jlindgaard

Not to single out fuzzwood and O3, because we have discussed carbonic acid which is hypothetical. In the tropopause, the atmospheric temperature is about -60° C. It also has more vacuum or less pressure than the upper troposphere has. Sorry that I am not talking chemistry but atmospheric physics. And in this tropopause, we have both CO2 and H2O, that's chemistry. And since carbonic acid is not possible, is it outside the realm of possibility if when CO2 tries to meld with H2O that with the elements C, H2 and O3 that they form another combination instead ? We do have O3 in the lower stratosphere and we also have CH2 in the upper troposphere. I can't think something like this is possible because we have record levels of CO2 exceeding 400 ppm along with more water in our atmosphere and an ozone layer that's recovered faster than both NOAA and NASA expected. It's just too damned convenient.

fuzzwood, can you post a link where that reaction has been demonstrated ? I think you guys should call me Lindgaard the Retard, then you guys could feel better about yourselves. I think I'll point out a very basic thing you guys have over looked. Since a carbon element shares valence electrons with 2 oxygen elements and the oxygen elements share ionic electrons with each other, what specific attribute prevents an oxygen molecule from sharing an ionic electron with a carbon element ? Kind of why I doubt it's a sharing valence electrons. Lack of CO in our atmosphere, less than 1 ppm. Yet with Einstein's perception of gravity and it having an effect on matter, when a carbon element is close enough to a diatomic oxygen molecule, their effect on the same space creates a bond. This is when the diatomic oxygen molecule constricts it's field because it's spin is slowed and the carbon elements spin increases, viola ! Most likely how it happens. Kind of why whenever you see CO2 being involved in a natural process, the carbon element and not an oxygen molecule is moved. And I know you guys will disagree with this even though you won't be able to show a natural occurrence of CO.

@Cuthber, Only 2 people checked and it was over 20 years later. @strange, You really missed it. Einstein's perception which I referred to was not mathematically based as you claim. He referred to the warping as a dish where the out side rim was higher and as you moved closer to the center, it was lower which related to having more effect. As to who ever said CO is found in quantity in our atmosphere, it is a very small quantity. And if CO2 had a double covalent bond, then when ever one of it's oxygen molecules was used to produce something like ozone which requires 3 oxygen molecules, there should be a lot of CO in our upper atmosphere from the processes there and not from a combustion process. Even in photosynthesis where CH2O and 6CH2O occur naturally, no CO is found. But CO2 is altered or modified and yet NO CO. Please explain. In science, all the dots need to line up. And since CO is CO2 minus one oxygen molecule, with a double covalent bond, mathematical probability states that there should be 2 CO molecules for every one O2 molecule. I can't find that. You know, 3 bonds and it's just as likely for a bond between 2 oxygen elements to be broken as it is for a bond between a carbon element and an oxygen element. If not, I know, I'm wrong any way, it's just hot air. Such intelligence. But I guess it's beyond you guys to consider how space is warped by matter. I'm not sure if anyone ever asked Einstein to prove that. Maybe they should have. edited to correct spelling

Phi, I didn't come to my conclusions in one day. The questions you say I propose are what you are not familiar with. If you check, plants do not produce CO and as far as I know, it is not found to naturally occur around the tropopause. The amount of CO in our atmosphere is miniscule. Why ? CH2 and CH2O are readily found to occur naturally. How do they occur ? You know, the process that allows them to be created ? Both CH2 and CH2O are found in the upper troposphere. Where do they come from ? As far as proving things go, Brown did not prove his theory of motion, Einstein did. And as for Eisntein's theory that gravity can affect the path of a photon of light, 2 astronomers took a long trip to prove this about 20 years after he proposed his theory. I think if you were familiar with how Einstein perceived gravity and it's effect on space, then you would have a better understanding of why I think what I do.

Phi, If the basic principle is not understood, it doesn't matter. Gravity itself has 2 basic principles. The 1st is Newton's gravity where an apple falls to the ground. There is also Einstein's thought on gravity, matter will warp the space around it. That is the 2nd principle of gravity. Not sure but you guys seem to discount Einstein's work on gravity. And simply put, with CO2, it is Einstein's principle. Of course, Newton showed the math where there is gravitational attraction. I guess this means that Einstein describe how space reacts to this. Of course, if I say that the O2 molecule stays diatomic, we have problems at that point. After all, I would be suggesting that valence electrons are not shared between the carbon element and individually with the 2 oxygen molecules. I disagree with that. And I think that is where we will have to disagree. p.s. it might be the warping of space increases the potential of the smaller mass. Not quite covered in Newton's work. His work only describes the relationship as they are as far as mass/density to velocity/orbit. The change in such behavior is when a field is changed which tends to lean in Einstein's direction.

@All, I have contacted The Sierra Club about this experiment. If it works then it's worthless as phi keeps pointing out. Yet co2 emissions are not being reduced by any technology that we have that is cost effective. I think it's funny though, all it does in a forum is prove it or it's already been done.

