/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9918738
>You have not demonstrated you cannot perform the feats of the suit of armor, i.e. you have not demonstrated the feats would constitute breaches of said physical limitations.
It's too tedious. Even proving my 4 non-planar points simplification is too tedious.

>In fact it's probably the only real problem to which I have no real answer except maybe transferring your conscience to a more resilient support, creating an artificial human-like body, and then donning the suit of armor.
So your solution is to make a waldo and then retain all of the idiotic design complications and non-viable design elements instead of just making an armored waldo? ... WEW LAD

>Already explained ITT
they don't produce electricity, they produce heat by proxy. That means you need heat engines. Square cube law works against you. You're a faggot.

>There are new materials being created that can definitely withstand at least small arms fire.
No. Hard things are brittle. Things that deform get penetrated. The Goldilocks zone requires thickness to work. You're retarded.

>You can have an exterior made out of thousands of small plates and inside something resembling stronger
Cool, so you have a layer that acts as well as gluing diamonds to plywood, and then the equivalent of playdoh underneath... You're a retarded faggot.

>>8941664
>you mean when smog outbreaks were so severe in London that deaths were attributed to it for some meme?
Yes.

>the issue was only ever resolved in the 1950s, when the big bad government established strict controls on the burning of coal.
Yes, after decades of property rights not being respected due to leftists, the leftists finally did something.
>libertarians unironically believe this
Yes. The only thing that should be banned is critical masses of fissionable material (gun design is for faggots and spontaneous fission is scary)