SergUpstart

And what about films that talk about the dangers of artificial intelligence? For example, "Terminator". In my opinion, the film "Youths in the Universe", shot in the USSR, draws a much more realistic scenario associated with this danger.

To do this, the size of the accelerometer must be negligible compared to the curvature of ST. The accelerometer in the form of comet Shoemaker-Levy in July 1994 perfectly "discovered" the gravity of Jupiter.

However, after 2008, the European Union had its own debt crisis, related specifically to the government debts of the PIGS countries

If you have a debt of $ 1,000 at a rate of 1%, then you will have to spend $ 10 a year on debt servicing, and if the rate increases to 2% , then you will need $ 20 for debt servicing. And there is another problem with debts. If the population is heavily credited, then it can no longer take out loans for the purchase of goods, including electronics, cars and real estate. This should inevitably cause a decline in demand, which can develop into a sales crisis.

The financial system is gradually losing its stability. The Fed already does not have the opportunity to significantly raise rates, since this will cause problems with debt servicing.

I don't see anything good in this. Something must eventually happen, either hyperinflation or a parade of defaults. The question is when. How long can an atom be in an excited state? How long can water vapor be in a supercooled state?

We should talk not only about the American, but in general about the world economy. Global debt could reach $300 trillion by the end of the year. https://psm7.com/money/mirovoj-dolg-mozhet-dostignut-otmetki-v-300-trln-uzhe-v-etom-godu.html

The force is a vector, not a scalar

You are confusing this. The gravitational potential of the Earth, not the car. If the car moves so fast that the square of its speed becomes equal to the gravitational potential of the Earth not on its surface, then the car will fly into the Solar System.

The square of the velocity is not the gravitational potential, the gravitational potential is the square of the escape velocity.

strictly speaking, the motion in a circular orbit is determined by the sum of the masses of the planets and the central body The speed (or the magnitude of velocity) relative to the central object is constant:[1]:30 {\displaystyle v={\sqrt {GM\! \over {r}}}={\sqrt {\mu \over {r}}}} where: {\displaystyle G}, is the gravitational constant {\displaystyle M}, is the mass of both orbiting bodies {\displaystyle (M_{1}+M_{2})}, although in common practice, if the greater mass is significantly larger, the lesser mass is often neglected, with minimal change in the result. {\displaystyle \mu =GM}, is the standard gravitational parameter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_orbit But in most cases, the masses of the planets can be ignored. Perhaps the Earth too To this effect, you can also add the influence of tides. It is not a solid body. Due to the tides, it gradually loses the angular momentum, which should be compensated by the removal of the planets. In addition, the rotation of the planets around their axis is gradually synchronized with their rotation around the Sun, and this effect also leads to an increase in the radii of the orbits of the planets. But the impact of these effects is also insignificant.

Well, then it follows simply from the definition of the gravitational radius R=GM/c^2 that the ratio of the gravitational radius of the universe to the gravitational radius of an electron is equal to the ratio of their masses. But the mass of the electron is about 10^-30 kg, and the mass of the Universe is about 10^56 kg. So if we use gravitational radii, their ratio will be different. Not so, the field strength is the gradient from the potential with a minus sign. And the force is the field strength multiplied by the mass of the test body ( if we are talking about the gravitational force in the Newton paradigm) or by the test charge (if we are talking about the electrostatic force).

The electron does not have a certain radius and certain coordinates. An electron is not a ball. This follows from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Maybe you meant the radius of the orbit of an electron in a hydrogen atom??? But the electron does not have a clear orbit in the atom, at present physicists are talking not about orbits, but about orbitals.

Draw formulas in Paint

What do you think is the smallest particle and what is its radius???