thethinkertank

I just read this quote on wiki; "Materials reduced to the nanoscale can show different properties compared to what they exhibit on a macroscale, enabling unique applications. For instance, opaque substances can become transparent (copper); stable materials can turn combustible (aluminium); insoluble materials may become soluble (gold). A material such as gold, which is chemically inert at normal scales, can serve as a potent chemical catalyst at nanoscales. Much of the fascination with nanotechnology stems from these quantum and surface phenomena that matter exhibits at the nanoscale.[26] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology How is that possible? For example why would Gold be soluble at the nano scale and yet not on the macroscale?

Hi there, site. Thanks for your invigorating discussionary contribution to my pet idea on 'undersea CO2 emissions and reducing global warming'. I gleaned the following valuable points following that discussion. Rising pH levels due to CO2 emissions underwater and the consequent fishlife eradication. I will try to work on this and get back with a revised theory. In the meantime if anybody does come up with a way to overcome that obstacle, please let us know. Again, thanking scientists on this site for inspiration on 'Undersea Emmisions.

OK, correct. I see contingency 2 (which in my book refers to the possibility of muting or otherwise having my posting facilities terminated definitely or indefnitely by website owners/moderators) has arisen and as such here are the steps that are to be put into practical effect by myself with effect from now. 1.To drastically rescind on output of purely thought provoking posts with less than 80% research and backing. 2.To ensure all theories posted by me are verified by mainstream science. Yes, I got the gist of the message and I agree, that's quite true. One cannot forumlate theries without sufficient knowledge etc. However I did learn quite a bit just by discussing with people here. For example if the entirity of researching the undersea CO2 emissions had been left to me I would have never dreamt of researching the pH levels or acidty of the ocean. I may have confined myself to mere parerphernalia that appeared appealing to my layman's eye in terms of sufficient knowledge yet may have proved to be unworthy of the theory in the end. Now it is only by discussing that such vital points as acidity, pH levels of the ocean etc. came to my attentoin. And I thank you all for helping me out with showing me the avenues for research and contributing in some instances to those avenues.

Erroneous logic there. One can understand the approach to enlightenment without necessarily having to first be enlightened. Science is the understanding of various things. But the art of mastering the science of science is different that mastering science itself. It's a trivial point but worth mentioning.

LOL I never watch videos and I used to read but nowadays I write more than I read. I like the above explanation for racism it is undoubtedly the root cause (i.e differences and percieved differences) I did read a post on the scientific reason behind that that says more or less the same thing, psychologically we are drawn to those like us and against those who are different. thats a great way of putting it. I did more research after seeing your question and here's what I came up with. Google definition: inferiority complex an unrealistic feeling of general inadequacy caused by actual or supposed inferiority in one sphere, sometimes marked by aggressive behaviour in compensation. You notice most of it is 'unrealistic' feelings of inadequacy that lends to percieved belief. Now feeling inadequate could be due to many things depending on situation. For example the guy at the supermarket who overtakes out of a feeling of inferiority to a person in front of him, perhaps because of racially induced reasons. So therefore I would say inferiority complex has its roots in several factors of whihc one is racism, wheras the situation could also be the other way around.

What are EMF waves? Something like telepathy?

Perhaps.

Blame shelving is different than racism.

LOL thats exactly my point. How can something so unscientific be such a major player in human affairs? I don't get it either. Maybe one explanation is that racist people are aliens and not subject to the laws of science. Oh well, if you think racism has a scientific basis in inferiority complex after all, then I'm happy to go with that. You couldnt possibly elaborate?

Really? But I'm just rephrasing what (I assumed) you said earlier. That the early universe existed before the modern universe(premise 1) and there were no causal effects in between apart from the change of matter from state 1 to state 2 (except from the tendency of matter to change of its own volition) and the consequent deduction that therefore matter caused itself. Or maybe you meant something else? If so, what?

It is a primordial defense mechanism in a living organism to react with fear or anger (fight or flight) when accosted by a stimulus that it subconciously deems threatening. But no, that doesnt answer my original question either.

Totally agreed, and FEAR is the root cause of hatred. (And no thank you, I wouldnt desire to engage in conversation with somebody like Hitler who I would look down upon for entirely unracist reasons.)

No, you did not misread the forum rules. The forum rules state that any THEORY ought to be verified. However the speculations section dont deal with theories, for speculation in itself is not theorising. Of course the rules apply to everybody.

