Let's get this board moving.
/cyb/ - Cyberpunk Fiction and Fact
Cyberpunk is the idea that technology will condemn us to a future of totalitarian nightmares here you can discuss recent events and how technology has been used to facilitate greater control by the elites, or works of fiction
File (): 8572B1B915B06943C53A66A89E988EDB-1060359.png (1.0 MB, 2076x2880, 2784708.png)
581 replies and 273 files omitted.
File (): 2EC8782D90A9476B811C3F1DC07C3FA9-401858.pdf (392.4 KB, , CERN-Brochure-2023-002-Eng.pdf)
File (): 6145CE2EEF16FD3AF6812BEF1377F57D-283401.png (276.8 KB, 1366x543, Sc4559.png)
>>3131
>CERN's budget
According to (((them))) the 2023 budget is 1230.38 Million CHF = 1439.54 million U$D
>CERN's budget
According to (((them))) the 2023 budget is 1230.38 Million CHF = 1439.54 million U$D
>>3132
>It's too late at night for me to debate the intricacies of particle physics
Reminder that "atomic" physics is just and merely a "theory".
>It's too late at night for me to debate the intricacies of particle physics
Reminder that "atomic" physics is just and merely a "theory".
File (): 43810D318C1A6A53219493D345117CEF-1238888.gif (1.2 MB, 483x481, f71f72ebe9c47b937f9f0167ff641f04.gif)
>>3139
>Are you telling me that that is untrue?
I'm telling you, and according to academia, that there is not conclusive proof of that. That's the reason no professor or scientist will put his career on the line claiming the "Atomic Theory" is real. Then they play safe by claiming is actually a "model" for interpretation of the matter.
>Are you telling me that that is untrue?
I'm telling you, and according to academia, that there is not conclusive proof of that. That's the reason no professor or scientist will put his career on the line claiming the "Atomic Theory" is real. Then they play safe by claiming is actually a "model" for interpretation of the matter.
>>3140
Actually, there's quite a bit of proof that atoms are real. Atomic theory is called a theory because most scientific concepts are called theories. The theory has changed over time as it has been revealed that atoms are not indivisible as we once thought.
>Then they play safe by claiming is actually a "model" for interpretation of the matter.
That's just how science works
So do you or do you not believe in atomic theory?
Actually, there's quite a bit of proof that atoms are real. Atomic theory is called a theory because most scientific concepts are called theories. The theory has changed over time as it has been revealed that atoms are not indivisible as we once thought.
>Then they play safe by claiming is actually a "model" for interpretation of the matter.
That's just how science works
So do you or do you not believe in atomic theory?
>>3141
>Actually, there's quite a bit of proof that atoms are real.
Sure, I'm aware of lab's testing pointing at that, but to claim that atoms are in this way ot that way is an interpolation.
>Actually, there's quite a bit of proof that atoms are real.
Sure, I'm aware of lab's testing pointing at that, but to claim that atoms are in this way ot that way is an interpolation.
>>3140
>That's the reason no professor or scientist will put his career on the line claiming the "Atomic Theory" is r
Every professor or scientist you meet will tell you that atomic theory is true. It's accepted as fact by most scientists that atoms are real.
There is no president of science or other person with the authority to decide what or when models are facts instead of theories, that's why models are called theories indefinitely.
>That's the reason no professor or scientist will put his career on the line claiming the "Atomic Theory" is r
Every professor or scientist you meet will tell you that atomic theory is true. It's accepted as fact by most scientists that atoms are real.
There is no president of science or other person with the authority to decide what or when models are facts instead of theories, that's why models are called theories indefinitely.
>>3143
>Every professor or scientist you meet will tell you that atomic theory is true.
Of course, the same than paleontologists claiming that Evolution is real. After all they have to follow the establishment's narrative to make their careers. That said, not one will risk their monetary incoming when challenged and will play safe.
>Every professor or scientist you meet will tell you that atomic theory is true.
Of course, the same than paleontologists claiming that Evolution is real. After all they have to follow the establishment's narrative to make their careers. That said, not one will risk their monetary incoming when challenged and will play safe.
>>3142
>to claim that atoms are in this way ot that way is an interpolation.
