Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

ACU-LP
Posts: 2826
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:39 pm UTC
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby ACU-LP » Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:20 pm UTC

Hello all, first new topic for me, but I'm curious, how many of you had psuedo scientific theories or fantasies when you were younger; i.e. before teens.

I found the other day a "theory" of mine; I went like so;

"Black holes supposedly are singularities.
Before the big bang, all the mass and energy and other random physics thingies were possibly all at one point, sometimes reffered to as
A singularity.

Hence, it may be possible that black holes canot absorb mass infinitely, maybe there is a maximum saturation point at which the black hole detonates.
Hence the big bang.
Big bangs may also be happening at this very moment far beyond our visible universe. (would the explosion be so big as to destroy all evidence of previous existenses?)"


Bear in mind, at this point, my idea of the universe was that it was infinite. Also, there ARE spelling errors, but these are original....for sentimentality I included them. I was 11 at the time.

What I want to know is did any of you have any "theories"?
Also, dicussion on feasability of our "theories" would be good.
Last edited by ACU-LP on Sat Sep 20, 2008 11:57 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
I Am Raven wrote:Math is like a penis: it can be very satisfactory, but also a pain in the ass.
Red vs Blue wrote:Wash: That was the worst throw ever. Of all time.
Caboose: Not my fault. Someone put a wall in my way.

User avatar
pseudoidiot
Sexy Beard Man
Posts: 5083
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:30 pm UTC
Location: Kansas City
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby pseudoidiot » Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:11 pm UTC

One day when I was a lot younger I observed that very few people I saw had round heads (as opposed to more oblong, oval, or rectangular). From there I decided that a long time ago in our distant past some poor person with a round head was unfortunate enough to get decapitated. At which point nearby people noticed how well it rolled along. This started a phase of experimentation where eventually it was decided that round heads rolled very well and someone had the bright idea of sticking two heads on either side of a long stick and the axle was born. Eventually round heads were replaced with man-made wheels, but not before significantly impacting the number of round-headed people in the population. Hence why in my observations I didn't see many people with round heads.
Derailed : Gaming Outside the Box.
SecondTalon wrote:*swoons* I love you, all powerful pseudoidiot!
ShootTheChicken wrote:I can't stop thinking about pseudoidiot's penis.

User avatar
pkuky
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:16 pm UTC
Location: jerusalem
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby pkuky » Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:22 pm UTC

I had a theory that the world was hollow, with rocks on the outside and space inside, rather then a ball-like thing. this year, in astrophisics, on the first class we learned I was correct. hooray! (you can do it if you invert the univers around the center of the earth and the radius of it. you also change phyisics to accomodat, but it works out).

also, pseudoidiot, that is hell of an awesome theory.
It rains on the enemy too!

User avatar
pseudoidiot
Sexy Beard Man
Posts: 5083
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:30 pm UTC
Location: Kansas City
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby pseudoidiot » Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:36 pm UTC

pkuky wrote:also, pseudoidiot, that is hell of an awesome theory.


Thanks :D I've been pretty proud of it.
Derailed : Gaming Outside the Box.
SecondTalon wrote:*swoons* I love you, all powerful pseudoidiot!
ShootTheChicken wrote:I can't stop thinking about pseudoidiot's penis.

hitokiriilh
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:15 pm UTC
Location: UVa
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby hitokiriilh » Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:38 pm UTC

I proposed that the universe could not only have a center, but an equitorial plane. I would have confirmed it by observing the rotation directions of Kerr black holes and effectively dividing the universe into a north and south pole. :lol: This was back in 6th grade.

