jlindgaard Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Really difficult to have a discussion when that is the attitude that was taken by long time forum members. It's science forum, not discussion forum. To discuss about science there is needed knowledge or experimental evidence. At least basic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 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 Please go ahead now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlindgaard Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 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. If by idiot you mean ignorant, then yes. As hypervalent pointed out, carbon capture via the Calvin cycle is a separate process from photophosphorylation during which water splitting occurs. During the Calvin cycle CO2 is capture but no oxygen is released. As to the light reaction: 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 ? This is also not correct. The light reaction is a series of light-dependent reactions (four, to be precise) in which four electrons are released from the oxygen evolving complex (OEC). The release of oxygen is the last step in this cycle. How the water splitting actually occurs is still under debate but that mostly involves the oxidation state of the involved manganese core and the precise binding/splitting site at the moment of release. So the photon actually does not release a hydrogen but rather it oxidizes the OEC and uses that redox potential to split H2O oxidatively. Specifically for your assertions it is relevant to note that there is no CO2 needed or present whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) 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.A single molecule isn't going to have any measurable effect on space time. Gravity is immeasurable at the particle level. Go ahead run the calculations yourself. Edited June 12, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 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. That's not why I asked. Your friends don't have to know any science to be able to look at this thread and see that you are misinterpreting the criticism you're getting. I'd like your friends to look at this because I think they're going to see something like this: J: "I don't believe CO2 consists of two C=O double bonds." A: "But this goes against what we observe." J: "I refuse to consider it, because it makes no sense to me, and nobody can explain it to me, therefore it must be wrong." B: "Can you explain why you won't consider it?" J: "I'm tired of being trolled by you guys." C: "But you're making claims that need to be explained. We're not saying you're wrong, but there is evidence to support the mainstream concept, and you haven't supported yours, so...." J: "You guys won't give me the opportunity to explain." D: "Go ahead and explain now." J: "It isn't worth it to go through crap like this." ABC&D: "???" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlindgaard Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 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 ? -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I wasn't given the opportunity to explain why I think the mainstream perception of how a CO2 molecules behaves as being wrong Please feel free to go ahead now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 When 2 different people call it lame assed and one is a moderator ? Hostile. This is what I mean when I say you have misinterpreted what's been said to you. You claim "2 different people call it lame assed", you even claim "one is a moderator", but a quick word search shows us that you're the only person who used the words "lame" and "assed" in this whole thread. It's like you're arguing against things that haven't been said, and ignoring what has been said. Very frustrating, talking with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlindgaard Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 @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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 @Phi, I'll give you a few things to think about. Why should I listen when it's clear you don't? You haven't addressed one goddam talking point that's been put to you. I asked you to show this thread to a friend to see if your accusations were correct, and you ignored it. Others have asked you point blank to explain yourself, and you respond that you haven't been given the chance. You claim two people called your idea lame assed, and when I showed you that wasn't true, your response is to "give me a few things to think about"?! How about acknowledging you were wrong? You have fallen into a trap many have fallen into before. You're so convinced that everybody else has their fingers in their ears that you can't hear them asking you, begging you, to take your fingers out of your ears. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlindgaard Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 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. ! Moderator Note How about spending less time evaluating perceived insults and more time explaining what evidence supports your claims, how it's falsifiable/testable, etc. If you have questions about mainstream science, please post them in the appropriate forum. But please take care to stay on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlindgaard Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I wasn't given the opportunity to explain why I think the mainstream perception of how a CO2 molecules behaves as being wrong Do you want to do this now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlindgaard Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 @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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzwood Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 "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." Can you show that you are right? The burden of proof is in your corner. Analoguously you cannot disprove I hold a herd of unicorns in my garden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 @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. All this demonstrates is that you haven't bothered looking it up. We can produce formaldehyde from CO2 synthetically, for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24281847 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5698/abs/277637a0.html http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2009/CS/B804323J#!divAbstract http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja00308a019 http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2014/cs/c3cs60323g#!divAbstract And we have known that plants are able to produce formaldehyde from CO2 for over 100 years. http://www.jstor.org/stable/80414?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/1921/ct/ct9211901025#!divAbstract For more recent information on the above, you should read the link I gave you in my last post. However, all this seems rather unrelated to your OP, wherein you stated that you did not believe that CO2 had the structure we know it to have. We have given you plenty of opportunity to explain this and you now are outright refusing to do so. So, why should we believe you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlindgaard Posted June 13, 2015 Author Share Posted June 13, 2015 @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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) @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. Actually that's also false. There is A cost effective solution to reduce CO2 levels. Place in the ocean long flexible tubes with a series of pump style flaps. Long enough to reach the Ocean floor, mounted to a buoyancy tube. What we are doing in this is bringing nutrients to the ocean surface. Those nutrients encourage algae growth. That algae feeds on CO2 a replacing it with oxygen. (Also feeds fish). Lol secondary side note we can use algae to produce oil. That's a natural form of photosynthesis Tada . We have also developed artificial photosynthesis. https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/04/16/major-advance-in-artificial-photosynthesis/ so we do in fact understand how CO2 works.... With your belligerent behavior I don't think that will matter though. I always find it incredible how many people can honestly believe that several hundreds of years of dedicated research with several hundreds of thousands of dedicated minds working in scientific fields are always wrong. That there personal ideas defeats the body of evidence? If you honestly want to convince us provide some thing other than your insults to the table. Trust me your not the first belligerent individual we have encountered. If and if you can bring some research to the table, or properly describe your idea. Mathematically is the ideal preference. However peer reviewed articles and discussing your understanding will also work. Will you ever gain listeners. If anything there is also something to be learned from a well rounded, and accurate discussion. Insults are a poor substitute to demonstrating a firm but accurate grasp on a subject. Edited June 13, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzwood Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Mordred, that's called the Dunning_Kruger effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect So far, I only felt a lot of hot air, and still no shred of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Agree Fuzzwood lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 @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. So it isn't that you haven't been given the opportunity, you just think it would take too long to explain? Perhaps you should write it up and submit it to a scientific journal, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) @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. I'm usually a quick learner*, and I don't have anything important scheduled. Why not start now? Also, while any changes hat reduce energy use will reduce CO2 emissions. Since people have been doing that since they first started hanging tapestries on walls you are at least a few millennia worth of wrong when you say " Yet co2 emissions are not being reduced by any technology that we have that is cost effective.". Do you think it would it be better if, before spending 6 months telling us what you think, you spent one month finding out what is already known? * Even if I turn out to be an idiot, it's likely that someone brighter than me will read the explanation. Edited June 13, 2015 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts