Will Be Banned

[jlindgaard]

@All,

I will be banned from this forum and that is okay. It is funny though. To live in America and to have served honorably in the U.S. military but not to have the right to my opinion or free speech.

I find it interesting that saying that fluctuating a vacuum is not explaining how an experiment can be performed. It is an attribute that does need to be met.

This kind of leaves me wondering how America is leading the world. Then again, I wonder why the moderators of this forum have imperialistic titles attached to themselves. In role playing games, that is not unusual. But in a scientific forum, it is rather odd that titles are used that are not associated with science but instead with caste systems that are known for depriving people of their rights.

As I have let one moderator know, I have made provisions for pursuing my goals on my own. :-D

[iNow]

This is a privately owned site. You have no right to free speech here and you agreed to these T&Cs when you registered your account.

[pavelcherepan]

I guess that it might happen if you keep opening new topics with no discussion points whatsoever.

[jlindgaard]

p.s., One of my favorite aspects of living in the United States is that 2 out of 3 people enrolled in undergraduate degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematical programs are immigrants.

[pavelcherepan]

I think it's a good thing that immigrants are doing science, no?

[jlindgaard]

iNow,

I was not aware that this was a privately owned site. If I knew that, I would have stayed away. That does explain the titles moderators have. I did abide by the rules. It is merely a claim by members of this forum that I did not. After all, they would not receive credit if I am right. This would be a sufficient reason for me to be discredited.

Of course as I have mentioned, Phi was interested in discussing it but since it is a new idea to your members, it was rejected.

Have you ever read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged ? It's possible she was referring to institutions such as your forum.

@pavel,

Immigrants learning science in the U.S. is a mixed bag. Americans do not like immigrants on the one hand and on the other, why aren't more Americans willing to learn the STEM subjects that help America ?

With this forum, conformity seems to be more important than science. Kind of why I won't get along well here. Myself, speak English as a 2nd language and have parents from 2 different continents. I have problems only considering one perspective. Trying something new to me is not attacking those who helped to make science what it is today but do believe I am building on their work.

[ACG52]

I have now read every post in all the threads that jlindgaard has opened, and unless I missed something, he has not answered a single question put to him. In any other forum he would be labeled as a crank troll and banned. That he has not yet been banned speaks volumes for the patience of the very moderators he castigates.

[pzkpfw]

...

I was not aware that this was a privately owned site.

...

So what exactly did you think this site was? Run by a (U.S.) Government agency? Which one? Or a University? Which one? Or a ... ?

[DimaMazin]

iNow,

I was not aware that this was a privately owned site. If I knew that, I would have stayed away. That does explain the titles moderators have. I did abide by the rules. It is merely a claim by members of this forum that I did not. After all, they would not receive credit if I am right. This would be a sufficient reason for me to be discredited.

Of course as I have mentioned, Phi was interested in discussing it but since it is a new idea to your members, it was rejected.

Have you ever read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged ? It's possible she was referring to institutions such as your forum.

@pavel,

Immigrants learning science in the U.S. is a mixed bag. Americans do not like immigrants on the one hand and on the other, why aren't more Americans willing to learn the STEM subjects that help America ?

With this forum, conformity seems to be more important than science. Kind of why I won't get along well here. Myself, speak English as a 2nd language and have parents from 2 different continents. I have problems only considering one perspective. Trying something new to me is not attacking those who helped to make science what it is today but do believe I am building on their work.

Try to choose better things if the things are bad for you. Maybe new choice will show to you that the things were good.

[studiot]

 

p.s., One of my favorite aspects of living in the United States is that 2 out of 3 people enrolled in undergraduate degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematical programs are immigrants.

 

 

 

Is that all?

I thought over 90% of folks in the US were immigrants at one time.

Einstein and Emmy Noether being examples of your best catches.

[ajb]

To live in America and to have served honorably in the U.S. military but not to have the right to my opinion or free speech.

Two points here. First this is a privately owned website as others have said. Anything like your first amendment would not hold. Secondly the server is geographically located in the UK, so the first amendment could not be applied anyway. Maybe something like freedom of the press laws would hold, maybe. But again this is not a 'free for all' and the owners are under no obligation to allow members to say whatever they want. We have rules and you agreed to them when you joined.

