My experience so far on scienceforums.net-the positives and the positives wrapped in negatives. :)

[thethinkertank]

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!

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

In my egoistical view of the world, I contend I pretty much solved all the worlds troubles. In one day.

Narcissism and delusion may be better descriptors. 

18 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

Unless absolutely scientifically supported, theories are 'speculation'

Correction: Theories are fine, but have a very specific meaning in science. They are supported by evidence and offer testable predictions. They are, in fact, more powerful and on a higher plane than laws and facts. 

What you have are conjectures, maybe hypotheses or speculations, but more accurately they’re wild assed guesses worthy of no self-respecting persons time.  

21 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

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. 

Precision matters. In math, you don’t get to substitute banana for X or Tuesday for addition. Same with scientific ideas. This is a good thing, despite your lamentations. 

22 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

Lets see if I can do better on my second day here. 

You probably should’ve posted this in the Comments and Feedback forum: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/28-suggestions-comments-and-support/

[thethinkertank]

Just now, iNow said:

What you have are conjectures, maybe hypotheses or speculations, but more accurately they’re wild assed guesses worthy of no self-respecting persons time.  

 

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. 

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

16 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

Can you find the scientific theories to back up my claim that undersea factories would solve global warming? I

 

That's not our job, it's yours. If you're the one coming up with the ideas,  you're the one who needs to be able to support them with evidence and to provide some sort of rational framework for building upon them. So far you have failed to do this on all counts. Please be aware that it is in fact a rule of this forum that you comply with these mandates. We are a science discussion forum, not a place for people to offload their unsupported and unscientific dreamscapes. 

[thethinkertank]

Just now, hypervalent_iodine said:

 

That's not our job, it's yours. If you're the one coming up with the ideas,  you're the one who needs to be able to support them with evidence and to provide some sort of rational framework for building upon them. So far you have failed to do this on all counts. Please be aware that it is in fact a rule of this forum that you comply with these mandates. We are a science discussion forum, not a place for people to offload their unsupported and unscientific dreamscapes. 

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.

Edited June 18, 2019 by thethinkertank

[MigL]

Ok, I'll bite...

Present your reasoning and chain of thought that leads you to believe undersea factories would solve man-made global warming.

[hypervalent_iodine]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

Ok, I'll bite...

Present your reasoning and chain of thought that leads you to believe undersea factories would solve man-made global warming.

In an appropriate thread, of course (i.e. not here). 

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

it would be nice to see my (our) names in the halls of fame at CERN or wherever 'cause we solved global warming yo.

Already reverted back to narcissism and delusion I see.

[thethinkertank]

Just now, zapatos said:

Already reverted back to narcissism and delusion I see.

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.

Just now, hypervalent_iodine said:

In an appropriate thread, of course (i.e. not here). 

I will message you. Thank you for your interest. Give me a week. 

[hypervalent_iodine]

1 minute ago, thethinkertank said:

I will message you. Thank you for your interest. Give me a week. 

 

Please don't. I am not interested. 

[thethinkertank]

Just now, hypervalent_iodine said:

 

Please don't. I am not interested. 

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

[hypervalent_iodine]

1 minute ago, thethinkertank said:

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

My previous post was a gentle reminder to you that if you wished to discuss specifics on some of your ideas (as requested by MigL), that you should do so in another thread. I am not a climate scientist. I have no interest in trying to decipher your ideas when all evidence suggests that you've barely thought them through yourself. 

[thethinkertank]

Just now, hypervalent_iodine said:

My previous post was a gentle reminder to you that if you wished to discuss specifics on some of your ideas (as requested by MigL), that you should do so in another thread. 

OK. 

[MigL]

Sorry Hyper...
Didn't mean to encourage him

[thethinkertank]

Just now, MigL said:

Sorry Hyper...
Didn't mean to encourage him

I dont require third party encouragement to devise life changing patents

 

[zapatos]

25 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

I dont require third party encouragement to devise life changing patents

 

No, but you do require knowledge, ability, and the recognition of where those things are lacking.

I don't want to discourage your enthusiasm but you are acting like a ten year old who thinks he is ready to start practicing medicine because he watched an episode of Doogie Howser, M.D.

 

[koti]

2 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

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.