Human beings evolved into the best they could be. Throughout history however we have observed that inter human conflict played a large part in that evolution. But something like racism seems so absurd I doubt even science has a basis for it. For example, one can believe that wars break out over food clothing and shelter, but what possible explanation is there for an abstract concept like racism? An even abstracter, illogical explanation like 'inferiority complex' won't apply here I suppose. This is neither a speculation nor a theory, but a question to you science buffs.

But where third party opinions come into play, is there not the risk of unfair judgement, based on provable human phenomena (that have been observed throughout history), things like racism just to quote a random example just out of the blue? (Note that I'm not saying that such is the case here.)

Well then you answered my question. Matter was caused by an earlier version of its own self. (i.e The process of energy, which can neither be created or destroyed, CHANGED from early energy as we knew it back then, into modern energy, so to speak.) Which means matter caused matter, in effect.

The very definition of the word 'speculation' refers to an unverified theory. Therefore you are wrong.

I notice also somebody deleted my post in speculations, that was posted there for the very reason it was speculation and therefore within the boundaries of not having backup. The fact that it was entirely deleted and not even moved to the trash can, in the absence of such items as swearing or offensive material, can hint at the possibility that the parties behind the deleting felt their status as scientists questioned in some way. But this is again speculation, and should have been verified via my offices before deletion, if such were the case. I refer to my post titled 'reinventing science, etc." Viz. your previous comment, I didnt say such was my approach to posting on this forum necessarily, but my approach to problem solving in science, which I stated in many other forums I would limit to only researched topics and verifiable material (when on here), in view of the negative view count and similar developments.

Yes I know, science as it exists today is fundementally a provable entity. You have facts and causes and observable effects etc. However this is far too rigorous for human beings. We deserve better! What science should be like, is a thing like chess. You dont need to prove chess, you just follow the rules and you either win or lose. Can you prove the Ruy Lopez is a good opening? No you cant. Cant you prove a fork or a pin? Yes. But if people only followed the forks and pins chess would be such a limited game. With no grandmasters and the level of ability would stagnate at around average. Yet people are grandmasters because they follow not only the provable but also the speculations. There were Grandmasters like mikhail Tal who literarily played the most unscientific unprovable moves and yet the won games time and again. Science is like chess only limited to forks and pins with observable causes and effects. No wonder innovation and theories have stagnated today. Because speculations dont count. I have half a dozen brilliant nobel prize winning speculations on all areas of science, (that I would have indeed won nobel prizes for had this been the relaxed science era of 1500AD) Of course I couldnt verify them but who cares, they sound good and make sense to the wholy illogical human subconcious! Isnt that what science ought to be? Oh well, you bigwigs go back to playing fork-n-pin chess, while I soar towards Grandmastery in science. You can say what you like, but I'm a scientist alright. And so are all of you, that part that you discarded of yourselves in middle school when precision begged to differ with your deeper scientific selves.

I mean from the point of view of the particle, it exists before that which caused it to exist. For example, a person being run over by a bus hits the ground BEFORE the bus hits him. THEN because he hit the ground the bus hits him, as opposed to vice versa. Is that scientifically possible? Oh telepathy exists. Sure of it. I can even prove it but not in this thread. I have my own ideas as to why it happens.

Is it for example, possible for a particle to exist in t1 and t2 simultaneously? Or is it possible for a particle A to exist as two particles simultaneously? If that's not possible then explain things like telepathy through scientic means?

But surely the ratio of ocean water to the amount of sealife is at least a billion trillion trillion to one!? So for every drop of water being acidified, a million sea life forms would have bicarboanted, and how many drops of ocean are there in the ocean?

ok. Good advice.

I must admit you perplex me there. Only 5% is not a very encouraging statistic, even if the horrible drawback didnt exist.....hmmm ill think of some way to go around that obstacle.

There we venture into the realms of morals and ethics and fish rights. Really? I say if we can sacrifice a couple of fishies to save the world from global warming meltdown by all means do it. And while we are talking morals, I might add I believe in reincarnation and those fishies will reincarnate as great human beings such as CERN scientists and even you and me, because of the sacrifice they made in their previous life, but then, that's hardly the question under discussion. Let me post that print screen again for your benefit. Notice it says the ocean life utilize those bicarbonates in (organic processes) such as the construction of calcium carbonate shells? Now thats a good thing.