jlindgaard Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 @All, Not that it matters, I have asked someone to consider CO2 becoming negatively ionized as one of the driving forces behind how gases occur in our atmosphere. I did explain specifically what I mean by this. With negative ionization, it would probably take a physicist to prove it. The person I contacted, while they have my same interest, coal emissions, they might find it worth consideration. And with something like this, only physical testing will determine anything. And with this, is it an affront to mainstream science ? It's not. Also, one thing I am aware of is that I am not in school and as it turns out, some scientists do pursue research projects. Of course, if I am right, then the moderators in this forum would need to go to school to learn what I know. Of course, there are Cliff Notes and quick online searches. But nothing replaces taking the time to consider something. An example is negative ionization. An important talking point but one that was missed by the moderators. -1
physica Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Also, one thing I am aware of is that I am not in school and as it turns out, some scientists do pursue research projects. Of course, if I am right, then the moderators in this forum would need to go to school to learn what I know. You are the one advocating an unproven hypothesis..... It's general human decency not to be so rude/sure when you have no evidence on your side. If you are proved right it will not be hugely paradigm shifting for other members of this forum. Science is constantly changing. We learn more each year and professional scientists get together and revise their models. If one person is proved wrong it doesn't mean that they have to go back to school. Considering what you've said I'm guessing you're not very familiar with the learning process or the scientific method. Einstein was proved wrong about entanglement, his peers didn't tell him to go back to school. 3
Sensei Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) And with this, is it an affront to mainstream science ? It's not. Yes, it is. In science, we perform experiment, show it to people. Eventually come up with ready math equation to calculate physical system behaving.. Of course, if I am right, then the moderators in this forum would need to go to school to learn what I know. There is no such thing.. You need to spend energy to liberate electron from atom or molecule: E + X -> X1+ + e- where X is molecule, chemical compound or particle. Then we can ionize it even further: E + X1+ -> X2+ + e- Making yet another free electron.. And so on, as many electrons are in atom. Ionization energies increases. The more electrons are ripped off from atom, the more energy is needed to ionize it even further. Edited June 28, 2015 by Sensei
jlindgaard Posted June 28, 2015 Author Posted June 28, 2015 Physica and Sensei, I don't take this personally and hope no one else does. But I am celebrating tonight because I know what I have realized. And probably the only people who will care about this will be environmentalists and maybe atmospheric scientists. For what has been studied by members of this forum, I am not sure if someone focused on atmospheric phenomena. If not, can't really expect them to be concerned that much about this. Jim
Mordred Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 It's too bad you apparently cannot use the Google search function to discover this is already under study. Here is one example paper. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Faaqr.org%2FVOL4_No1_July2004%2F7_AAQR-04-07-OA-0007_91-104.pdf&rct=j&q=ionizing%20co2%20in%20atmosphere&ei=5YWPVa2DG4ergwSi6oGgDQ&usg=AFQjCNHvTbclnzXAv9W5Ly9MYxIGxNWSmg&sig2=iqJZ9kMcyGGzQckVmXGyMQ you really need to actually study instead of making assumptions. I've mentioned several times now that CO2 is a major field of study. Including possible solutions. Maybe ,just maybe if you spend some time digging the internet. You might be able to present your ideas with greater rigor. This will also help keep your threads from being locked, as you will be presenting related and professional peer reviewed literature. That article took me less than 30 seconds to find Though one covering the cross section ionization is here. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=18&ved=0CEcQFjAHOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnopr.niscair.res.in%2Fbitstream%2F123456789%2F10150%2F1%2FIJPAP%252048(9)%2520621-625.pdf&rct=j&q=ionizing%20co2%20in%20atmosphere&ei=-5ePVdCAKoTBggT-35iQDg&usg=AFQjCNEHlwr92PPnGDfN8dyYvZcJbF2ivg&sig2=slp9Hrswt0JKf4s90jsQ9g
jlindgaard Posted June 28, 2015 Author Posted June 28, 2015 Mordred, While it might be inconvenient, this is the weekend. I will need to give the professors whom I have contacted time to consider my perspective.
Mordred Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Feel free, but word of advise. People tend to listen better when you present research, not just ideas.
John Cuthber Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Jlindgaard, Just for a start, do you know that the theoretical "negatively ionised CO2" is a well- studied material? All that study- explicitly looking for it, not only failed to find it, but showed that it wouldn't exist.https://plasmapanel.grid.umich.edu/articles/ElectronAffinitiesCO2.pdf If there's an "affront to mainstream science" happening here it is because you have not had the good manners to learn that science, before attacking it (and those involved in it). Edited June 28, 2015 by John Cuthber
StringJunky Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Physica and Sensei, I don't take this personally and hope no one else does. But I am celebrating tonight because I know what I have realized. And probably the only people who will care about this will be environmentalists and maybe atmospheric scientists. For what has been studied by members of this forum, I am not sure if someone focused on atmospheric phenomena. If not, can't really expect them to be concerned that much about this. The arrogance of ignorance. Edited June 28, 2015 by StringJunky 1
swansont Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Of course, if I am right, then the moderators in this forum would need to go to school to learn what I know. Of course, there are Cliff Notes and quick online searches. But nothing replaces taking the time to consider something. An example is negative ionization. An important talking point but one that was missed by the moderators. ! Moderator Note The moderators don't give a rat's patootie about what you know vs what we know. As moderators, we care about whether or not you ar following the rules, and you aren't. This is a science site; we expect you to provide evidence in support of hypotheses. You have provided none here.
Recommended Posts