Just so you know, most people answering so far in your multiple thereads (which you all posted over a period of few hours while being on the forum for 1 day) are professional scientists - physicists, biologists, chemists, some of them have PHD’s. Why do you think its appropriate to march into a science site full of those people shouting that you have it all figured out? I have a tip for you...choose a subject and try spending a few months on this forum in a specific section of it and pursue your ideas, see where it gets you and what you can learn. You wont get far just by informing everyone that you figured out some area of science without posting your model/evidence - you’ll get bashed everytime you do that. Also, your narcissistic attitude is a big show stopper for you, even if you already were a Nobel prize winner and came here with that attitude you’d get bashed too. Change your attitude and stay to learn or keep it up and pretty quickly you’ll be gone from here ending up at some crackpot site looking for respect and justification of your baseless ideas. Most probably you will find those at one of the pseudo science sites on the internet. 

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

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.

https://xkcd.com/675/

[swansont]

8 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

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.

Merely? You say that as if working out the math, etc. isn’t 98% of the work.

[thethinkertank]

Just now, swansont said:

Merely? You say that as if working out the math, etc. isn’t 98% of the work.

The approach to scientific problem solving is rather like building a house. 

You need a plan, an architect to draft out that plan, and then the masons that actually put that plan into bricks and mortar homes so to speak.

Does an architect need to have masonry know how to design a plan?

None but the very basics. 

I am the architect. You the scientists are the masons. 

I consider it sufficient if I detail as minutely as necessary, the layout of an idea.

It is up to people with knowledge in science to use that layout to build lasting scientific solutions. 

Here's another example. I create the foundation, out of sticks. You layer that foundation with the bits and peices of formulae etc. 

I dont know the formulae which is why I apply to you as a scientist to do so. 

In the end we are both contributing to the betterment of the planet via science. 

Heres a third example. I approach Einstein and tell him the speed of light is impossible to catch up with. He understands me in terms of math and logical forumlae. He comes up with the theory of relativity as a result.

Yet both he and I are perfectly correct and arrive at the same conclusion via pictures and scientific formula respectively. 

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by thethinkertank

[swansont]

1 minute ago, thethinkertank said:

The approach to scientific problem solving is rather like building a house. 

You have admitted to not being a scientist. But by all means, lecture me about the process of doing science, as if I haven’t been doing this for 30 years

[thethinkertank]

Just now, swansont said:

You have admitted to not being a scientist. But by all means, lecture me about the process of doing science, as if I haven’t been doing this for 30 years

I am stressing upon the process of problem solving scientifically, to be precise. 

And surely I'm not wrong in claiming there's always a idea, preceding the rules and formulae. 

Im providing the idea. 

('doing science' is a vague term sir.) 

[Sensei]

Your negatives are well deserved for writing nonsense..

 

Underwater facility which will be burning fuel and releasing CO₂ directly to water, would still require Oxygen from the air.. The large pump would have to pump tons of tons of air below surface of ocean? To couple hundred meters depth? To couple kilometers? Silly. Silly idea..

Underwater facility could use: 1) underwater currents 2) nuclear reactions (fusion, fission) 3) geothermal (i.e. underwater volcanoes).

But in the case of any disaster, the all people working there would be quickly dead (pressure of water increase by 1 atm every 10m, which you obviously have no idea about), and contamination would be spreading on the entire planet with underwater currents. Silly. Silly idea..

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by Sensei

[Dagl1]

11 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

I am stressing upon the process of problem solving scientifically, to be precise. 

And surely I'm not wrong in claiming there's always a idea, preceding the rules and formulae. 

Im providing the idea. 

('doing science' is a vague term sir.) 

Yes but your process isn't entirely... problem solving. When we propose an idea, we then test this idea logically and try look at with a skeptical eye, in order to find any problems with said idea and if we find them, look for solutions. 

He means he has been working in a science-related field (academically, I think, but I could be mistaken).

You are saying "Hey this is an interesting idea, go figure it out, btw I am going to win a nobel prize, people should take my ideas seriously" yet there is no reason to take your ideas seriously as you do not show WHY your idea would work. You then put the burden of proof on us scientists and say: "well I just provide the idea, you guys make it work". But if we would do this for every person who has some wild idea, do you think actual science would actually ever be performed?

Don't you think that the people who spend most of their daily lives involved in and thinking about science will have a lot of ideas they may want to test, don't you think they have good and better ideas than someone without much scientific knowledge? Why not just learn about a specific field? I think it has been mentioned before and you may have just read over it or ignored it but I will say it again: Thinking outside the box is useful, but you need to know WHAT the box is and what the limits of said box are. Yes there have been leaps of knowledge, but most of the progress happens in tiny steps (think of the quote "we are standing on the shoulders of giants"), so while it could be possible that your idea is amazing, even then you will need to show it. And if your idea is SO amazing, at least have the decency to adress, immediately (and not later when people point it out) the flaws of your problem and how to fix them. 
As a future nobel prize winner this shouldn't be too difficult...

