thethinkertank

OK.

OK, no problem. I took your previous answer as an indication that you were.

Not at all. I said IF I can verify my solution for global warming, and I can, then it is obviously something nobel prize worthy. I will message you. Thank you for your interest. Give me a week.

I have a couple of ideas and invention I developed over the years that I would like to patent. (One of them was the vaguely described idea for using undersea factories for global warming.) Could anybody explain the process to me? Also do add useful links in your answer if possible.

I will do that. And if I do support my idea on global warming, is there anybody here who could help me use it reach mainstream society? Only asking because I have no mates in the science field but pHDs here probably would, and it would be nice to see my (our) names in the halls of fame at CERN or wherever 'cause we solved global warming yo.

As a matter of fact, I mentioned something novel here, about reflexes as the origins of human intelligence vs memory, which nobody esle on the forum has suggested.

That doesnt answer my question.

I think the following ideas 1.Solving global warming through undersea factories 2.Using the Kyoto Protocol to solve the US China Trade war While only sketched out as an idea here, can be verified as used to genuinely make waves across he science and political sphere on the global stage. Now then, those are my ideas the ideas of a layman. Here, around me, we have reputed scientists, pHD holders which is great. I invite you to work with me on developing those ideas above, and help me change the world.

I disagree on the second part. They are definitely not wild guesses. They may be conjectures, but they also provide the groundwork to verifiable theories. All theories began with an idea. My ideas are merely lacking in the nessasary formulae that would make them a theory. Perhaps you could help out there. Can you find the scientific theories to back up my claim that undersea factories would solve global warming? I can't Im not a pHD scientist but I presume you could. We could work together on that one and develop it into a ground breaking thesis.

Thirteen posts my friends would have called me a genius for. -17 points for my trouble. In my egoistical view of the world, I contend I pretty much solved all the worlds troubles. In one day. But the rules of the site beg to differ. OK, my rational self now begs that I take that as a stepping stone to greater things by adapting my views to that which must have surely been set in place for the betterment of science. Which means two important things: 1.Unless absolutely scientifically supported, theories are 'speculation' 2. The said theories even if supported by maintream science, must be as accurate as a computer program on many levels to be even considered as valid. Well, it's good I learned that right off the bat. Lets see if I can do better on my second day here. Cheers!

quite a lucid explanation.

What came first, matter or the origins of matter?

In my view, the secret to understanding science is through variables, math and the logic that governs language. For example, if you consider the statement "The ball fell down" You get a scientific scenario, whoely provable by exact science that There was a ball existing in t1 And t2 through t3 it executed the scientific process of falling down, obeying the laws of gravity. But the statement 'Fall the ball' doesnt make sense So language and variables it incorporates makes perfect scientific sense and indeed the groundwork for further scientific research. I contend scientific laws are parallel to the variable logic inherent in language. Now this means the underlying force behind each action in the universe amounts to a series of variables. t1=the ball + point A t2=ball +point B And the concept of falling is the the natural result of the universe observing the interraction as interraction = IF t1 THEN t2 I.E if ball + point A THEN ball + point B So there you observe the connection between science, logic language math and variables.

No, I meant the comment you moved the thread for, the sharks overpopulating comment, was a joke. The original thread is speculation, I suppose. However dont you think observing the benefits of carbonating the undersea vs carbon dioxide emissions is sufficient backing via mainstream science? uhh no big deal i guess. Because if we didnt eat fish, the fish would overpopulate. The sharks would then eat the fish, and overpopulate too.

Kyoto protocol does in fact levy emission caps and the US and every country yoked with the said taxes are in fact legally bound by them. The statistics I provided indicate that China has a emission cap (greenhouse gas production index per annum) twice that of USA. Still searching for exact tax value however, will get back to you on that one.

Jesus, it was a joke!

well, this is after all a open ended conversation. I phrased it as a question because I don't know myself. Isnt that what a scientific discussion is about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions Please refer above

WE are vital to the eco system. If greenhouse gases kill us all, there'll be nobody to eat the fish, and next thing you know, there'll be sharks overpopulating which will kill the fish anyway. So my point stands.

There are also many good uses for carbonates to be found in undersea life forms. These could be done in oil rigs in controlled locales, where fish are scarce, or only sharks live. LOL.

just wrap that minute amount around a hadron and watch that hadron turn into a leapin' lizard Are you absolutely sure of that? Antimatter cannot be controlled. Which means to some extent it exists outside the boundaries of natural forces. Now light, could encounter a problem with its ceaseless c'fullness so to speak, in a vaccuum coated in antimatter.

IQ tests are based on fallacius foundations. They take into assumption that human intelligence is based on memory and judgement rather than split second reactions to stimuli. For example, who is a genius, a guy who can solve mensa puzzle or muhammed ali (whos IQ was estimated to be 70)? I'd say Ali was the genius and here's why. Antique man, our stone age forebears, evolved to a world full of stimuli. There was no need to think much back then, merely respond to stimuli. The smart guy was the one who could climb up a tree the fastest just as the bear flashed down upon him like a lightning bolt from a clear sky. The genius scientist on the other hand would be calculating trajectories of escape, velocities of bear speed and so on and then it would be too late. Notice things like math and science require memory rather than stimulus response? From the point of evolution, human intelligence would rather be more along the lines of survival than memorising. memory probably evolved later as a seperate entity, to facilitate learning which comes down to connected blueprints of stimuls-response-survival-faliure mechanisms in a package of its own, to help see the way. But at the moment of decision making, its always split second hand eye coordination that defined the intelligent survivor back then. Thats right folks, you and I, would be in that category of bear meat.

Im imagining a sort of time machine consisting of a hypothetical box made of antimatter, or coated inside in antimatter. Now imagine passing light inside the box. Would it still obey the constant 'c'? If not, then maybe that's the answer to creating a time machine. Because any particle introduced into such a box would undergo space time dilation. Now, CERN has plenty of that antimatter stuff, so I've heard....

Here's an interesting idea. The undersea is full of space. It is also full of sodium chloride. Now what happens when you pass Carbon dioxide over sodium chloride? You get a beautiful reaction full of carbonated results that sealife and seaweed find very useful to grow and reproduce. (There's one type that doesnt mind greenhouse gases at least. Imagine that, Al Gore the jellyfish. Haha.) OK, so carbon dioxide UNDERWATER doesnt cause greenhouse gases, or any kind of harm to the natural envioronment, but rather it does good all around. Is that an argument in favour of starting underwater factories? One way this could be done is through oil rigs. Go ahead, let me know what you think!

I see. Thanks for clearing that up. You're right, the biological processes depend on many other factors.