theorein

I am a Christian. I became born again in 1997. Before I became a Christian, I wanted to become a Scientist. Some how 'things' became clear to me. Scientific things! It was like my mind was tuned into this Radio Station that broadcast solutions to Scientific problems.

The thing is I do not have colleg or University level Education. I am not a Matematician. I can solve problems.

The last problem I solved was 'How a bike works.'

The problem is, it is hard to convince anyone of my talent.

What should I do?

perhaps you'd care to explain your 'theory' a little more. No offense, but usually you have to know something about the subject matter before you are able to develop a new theory about the subject. For example, developing a new camera without knowing how cameras work seems a little off the wall.

Hi! The only way I can proof is by taking a photo using this theory. But if you have the tech know how, I am willing to form a partnership with you. I reveal the theory and you do the testing.

The camera, video and telescopes and so on are secondary devices because we already have our eyes as the primary tool. more later...

Do you just need to record the video data, or do you need actual film, and if so for what reason. If you don't you could use a digital recording device. That would hold at least one benefit over film (that I can see), it would be ready for interpretation by a computer.

Hi! Thanks for replying. What I have is a new way to take photo. I need to test if this method works. So I need a camera to capture a image using this new method. But the camera must not have lense or anything else. I need a device to capture a image. Not a camera. Can you understand what I am getting at?

I have this theory on how we can immitate our eyes' to make a 3-D camera. The problem is I have no knowledge on films. I need a method to test out my theory. I need a capturing device.

Can any one help me with instant films? I need to know how this film works and is there a way to use this film without the camera or do I need the camera to develop the film?

Ah I see. In that case I think its probably best to say that there are almost an unlimited number of ways that E-mails can be sent...

 

How exactly were you planning ion implimenting something to stop spam that way?? (If you don't mind my asking)

 

Cheers' date='

 

Ryan Jones[/quote']

 

Hi! That will be impossible as there are unknown number of ways to send an email. My method will not stop people from sending bulk emails but it will simply help identify all spams and all spams will be automatically deleted.

 

The reason why spammers keep on sending spams are because they know some of them will get opened. If we implement my strategy, none of the spams will ever be opened.

O.k. 9KJ is output for every 1gram of CO₂ that is produced' date=' this is easily enough to keep the combustion going, that's why coal and charcoal get used as fuel.

 

p.s. please don't use words like "chain reaction" when you don't get what they mean.[/quote']

 

As I am unable to convince at this time and place, I am going to stop this dicussion until I can get someone to try out this experiment. The experiment itself will be a trian and error method, until we get a working solution.

 

Thank for all the feedbacks.

ok lets go to the ridiculous then' date=' consider Methane gas, it consists of hydrogen and carbon, it`s a very good fuel also!

 

and as well as it`s by product of combustion in air being CO2 Water is Also produced, Both of which can be used to put out fires very effectively.

so why don`t we spray methane gas on fires instead?

 

have a think about that, there`s some HUGE clues in there [/quote']

 

You just made a very good point. Methane is highly flammable. One spark and the reaction starts and there is a chain reaction just like a nuclear or atomic reaction. You cannot stop this reaction until all methane is burned up or if there is no supply of oxygen.

 

But this is NOT the case with what C and O2. Once a C reacts with an O2, it is all over. There is no chain reaction like in the burning of charcoal. That is why I want to know how much energy this process produces.

Theorein' date=' while I greatly encourage your curiosity I must say that you don't have a right to comment on the role or the attitude of a scientist because you told me yourself you don't know much about chemistry, which is the area of science you are talking about. Throwing out what is well established and actually pretty fundamental to what is known because someone who is asking a question has equivocated in their mind some result is VERY much not the attitude of a scientist. In short, you have to earn the right to have an opinion before you can expect your opinion to have weight.

 

I've tried to help you and jdurg especially has tried to help you understand what is going on, along with the rest of the posters of this thread. It would probably be a more solid move to thank them and then go and do a little research on it yourself, instead of condemning them.[/quote']

 

I didn't mean it in a bad way. I am just trying to convey my thoughts. As this is a text forum and I didn't use smilies, I am not angry or accsuing anyone of anything. I am NOT a scientist. I am NOT a matematician. I am just a curious guy with a question.

 

If you are satisfied with the current notion and answers to this question, there is no further need in your part to pursue this matter. But I need some answers. And if I can't find it here, I will go somewhere else. But I am NOT convinced.

So where does the energy come from if not the reaction of carbon and oxygen? all carbon allotropes burn in oxygen with the release of energy. it is well established fact. if you have pure carbon and pure oxygen in a container and ignite the carbon with a spark you get lots of energy out in the form of heat and light. more than can be explained by the spark. Although science shouldn't make any assumptions, we also wouldn't get anywhere by assuming everything that has already been proven to be completely false since we would have to do every experiment in the history of the universe in a lifetime.

