Leaderboard

I worked in architecture for three years. The architects know everything the masons know, the carpenters, the plumbers, the electricians, the millworkers, everything. The architects also had to know what the building inspectors know. An architect respects the methodology that leads to success, and a big part of that success is knowing all the tools in the box before trying to think outside it. The biggest problem with your approach is that you're making up solutions without the necessary knowledge, so ALL your explanations make PERFECT sense to you (because you don't know any better, right?). But those who studied these things can easily see where you're wrong, they tell you, but it makes less sense to you than your PERFECT solution, so you ignore them. You remain convinced that you have solutions nobody has thought of before. Imagine you're a famous songwriter, with hundreds of hit songs to your credit, known the world over as one of the best in your profession. Now imagine that I tell you that I've never written a song before, but I have some great ideas that will be sure to shake up the musical world with their brilliance. I show you some of my ideas, and it's very obvious I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm convinced my songs are wonderful, but you know they aren't. You know, because of your knowledge and experience, that they have no appeal, they won't be accepted, and they make no sense musically. I don't use the right phrases, my timing isn't right, and because I know nothing about songwriting, my songs would take SO MUCH WORK TO FIX that it would be easier to just send me to a music teacher and insist I learn about the thing I so desperately want to change. I love your enthusiasm, but you need to study science. It's not something you can understand without a LOT of layered, nuanced analysis of multiple fields. Right now, it's like you're trying to tell a foreign country what they're doing wrong, and you don't even speak their language (math is the language of physics). Does that make sense?

No, but you do require knowledge, ability, and the recognition of where those things are lacking. I don't want to discourage your enthusiasm but you are acting like a ten year old who thinks he is ready to start practicing medicine because he watched an episode of Doogie Howser, M.D.

"Well, I emailed CERN" Try this; you might get a better response. http://www.claus.com/postoffice/tosanta.php One (among many) concerns with CO2 production from fossil fuels is the damage being done when it dissolves in sea water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification So saying " I think we as humans ought to go ahead with the idea and implement it anyway" suggests that you are an idiot or a maniac. Which is it?

And you have provided this level of help

I find them pretty helpful in determining with whom I'm interacting and what their history is

Once you give AI an objective function to maximise it will do so indiscriminately. If the agent is intelligent enough to realise that someone could try to change its objective function it will take measures to ensure that doesn't happen - as that would interfere with it's current objective. Re-programming such an agent would be difficult - and impossible for itself. This has a name in AI safety circles, but it currently escapes me*. One solution put forward is actually to allow some doubt over the objective function, so that the agent will have to seek external validation (human satisfaction for instance). Such an agent is constantly re-evaluating it's goals in light of sensory input (humans smiling or something more sensible), and might be safer. The biggest problem for AI safety is the likelihood that various states and companies will rush towards developing the technology and so neglect these sorts of safety concerns. *It comes under the banner of Instrumental convergence. Basically unconstrained AI agents might be expected to behave in similar ways, because they all help maximise objectives, regardless of the objective. Things like self-preservation and resource acquisition would help an AI achieve its goals for obvious reasons. Goal-content integrity would similarly help it achieve that goal.

Here is a problem. You don't "get" any "area" in science without thorough study. We haven't seen any evidence that you "get" ANY areas, but it's clear you think you have a great deal to offer. Part of the reason your posts are getting negative rep is because your lack of methodology is counter to what science is trying to achieve. The steps science uses in order to trust it's explanations on various phenomena are plodding and deliberate and analytical. We make sure our footing is sound before taking the next step. What you're doing is leaping from one thing you think you understand to another thing you think you understand. You aren't taking the steps in between to build supportive evidence and reasoned conclusions that would allow anybody to see what you're doing and repeat it. If science is like trying to find the best path to cross a frozen lake, you're leaping from one unsupported chunk of ice to another. You seem to think it means you're abnormally intuitive about science, and don't need to learn about it to criticize it. I think you'd earn the same reputation at a fine arts discussion forum if you suggested flinging randomly colored paints at a canvas is all you need to make a masterpiece.

Implicit in this response is the suggestion that you've read through every single other thread that has arisen here through the years on the topic of IQ. Given that you haven't, not only are you a troll, but you're a liar... and I know who you are... have you seen you enough times under other usernames.

I normally don't visit other threads, but maybe I will. Its unlikely that I will start getting aggressive due to many negative points because there is nothing to be gained out of it, and it contributes nothing to my ideas to get aggressive. I am only concerned about the possibility that many negatives automatically qualify one to banhood.