That's why they're smashing them together with extremely strong magnets and try to make sense of the energy signals they give off thereafter.
>to claim that atoms are in this way ot that way is an interpolation.
That's why they're smashing them together with extremely strong magnets and try to make sense of the energy signals they give off thereafter.
>>3147
>and try to make sense of the energy signals they give off thereafter
Ah, that the key sentence. Energy signals in the form of x-rays and gamma longitude which is actually radiation but they publish it as "debris" to trick the uneducated normies.
>and try to make sense of the energy signals they give off thereafter
Ah, that the key sentence. Energy signals in the form of x-rays and gamma longitude which is actually radiation but they publish it as "debris" to trick the uneducated normies.
>>3148
>but they publish it as "debris"
I go further. Those charlatans publish pictures of pseudo particles, because they claim are actual subatomic particles, and ask for more money. In reality what the pictures show are "traces" of radiation impacting whatever their are using as a sensor to register the event. To claim those are particles is a looooooooooooong stretch.
>but they publish it as "debris"
I go further. Those charlatans publish pictures of pseudo particles, because they claim are actual subatomic particles, and ask for more money. In reality what the pictures show are "traces" of radiation impacting whatever their are using as a sensor to register the event. To claim those are particles is a looooooooooooong stretch.
Anonymous
No.3151
>>3149
>Have you ever tried talking to new reporters?
No need, I know physics and I may assisted to some lab. I'm know what I'm talking about. Do not fall for the narrative of what is our reality.
>Have you ever tried talking to new reporters?
No need, I know physics and I may assisted to some lab. I'm know what I'm talking about. Do not fall for the narrative of what is our reality.
>>3148
>is actually radiation but they publish it as "debris"
Radiation and debris are arguably the same thing. Atoms and their components aren't objects; they're more like knots of energy or EM waves. I like to think of them as music notes in a song. Electrons and Photons are simultaneously particles and waves, but you can also think of them as a cloud.
And the type of radiation is also really indicative of what the particles did after dissipating, because as matter is converted into energy the amount of energy released can determine what happened.
Also could be promising for engineering discoveries, such as advanced fusion reactors.
>to trick the uneducated normies.
Most normies don't actually care if a neutron split in two pieces is given a name. None of them even seemed to care that an anti-hydrogen atom was recently created. Only nerds like me bother to read this stuff.
>>3150
The pictures are just visual aids because they're impossible to conceptualize anyway. Particles that act like waves or fields of energy don't look like beads; they don't look like anything at all in fact.
>To claim those are particles is a looooooooooooong stretch
That's a fair point. A lot of the particles they're to creating are so unnatural and unstable that they dissipate instantly, and the only proof of their existence is that they produced the correct expected type of waves based on the math.
>is actually radiation but they publish it as "debris"
Radiation and debris are arguably the same thing. Atoms and their components aren't objects; they're more like knots of energy or EM waves. I like to think of them as music notes in a song. Electrons and Photons are simultaneously particles and waves, but you can also think of them as a cloud.
And the type of radiation is also really indicative of what the particles did after dissipating, because as matter is converted into energy the amount of energy released can determine what happened.
Also could be promising for engineering discoveries, such as advanced fusion reactors.
>to trick the uneducated normies.
Most normies don't actually care if a neutron split in two pieces is given a name. None of them even seemed to care that an anti-hydrogen atom was recently created. Only nerds like me bother to read this stuff.
>>3150
The pictures are just visual aids because they're impossible to conceptualize anyway. Particles that act like waves or fields of energy don't look like beads; they don't look like anything at all in fact.
>To claim those are particles is a looooooooooooong stretch
That's a fair point. A lot of the particles they're to creating are so unnatural and unstable that they dissipate instantly, and the only proof of their existence is that they produced the correct expected type of waves based on the math.
>>3152
>Atoms and their components aren't objects; they're more like knots of energy or EM waves
You are confusing matter with its manifestation of optic light, also called photons.
>Atoms and their components aren't objects; they're more like knots of energy or EM waves
You are confusing matter with its manifestation of optic light, also called photons.
>>3156
>Once you get into subatomic particles
Well, it is the field of charlatans claiming to be discovering the holy new thing, they may know something about to tinker with matter, but the interpretation of what they are dealing with has, and according to them, a great latitude.