 

I was not aware that this was a privately owned site. If I knew that, I would have stayed away.

Most website are privately owned and have to obey the relevant laws in the country that the server is located in. Members and people who view this forum will also be subject to any local internet laws. You should view Science Forums as private club with rather relaxed criteria on joining, but with some rules.

 

Anyway, again this has nothing to do with your right to freedom of speech in the US. Moreover, the first amendment really states that the no laws will be made to infringe on freedom of speech etc. It does not say that any private body has to publish whatever anyone says. If it did newspaper editors in the US would not be able to function!

Edited June 14, 2015 by ajb

[John Cuthber]

I did abide by the rules. It is merely a claim by members of this forum that I did not.

Show us one case where you answered a point put to you (as required by the rules).

Unless you can do that for all the points put to you then it's not "merely a claim by members" it's simply a fact.

Face it; you broke the rules.

[swansont]

@All,

I will be banned from this forum and that is okay. It is funny though. To live in America and to have served honorably in the U.S. military but not to have the right to my opinion or free speech.

It's sad to preserve, protect and defend the constitution while not understanding what it says. Your first amendment right to free speech has not been infringed in any way. The government is not involved in locking your threads.

 

[ajb]

The government is not involved in locking your threads.

To be careful, the US government is not involved in locking the threads.

[swansont]

To be careful, the US government is not involved in locking the threads.

 

True. I can neither confirm nor deny the participation of other governments, especially those damn Canadians. Then again, that would not violate his US first amendment rights, either.

[studiot]

Lock Lock, who's there?

 

[cladking]

I think it's a good thing that immigrants are doing science, no?

 

 

I think it's a bad thing Americans are not doing science.

 

True. I can neither confirm nor deny the participation of other governments, especially those damn Canadians. Then again, that would not violate his US first amendment rights, either.

 

Few (real) Americans appreciate this danger, eh?

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

 

I think it's a bad thing Americans are not doing science.

 

Few (real) Americans appreciate this danger, eh?

Careful. We don't have quite enough hockey players across the border yet to make any significant moves at this time.

[jlindgaard]

@swansont,

It is true the government has not been locking my threads. I just find it odd that CH2, CH2O, H2O and CO2 are both found in photosynthesis and in the upper troposphere and yet no one can demonstrate how a plant converts water and carbon dioxide into formaldehyde and oxygen.

I find it difficult to accept a theory that has yet to be demonstrated by main stream science such as photons of light does this. If that is all it takes, then why are atmospheric scientists concerned about CO2 emissions for ?

Am not sure why it is pseudo science to say that expanding a CO2 molecule causes it to become excited and allows it to absorb more energy, After all, if C6H12O6 did not absorb energy, it could not have the necessary potential to maintain it's bonds and yet have "extra" energy when a glucose molecule is broken down by a biological process in our bodies.

Of course, if something like a CO2 molecule gains mass, then since it is matter, it also has gravity and this increases it's effect in the space that it occupies. This would be an opposing force to the vacuum which is trying to expand it.

I think any more, not my concern really. And I know I am wrong for saying that if the carbon molecule in CO2 moves to an H2O molecule, then the plant has O2 and CH2O which it does. And 6CH2O is glucose.

Maybe one day someone will explain why an H2O molecule needs to be taken apart in the first step of photosynthesis ?

[DimaMazin]

 

 

I think it's a bad thing Americans are not doing science.

 

Few (real) Americans appreciate this danger, eh?

Indigenous people of America? Americans make science at different levels of science otherwise Russian beer would be better than their.

Appreciation of danger should be comparative.

Careful. We don't have quite enough hockey players across the border yet to make any significant moves at this time.

I think it is big problem for science when players, actors,Snowdens, idiots have large salary.

[Phi for All]

I will be banned from this forum and that is okay. It is funny though. To live in America and to have served honorably in the U.S. military but not to have the right to my opinion or free speech.