Take photography for an example. We claim to have an understanding how our eyes' works. We use this to build many optical devices but we still watching movies in 2D. Why? Because we are satisfied with what we have so far. We have 3D technology but we need further tools to view them.

The problem here is, we are using lenses to take pictures when we already have a pain in our eyes.

What I trying to explain here is, burning carbon in a lump (grinded form) is not same as C + O2 reacting.

Dear friends,

This is how science works. We ask questions. If we accept everything as fact, we will be stuck with wrongs and incomplete solutions. Take medicine for an example. Some medicines can cure a disease but they have many side-effects. This means that the medicine is NOT the right cure as it is NOT targeting or solving the right problem.

Back to our discussion, I am sure that this method can work. One day I will proof that. And if I fail, someone else will one day succeed.

I ask again the question. I know how they calculated calories and energy emited by some reaction in the lab. First they use a certain quantity of the substance and the using calculations they find the valu for a single atom of molecule.

This method does NOT proof that the energy comes from the reaction between C and O2.

We only assume that they do. If some one in China were to do this experiment, he to will get the same result cause, he will make the same assumption. This only proofs that we are making an universal or global error.

Quite a few' date=' this can be done from a server side script such as a PHP script, through a program such as VB using DOM methods to access elements of a page and fill them in dynamically... and the list goes on an on.

 

If there a specific one you are interested in?

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones[/quote']

 

Thanks. I am trying to compirle a complete list to try to come up with a anti-spam solution.

Let's say I have an hotmail email account. How many ways are there some one can send me a message to my inbox? (form etc)

Yes. There is a LOT of proof. Thermondynamics' date=' bond energies, chemical kinetics, etc. etc. have all proved beyond ANY doubt that the burning of carbon to form carbon dioxide gas is exothermic. The energy released when a carbon atom combines with an oxygen molecule is GREATER than the energy required to get the reaction going. If it was NOT greater than the activation energy, then the fire would go out as soon as you remove the ignition source. The fire continues to burn because each time an oxygen molecule and carbon atom forms a molecule of CO2, the energy it releases triggers the formation of another molecule of CO2.

 

Also, the BREAKING of bonds requires energy. All bond breaking is endothermic. ALL. The formation of bonds is exothermic. When two atoms combine to form a molecule it releases energy as the bonds are formed. Energy is given off in a chemical reaction when the sum of the energy released when bonds are formed is greater than the sum of the energy required to break those bonds. The energy released when two C=O bonds are formed is MUCH greater than the energy required to break apart an O=O bond and/or a C-C bond.

 

If you throw finely divided charcoal onto a fire, what will happen? The charcoal will ignite and react with the oxygen in the air. This will release a great deal of heat which will cause more and more charcoal to ignite. This will release even more heat. If enough heat is generated, it may cause items which would normally not burn to reach a high enough temperature where ignition will take place. At this point, your fire will begin to spread.

 

Why won't the formed carbon dioxide extinguish the flame? It won't because the high temperatures created in the fire will cause the CO2 to RAPIDLY rise away from the fire allowing cooler, more oxygen rich air to take its place. This will result in further ignition/burning. As long as oxygen is able to get to the fire, it will continue to burn.

 

You are correct that the amount of energy needed to start the fire is insignificant. However, you are not correct in saying that the energy released from the formation of CO2 is insignificant. The energy released is VERY significant and is the reason why burning carbon is VERY hot.[/quote']

 

Once again you are basing your answer on charcoal (lump). I dont' want that. Imagine a carbon atom. Now set fire to it. How much energy do you need to start the ignition? There are no chain reaction here. Puff and there you have CO2. How much energy is released?

I don't know what the activation energy is, but each gram of CO2 that is formed releases nearly 9,000 Joules of energy.

When we burn coal or wood, once the fire is started, it continues burning. Is there proof to where the energy comes from?

If we use charcoal in grinded form (assuming that now we have pure carbon atoms), isn't the energy needed to start the combustion process and the energy produced when Carbon combines with Oxygen to produce Carbon Dioxide is very small and insignificant?

How will it fuel the fire?

The fire coming from burning charcoal may be coming from other sources such as the breaking up of bonds between carbons for an example?.

Hi! Does anyone know how much energy it takes for this reaction to take place and how much enery it gives out when the process has started?

c + 02 --> co2

theorein

Sure it would work' date=' but if you're not isolating the environment from the rest of the atmosphere you're just giving the fire more fuel. If you can isolate this fire, when the carbon dioxide created will eventually prevent further combustion and the fire will choke itself out. However, this would be true whether or not you ad the carbon, meaning if you just isolated the fire from the atmosphere the increase in carbon dioxide will eventually choke the fire out.

