Strange

"the Kármán line, an altitude of 100 km (62 mi) above sea level,[7][8] is conventionally used as the start of outer space in space treaties and for aerospace records keeping." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space Did you really need to revive a 16 year old thread to ask that?

Of course not. Is you hand made of metal?

So, Roswell was identified, this is unidentified. Doesn't tell us what it was or even if it was a thing.

Simone Giertz wanted a Tesla pickup. So she built one. Or, rather, converted a Tesla 3: (As some of you may know, I don't think many videos are worth watching but this one ...)

We don't need to answer that first. Your question has already been answered. We don't know if time had a beginning (there is no evidence to base such a decision on) and it makes no difference. Time could be infinite, even if it had a start. Or it might be finite. Again, it makes no difference to the answer to your question.

There was actually a case of this a while ago: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/teen-girl-vagina-pregnant-sperm-survival-oral-sex/story?id=9732562

Do you have evidence or calculations to support that, or is it just something you believe.

That is not what I said. (But, in fact, genes use DNA. Not the other way round.)

Here is a link to the story: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/08/tokyo-medical-school-admits-changing-results-to-exclude-women

Even if there is a heritable element of sexuality, it does not mean that "there is a gene for it". That is a hopelessly naive view of how genetics works. (Do you think there is a "gene for heterosexuality"?) Also, homosexuality doesn't make people sterile so your second point is equally silly.

! Moderator Note As this thread appears to have descended into incoherent nonsense, it is closed.

A theory is verified, by definition. If it hasn’t been repeatedly confirmed by evidence it isn’t a theory. You really ought to learn a bit about the scientific method. (Is their anything you have any actual knowledge or expertise in? Every topic you have discussed here has shown you to be entirely ignorant of the subject.)

! Moderator Note So why speculate about something that you know nothing about? Why not learn about something and then, when you have mastered it, come up with some new ideas. Just posting random nonsense about something you know you are ignorant about is not productive. It is a waste of your time, and a waste of time for everyone on this forum. ! Moderator Note Rather than post accusations like that, please use the Report button to tell the moderation team of your suspicions. ! Moderator Note Thread locked.

What exactly do you mean by "time frame"? What exactly do you mean by "t1" and "t2"? You could look up "virtual particles"; this might be relevant to what you are thinking. (It is hard to know what you are thinking.) Or maybe look up "superposition": a particle can be in a state where it has two ore more values for some properties. First you would need some evidence that telepathy actually exists. (Hint: it doesn't.)

That is not a meaningful ratio. If the water is too acid (or full of chlorine) it is still harmful to life. And instead of guessing stupid numbers like "a billion trillion trillion to one" why not find out something about the subject.

They were not dismissed. People are still working on preon theories of various sorts. But there is no evidence for any of them at the moment (and I dontthink they are currently testable).

While I have doubts about the reputation system, if someone writes posts that merit that number of negative votes (and I think Thethinkertank has go off relatively lightly) then those posts don't stop being nonsensical just because the person later improves their posting. And, most people do not change their habits or posting style. I doubt the level of self-delusion and ignorance displayed by Thethinkertank is going to change. They are obviously too confident in their own abilities to wish to learn anything. And so they will never know how profoundly ignorant they are. A classic example of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

That says nothing about CO2 reacting with salt. So, no.

Then your friends are presumably just as ignorant of basic science as you are. Your idea are lacking in any valid scientific content. No one can help you back up this claim because it is unscientific nonsense. You are not an "architect" in this model. You are the guy saying, "why not build a house made out of nutritious edible bricks to solve both the hunger and housing problems." (Actually, that is more sensible than any of your ideas, because one could make bucks from edible material.) Scientists would be the equivalent of architects who turn this stupid idea into something workable. Engineers would take those concepts and implement them. So, as well as being arrogantly delusional about your own knowledge and abilities, you are being offensively insulting to people who have made the effort to actually learn about the subject. You are not capable of problem solving if you (a) don't understand the problem and (b) are totally ignorant of the solution space. But those proposed solutions have nothing to do with you idea because they do not produce any CO2.

First, note that you can only patent actual inventions (ideally, you would have a working model or prototype). You cannot patent an idea. You need to be able to write a description of the invention in sufficient detail to allow someone else to build it. So a vague statement about combing CO2 with salt will not do. You would need exact details of the machinery and chemical reactions involved. You should also have suggestions for alternative implementations wherever possible (to avoid someone getting round the patent by making trivial changes, such as changing copper pipes to steel). A patent application then puts that description a very specific format (which is why you generally need the help of a patent attorney). There are likely to be challenges from the patent office about whether the invention is original, is sufficiently inventive (ie. non-obvious), and described in enough detail. As far as links are concerned, I would start with the patent office of your country. They generally publish a lot of helpful information. For example: https://www.nipo.gov.lk/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=145&lang=en

It is complete gibberish. It has no basis in any sort of science.

Nope. After a few seconds most people are going to switch off. If they do watch to the end, they will just be annoyed they have wasted 32 seconds read the meaningless sentence: "Bye global warming undersea CO2 waste combines with salt forming harmless compounds". The fact that the sentence could have been read in under a second adds to the annoyance. And the fact it is meaningless just adds insult to injury. Do you have any evidence that sodium chloride reacts with CO2, because I am pretty sure it doesn't. No it doesn't. It makes a completely meaningless statement that is not supported by any evidence or theory. It is up to you as the inventor of this amazing idea to explain how salt combines with CO2, what this produces and how that solves global warming. Please provide a reference that these can be combined to produce a carbonate. Even if they could be forced to react somehow, the reaction would release large quantities of chlorine, which is an extremely toxic gas. Killing all the undersea life in the vicinity. It only makes sense to you because you are totally ignorant. Does it? Really? What evidence do you have for that? (Outside your fertile imagination) You obviously have zero idea what CERN does, then.

1. More than half of your "short and to the point" video is taken up with music and blank screen. The rest consists of 9 words with no meaningful content. 2. Why would a particle accelerator laboratory be interested in ocean waste disposal (even if you had a sensible idea)? 3. No one is going to plagiarise the idea because it makes no sense. Thinking "out of the box" requires having an in-depth knowledge of the subject. I have seen no evidence that you have any knowledge of any subject whatsoever. Making up random nonsense is not the same as coming up with solutions (novel or otherwise). No expert is going to have any interest in this drivel.

every single one of your ideas has consisted of random buzzwords strung together in a way that makes no sense. Look up the phrase "not even wrong". No. The negative (or positive) points are purely a community reputation thing. They are not taken into account in moderation decisions. But keep posting nonsense and the moderators might get fed up with it.

Clearly, a particle with opposite charge moves in the opposite direction. That is true whether it is an antimatter particle, or a particle with the opposite charge. So the behaviour of antimatter is described by exactly the same equations as matter. (Apart from the very small violations of CP symmetry.) How are you going to do that if "antimatter cannot be controlled"? (Apart from the fact that "wrapping it around a hadron" is a completely meaningless phrase.)