Just so you know, most people answering so far in your multiple thereads (which you all posted over a period of few hours while being on the forum for 1 day) are professional scientists - physicists, biologists, chemists, some of them have PHD’s. Why do you think its appropriate to march into a science site full of those people shouting that you have it all figured out? I have a tip for you...choose a subject and try spending a few months on this forum in a specific section of it and pursue your ideas, see where it gets you and what you can learn. You wont get far just by informing everyone that you figured out some area of science without posting your model/evidence - you’ll get bashed everytime you do that. Also, your narcissistic attitude is a big show stopper for you, even if you already were a Nobel prize winner and came here with that attitude you’d get bashed too. Change your attitude and stay to learn or keep it up and pretty quickly you’ll be gone from here ending up at some crackpot site looking for respect and justification of your baseless ideas. Most probably you will find those at one of the pseudo science sites on the internet.

Seems someone learned a few scientific terms, and thinks that by stringing them together in a post, he's doing science. It is gibberish. Learn some science !

Narcissism and delusion may be better descriptors. Correction: Theories are fine, but have a very specific meaning in science. They are supported by evidence and offer testable predictions. They are, in fact, more powerful and on a higher plane than laws and facts. What you have are conjectures, maybe hypotheses or speculations, but more accurately they’re wild assed guesses worthy of no self-respecting persons time. Precision matters. In math, you don’t get to substitute banana for X or Tuesday for addition. Same with scientific ideas. This is a good thing, despite your lamentations. You probably should’ve posted this in the Comments and Feedback forum: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/28-suggestions-comments-and-support/

I certainly wouldn’t want to be worshipping any god she worshipped!

I'm by no means a molecular biologist so please excuse any mistakes. I'm interested in agrobacterium-mediated transformation of a plant using the pNOV2819 plasmid (pic below) which uses the pmi selectable marker. I read a paper where its efficacy in transforming almonds was tested (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16534597). However, no new gene was inserted into the plasmid so the transformed plants only contained the selectable marker (and promoter/terminator). I wondered if a new gene was inserted (for example at the AscI restriction site) how the selection would work in agrobacterium and the plant in terms of growth on a mannose medium and PCR/Southern blotting to confirm transgene incorporation. Any advice/explanation would be great!

I have a theory that EMF waves are generated by the poster and influence the person assigning the rep points, thus ensuring an accurate reputation. Knowing this is true will greatly help those who visit the site so they can trust what they read. Perhaps someone here can run some experiments to verify the accuracy of my theory. I'd be happy to share authorship of the subsequent paper if you also agree to write it up.

Minus points don't mean anything, and can be unfair. But crappy posts do, and there is a correlation. And I think Phi was being kind when he compared Thethinkertank's posting style to splattering paint on a canvas and calling it a masterpiece. That's unfair to J Pollock. Myself, I would have compared it to flinging sh*t at the wall, and seeing what sticks.

Quote: Elgy Gillespie points out that at a hospice supposedly to care for AIDS patients which Teresa ran in San Francisco, terminally ill patients with chronic pain were denied morphine. Desperate patients would try to escape the hospice and seek refuge elsewhere. Susan Shields, who worked for Teresa for nearly a decade, also testifies to the appalling treatment of the defenceless at Teresa’s facilities. Shields was disturbed that the “poor were the ones who suffered” as a result of Teresa’s “self-righteous adherence to poverty.” There was no dearth of money in the order though. Teresa received hundreds of millions of dollars in donation. Her unsuspecting donors thought she was using it to alleviate pain and suffering among the poor. However, Teresa saw it differently. She considered the flood of donations to be a sign of god’s approval of her efforts and of her congregation. So, the money was never used for the advertised purpose of helping the poor. It simply accumulated in the bank accounts of the Catholic Church. http://indiafacts.org/mother-teresa-eichmann-calcutta/ But, as that’s all dragging this off topic - I’ll just add; I was a believer, until I learned about Mother Teresa

Consequence of theory of relativity; better handled in a separate thread I think.

