwell and Hertz could have denoted the electromagnetic equations of the vacuum as "geometrical" because the geometrical concept of a vector occurs in these equations.
Yup. Even if you're happy to ignore graphs like this:
https://johnenglander.net/wp/w...
a couple more doublings and instead of opening windows to get some fresh air we're going to be installing scrubbers to prevent the cognitive impact of too much CO2.
And the fatal crash rates on those classic 747s are three times the rate on the MD80, and ten times a 747-800, 737 NG, or A320.
Wage slavery in this case is easy enough to avoid. Quit and go do your own thing. No wages, there you go. Lots of Google employees have done just that.
Wage slavery has some applicability in situations where people really can't quit or they'll starve. Not lose their nice houses in the suburbs, starve. The rest of the time it's pretty whiney, or, you know, how it originated, as a justification for actual slavery by actual slave owners.
Yes. It was. I don't think you would have liked it back then though.
Here's the last half billion:
Human CO2 emissions are an input to the models. Some scenarios may underestimate warming due to underestimating CO2 emissions, while others (may) overestimate it. That's why, for example, the IPCC considers a bunch of scenarios.
None of the common scenarios assume we'll hold CO2 emissions constant. Most of them assume we'll continue to increase for a while, then start reducing emissions, and they consider different timelines for that happening.
It's an exponential, and a remarkably consistent one:
Ah, multiple benefits. They might want to be careful with that one though. Japan's had general gentle deflation for the last 30 years and it hasn't been great.
Sure, but there are also lots of posters with poor reading comprehension and a bunch more who don't really care what the actual story is about, they just want to post something about China or a couple of old American dudes.
Probably Google's AI has figured out that those types are also lucrative advertising targets.
Falcon 9s encounter their own exhaust because they're in atmosphere. The exhaust gets slowed down by atmosphere. A rocket fires its exhaust out at some number of km/s. The rocket accelerates in the opposite direction, so not only is it not catching up to its exhaust, it's being pushed in the opposite direction.
There is no "deceleration". It's all acceleration. The universe doesn't care what "direction" you're "moving in." This is called Galilean relativity, and we've known about it for 400 years.
Probably good you posted this as AC.
What? No. That's not how relativity works. Not even fancy relativity, good old Galilean relativity. Do not learn physics from Aristotle.
It saves fuel because you don't have to accelerate and decelerate your long-term living quarters.
It doesn't save delta V. Unless you consider that you'd probably have to go faster if you had to accelerate and decelerate your living quarters, in which case it saves delta V too.
Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs. -- Kernighan
