/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11223820
>How in the fuck would you know what I do and don't know you donkey ass psued.

>Perhaps you should explain yourself then, like I've asked you to like 3 times now. I didn't make this thread to be your alls personal tutor.

Why did you make this thread?

>Figure this shit out on your own that is called "science" you hacks

science uses what we call "empirical evidence". Please show us some empirical evidence that any device you listed does what you say it does. You probably won't though and instead will continue shitting your own thread up.

>>11223819
The /pol/ psychosis of caring and proclaiming who is shilling who has corrupted your brain. All you should care about is the quality of the post.

>>10347653
>I built Tesla because I had a bunch of spare money that came from the same government shilling green energy.
FTFY
I was originally going to post because I thought the title implied Nikola Tesla's patents (why I thought Elon had any is beyond me) which would probably useful, but no instead you get an overengineered coal powered battery on wheels.

>>10333038
>Elon is a fraud but he knows which buttons to press in order to impress normies.

So did Tesla, only the buttons he pressed cause all his work to be confiscated by the FBI and hidden for years. Elon has his shit SPONSORED by the government.

>>10225021
>Science is glorified math
FTFY
>>10225071
you just described philosophy
>Perhaps more fundamentally, how do you know which studies will lead to applications before you even begin?
philosophy...

>>10143152
>And we still do not know what the fucks he dealt with.
The "dielectric field". HE said so him self many times.
>>10144560
No one here believes in non physical fields. You're talking to a bunch of mathematicians that are driven by fallacy of reification. They honestly believe that the universe runs off of math, it's an astonishing yet sad thing to watch, the will drivel nonsense that holds no place in reality. Like this moron:

>>10144903
>For example, consider gravitational waves

Lol, "gravitational wave". We don't know what causes gravity and a "wave" is what something else does, yet this person has reified "gravitational waves" based on more or less an assumption.

>Because it's not about being smartest, it's about doing large scale project that requires cooperation of multiple teams of experts because of nature of this experiment.

...being a groupthink sheep and doing what everyone else is doing. No score will be kept on this soccer game.

>>10144907
"we made up more particles to correct our math"

>>10143263
>"lol we made it turn on and off faster! This is progress!"

>>10143093
There is no one here smarter than Marconi, Steinmetz, Oliver Heaviside, Nikola Tesla, Faraday and Maxwell. Nobody.

>>10129824
>you can receive a 'signal' but nobody considers it transmission of power because the efficiency is so incredibly poor
What exactly do you think a "signal" is? What do you think is being transmitted through the winding of copper?

>your longitudinal vs transverse statement is ignorant
You're right, forgive me. A "longitudinal wave" is actually not even a "wave" at all because there is no "wave" component to them.

>do you have any conception of the current theories of guided waves / bounded waves? The propagation of electromagnetic waves thru a waveguide?
A wave is what something does.