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

[Sensei]

2 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

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

I think you have problem with English.. I never said the words you're putting in my mouth. Underwater facility require energy. So this energy can be acquired with mentioned by me methods. It won't solve pressure issue at all. It's not its purpose.

5 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

However that pressure is possibly worth investing in even otherwise.

Everybody diving are well aware of it.. That was the scariest thing for U-Boot crew during II world war (80 years ago!). Every submarine has some depth diving limit, which should not be exceeded, otherwise submarine is squashed, squeezed by pressure of water above it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_depth_ratings

 

[thethinkertank]

Just now, Sensei said:

I think you have problem with English.. I never said the words you're putting in my mouth. Underwater facility require energy. So this energy can be acquired with mentioned by me methods. It won't solve pressure issue at all. It's not its purpose.

Everybody diving are well aware of it.. That was the scariest thing for U-Boot crew during II world war (80 years ago!). Every submarine has some depth diving limit, which should not be exceeded, otherwise submarine is squashed, squeezed by pressure of water above it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_depth_ratings

 

Oh, ok I see what you meant now. 

Now, I never said anything about the need to dive. A typical factory situation would prevail. There would be no divers nothing. Only thing underwater would be factory chimneys redesigned to emit CO2 into the sea. 

I hope Im clear on this.

Nevertheless, you did incidentally spark off a new idea about utilizing a system powered by underwater currents to, force CO2 into the water out of chimneys. 

Edited June 18, 2019 by thethinkertank

[Sensei]

59 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

Now, I never said anything about the need to dive. (...) I hope Im clear on this.

...it is clear that you don't know even classical physics.. if you're claiming that pressure won't be a problem.. there is no difference between "diving" and "being there at rest at the bottom of ocean". Pressure is the same at such depth regardless of what you are doing there. Pressure is acting on underwater underground construction of facility.

59 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

Nevertheless, you did incidentally spark off a new idea about utilizing a system powered by underwater currents to force CO2 into the water out of chimneys. 

Nonsense. CO₂ should not be dissolved in sea water.

The way to catch CO₂ should be GMO algae on deserts with large tanks of water, artificial hermetic lakes (i.e. concrete with steel bars).

They will absorb CO₂ and water and grow. Their body can be converted to biofuel, or stored in old mines etc. for later use.

Why deserts? Because GMO algae should not contaminate sea water and environment.

Additionally it will help solving political and economical problems of African countries.

Edited June 18, 2019 by Sensei

[swansont]

How about “X is a vague and uninformed proposition, with little information that could serve as a basis for feedback”

 

[Curious layman]

The sites for discussion and for asking questions. Your preaching, have you actually learnt anything from all the replies you've had?

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, thethinkertank said:

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

I worked in architecture for three years. The architects know everything the masons know, the carpenters, the plumbers, the electricians, the millworkers, everything. The architects also had to know what the building inspectors know. An architect respects the methodology that leads to success, and a big part of that success is knowing all the tools in the box before trying to think outside it.

The biggest problem with your approach is that you're making up solutions without the necessary knowledge, so ALL your explanations make PERFECT sense to you (because you don't know any better, right?). But those who studied these things can easily see where you're wrong, they tell you, but it makes less sense to you than your PERFECT solution, so you ignore them. You remain convinced that you have solutions nobody has thought of before.

Imagine you're a famous songwriter, with hundreds of hit songs to your credit, known the world over as one of the best in your profession. Now imagine that I tell you that I've never written a song before, but I have some great ideas that will be sure to shake up the musical world with their brilliance. I show you some of my ideas, and it's very obvious I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm convinced my songs are wonderful, but you know they aren't. You know, because of your knowledge and experience, that they have no appeal, they won't be accepted, and they make no sense musically. I don't use the right phrases, my timing isn't right, and because I know nothing about songwriting, my songs would take SO MUCH WORK TO FIX that it would be easier to just send me to a music teacher and insist I learn about the thing I so desperately want to change. 