Recent crackpot theories include piddling with Einstein-Cartan models and using torsion to classically explain spin for point-particles, removing particles from physical theories and dealing with only the fields they generate (the opposite of what Feynman wanted to do as an undergrad - he hated fields and removed them) and possibly using the internal angular momentum stored in the fields to classicaly explain spin for point-particles (can you tell i don't like not having a classical analogue for spin :lol:), and stochastic quantization (based on Boyer's and Nelson's work only using non-Markovian processes to try to account for entanglement). Basically I live with my head in the friggin clouds. :roll:

Edit: Oh, and OP, of course that was actually a pretty heavy idea for an 11 year old! ^_^
Last edited by hitokiriilh on Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:04 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby Decker » Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:44 pm UTC

I had a theory that black holes were actually, like, holes in spacetime and therefore were portals to another dimension. The idea was the supernova was so powerful that it punched a hole in the fabric of reality.

Now it sounds like a bad science fiction plot.
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.

User avatar
Durandal
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:12 am UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby Durandal » Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:52 pm UTC

One of my theories was that women got pregnant when they kissed a guy (This is the one and only reason for my parents avoiding the birds and the bees discussion until we learned in grade 5). I don't even want to know what the teenage pregnancy rate would be were that true.

hitokiriilh
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:15 pm UTC
Location: UVa
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby hitokiriilh » Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:02 pm UTC

Decker wrote:I had a theory that black holes were actually, like, holes in spacetime and therefore were portals to another dimension. The idea was the supernova was so powerful that it punched a hole in the fabric of reality.

Now it sounds like a bad science fiction plot.


Actually, when analyzing time reversal invariant Schwarzschild geometries in Kruskal coordinates, you'd be surprised how non-crazy this seems. ;) The fact that a black hole and a white hole are simultaneously supported in these geometries coupled with this analysis was one of the reasons black holes were in passing proposed to be a form of worm hole.

User avatar
jmorgan3
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:22 am UTC
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby jmorgan3 » Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:05 pm UTC

hitokiriilh wrote:
Decker wrote:I had a theory that black holes were actually, like, holes in spacetime and therefore were portals to another dimension. The idea was the supernova was so powerful that it punched a hole in the fabric of reality.

Now it sounds like a bad science fiction plot.


Actually, when analyzing time reversal invariant Schwarzschild geometries in Kruskal coordinates, you'd be surprised how non-crazy this seems. ;) The fact that a black hole and a white hole are simultaneously supported in these geometries coupled with this analysis was one of the reasons black holes were in passing proposed to be a form of worm hole.

I'm surprised he didn't think of ...that thing you said when he was 11.
This signature is Y2K compliant.
Last updated 6/29/108

hitokiriilh
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:15 pm UTC
Location: UVa
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby hitokiriilh » Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:09 pm UTC

jmorgan3 wrote:
hitokiriilh wrote:
Decker wrote:I had a theory that black holes were actually, like, holes in spacetime and therefore were portals to another dimension. The idea was the supernova was so powerful that it punched a hole in the fabric of reality.

Now it sounds like a bad science fiction plot.


Actually, when analyzing time reversal invariant Schwarzschild geometries in Kruskal coordinates, you'd be surprised how non-crazy this seems. ;) The fact that a black hole and a white hole are simultaneously supported in these geometries coupled with this analysis was one of the reasons black holes were in passing proposed to be a form of worm hole.

I'm surprised he didn't think of ...that thing you said when he was 11.


I know, right? It's clearly so obvious.

Sorry if what I said was ambiguous or some such. One can figure out the gist by looking at the wiki article for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal_coordinates (in particular check out the bottom regarding 'Maximally extended geometry')

Edit: Here's the spiel about the time-reversal invariant, spherically symmetric solution to the Einstein field equations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_black_hole
Last edited by hitokiriilh on Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:04 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:00 pm UTC

Transformers can raise voltage, right?

Batteries don't have enough voltage to power anything big.

Therefore, if we took enough batteries and ran them through enough transformers, we could power the world!
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
z4lis
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:59 pm UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby z4lis » Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:22 pm UTC

I once entertained the idea that the universe was a series of shells stacked one inside the other. At the center of all the shells was a strange point that pulsated continuously, spitting out new shells. Between each shells was a separate universe. I then conjectured that when matter or energy struck one of these shells, it was changed into energy or matter, respectively.
What they (mathematicians) define as interesting depends on their particular field of study; mathematical anaylsts find pain and extreme confusion interesting, whereas geometers are interested in beauty.

