/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16140711
>Nice "just so" post hoc explanation. Evo psyche is a meme.
it makes perfect sense, you're just mad that your psyche isn't entirely up to you after being told you were basically god by anime

I am so fucking tired of the term fundamental and elementary we need to change guys, it's for your own good i swear.
The historical trajectory of particle physics underscores the need for a nuanced perspective on labeling particles as fundamental or indivisible. From the ancient notion of atomos to the identification of electrons, protons, and neutrons as subatomic entities, the understanding of the building blocks of matter has evolved dramatically. What were once considered fundamental particles, devoid of internal structure, have been successively revealed to exhibit substructure upon deeper scrutiny. This pattern suggests that labeling a particle as fundamentally indivisible is more reflective of our current technological limitations than an absolute characteristic of nature.

The implications of adopting a stance that acknowledges potential infinite divisibility in the microscopic realm are profound. It implies that particles currently deemed elementary might, in fact, possess substructure beyond our current detection capabilities. This perspective encourages a more humble and dynamic approach to our understanding of the fundamental constituents of matter. It invites us to consider that, as our experimental techniques advance, particles once thought to be elementary could be discovered to have additional layers of complexity.

If we entertain the notion of infinite divisibility, it opens the door to speculative hypotheses, such as the existence of hypothetical particles like "electronites" or the possibility that electromagnetic fields could be composed of finer constituents. This perspective could also lead to exploring the idea that mass, a property traditionally associated with certain particles, might have a more intricate relationship with the underlying structure of matter. Speculative concepts, like light having mass, could be considered within this framework, challenging established notions and prompting new avenues of inquiry.

"1" + "1" = "11"
'1' + '1' = '2'
1 + 1 = 10

>>15824948
>you should verify

>A parcel of air over parking lot is heated via conduction
>This parcel of hot air is now less dense, & rises (like a helium balloon in your house)
>Hot air rises & as the surrounding air pressure decreases, the parcel expands
>Since T ∝ P (generalized for example,) temperature drops along with the pressure as this parcel expands to fill a larger area
>Temp & pressure of parcel matches surrounding atmospheric pressure, stops rising
I agree, scientists are lying to us

I feel so bad for overfags that I'll throw them a hopium bone.
so, he could have used a regular low temp superconductor, chilled way the fuck down, in a zero moisture environment. video is just a few seconds.
now, I want to see you cling on this shit as best as you can.

>>15603614
ok so incompetence seems like a stretch at this point. fraud as well, that's career over in the blink of an eye.
so, what are we left with? room temperature superconductor?