@strange, Nope. I spent a lot of time working at this. For someone else to understand it the way I do would probably take the rest of this year. There is a reason why it has not been realized before, that is if I am right in what I am thinking. And at this moment, no scientist can say I am wrong because they can not show where they know how to convert water into formaldehyde. I will let you know that one misperception they have is in thinking that the hydrogen elements in an h2o molecule have to be removed first. Their actual goal is fuel cell technology which uses hydrogen. My goal is reducing co2 emissions. And plants have shown that they are experts and removing co2 from our atmosphere.

Moderator, What they have shown me is that if I were to conduct the test, it wouldn't matter. I have been spending money on it but will stop. By the way, not sure why I would have to answer their questions in the way they want. They haven't shown me where they are familiar with basic physics. And when I gave background information, they said I had to quote mainstream science when, hmm, can't paste a link but converting co2 and water into ch2o and o2 has not been demonstrated as claimed by Phi. A simple google search reveals that. with me, I don't understand what their problem is when mainstream science hasn't realized what I've been pursuing. and for it to be testable, this requires knowing what is expected out of any demonstration. There is another way I can go about this that will work much better for me.

I accept it is my fault. After all, I did post in this forum. That is my mistake. And I guess what you miss is that my friends would not agree with you, that is why they are my friends and not yours. >> You have fallen into a trap many have fallen into before << And that is posting in this forum. I just can't understand how it's my fault if you guys have no patience. I think this forum should delete this speculative part of the forum. As you said, I have not addressed the talking points put to me. I have a question for you and your friends, have any of you spent time working on this ? You haven't. And as you say, I have to answer YOUR questions. You are afraid, aren't you ? People that are afraid have a tendency to lash out at others like you are doing me. It has nothing to do with science, it only has to do with maintaining the status quo and I do like the way you guys are trying to put me in the position of attacking main stream science when I am not. New discoveries in science are peer reviewed. You guys are violating this tenant of science. Phi, even if they did not use the specific words lame assed, the insults are still there. and considering the amount of work that I have put into this, to me it shows a lack of respect.

@Phi, I'll give you a few things to think about. First off, when I thought of this, I was considering an alternative method of desalination or water purification. As things are, I think the current configuration in a desalination plant can be changed to make desalination less expensive. Unfortunately things have to stay mainstream with out any basic testing to see if something was over looked. For the Billions of dollars put into desalination plants, even $5,000 to do a couple basic tests to verify information is cheap. After all, fresh water is getting scarce. Also, water does not evaporate. It's accepted that it does. Water has only 3 states, a solid, a liquid and steam which is a gas. When water molecules are absorbed by the atmosphere, water molecules stay the same, they are water molecules suspended by atmospheric gases. This means that humidity is atmospheric gases becoming denser because of the negative load water molecules place on them. Water can only be a gas when heated to 100° C. and then 540 heat calories added per gram of water. Myself, I think it's funny how often the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is over looked.

When 2 different people call it lame assed and one is a moderator ? Hostile. As for like what they are doing at MIT, not as efficient as photosynthesis in nature. Difficult to consider it as the same thing. Maybe they can explain this ?

I asked my friend and she wanted to know I liked better, you guys or her. Sensei, science can be discussed, just not in here.

You guys are missing something, I doubt any of my friends care about Global Warming or working towards a solution. And as has been posted in this thread, working towards a solution is a lame assed idea. Really difficult to have a discussion when that is the attitude that was taken by long time forum members.

How about if I just quote Albert Einstein ? He said that space is warped by matter. This means that even a diatomic O2 molecule warps space. It's just what others have posted has excluded physics. Of course physics is different than chemistry. imatfaal, You guys are the ones who got silly. Ask my friends because they will agree with you guys ? They wouldn't be my friends if they agreed with you. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that you guys understand basic physics. Einstein is well respected. What part about gravitational fields do you not understand ? And how do you consider that my getting silly ? I keep being told to accept what you guys say because you agree with each other. That tells me that posting in here is a waste of my time. Unlike you, I don't rush to judgment because I assume I know something. Don't you guys have something better to do that troll people like myself ? p.s., I wasn't given the opportunity to explain why I think the mainstream perception of how a CO2 molecules behaves as being wrong because it is a lame assed idea according to you and one other person. And not sure why you say gravity is bonkers. That's not very scientific minded of you. Besides imatfaal, there is a way to demonstrate it but you guys would definitely be the wrong group of people to be associated with. I'll leave it for another day. It isn't worth it to go through crap like this.

Phi, What they have shown me speaks for itself. There is a reason why experiments are performed. It's because there is a hypothesis. In basic physics, 2 wave lengths of the same frequency can become one wave length of greater amplitude. This is because even wave energy has a gravitational effect. It might even be called a magnetic attraction since magnetism works in the visible light spectrum. And with me, one thing I do have in mind is how the process could be performed in mechanical engineering since reducing CO2 emissions is what I am concerned about. You know, what type of process can work on an industrial scale and be cost effective. It is funny though, for all the apocalyptic movies out there, none have used an asteroid coming between the Earth and the Moon releasing the Moon from Earth's gravitational field. And the same principle applies at the macroscopic level. Kind of why the laws of physics are considered laws. But if people can't consider basic physics, not much to discuss.