User avatar
rho
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:14 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby rho » Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:43 pm UTC

When I was 4 I wanted to make a machine that would make drawings real. A friend and I designed it. There was a place to put the drawing and then a mechanism to make the drawing real and then a big box type thing where the now real drawing would come out.
We weren't too troubled by the mechanism - we knew how machines worked - we just needed lots of complicated stuff and some wires and it would work. The real problem was getting hold of enough wood. You need alot of wood for such a complicated machine, you see.
Less Than Three.

User avatar
pkuky
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:16 pm UTC
Location: jerusalem
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby pkuky » Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:26 pm UTC

they had that in captain underpants and the attack of the terrible talking toilets!
It rains on the enemy too!

tntncsu
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:43 pm UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby tntncsu » Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:05 pm UTC

OOh, fun thread.

I had a theory back in eighth grade that the universe had a wavelength, and that we only existed on the positive side of that wave whereas all darkmatter existed on the negative side of that wave. I pushed it pretty far, noticing that it would require time and space to be discrete rather than continuous. and I formed new conservation laws with negative energies that accounted for the abundance of matter on our side of the wave

Strange Quark
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:00 am UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby Strange Quark » Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

The reason old photographs and TV are black and white is because sometime in the twentieth century the world became colourful. Before then, it was in black and white. I often wondered when the exact date was until one day I decided to ask my first school teacher.
I henceforth declare that I will not defend linux on this forum anymore, as life is too short and the subject is too tempting.

Teknobo
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:36 pm UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby Teknobo » Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

I'm still decently convinced that every person in the world besides me is actually an android. I couldn't quite place who made all of the androids, or why, or where I had come from for that matter (since I'm a real human, duh), but the theory made so much sense!

I also once deduced how easy antigravity would be by stating something like "Gravity corresponds to something's mass. More mass, more gravity. Our plan should therefore be to have something that eats enough of its own mass as to have negative mass, therefore negative gravity!"

There was another theory about human magnetism. I didn't understand quite why, if everything has a magnetic field, a magnet won't pin me to the fridge.

Needless to say, when I was little, I was a scientist (or a crackpot)

ACU-LP
Posts: 2826
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:39 pm UTC
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby ACU-LP » Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:07 am UTC

This is awesome; proof that I'm not the only one!
I also had another concept; this was some time between now and being 11....I think it was when I was at the school of astronomy (a weekend of lectures to do with astronomy; quite hardcore stuff a good chunk of which I did not understand; everybody else there was in their 30s/40s/60s.

I remember hearing something about the universe being infinite (at the current model) or along those lines.
I proposed therefore that mathematically there was an infinite chance that something could exist, an infinite number of times.
However then I thought; isnt there also an infinite chance that something wont exist?
Hence my mind exploded with the questions:
What? Do they cancel? Is there an inbetween? Surely there is a grey area. Are we in the grey area? Or in a definite area? *BOOM*

Now in hindsight (spelling?) I realise that you aren't really allowed to do arithmetic with infinity in mathematics. But still....?
Also, before it is mentioned; I know this is more philosophy than science, but I think it still counts.

As you can see....I'm not exactly normal (sane?) and had/have a lot of time on my hands.
I Am Raven wrote:Math is like a penis: it can be very satisfactory, but also a pain in the ass.
Red vs Blue wrote:Wash: That was the worst throw ever. Of all time.
Caboose: Not my fault. Someone put a wall in my way.

User avatar
z4lis
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:59 pm UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby z4lis » Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:43 am UTC

Strange Quark wrote:The reason old photographs and TV are black and white is because sometime in the twentieth century the world became colourful. Before then, it was in black and white. I often wondered when the exact date was until one day I decided to ask my first school teacher.


My little brother once asked me "When did they invent color?"