So instead of going: Hey x is a great idea, figure it out!
Go: Hey x is a great idea, now obviously y z and q are reasons why x doesn't work but we can use u and o method to make y and z go away, and while I am not 100% sure if I am interpreting this correctly but I think using method v would allow us to use x without q being a problem. Then there are of course some other things to look out for such as i and n but I think that this isn't a fundamental problem and maybe you see a way around these potential problems.

Please learn from what people with a lot of science experience (I am just a beginner) tell you and explain to you... It would also help to get off your high horse..

-Dagl 

[thethinkertank]

Just now, Dagl1 said:

Yes but your process isn't entirely... problem solving. When we propose an idea, we then test this idea logically and try look at with a skeptical eye, in order to find any problems with said idea and if we find them, look for solutions. 

He means he has been working in a science-related field (academically, I think, but I could be mistaken).

You are saying "Hey this is an interesting idea, go figure it out, btw I am going to win a nobel prize, people should take my ideas seriously" yet there is no reason to take your ideas seriously as you do not show WHY your idea would work. You then put the burden of proof on us scientists and say: "well I just provide the idea, you guys make it work". But if we would do this for every person who has some wild idea, do you think actual science would actually ever be performed?

Don't you think that the people who spend most of their daily lives involved in and thinking about science will have a lot of ideas they may want to test, don't you think they have good and better ideas than someone without much scientific knowledge? Why not just learn about a specific field? I think it has been mentioned before and you may have just read over it or ignored it but I will say it again: Thinking outside the box is useful, but you need to know WHAT the box is and what the limits of said box are. Yes there have been leaps of knowledge, but most of the progress happens in tiny steps (think of the quote "we are standing on the shoulders of giants"), so while it could be possible that your idea is amazing, even then you will need to show it. And if your idea is SO amazing, at least have the decency to adress, immediately (and not later when people point it out) the flaws of your problem and how to fix them. 
As a future nobel prize winner this shouldn't be too difficult...

So instead of going: Hey x is a great idea, figure it out!
Go: Hey x is a great idea, now obviously y z and q are reasons why x doesn't work but we can use u and o method to make y and z go away, and while I am not 100% sure if I am interpreting this correctly but I think using method v would allow us to use x without q being a problem. Then there are of course some other things to look out for such as i and n but I think that this isn't a fundamental problem and maybe you see a way around these potential problems.

Please learn from what people with a lot of science experience (I am just a beginner) tell you and explain to you... It would also help to get off your high horse..

-Dagl 

Let me quote my favourite part of that again, with many thanks attached.

"

So instead of going: Hey x is a great idea, figure it out!
Go: Hey x is a great idea, now obviously y z and q are reasons why x doesn't work but we can use u and o method to make y and z go away, and while I am not 100% sure if I am interpreting this correctly but I think using method v would allow us to use x without q being a problem. Then there are of course some other things to look out for such as i and n but I think that this isn't a fundamental problem and maybe you see a way around these potential problems

"

Thats straight out of the manual for scientific question making. Thanks again. 

 

 

Just now, Sensei said:

Your negatives are well deserved for writing nonsense..

 

Underwater facility which will be burning fuel and releasing CO₂ directly to water, would still require Oxygen from the air.. The large pump would have to pump tons of tons of air below surface of ocean? To couple hundred meters depth? To couple kilometers? Silly. Silly idea..

Underwater facility could use: 1) underwater currents 2) nuclear reactions (fusion, fission) 3) geothermal (i.e. underwater volcanoes).

But in the case of any disaster, the all people working there would be quickly dead (pressure of water increase by 1 atm every 10m, which you obviously have no idea about), and contamination would be spreading on the entire planet with underwater currents. Silly. Silly idea..

 

Finally I have somebody who incidentally co authored a part to the solution. Congratulations.

I think you are quite correct about underwater currents and nuclear reactors as a means of solving the pressure issue. 

However that pressure is possibly worth investing in even otherwise. Underwater volcanoes not being a common phenomenon wouldnt work on a large scale. 

And I think your suggestion that accidents could happen and that's a reason to decry the idea, is silly too, accidents can happen anywhere regardless of location. 

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by thethinkertank