hypervalent, You guys haven't shot down my theory. You guys have shown a lack of understanding when it comes to physics. I mean really, attacking someone is not discussing something. It doesn't make you right and yet that is all you can say. I like your last sentence. I have to accept what you say or I am wrong. >> You have since gone on to ramble - rather incoherently - about how no one has shown that CO2 and H2O may be converted into certain biomolecules. That is something that can trivially be shown as false with the very simplest of Google searches. It is not magic and it does happen. << That is a joke, right ? Why aren't they using that to reduce CO2 emissions ? Because it is VERY expensive. In fact, it is so expensive that a plant couldn't produce sugar if it were left to those people. You don't have nothing better to do than troll someone, do you ? I think it's funny though, I really do. Since scientists believe that something similar to electrolysis is used, I have to disprove it before posting, right ? After all, the very first step of photosynthesis is a single photon of light releasing a hydrogen element from the H2O molecule. You are aware of that, right ? And I am an idiot for saying that the carbon element moves from the carbon dioxide molecule to the H2O molecule releasing O2 and having CH2O as a by-product ? How the heck is that rambling ? I simplified the process to where only one element needs to be moved rather than many. And as you have said, it has to be complicated. Could be why scientists have missed it. strange, There is a reason why research is done. And as I mentioned to hypervalent, have to prove it first ? And with research, parameters are usually considered before testing. It's one of those predictive things. You know, like when the test is done, certain things should be observed. That's pretty much normal. Not hearing that in here though. By the way, have to wonder how people who post anonymously are credible. And as for imatfaal, a grad law student ? I guess he would know physics and engineering. Of course, in his one post to me, he did present a legal argument for censoring me in some way. And I guess you guys missed something very basic. If what I know is right, why would I want to work around people like you ? I wouldn't. I guess it's because you guys have shown that you don't appreciate innovation. If you did, you wouldn't mind discussing it. It does take work.

Strange, This is not a discussion. It's my being trolled. No scientist has yet to demonstrate that CO2 and H2O can be converted into CH2O and O2. And to consider a specific way of trying it is bad ? All I can say is WOW! And for this to be the speculative part of the forum and nothing but hostilities. By the way strange, my proof is that while CO2 emissions need to be lowered according to atmospheric scientists, and the solution is to shut down CO2 emitting power plants. Hmm, what if shutting down power plants would cause blackouts because the demand for energy is not being met ? What then ? And yes, that is where I know I am stupid, it has been politely pointed out to me. After all, if CO2 and water can become CH2O and O2, maybe a commodity could be realized to help off set the cost of reducing CO2 emissions. I know I shouldn't think like that and am working on it.

hypervalent, I don't have a need for he said, he said. For what imatfaal posted, I could consider that slander. To think that CO2, H2O, CH2O and C6H12O6 are all a part of photosynthesis is wild assed ? I kind of miss the point the 2 of you are making. Can you show where the photosynthesis process has been demonstrated ? Or how about how gases occur in our upper atmosphere. Hasn't been done so no reason to think it can. Those answers are not in any book.

@All, Am sorry I posted in here.

hypervalent-iodine, Can you do me a favor ? Could you read the first 2 sentences that I wrote ? edited to add; hyper, you're not upset that I pointed out the obvious are you ? Both formaldehyde and glucose are the result of photosynthesis. If that is wrong, please provide a reference. Also, if both formaldehyde and glucose are composed of something other than carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, again, please post a reference. Sad but true, C6H12O6 is glucose. If not, please provide a reference. And if formaldehyde is not CH2O, a reference for that as well. Because in all of this, about all that needs to happen is for the carbon element to bond with the H2O molecule while releasing and O2 molecule. I hope you are not going to say that photosynthesis does not release O2 type oxygen back into the atmosphere. So could you please show where anything I posted is wrong. Your claiming that I am ignorant is nothing more than a baseless claim. Of course, it is accepted that a carbon element has a double covalent type bond with the 2 oxygen molecules. I think I am allowed to disagree and should be allowed to consider the possibility of a shared field. But I'm not. 1984

Conway, With O2, while it's actually called a diatomic bond, I don't think that CO2 has to covalent bonds. With CH2O and O2, all that need to happen is for the carbon element to move from the CO2 molecule to the H2O molecule. Want glucose > C6H12O6 ? That is 6 formaldehyde > CH2O molecules. One thing I am willing to consider is that a carbon element shares a field with an O2 molecule the same way our Moon shares a field with the Earth. If so, an H2O molecule has the kinetic potential to separate a carbon element from an O2 molecule. If so, this would require less energy than breaking a covalent bond or 2 as a CO2 molecule is supposed to have 2 such bonds.

This post will probably upset some people. This is the speculation part of your forum. It is at present considered that a CO2 molecule has a double covalent. I tend to doubt this. I see no reason why an O2 molecule would go from being ionic to covalent. Why I suspect this is because in photosynthesis and the upper troposphere H2O, CO2, CH2O and O2 are found. Myself, I do not understand why the hydrogen elements would be needing to separate from an oxygen molecule just to reform with it to allow for formaldehyde or glucose. Maybe someone can explain this ?