Surely it’s Google’s fault that Samsung is unable to develop good software at all.

The only field where it’s actually justified: math. In math, every time has an exact definition behind it, and you have to use the exact term.

Judging by the name RungeKutta62, named after a class of numerical integration methods and thus two mathematicians, I’d say they’re a nerd themselves.

Every other year the EU tries to pass another mass surveillance law - and the EU court of human rights rules it illegal.

You’re right, I mixed it up with the complex numbers being isomorphic to R^2. Thanks for clearing it up!

Love btw how I get downvoted for an honest mistake.

Is this some joke I’m not getting? Cause yes, real numbers are the closure of irrational numbers, but imaginary numbers are just isomorphic to them.

Well, as the URL says, that’s logistic growth and not exponential growth.

Just to add some formality to this, the original commenter might want to look up the shell theorem for classical mechanics and Birkhoff’s theorem for general relativity.

Yeah, quantum mechanics lingo: measurement = interaction

Actually a good point, tho. And also a good thought: If there is no special direction, what would be up? And that’s where quantum mechanics gets even weirder: It’s either up or down in the direction you measure.

The technical term you’re looking for is “almost all” prime numbers. Not joking btw.

I had to derive osmotic pressure for my statistical mechanics exam in my bachelor’s. So in what sense don’t we know?

At least cosmology does use some serious quantum physics, even quantum field theory. Source: took 1 year of theoretical cosmology lectures.

They weren’t talking about radioactive decay, electrons are stable. They were talking about electrically charged particles emitting electromagnetic radiation when accelerated. (Circular movement is accelerated, see centripetal force) Since they use energy for this, they would very quickly fall into the nucleus (if I remember correctly, in around 10^-14 s).

Bodies with mass also emit gravitational waves when accelerated, but much less.

Pretty sure a court told them to.

I’m not trying to argue approximations. Physics is just approximations all the way down. But as a physicist, I also love arguing about technicalities, and that’s also kinda the point of science communities for me.

But the point of general relativity is that a free-floating observer is equivalent to an observer in free space. That means that falling due to gravity, which you call a force, is an unaccelerated movement, i.e. no force.

In our current understanding of physics, it’s an effect from the curvature of space and not a force. Quantizing gravity results in unphysical divergences. Whether there will be a way to model gravity as an exchange of particles, we can’t know for sure. So according to our current knowledge, it’s not a force.

Well, firstly, we can quantize gravity pretty easily, it just has unphysical divergences.

But secondly, I think it makes most sense to talk about the current accepted physics because we don’t know how quantum gravity will work.

Gravity isn’t a force tho…