>Once you get into subatomic particles
Well, it is the field of charlatans claiming to be discovering the holy new thing, they may know something about to tinker with matter, but the interpretation of what they are dealing with has, and according to them, a great latitude.
Anonymous
No.3159
>>3149
>So a drop in the ocean
My point exactly. It's barely taking in any money considering the scale of the project and the number of actors involved. If it disappeared tomorrow your taxes would not change one cent.
>So a drop in the ocean
My point exactly. It's barely taking in any money considering the scale of the project and the number of actors involved. If it disappeared tomorrow your taxes would not change one cent.
>>3160
>fascinating
I agree, but take into account that most of their "ideas" are based in "Theoretical Physics" which is also based on "Theoretical Math", which is based on math tricks such as multi-dimensional matrices with not correlation with the physical world.
>fascinating
I agree, but take into account that most of their "ideas" are based in "Theoretical Physics" which is also based on "Theoretical Math", which is based on math tricks such as multi-dimensional matrices with not correlation with the physical world.
>>3161
>not correlation with the physical world
Oh sure, nuclear fusion reactors are totally irrelevant. No point in researching those
>not correlation with the physical world
Oh sure, nuclear fusion reactors are totally irrelevant. No point in researching those
>>3162
>nuclear fusion reactors are totally irrelevant
Name an actual one functioning. The theory sounds great but its implementation is science fiction.
>nuclear fusion reactors are totally irrelevant
Name an actual one functioning. The theory sounds great but its implementation is science fiction.
>>3167
>It's already generated plasma fields.
I'm not arguing that as it can be done in a home lab.
What I'm arguing is its capability to be used a mass energy supply for a city. I mean its characteristics to be economically viable and not a simple project for burning money.
Allow me to clarify; all these "marvelous" devices are propped as the new tech, the vanguard, the future, however the KEY for all of them to be practical is the power relation input/output. Then the input of power/energy MUST be lower than the output. Can that be possible? As the current technology is developed, I very much doubt it.
>It's already generated plasma fields.
I'm not arguing that as it can be done in a home lab.
What I'm arguing is its capability to be used a mass energy supply for a city. I mean its characteristics to be economically viable and not a simple project for burning money.
Allow me to clarify; all these "marvelous" devices are propped as the new tech, the vanguard, the future, however the KEY for all of them to be practical is the power relation input/output. Then the input of power/energy MUST be lower than the output. Can that be possible? As the current technology is developed, I very much doubt it.
>>3168
>What I'm arguing is its capability to be used a mass energy supply for a city.
Just last year it created a net positive yield, which is a huge deal because it means that given some time to optimize it could generate enormous amounts of energy with no waste and barely any fuel.
Which is why researching the science behind it is important.
>What I'm arguing is its capability to be used a mass energy supply for a city.
Just last year it created a net positive yield, which is a huge deal because it means that given some time to optimize it could generate enormous amounts of energy with no waste and barely any fuel.
Which is why researching the science behind it is important.
>>3168
Seeing as submarines and aircraft carriers run entirely on nuclear technology, I fail to see how a city can't be.
Seeing as submarines and aircraft carriers run entirely on nuclear technology, I fail to see how a city can't be.
>>3170
>Seeing as submarines and aircraft carriers run entirely on nuclear technology
That is totally different tech. Current nuclear energy is so simple as to heat a boiler to generate steam, which spins a turbine, which spins a electric generator. No much science is involved in that.
>>3168
>because it means that given some time to optimize
Okay, you rest on faith. I'm don't want to be a contrarian, but to my knowledge, the fusion technology is at least 50 years away for commercial deployment.
>Seeing as submarines and aircraft carriers run entirely on nuclear technology
That is totally different tech. Current nuclear energy is so simple as to heat a boiler to generate steam, which spins a turbine, which spins a electric generator. No much science is involved in that.
>>3168
>because it means that given some time to optimize
Okay, you rest on faith. I'm don't want to be a contrarian, but to my knowledge, the fusion technology is at least 50 years away for commercial deployment.
>>3168
>Then the input of power/energy MUST be lower than the output.