I love your enthusiasm, but you need to study science. It's not something you can understand without a LOT of layered, nuanced analysis of multiple fields. Right now, it's like you're trying to tell a foreign country what they're doing wrong, and you don't even speak their language (math is the language of physics). Does that make sense?

[Strange]

10 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

Thirteen posts my friends would have called me a genius for

Then your friends are presumably just as ignorant of basic science as you are.

10 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

All theories began with an idea. My ideas are merely lacking in the nessasary formulae that would make them a theory.

Your idea are lacking in any valid scientific content.

10 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

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. 

No one can help you back up this claim because it is unscientific nonsense.

1 hour ago, thethinkertank said:

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

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.

 

1 hour ago, thethinkertank said:

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

You are not capable of problem solving if you (a) don't understand the problem and (b) are totally ignorant of the solution space.

1 hour ago, thethinkertank said:

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

But those proposed solutions have nothing to do with you idea because they do not produce any CO2.

[John Cuthber]

6 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

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.

 

 

And you have provided this level of help

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by John Cuthber

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

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

I didn't see this before. This is a BIG problem for us. It's against the rules for this site, and it explains quite a bit of why you post the way you do. You may want to consider a different discussion site. Or Khan Academy....

[thethinkertank]

Just now, Phi for All said:

I didn't see this before. This is a BIG problem for us. It's against the rules for this site, and it explains quite a bit of why you post the way you do. You may want to consider a different discussion site. Or Khan Academy....

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. 

Edited June 18, 2019 by thethinkertank

[Ghideon]

2 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

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.Why?

Because you failed to read/understand/follow the rules?

 

For instance:

1. You have to back your statements up with evidence.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/22442-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/

[thethinkertank]

Just now, Ghideon said:

Because you failed to read/understand/follow the rules?

 

For instance:

1. You have to back your statements up with evidence.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/22442-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/

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

[Ghideon]

9 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

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

Please clarify; did I misread the forum rules? Are the rules wrong*? Does the rules apply to other members but not to you? Other?

 

*) I didn't write them. 

[thethinkertank]

Just now, Ghideon said:

Please clarify; did I misread the forum rules? Are the rules wrong*? Does the rules apply to other members but not to you? Other?

 

*) I didn't write them. 

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. 

[Ghideon]

14 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

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. 

Please provide a reference, I have missed that part where it says that it only applies to theories.

 

Quote

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, thethinkertank said:

I notice also somebody deleted my post in speculations

We don't delete anything. I moved it to the Trash, where you can still read it, and the staff response. There should have been a link to guide you to it, but if I forgot to include that, I apologize.

 

1 hour ago, thethinkertank said:

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. 

Science really doesn't need your kind of problem solving, even though you're convinced it does. The problem here is that we have a member who joined and is breaking the rules with their "approach". This member wants us to change the whole way we behave here at SFN, without trying to learn anything about us. The behavior is being reported by other members, all the right steps we've designed over the last 17 years are being followed. Protocol says we need to either suspend you, or put you in a moderation queue where staff decides if your posts are relevant and/or discussable before making them visible. If you have a third alternative within the rules, I'd love to hear it. Nobody wants to dampen your enthusiasm, but nobody wants to teach you the basics of science while you're screaming about all your uninformed ideas. 

What should we do with you?

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I worked in architecture for three years. The architects know everything the masons know, the carpenters, the plumbers, the electricians, the millworkers, everything. The architects also had to know what the building inspectors know. An architect respects the methodology that leads to success, and a big part of that success is knowing all the tools in the box before trying to think outside it.

The biggest problem with your approach is that you're making up solutions without the necessary knowledge, so ALL your explanations make PERFECT sense to you (because you don't know any better, right?). But those who studied these things can easily see where you're wrong, they tell you, but it makes less sense to you than your PERFECT solution, so you ignore them. You remain convinced that you have solutions nobody has thought of before.

