exchemist

You can really get dragged into the weeds trying to react to individual random graphs generated to sow disinformation, unless you are an expert in the field. There’s a whole cottage industry peddling disinformation “talking points” and as soon as you knock down one they will come up with another. The question really is whether these people seriously believe all the climatologists are wrong, whereas they, with their barrack- room lawyer’s opinions, are right, or whether they think the climatologists are all - worldwide - engaged in some kind of conspiracy, and if so, to what end?

What would be the type of units in which E is measured? Units of length? Or what?

The MCAS malfunction is not the main point in this case, though steps were taken after the crashes to make a malfunction less likely. The main issue of culpability is as I explained to you in my previous post.

All we need do is read the press to understand what happened. It was extensively reported. @Sensei's post, the 2nd in this thread, summarises it. Essentially it was a failure by the manufacturer to disclose information about an automated system that had been fitted. In effect, flight crew were -deliberately - not fully informed about the systems employed on the aircraft they were flying. This was done to avoid the cost and inconvenience of further training, but meant that when there was a malfunction in this "hidden" system, the crew were not equipped to take the right decisions. An appalling result of the way Boeing had come to prioritise financial performance over safety. This cultural failure has also been extensively reported in the press (at least in the Financial Times, which I read) and has quite rightly led to a change of top personnel at the company. It also revealed an unduly close relationship between Boeing and the US regulator for aircraft safety, a state of affairs known as "regulatory capture". There have been many examples of such "capture", across various industries around the world, and it practically always ends in disaster. Business people often resent what they see as bureaucratic "box-ticking" by inspection and supervisory regimes, and lobby politicians to slacken the oversight. It goes fine....until it doesn't, and then it's pointy finger time.

Thanks, very clear explanation.

I note that ISROSET stands for the "International Scientific Research Organisation for Science, Engineering and Technology", which is an Indian "journal" that appears on Beall's List of potentially predatory journals: https://beallslist.net. So quite likely scammy and without competent peer review. Come back to us when your ideas have been published in a journal with some credibility.

How does this work? I'd have thought that the longer the engine pylon, i.e. the further below the centre of gravity (or rather, drag, I suppose) of the plane, the bigger would be the upward pitching turning effect, when the engines throttle up. So surely a shorter pylon, bringing the line of engine thrust closer to the centre of drag, would reduce this, wouldn't it?

So do you mean, in effect, that it all hinges on how accurate a determination of λ can be made? In which case it is not really a method of calculating π, so much as a way of estimating it by physical measurements.

OK, but looking at the equation in the OP, surely the value of the sum will depend on the exact value assigned to λ? Is λ then an exact number, i.e. a mathematical object with an exact definition, rather than a quantity derived from physical measurement?

What is “ResearchGet” [sic]?

Whut? You are making no sense whatever.

OK so you are just waffling, as I suspected. So far as I know, no country has passed laws to prevent fusion research. I certainly can’t see why any legislature would do such a thing.

What laws are you referring to?

Hmm, but doesn't that make it a physical variable? Surely it has to have a particular exact value for the sum to yield a correct value for π?

Well "ResearchGet" certainly sounds like a link to a load of malware! No thanks😁.

What is λ?

Overpopulation seems to me a debatable issue. How does one determine when the human population is "too much"? What does seem fairly sure is that the human population will naturally reach a maximum later this century, as rising standards of living, better education and more autonomy for women reduce the birthrate. It's already below replacement level in many developed countries.

The term "quanta" was invented by Einstein, who got his Nobel Prize for his foundational work on quantum mechanics (Photo-Electric Effect). Einstein was all over quantum mechanics. Bose-Einstein statistics? Einstein transition probabilities? As for not being able to contradict your proposal, "Prove me wrong" has been the cry of the crank, down the ages. 😉

Yes of course they would. In practice this state would never be reached, as government policies would be adopted by degrees to maintain a life for the population that avoided civil unrest.

Apart from vacuuming and mopping floors, there is still the cleaning of ovens, cookers, cupboards, basins and toilets, dusting, polishing metalware and so on(I have a Brazilian cleaning lady who does these things for me.) Also ironing. So there are still things to do without getting into food safety critical tasks. But my cleaning lady does this in 3hrs per week. So very poor use of a highly expensive robot, I would agree, unless it is shared among numerous households.

No, that does not follow. The point about an egg is its fragility. So a demonstration that it can pick up an egg without dropping or crushing it shows the sensitivity of the mechanism, not that that it is intended to prepare food.

Is food preparation among the tasks it is claimed to be capable of?

I would assume any half-decent robot would be able to clean itself, or at least be provided with a cleaning apparatus to do the job, without the need for laborious human intervention which would defeat the labour-saving objective of the robot.

In that unlikely eventuality, there would need to be a different economic regime, in which people were paid enough to support themselves from taxation levied on the businesses that operated the robots. Political parties would see the opportunity to get elected on such policies.

Fear of the effects of automation on existing jobs is hardly a new phenomenon in history, cf. The Luddites. Every previous wave of automation has led to new jobs appearing to replace those that were lost. So I'm sceptical that IT-driven automation will lead to what you term "a jobless, cashless proletariat". But previous waves of automation and other causes of radical changes in employment pattern, such as deindustrialisation, can certainly leave people behind with the wrong skills, and/or in the wrong places, to benefit from future opportunities. We've learnt (or I hope at least we've learnt) that the resulting social dislocation needs to be managed, not just left to blind market forces. Reskilling programmes and an active industrial policy, run at regional level, seem to be needed.