 

As a note, since organic (carbon based) molecules are really the only things that combust, using it to fight a fire probably isn't the best option.

 

Also, this is my 200th post and I am now officially an atom. Have a drink on me.[/quote']

 

Hi! Let's assume we grind the charcoal so that they exist in atoms. One atom Carbon will react with a molekul of Oxygen to produce Carbon dioxide:

 

O2 + C --> CO2

 

For it to happen, we need energy. This we will get from the fire. Will this NOT quench the fire?

 

theorein

I had this idea on how we can use charcoal (grinded into fine powder) to fight fire. The Carbon will react with Oxygen from the Atmosphere to produce Carbon dioxide which will further put down the fire.

Will this work?

theorein

[E-stamp secures e-mail delivery]

It seems you want to filter spam by assuming guilty and scanning for keywords to suggest innocence. I can't imagine how that'd be successful.

What words are likely to apear in all legitimate e-mails and unlikely to appear in spam?

Dear friends,

Thank you for your questions. I already asked this question to myself. And I have an answer. If I post all this in this forum, my idea will loose its commercial value. Let us form a team and make this project a reality. I want a person who can manage the team and take control of the works of forming the team. Anyone interested?

Also please post all your doubts and questions regarding this idea.

Thank you.

theorein

What's your favorite equation from chemistry/physics/mathematics?

 

If yours isn't listed' date=' choose other and reply with it![/quote']

 

This equation has the answer to GRAVITY and Cold Fusion

 

theorein

Within what time period do you anticipate the beginning of space tourism, i.e. easy access to at least the established boundary of space on a large scale?

Do you know what the difference between a missile and an aeroplane is?

The WINGS!

We are taking rides on Missiles. When a missile looses its forward trust, it will fall straight downward. But when an aeroplane looses its trust, it will glide downward and crash few kilometres away. That is the difference between an aeroplane and a missile made by the wings.

And when it comes to space travel, we truly ride on a missile.

theorein

Will science ever create A.I. more intelligent than ourselves?

When I see a robot walking like a human being, I don't know how to react. Why would you spend millions of dollars building a robot that walks like a human when this is NOT the best method of mobility?

Why build or create AI like a human when we know that humans have a lot of shortcomings?

We will never accomplish anything when we try to imitate something that is imperfect.

We have supercomputers that can do immense calculations in seconds. But this is not AI.

To be able to create AI we must first come to a conclusion about what is truly Intelligence.

Take for an instance our PC. Even though it is a sophisticated machine, capable of doing multi-tasks actually it is a dumb machine. It was designed that way. Let your 2 year old unattended for 2 minutes with your PC and see what happens.

The PC was made for someone who is well behaved. The operating system itself needs lots of maintenance.

Now a day making spear parts itself is a multi-million dollar industry. We build things that fail. We have no idea what intelligent is.

How can we create something we can’t define?

theorein

I am pretty good C/C++/Perl programmer, looking for a project - so I would be interested.

I arrived to this solutions using Socratic Method. I asked questions. And when continue doing this, a strange thing happens. It's like you open a tap and the water come running out. Your mind get tapped into a resovoir. You begin to ask all the right question and the solution is simple.

This is how I solve problems. I need some technical details or answers to certain qustions on email systems to prepare a paper on this idea for you. How do you want me to send this to you?

theorein

I guess you could team up with a programmer or two' date=' give them the idea and let them develop it, and release it as donation-ware with you and the programer(s) getting an equal split of the donations. That would probably be the easyest way, tho not nessesaraly the most lucrative.

 

Im curiouse as to how you have an idea as to how to stop spam without any technical knowledge tho... could you give us a brief overview, without revealing too much?[/quote']

 

First of all let me thank you for your courteous reply.

 

My method is somehow like this service>> http://www.returnpath.net/

 

It will incorporate several SPAM solutions. All email services can benefit from this service. There will be no new laws. There will be no need to hide one's email. This service will in no wise interfere with SPAMMERS right to SPAM.

 

Current SPAM tools assume all emails as geniune or legimate, but under my system all emails will be assumed to be SPAMS.

 

That's is some of the procedure involved but NOT the service itself. If you have the technical knowledge, and if you are interested in developing this method, I am willing to share the whole idea with you. But you must give me the credit.

 

more later.

 

Thak you.

 

theorein

I have a idea on how we can provide a service to combat SPAM. But I have no technical or financial capacity. How do I sell this idea? Are there any buyers?