 

When you write sentences that start with, "I think...", "I believe...", or any preface to asking a question, then we can clearly see you're offering us your opinion. But you haven't been doing that, you've been telling everyone how it is, how we're all wrong, you've been making assertions as if they're fact. This is mostly why you're getting the kinds of criticism you're getting.

 

Of course, the other bad part is where you make an assertion, someone shows you, with supportive evidence, that you're wrong, and you ignore it. That tends to piss people off a LOT here. We know what we know, and can support it. It's rude when knowledge is shared but ignored. Ignorance is the enemy of science.

 

I just find it odd that...

I find it difficult to accept a theory that...

Am not sure why...

 

These are all examples of a type of fallacious (bad) logic known as the Argument from Incredulity. Without precise examples and evidence to support your claims, phrases like this are just hand-waving (trying to make something sound more important by filling it with empty gestures rather than something of substance). We're asking for specific reasons to support your stances against the science that seems to work just fine, even without your incredulity and disbelief.

[Fuzzwood]

@swansont,

It is true the government has not been locking my threads. I just find it odd that CH2, CH2O, H2O and CO2 are both found in photosynthesis and in the upper troposphere and yet no one can demonstrate how a plant converts water and carbon dioxide into formaldehyde and oxygen.

I find it difficult to accept a theory that has yet to be demonstrated by main stream science such as photons of light does this. If that is all it takes, then why are atmospheric scientists concerned about CO2 emissions for ?

Am not sure why it is pseudo science to say that expanding a CO2 molecule causes it to become excited and allows it to absorb more energy, After all, if C6H12O6 did not absorb energy, it could not have the necessary potential to maintain it's bonds and yet have "extra" energy when a glucose molecule is broken down by a biological process in our bodies.

Of course, if something like a CO2 molecule gains mass, then since it is matter, it also has gravity and this increases it's effect in the space that it occupies. This would be an opposing force to the vacuum which is trying to expand it.

I think any more, not my concern really. And I know I am wrong for saying that if the carbon molecule in CO2 moves to an H2O molecule, then the plant has O2 and CH2O which it does. And 6CH2O is glucose.

Maybe one day someone will explain why an H2O molecule needs to be taken apart in the first step of photosynthesis ?

Because:

 

CH2 cannot be found in photosynthesis. Show evidence where it is detected. Plants do not make formaldehyde. If they do, show the evidence. High-energy photons are able to radicalize certain molecules. Evidence has been provided to you to confirm this for yourself.

 

Why are atmospheric scientists concerned? Perhaps of the scale and that the CO2 levels are gradually increasing?

 

A single molecule does not have any pressure, nor can it feel effects of a vacuum. A (partial) vacuum is simply the (partial) absence of molecules as compared to our atmosphere, no magic or special energies involved.

 

Glucose contains more chemical energy than the composing molecules. Glucose was able to be formed by photosynthesis which requires light energy to be driven (yet another case where light can enable reactions to occur).

 

CO2, nor any other molecule will gain mass. Vacuum is, again, not a form of energy, but simply the absence of molecules.

 

Perhaps 6CH2O is glucose on paper and your dreamworld, not in real life.

 

People have plenty of times explained this to you. It's time for you to either stop your incessant trolling or remove the fingers from your ears.

[jlindgaard]

fuzzwood, so much of what you said is wrong. Kind of why it's a waste of my time posting in here.

[Fuzzwood]

Whatever floats your boat man.

[jlindgaard]

@Swansont,

Why I labeled this thread Will Be Banned is because I have been told that I will be banned if I say that the carbon element in CO2 separates from the diatomic O2 molecule and forms CH2O when it bonds with a water molecule.

And that this is the result of a fluctuating vacuum. Of course, this is something that CAN NOT be tested. Why it is in violation of this forums rules.

Swansont, there is one minor detail. When I say a fluctuating vacuum, I do not mean increasing then decreasing the quantity of molecules in a given space but increasing and decreasing the space a set number of molecules occupy. Something about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (transferring angular momentum without a heat type transfer) and pursing an equilibrium. Of course, molecules can absorb heat type energy from the container being used for such an experiment. Would be like molecules absorbing energy from chlorophyll.