/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10745554
That you have the lexicon of a simpleton and arent concerned with being precise in your communication makes you an idiot, not insightful.

There is no peer reviewed, reproducible evidence that personal profit is the only or even the greatest motivator for modern human beings. If you believe otherwise then produce the documentation or admit you simply choose the idea that makes you feel best about your own narrative, IE you are actively anti intellectual.

>>10724132
No one is going to, or needs to, dispute your belief that it "rings true" because that is massively fallacious reasoning, you are a self described idiot and yet also demand the burden of proof be on others. As that anon said youve got to be kidding. Id laugh at this if you werent ostensibly able to vote.

>>10104079
>Planet=/=human body. Stop equating it to it.
>If you can't understand that and have to rely on analogies to explain your "theories"
so...you CAN'T understand analogies then. well, I hate to break it to you, but analogies and models are pretty much everywhere in the sciences.
turns out that sometimes different things have useful similarities.

>Oh so it isn't because of the CO2 then?
listen here, you Durex poster child:
temperatures GLOBALLY are rising because of CO2. the UHI effect is a separate LOCAL effect that causes cities to be warmer (especially at night) than the surrounding countryside. this can MAKE IT SEEM like temperatures are rising faster than they are when only considering weather stations in built-up areas. however, there's a technique called homogenization (basically, comparing trends of urban/suburban weather stations to trends from nearby rural ones) that allows the UHI effect to be quantified and adjusted out of the overall land temperature trend. and comparison of homogenized to rural-only trends shows that homogenization effectively removes UHI bias.
read Hausfather et al. (2013, 2016) if you're confused.
>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012JD018509
>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015GL067640

>Also anything that uses electricity produces heat you knuckle dragging moron.
the point is that the heat produced by cities is small in comparison to the extra heat retained by metal, asphalt, and concrete. like I said, but which you were apparently unable to read:
>waste heat from electricity is a small contributor.
don't believe me? try heating your basement with an LED lightbulb.
>It take heat to produce electricity to begin with, jackass.
you're gonna be really surprised when you learn about electrochemical potential. shocked, even.

>>8102839
shut up fool, you made a gud joke

>knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit
>wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad

>>3546711
>sapien

>what does /sci/ this of the uberman

It's still up.
Well, shit up my nose.

>>2827908
You said it. Ah, this simple mechanistic stuff takes me back...

>>2822577

Hey, /b/ros. Thanks for all the Flintstone cars. Can't you take this to /x/ or something? It's MAD creepy.

/sci/borgs. I got into a discussion over at sci and came to consider how you'd make the best possible sword with todays technology, of course ignoring that it wouldn't be very useful (So it's science, not engineering!).

It would ideally have to be completely rigid, very light, very sharp and with a powerful swing (Maybe telescopic?).

How would you go about it?

Gravitational potential energy is a state function, hence it would require energy to move the piss and shit up even through a portal. Also, portal guns don't exist.