“Although she had 517 missions in 100 countries at the time of her death, the study found that hardly anyone who came seeking medical care found it there. Doctors observed unhygienic, “even unfit,” conditions, inadequate food, and no painkillers — not for lack of funding, in which Mother Theresa’s world-famous order was swimming, but what the study authors call her “particular conception of suffering and death.” https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mother-teresa-was-no-saint_b_9470988

For me "Faith" is the key word, once you accept faith as meaningful you can believe anything on faith. You can have faith that magic invisible pixies run the universe, no one can prove you wrong once magic is invoked. Faith is the worst possible reason to believe something. I am an apistevist, I base my beliefs around reasonable expectations based on past experience and factual evidence. There might be a god or gods or goddesses but so far no actual evidence for them exists...

By this assertion, I can now tell you don't know much about about biology and evolution either. We can add those to your lack of knowledge about physics and cosmology. Besides zero evidence for telepathy, knowing how traits are passed along to future generations tells us that if there was an ability that connects minds, it would spread and strengthen very quickly after just a few generations. An enormous advantage like that couldn't be overlooked by evolution, yet we still have zero evidence that it exists. So good luck trying to tie that to virtual particles. Btw, something else you have wrong is the idea of "proof". Science isn't interested in "proving" anything. Science looks ALWAYS for the best supported explanations for various phenomena. That's why they're called "theories" instead of "answers". Theories are more powerful because we're always trying to improve them.

That is not a meaningful ratio. If the water is too acid (or full of chlorine) it is still harmful to life. And instead of guessing stupid numbers like "a billion trillion trillion to one" why not find out something about the subject.

Controlled fusion would be a game changer for sure..

Doesn't work like that, the pH rises or falls as a whole or very nearly so, it's not separated out into drops and as the pH falls the ability of sea life to "bicarbonate" drops. Actually it's worse than that sea life is quite capable to using bicarbonates faster than they are available in closed areas resulting in extreme pH swings. The bicarbonates are a very tiny part of the ocean but immensely important. Calcium, and to a lesser extent magnesium, are what carbonates are made of and the process of forming carbonates can run either direction. Sequestering CO2 in carbonates is not permanent and depends on the pH staying high. Lower the pH and CO2 can be released back into the water and or atmosphere... And stop calling me shirley...

I do not know. Looking at science fiction - the kugelblitz/black hole/singularity drive looks amazing! Right now it looks totally impossible.... although - if you told a 14 year old DrP about the latest in mobile phone tech, drones or virtual reality gaming and touch screens I would have thought it all far fetched. Sequencing the DNA code and editing human DNA? Wow!... If I told my great granddad when he was a boy that we'd have planes and trips to the moon in space ships he might have thought me mad. I think that the 'theory' behind the BH drive is based on reality.... you would have to find a way to create or capture your own little black hole and keep it safely contained though, lol. I was hoping fusion would have got a little further down the line from where we are now... when I was younger I was sure we'd have got a little closer than we have. Always seems like its just 30 to 50 years off... they've been saying that for 60 years or so and we are only a little closer than we were.

That does not work anymore when the oceans get too acidic. Learn chemistry and nautal biology, before you spout the nonsense you do here. No, no, don't think. Start learning.

Pros: Reduces CO2 output globally by about *5% (* - figure pulled from somewhere dark and unpleasant) Cons: Acidifies the oceans making them uninhabitable for wildlife. The killing of the marine life will probably be a bigger catastrophe than the CO2 levels rising.

Exactly where does that say anything about NaCl? The buffering ability of the oceans is limited and the fact that atmospheric levels of CO2 are already lowering the seas ability to buffer is troubling to say the least. Why would you want to make that worse?

So nothing about it reacting with salt then - just dissolving in water. Did I miss the bit about the salt somewhere?

Exactly. Both Na2CO3 and NaHCO3 dissolve very good in water, as does NaCl. So all ions will stay in solution in the water, however the H+-ions introduced by the CO2 solution in water will contribute to the acidification (is that English?) of the sea. So it is really a bad idea.

DrP has given you quite a few things to think about, but ignore them if it makes you feel better.

