> The present invention is a high temperature superconductor comprising of a wire, which comprises of an insulator core and a metal coating. The metal coating is disposed around the insulator core, and the metal is coating deposited on the core. When a pulsed current is passed through the wire, while the wire is vibrated, high temperature superconductivity is induced.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190348597A1/en?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais

Anybody ever tried to reproduce the contraption described in this patent?
Should be not to hard to check if it is LARP technology or not.

You're from Reddit and it's very easy to identify you. Fuck this board and the jannies who delete this thread can tongue my crusty anus.

This is Amateur Hour. This is for all of you with "Big Ideas" which are probably bullshit but you want to argue about them and try to assert yourself.

Everybody knows science is pretty gay and boring, and since every non-empirical profession consists of making shit up and trying to sell it to people, there's no reason science folks shouldn't get a piece of that pie.

I'm not a great person, but I love to argue about things. If you have a big ego and little to back it up, if you can make name-drop some vague scientific concepts to "legitimize your claim" without any sort of measurement or studies. That's what we're all about here.

>>>/bant/13046594

>I ask myself "What is the purpose or meaning of life?"
>I don't know
>I ask "What is life?"
>Life is sugar fire
>I ask "What is the purpose of fire?"
>The purpose of fire is to reduce potential chemical energy in accordance with entropy
>Thus
>The purpose of life, including human life, is to reduce potential chemical energy in accordance with entropy


My reason for coming here is that I tend to base my philosophy of the world from a very minimal public school education regarding science. This argument, "the meaning of life" demonstrates that I did get to the 9th grade. With such academic merit under my belt, now I flex this argument with fervor to try and seem enlightened and intelligent.

In the past week, I've written over 50,000 words on /bant/ alone, generally arguing with people. That's longer than the Great Gatsby, but as you science-types know, words are pretty much worthless and meaningless.

I have attached a long article I wrote a while ago in which I talk at length about this argument in green-text. It's has "some scientific elements" at least, and if you've got some free time, want to argue, want to banter, come here.

Scientifically speaking, could we bring it back from extinction, possibly using Dugongs as surrogates?
If possible, how far along is the current scientific state in archieving this and how much would research cost?

Also, talk about othe marine mammals I guess.

astronomy thread

Did your parents encourage you to learn math/science at early age?

I'm really high right now and I has a philosophical question for you all. Why do we try and save as many species as we possibly can from extinction? Just why do we do it?

If a set is a number of elements, what is meant by number here? What particular type of number (a natural number, real number, rational number, etc.) is meant? If it is a natural number, for instance, how is it possible to create a set of real numbers which has more elements than the set of natural numbers, thus making the construction of the set impossible insofar as there aren't enough natural numbers to provide positions for the real numbers (and also inversely, if you were to admit it as possible, wouldn't that imply that there is a one-to-one correspondance possible between the set of reals and naturals)? If it is a real number, wouldn't it be impossible to create the type of numbers with a cardinality higher than the cardinality of real numbers? (and so on)

Please help.

Why real artificial intelligence is unachievable by modern technology?

previous >>13340809