Strange

Why do you refuse to answer any questions? Nobody disagreed with that. People were asking you why you thought he water would be positively charged. You just introduced red-herrings such as salt and electroplating - presumably because you couldn't answer the question. Your random statements and refusal to answer any questions make it clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

I don't think that. But a few people do resort to circular reasoning to try and justify their beliefs (which shouldn't be, and isn't, necessary - a belief is a belief). Absolutely. Even intelligent and non-religious people can believe irrational things that they feel the need to justify. In fact, judging by some of the bizarre opinions of a few Nobel Prize winners, one might be tempted to think that the more intelligent you are the more outlandish your beliefs might be!

Oh man. You really don't ant to follow those links. Bizarre antisemitic (Christianity is seen as a sort of messed-up Judaism) rants based on the usual forgeries, conspiracies and lots of other invented nonsense. Hyperbolic is an understatement.

The trouble is, energy is frame (observer) dependent. So while we might think the particle has a huge amount of energy, it its own frame of reference it has zero kinetic energy. (This is similar to wondering if an object would become a black hole if it is accelerated to high enough speed.)

There are a number of experiments attempting to detect the radiation from the annihilation of dark matter-antimatter; for example: http://www.space.com/17133-dark-matter-annihilation-gamma-rays.html

It doesn't seem to be based on any rational thought process. Or if it is, you haven't explained it. There is a big difference between binding and attraction. For what reason do you claim that CO2 would be attracted to salt water (or whatever it is now)? How, exactly would you modify a CRT for this purpose? Why do you refuse to answer? Why would it be attracted? What "background radiation" does CO2 absorb? Why would the solution have a "spectral emission"? (What is a "spectral emission"?) Why would that cause CO2 to be attracted? Please provide details of the physics and/or chemistry involved.

What makes you think it would? You seem to think that science is done as a process of trial and error: think up a random experiment and see what happens. It isn't. How, exactly would you modify a CRT for this purpose?

True. But you still have some control over it. I don't know why you keep denying this. Oh yes I do, you are arrogant, self-centred and closed-minded. You think everyone else is wrong and only you know The Truth. <skipped several paragraphs of incoherent drivel> They are just as real - they work through exactly the same chemical processes as any other source of joy, disgust, misery, hunger, etc. Your continual repetition of your ignorant opinions is very tedious.

It could be. But it is very unlikely (and based on previous threads plus my own experience, almost certainly wrong). Or maybe they know you are talking nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber Do you have any reason to think this is possible? What would happen to the CO2 at the cathode (if it were possible)? How, exactly would you modify a CRT for this purpose? How is it a vacuum if there is CO2 there? Good new ideas usually need to be based on some level of understanding, not wild guesses.

Therefore you took it wrong. We all agree that these emotions (and the bad ones - your argument must apply equally to them) are purely biochemical in nature. There is not other system in place. We can control (to some extent) the pleasant (or unpleasant) feelings. As these feelings only come from the biochemical effects in our brain (which we therefore have some control over) there cannot be a contradiction. You are inventing some sort of "magic" set of emotions that do not involve brain chemicals and then saying real emotions are different from these. Well of course they are, the magic ones don't exist. You are making a straw man argument. The only way I can know you is based on what you write here. You repeat the same thing, despite having the errors pointed out. You are only interested in stating your personal opinion as if it were some great insight (it isn't). You ignore or twist what other people say to make it fit with your personal agenda. What would you call someone who behaves like that? Why? That is a nonsensical request. Joy, fear, disgust, etc are purely products of our "reward system" (a stupid term, but if you insist on using it ...) Where else do you expect them to come from? So you think it is possible to be happy without being happy? And to feel sad without feeling sad?

As there is no reason to think that there is a "time mask" or that light is expanding, this is just nonsense that makes no sense at all. The non-locality of quantum effects. (You can think of it as the photon going through both slits.)

That would almost certainly be a bad assumption. The rest of what you write is either incomprehensible or wrong.

Indeed. But the OP is so incoherent, is is hard to know where to start. Why does light have such important connotations? Because day drives away night and bad dreams? Because early agriculturalists realised that they needed the light and warmth of the summer sun to grow their crops. Or just because you can see what you are doing? You would say that...

You need to be more open minded and willing to learn. You need to stop being so self-centred and arrogant as to think that only you are correct. You need to start actually reading what other people say - not thinking they have said something that you wish they had said. You need to think about what other people say - not just ignore it or twist it to fit your own ideas. If you want to take a scientific approach, the first step could be: how would I prove this idea wrong. (NOT how can I convince everyone that I am right.) As it is you just come across as a self-obsessed idiot.

Did you read the thread title?

If all you have are analogies - no evidence and no maths - then there is zero reason for anyone to take you seriously. Not even you: why do you believe this half-formed idea when there is no evidence for it? They are. You seem to be one of the few confused by the concept.

Your explanation only covers the "photon view". As far as a classical view of electromagnetic waves is concerned, the velocity is reduced in a medium.

Some of your examples are words that just happen to end in -al, not formed from the morpheme -al. In other case, they follow the definition (e.g. post->postal, doctor->doctoral) ... bearing in mind that the semantics of bound morphemes is quite broad.

That is not what I said. I didn't say that either. As you are too arrogant and self-obsessed to take any notice of what anyone else says, this is pointless. You can go back on ignore.

You say this as if you think there is some sort of contradiction or conflict there. Of course, our emotions (pleasant and unpleasant) are a result of biochemical processes (what you call a "reward system"). But it is also possible to exert some control over how you react to and feel about things. You can choose not to find something or to dislike a particular type of music or get over a phobia. But, obviously, something like OCD, schizophrenia or depression limits how much control you have. But techniques like cognitive-behavioural therapy can still be useful. So there is no contradiction in these two views.

Yes. I think that is the proper description here. When a pleasure signal gets sent to our reward system which gives us the experience of our pleasant feelings/emotions, then neurotransmitters are definitely involved here. I think they would be dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine (the "feel-good" chemicals). Then what do you have new to contribute? This is already well understood.

You do realise you are responding to yourself here? Not just to make it valid, but to make it "scientific" (something you seem very keen on). I have no idea. You keep doing it (and getting banned from some forums for it). I assume it makes you feel better, temporarily at least. They may be valid (for some senses of that word) but they are not scientific (by definition). Again, a totally unscientific attitude. Then you need to change your attitude. If you are concerned with "truth" and are convinced that your intuition is right, then you will never make any progress towards a scientific theory.

Perfect! The example here: https://faculty.unlv.edu/nagelhout/ENG411Bs12C/mod1concept1.html is refuse -> refusal They define the -al morpheme as meaning "act or process of", which fits with your usage.

You seem to be digging yourself deeper into a pit of irrational nonsense.

I don't disagree with any of that.