Releasing CO2 into the sea is probably the worst thing you could do with it, CO2 levels are on the rise in the oceans already, the sea naturally removes CO2 from the air, and acidification is a problem already. At some point the pH will fall below 7 and the sea will suddenly become a huge source of CO2, that really needs to be avoided at all costs. ( I can't believe I allowed myself to dragged into this idiocy)

Nope. After a few seconds most people are going to switch off. If they do watch to the end, they will just be annoyed they have wasted 32 seconds read the meaningless sentence: "Bye global warming undersea CO2 waste combines with salt forming harmless compounds". The fact that the sentence could have been read in under a second adds to the annoyance. And the fact it is meaningless just adds insult to injury. Do you have any evidence that sodium chloride reacts with CO2, because I am pretty sure it doesn't. No it doesn't. It makes a completely meaningless statement that is not supported by any evidence or theory. It is up to you as the inventor of this amazing idea to explain how salt combines with CO2, what this produces and how that solves global warming. Please provide a reference that these can be combined to produce a carbonate. Even if they could be forced to react somehow, the reaction would release large quantities of chlorine, which is an extremely toxic gas. Killing all the undersea life in the vicinity. It only makes sense to you because you are totally ignorant. Does it? Really? What evidence do you have for that? (Outside your fertile imagination) You obviously have zero idea what CERN does, then.

...it is clear that you don't know even classical physics.. if you're claiming that pressure won't be a problem.. there is no difference between "diving" and "being there at rest at the bottom of ocean". Pressure is the same at such depth regardless of what you are doing there. Pressure is acting on underwater underground construction of facility. Nonsense. CO2 should not be dissolved in sea water. The way to catch CO2 should be GMO algae on deserts with large tanks of water, artificial hermetic lakes (i.e. concrete with steel bars). They will absorb CO2 and water and grow. Their body can be converted to biofuel, or stored in old mines etc. for later use. Why deserts? Because GMO algae should not contaminate sea water and environment. Additionally it will help solving political and economical problems of African countries.

1. More than half of your "short and to the point" video is taken up with music and blank screen. The rest consists of 9 words with no meaningful content. 2. Why would a particle accelerator laboratory be interested in ocean waste disposal (even if you had a sensible idea)? 3. No one is going to plagiarise the idea because it makes no sense. Thinking "out of the box" requires having an in-depth knowledge of the subject. I have seen no evidence that you have any knowledge of any subject whatsoever. Making up random nonsense is not the same as coming up with solutions (novel or otherwise). No expert is going to have any interest in this drivel.

I think you have problem with English.. I never said the words you're putting in my mouth. Underwater facility require energy. So this energy can be acquired with mentioned by me methods. It won't solve pressure issue at all. It's not its purpose. Everybody diving are well aware of it.. That was the scariest thing for U-Boot crew during II world war (80 years ago!). Every submarine has some depth diving limit, which should not be exceeded, otherwise submarine is squashed, squeezed by pressure of water above it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_depth_ratings

Hi everybody! Im new to this forum, and i like very much chemistry and physics. I write because i want know some experiments with: Calcium Hydroxide Copper Sulfate pentaidrate Sodium Carbonate Thanks to everyone that will answer P.S. Excuse me for the bad english

The problem here is that you aren’t doing the hard part, even if you think you are. In fact, you are creating extra work, because people have to explain to you why your ideas aren’t possible. “Thinking outside the box” is often touted as a virtue, especially by your ilk, but when you have no clue what the box is and why it’s there, it isn’t. It’s an excuse not to put the effort in to learn science

Exactly. You don't even know the box. Or just write it in the email to CERN. BTW, what has CERN to do with global warming? (Well they use much energy, so CERN is greatly contributing to global warming (relatively)).

The first 16 seconds of that 32 second video is a blank screen with background music. You could have just written the sentence that the video gives in the last 16 seconds. It would have been clearer and easier to read the sentence written in plain text rather than having to watch a video with music irrelevant to the topic of the sentence you are trying to get across. Researched by who? Do you have a link to the research? How is the CO2 going to get into the sea from the air? Yea - but isn't that just like claiming you are inventing teleportation by stating you get into one box and step out of the other? How does it work? - You step in one box and get out of the other! We'll leave the internal workings of the device to the tech guys - that's the easy bit eh?

When I was younger it would have seemed impossible for people to have a telephone in their pocket to carry around with them without any wires, let alone a PC which lets you network worldwide and have access to the sum of the worlds information at a click. It's not even a click - you only have to touch the screen. It's all in a single slim box that goes in your pocket. There are many ways in which people have speculated how such feats of power generation and food and water production/recycling could be possible in the future.

https://xkcd.com/675/

What should the UN's stand be other than withdrawing its forces from Sudan? How should the USA offer military support to the Sudanese civilians? Should it interfere in any way or not?