It's like a bastardized chemical exothermic reaction.
Getting the two components to bond ejects a high energy neutron (proton and election bonded tightly), the conditions is tons of heat, movement and those two isotopes.
>>3171
>Current nuclear energy is so simple as to heat a boiler to generate steam,
One of the fusion reactors shunts the hot high energy neutron to coolent aka basically water and you know what would happen next.
Other types attempt other things.
>Then the input of power/energy MUST be lower than the output.
It's like a bastardized chemical exothermic reaction.
Getting the two components to bond ejects a high energy neutron (proton and election bonded tightly), the conditions is tons of heat, movement and those two isotopes.
>>3171
>Current nuclear energy is so simple as to heat a boiler to generate steam,
One of the fusion reactors shunts the hot high energy neutron to coolent aka basically water and you know what would happen next.
Other types attempt other things.
>>3169
>it could generate enormous amounts of energy with no waste and barely any fuel.
To give you a taste of the holy grail those scientists and the oligarchs funding them are after:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
>it could generate enormous amounts of energy with no waste and barely any fuel.
To give you a taste of the holy grail those scientists and the oligarchs funding them are after:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
Anonymous
No.3176
>>3171
>fusion technology is at least 50 years away for commercial deployment.
That's only one generation.
>fusion technology is at least 50 years away for commercial deployment.
That's only one generation.
>>3175
>lots of other stuff
Yeah, isotope galore ready to be chemically reprocessed for mainly nuclear medicine.
>lots of other stuff
Yeah, isotope galore ready to be chemically reprocessed for mainly nuclear medicine.
>>3177
Also technology adapting to an indulgent surplus of available energy. Electric water desalination could make agriculture easier. Electric mills could synthesize steel and other polymers for cheap. Much faster internet, etc.
Imagine life when electricity costs for most mundane things becomes negligible.
Also technology adapting to an indulgent surplus of available energy. Electric water desalination could make agriculture easier. Electric mills could synthesize steel and other polymers for cheap. Much faster internet, etc.
Imagine life when electricity costs for most mundane things becomes negligible.
>>3178
>Imagine life when electricity costs for most mundane things becomes negligible.
Sorry anon but I believe you are drunk in jewish lies,
Technologies are NOT in humanity hands, but jewish hands. Do you really believe jews will make available such benefits for a negligible price as you fantasize it? Really?
>Imagine life when electricity costs for most mundane things becomes negligible.
Sorry anon but I believe you are drunk in jewish lies,
Technologies are NOT in humanity hands, but jewish hands. Do you really believe jews will make available such benefits for a negligible price as you fantasize it? Really?
>>3179
>implying I'm not involved in the implementation of this infrastructure
I believe they'll do what's profitable. There is a lot of money to be made in this tech.
Jews already own all of the oil rigs and mineral mines and still sell them for energy. If nuclear energy becomes profitable they'll use it too.
>implying I'm not involved in the implementation of this infrastructure
I believe they'll do what's profitable. There is a lot of money to be made in this tech.
Jews already own all of the oil rigs and mineral mines and still sell them for energy. If nuclear energy becomes profitable they'll use it too.
Anonymous
No.3182
>>3180
>implying I'm not involved in the implementation of this infrastructure
Perhaps, but only to the point of deploying it as a contracted goyim. To be an employee doesn't give the right to own the (((company)))'s tools.
>implying I'm not involved in the implementation of this infrastructure
Perhaps, but only to the point of deploying it as a contracted goyim. To be an employee doesn't give the right to own the (((company)))'s tools.
File (): E58A176795F3618BE87BCCE4F775DA0B-120101.jpg (117.3 KB, 960x544, 238aa21.jpg)
>>3181
>Solution: remove Jews.
At this point a fantasy. There are millions on the jew's payroll and most of them are more than willing to kill for a steady flow of shekels.
>Solution: remove Jews.
At this point a fantasy. There are millions on the jew's payroll and most of them are more than willing to kill for a steady flow of shekels.
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-50] [51-100] [101-150] [151-200] [201-250] [251-300] [301-350] [351-400] [401-450] [451-500] [501-550] [551-600] [601-631] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
631 replies | 279 files | 86 UUIDs | Page 4