I'm not sure where air comes into play for problem one. There's no "air" factor in the gravity equation. F=GM₁M₂/(r^2)

But yeah, by definition, you need to use the equation to get the 20pi answer...

You wasted 'em!
With the almost impervious cop car at 2:42, with a superior handling, through a centre of gravity several metres below the car.

The new game is out: http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/carmageddon-reincarnation-review/1900-6416163/
..But I think I'll pass.

Maybe, (suggestion for @dag?), there should be another channel /tag for this that allows for us to post thoughtful-but-offensive clips (that won't just pave the way for a slew of porn or violence).

RE: the 'educational' value-- maybe a "human condition" or "humanity" tag would be good? I know there's already 'humanitarian' but the difference in meaning is probably clear. There must be a term to categorize videos like this under exclusively... "Graphic Content"? Some way to respectfully post videos that encourage sincere, humble thoughtfulness about our world and lives, that can show content like this in that light for the sake of seeing the gravity of our existence face to face. These events, actions and consequences are all reflective of all of us.

I also have certain content that I refuse to put my eyeballs on, and would get extremely offended if I opened the Sift one day and found it at the top of the page, but I'm more in favor of giving videos like that a proper place rather than censoring it entirely.

That was awesome, but kinda disappointed there was no gravity gun.

seems to be plenty of gravity in this video.

I had a theory too, that our theory of gravity is just wrong, at least at extreme scales. In other words, the law of gravity is still at the Newtonian motion stage, it's close enough for day-to-day and mid-range observations, but fails to provide accurate predictions at larger (and smaller) scales. This also explains why quantum mechanics and gravitation theory still have not been reconciled.

There is no observational evidence of dark matter (or dark energy) for that matter. They are the equivalent of fudge-factors...no, not the equivalent, they -are- fudge-factors, created out of thin air to try and make the numbers add up to the observations.

I had a theory once. It had to do with multi verses. What if bodies of gravity, such as galaxies reacted and multiplied the effects of gravity on they're prospective planes. It would be as if several millions if not billions of Milky Ways were stacked up on each other. Sure there would be "infinite", but the idea is that a number of galaxies would have moved in a different direction or some particular Milky Way didn't form properly...

A computer big enough to accurately calculate the position and properties of every "particle" (and ever decreasing subdivisions of energy and matter) would need to be the size of the universe in the first place. We can't even simulate enough particles in an n-body simulation to match the number of stars in a galaxy, let alone individual molecules, or shall we go further and say atoms, or further and say protons, neutrons and electrons? And that's for ONE galaxy amongst hundreds of billions in the OBSERVABLE universe... using only ONE force - gravity!

The guy has a great point about the Big Bang - a billion billion galaxies worth of matter and energy created in a split second from nothing? Doesn't sound like like the conservation of energy that is so fundamental to physics, right? But that's no reason to throw out hundreds of years of evidence and research which has proven conservation of energy to be true since then. The big bang makes the most sense given what we see today... if you want to propose a better theory, it has to make more sense than the Big Bang theory. Saying that the big bang doesn't make sense is not an appropriate starting point for a new theory, and doesn't lead to "so therefore we're in a simulation."

And it's not good enough to appeal to simplicity like @robdot is doing - basically saying that everything we see could very easily be an illusion for our benefit. That's an argument for God, in my opinion... just like how religious fanatics say "it was God's will for this to happen" we'd instead say "well, that's what the simulation wanted to show us" and call it a day. Furthermore if the manifestations of physical laws out there in the universe are illusions, they are at least consistent illusions that we can calculate and predict. And in that case, what is the difference to our lives whether we call it "reality" or "simulation" or "computer"? It it still what we always knew it was. If something created our universe and allowed it to run like a simulation, it is almost certainly intangible to us and for all intents and purposes meaningless too, because we can't touch, feel, see or understand it on any level.