Here is an example of a diagram with coordinates x and t* for one frame of reference S. Diagram 1: One observer O1, stationary in origo, detects an event, in this case a light pulse. Since x=0 and t=0 the event is in point (0,0). We also have a second observer O2 located at some other point in S. Since O2 is in the same frame of reference and stationary there is no relativistic effects due to any relative movement. O2 will agree with O1 that the event takes place at (0,0). Due to the non-infinite speed of signal travel O2 will be able to register the event at a later time than t=0 but that has no effect on the fact that the event happened at t=0 according to O1 and O2 (or according to any other, stationary, observer in S). Of course both x and t must be known to be able to tell at what point in space and time the event happened. If O2 or O1 are unable to measure x or t to agree about the point x,t that is an engineering issue, not a relativistic issue. Here is a second example. This is the same situations as Diagram 1 but at some later time when the light signal reaches O2. O1 and O2 are still at the same place in space but at a later point in time. Since vertical axis is “ct” the light pulse draws a 45 degree line. Note again: No relative movement and no relativistic effects. I think you could say there is a common moment of now for stationary observers in one frame of reference. As soon as there is relative movement there is no universal "now". *) vertical axis is "ct" to allow for easier drawing of light pulses; they will make a 45 degree slope

There is nothing "uncontrollable" about antimatter. It doesn't have any bizarre properties that you seem to imagine it has. We use antimatter in PET scans. Isotopes of some elements decay through the emission of positrons ( the antimatter counterpart to the electron). These positrons then mutually annihilate with the first electron they encounter, producing a couple of gamma ray photons. By giving a patient a small dose of a substance that contains one of these isotopes, they can use scanners to track it through the body by its positron emissions. What is difficult to do with antimatter is store it on Earth in any great quantities. When antimatter comes in contact with "normal" matter, they mutually annihilate each other. Since any antimatter we make is surrounded by regular matter, the trick is to keep the two apart. This is done by using "magnetic bottles" which hold the antimatter in a vacuum and use electric and magnetic fields to keep it from touching the material walls ( this in itself shows that antimatter is controllable with natural forces. Even then, we can't store it for too long. We can't produce a perfect vacuum, which means the antimatter is still going to encounter stray atoms over time and slowly be "eroded" away. The log term storage of antimatter is a technological issue and not one due to some "uncontrollable" nature of antimatter.

I don’t see why we can’t stay here. Even if some people do go off and explore / colonise space, most people will stay here. But apparently it might not be so difficult for civilisations to spread through the galaxy: https://www.quantamagazine.org/galaxy-simulations-offer-a-new-solution-to-the-fermi-paradox-20190307/

! Moderator Note Yep, we're done here. This is a science discussion site. We expect that you support your ideas with actual science, not nonsense anecdotes.

That’s not a modification, per se, since you’ve just rewritten GM. But G is, and must be, a constant. And if you contend otherwise you must show that to be the case, before applying the concept elsewhere Again, something you must demonstrate. That’s not a viable strategy, and is inconsistent with our rules on speculations. ! Moderator Note As you have no evidence, this is closed. Do not open new threads in (or containing) speculations that are not compliant with our requirements

um..point is there can be many theories, equally acceptable about anything. My theory does not seek to refute the existing ones. I merely venture to propound upon a new possibility that the earth and the sun were created at the same time, and then in illusionary time space (the parallel dimension to existig reality, google it) the earth was granted orbit by virtue of extraeneous fundemental attributes, such as e=x wheras the suns's own energy was e=y.

IQ tests are based on fallacius foundations. They take into assumption that human intelligence is based on memory and judgement rather than split second reactions to stimuli. For example, who is a genius, a guy who can solve mensa puzzle or muhammed ali (whos IQ was estimated to be 70)? I'd say Ali was the genius and here's why. Antique man, our stone age forebears, evolved to a world full of stimuli. There was no need to think much back then, merely respond to stimuli. The smart guy was the one who could climb up a tree the fastest just as the bear flashed down upon him like a lightning bolt from a clear sky. The genius scientist on the other hand would be calculating trajectories of escape, velocities of bear speed and so on and then it would be too late. Notice things like math and science require memory rather than stimulus response? From the point of evolution, human intelligence would rather be more along the lines of survival than memorising. memory probably evolved later as a seperate entity, to facilitate learning which comes down to connected blueprints of stimuls-response-survival-faliure mechanisms in a package of its own, to help see the way. But at the moment of decision making, its always split second hand eye coordination that defined the intelligent survivor back then. Thats right folks, you and I, would be in that category of bear meat.