Imagine you're a famous songwriter, with hundreds of hit songs to your credit, known the world over as one of the best in your profession. Now imagine that I tell you that I've never written a song before, but I have some great ideas that will be sure to shake up the musical world with their brilliance. I show you some of my ideas, and it's very obvious I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm convinced my songs are wonderful, but you know they aren't. You know, because of your knowledge and experience, that they have no appeal, they won't be accepted, and they make no sense musically. I don't use the right phrases, my timing isn't right, and because I know nothing about songwriting, my songs would take SO MUCH WORK TO FIX that it would be easier to just send me to a music teacher and insist I learn about the thing I so desperately want to change. 

I love your enthusiasm, but you need to study science. It's not something you can understand without a LOT of layered, nuanced analysis of multiple fields. Right now, it's like you're trying to tell a foreign country what they're doing wrong, and you don't even speak their language (math is the language of physics). Does that make sense?

“You should write a song about X. Now all you have to do is the lyrics and the music. The easy part.”

1 hour ago, thethinkertank said:

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

We clarify what we mean by speculations. The dictionary is not a technical resource.

[Strange]

3 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

The forum rules state that any THEORY ought to be verified.

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.)

[beecee]

11 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

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

If that were only true! As I said, acquire the knowledge already established and what is inside the box.

Quote

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

Ideas need to be verified and validated by either observational or experimental evidence, that can be repeated and repeated again and again.

Quote

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

Doing science is why we as a species are where we are today as far as technology goes. Doing science is adhering to the scientific methodology. 

[thethinkertank]

Just now, beecee said:

If that were only true! As I said, acquire the knowledge already established and what is inside the box.

Ideas need to be verified and validated by either observational or experimental evidence, that can be repeated and repeated again and again.

Doing science is why we as a species are where we are today as far as technology goes. Doing science is adhering to the scientific methodology. 

OK, correct. 

Just now, Phi for All said:

We don't delete anything. I moved it to the Trash, where you can still read it, and the staff response. There should have been a link to guide you to it, but if I forgot to include that, I apologize.

 

Science really doesn't need your kind of problem solving, even though you're convinced it does. The problem here is that we have a member who joined and is breaking the rules with their "approach". This member wants us to change the whole way we behave here at SFN, without trying to learn anything about us. The behavior is being reported by other members, all the right steps we've designed over the last 17 years are being followed. Protocol says we need to either suspend you, or put you in a moderation queue where staff decides if your posts are relevant and/or discussable before making them visible. If you have a third alternative within the rules, I'd love to hear it. Nobody wants to dampen your enthusiasm, but nobody wants to teach you the basics of science while you're screaming about all your uninformed ideas. 

What should we do with you?

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. 

 

Just now, Phi for All said:

I worked in architecture for three years. The architects know everything the masons know, the carpenters, the plumbers, the electricians, the millworkers, everything. The architects also had to know what the building inspectors know. An architect respects the methodology that leads to success, and a big part of that success is knowing all the tools in the box before trying to think outside it.

The biggest problem with your approach is that you're making up solutions without the necessary knowledge, so ALL your explanations make PERFECT sense to you (because you don't know any better, right?). But those who studied these things can easily see where you're wrong, they tell you, but it makes less sense to you than your PERFECT solution, so you ignore them. You remain convinced that you have solutions nobody has thought of before.

Imagine you're a famous songwriter, with hundreds of hit songs to your credit, known the world over as one of the best in your profession. Now imagine that I tell you that I've never written a song before, but I have some great ideas that will be sure to shake up the musical world with their brilliance. I show you some of my ideas, and it's very obvious I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm convinced my songs are wonderful, but you know they aren't. You know, because of your knowledge and experience, that they have no appeal, they won't be accepted, and they make no sense musically. I don't use the right phrases, my timing isn't right, and because I know nothing about songwriting, my songs would take SO MUCH WORK TO FIX that it would be easier to just send me to a music teacher and insist I learn about the thing I so desperately want to change. 

I love your enthusiasm, but you need to study science. It's not something you can understand without a LOT of layered, nuanced analysis of multiple fields. Right now, it's like you're trying to tell a foreign country what they're doing wrong, and you don't even speak their language (math is the language of physics). Does that make sense?

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.