This is one of the topics i asked of my favourite professor - how can we trust what we see if it could be faked, and what exists beyond our universe? His answer was, if i have to doubt what i see, i might as well not do anything at all, and if you want an answer to the second question talk to a philosopher. This is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. The scientific method doesn't care what you call the place you live in nor "who" we think "created" it. You can't hope to understand anything if you don't base it on the evidence you have. You certainly can't form a theory on the basis that all evidence is untrustworthy.

it's almost as if the physics engine simulates gravity correctly!

Ok, first things first. If you quote me and you decide to mark pieces of what I wrote somehow, don't do it out of fucking context. The part you turned into bold lettering is only a part of a sentence and does not communicatre the actual meaning of what I wrote at all.
I know you're not a troll but what you did there is suspiciously close to trolling. I know you're better than this. However, that is not ok. I do take issue with that especially because I know you and I are not on opposing teams here. You're not one the racist trolls here, neither am I, you know who I mean without using names.

Second, read my statement carefully. It's pretty much akin to the concept of the self-fullfilling prophecy. The statement I made validifies itself be me stating it.
Here's what I said phrased differently:
White people are better at being racist than everybody else because we don't suffer its consequences. White privilege, lack of empathy and inability to consider another point of view on the issue allows us to disregard the impact of it. That means we can be more clueless and uncaring in our behaviour as we don't feel the historical gravity, more or less immediate consequences or emotional toll of it as long as we can surpress whatever empathy for other humans we have.
Let me re-quote myself without your bullshit bold lettering:
'If there's one thing where white people are far more superiour than anybody else, it's having a feeling of superiority.'
Read that again!
And again!
You call that gloating? Really? A guy saying 'look at me, I'm best at being a shitty person!' is gloating in your opinion?
By stating this, I prove myself to be true, I validify my point by mentioning it. My point is not a good thing. Being arrogant is not a good thing.

Third, I get you are angry. You're a black guy living in the US, right? You should be pissed. There is this stereotype of the 'angry black man'. I never thought about it until Obama became President and political realities cause him to be wary of it.
If you are not white and a US citizen you have every right in the world to be pissed. Racism exists everywhere but one country where it still remains a huge, huge, superfuckinghuge problem is yours.
Pretty much everything encompassing domestic issues in the US has a racial component. My own country has serious problems with racism. Go, ask as german dude with turkish roots about his expirience. Every 'Achmed' has a story about it. Racism is like herpes, even if you don't have it, you're always at risk to be affected anyways.
Don't be mad at me, you're barking up the wrong tree . I may be an insesitive asshole and I won't deny the benefits of being white myself but I'm simply not your problem. People who want to keep you down because they don't like your pigmentation are.

Japanese Taiko Drum group Zero live in 2014, "Gravity" has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo on that post.

Gravity, bitches.

Or alternatively, Forbes and their imaginary investors could just fuck off, since Gravity is privately held...

They are in the payment processing business, historically a high-margin one, they're not going anywhere any time soon.

from Forbes:

Unfortunately, this well-intended gesture is likely to either end badly or just end quietly. It will end badly if the company enacts the program as written, as Gravity is likely to experience reduced investor interest due to unusually high labor costs. A growing company with a $70,000 entry-level wage for every employee will be a difficult sell in the capital markets.

More likely, the plan will end quietly. As investors weigh in and influence company policy, the $70,000 minimum wage is likely to be drastically modified and adjusted. Conditions are likely to be placed on earning the $70,000 minimum, and industry standard wages will be subsidized with bonuses and other cash incentives to maintain the appearance of a $70,000 minimum wage. People unable or unwilling to commit to a bonus-based or incentive-based system will not select themselves for employment at Gravity. Within three years, Gravity’s pay structure will probably revert to industry standards, and Price’s minimum wage will be seen as a well-intended, but economically naïve, compensation plan.

Watched another video where he says his salary will go from a million a year to 70,000 and his companies profits will be cut in half from the raises. Just Wow! .http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gravity-payments-ceo-dan-prices-raise-minimum-pay-economics/