It took me a few moments to realize what he was talking about.
What they (mathematicians) define as interesting depends on their particular field of study; mathematical anaylsts find pain and extreme confusion interesting, whereas geometers are interested in beauty.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby BlackSails » Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:08 am UTC

As a child I thought there ought to be some way to make division as easy as multiplication.

psyck0
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby psyck0 » Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:17 am UTC

I thought my teddy bears came alive and had parties while I was asleep.

Not very sciency, but there you go.

User avatar
Charlie!
Posts: 2035
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:20 pm UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby Charlie! » Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:54 am UTC

That oil and water should mix, you just had to let them sit long enough.

I tested this in my treehouse.


For 3 years.
Some people tell me I laugh too much. To them I say, "ha ha ha!"

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby Vaniver » Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:05 am UTC

Charlie! wrote:That oil and water should mix, you just had to let them sit long enough.

I tested this in my treehouse.


For 3 years.
Dedication, or you forgot about it?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4712
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby poxic » Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:32 am UTC

Charlie! wrote:That oil and water should mix, you just had to let them sit long enough.

I tested this in my treehouse.


For 3 years.

Science!!!

I didn't realise until I was 20-something that I still believed, somehow, that putting a coat over a brick would make the brick warm. ("Coats are warm!") :oops:
All empires fall.
Don't look back.
- The Secret Knots

User avatar
ewige
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:46 pm UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby ewige » Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:57 pm UTC

My 11-year old Theory: That we are all facets of a collective personality and that when we die, we return to this "ball of consciousness" which some facets of the personality of humanity called "heaven" and some called "hell" but they were the same place. The theory went on to explain all that nutty stuff like out of body experiences and past life memories and so forth.

hoo boy.
While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a nay-sayer and hatchet man in the fight against violence.

User avatar
Outchanter
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC
Location: South African in Americaland

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby Outchanter » Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:10 am UTC

At some point I thought that since linear motion is relative, rotational motion should be relative too: spinning yourself should have the same effect as spinning the universe around yourself. (Lucky I was wrong.) Around the same time I thought that with a clever arrangement of spinning discs you might be able to propel a spacecraft without having to eject any matter.

When I was really small I thought that freezer blocks were naturally and permanently cold, so if you could also find a block which was naturally permanently hot, you could build a (steam powered) perpetual motion machine.

When I learned that wasn't the case, I thought you could put a solar panel at the top to absorb the heat from the steam and use the electricity thus generated to boil more water from the bottom, again achieving perpetual motion.

Intuition, how thou does deceive me. :-P
~ You will eat a tasty fortune cookie. Oh look, it came true already! ~

Strange Quark
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:00 am UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby Strange Quark » Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:37 am UTC

ACU-LP wrote:I remember hearing something about the universe being infinite (at the current model) or along those lines.
I proposed therefore that mathematically there was an infinite chance that something could exist, an infinite number of times.
However then I thought; isnt there also an infinite chance that something wont exist?
Hence my mind exploded with the questions:
What? Do they cancel? Is there an inbetween? Surely there is a grey area. Are we in the grey area? Or in a definite area? *BOOM*


Google "Boltzmann Brains", especially the New Scientist article. It's kind of like that, only creepy like Cuthulu. It's 2:37am, I'm too tired to try and explain.
I henceforth declare that I will not defend linux on this forum anymore, as life is too short and the subject is too tempting.

ACU-LP
Posts: 2826
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:39 pm UTC
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby ACU-LP » Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:29 am UTC

Strange Quark wrote:
ACU-LP wrote:I remember hearing something about the universe being infinite (at the current model) or along those lines.
I proposed therefore that mathematically there was an infinite chance that something could exist, an infinite number of times.
However then I thought; isnt there also an infinite chance that something wont exist?
Hence my mind exploded with the questions:
What? Do they cancel? Is there an inbetween? Surely there is a grey area. Are we in the grey area? Or in a definite area? *BOOM*


Google "Boltzmann Brains", especially the New Scientist article. It's kind of like that, only creepy like Cuthulu. It's 2:37am, I'm too tired to try and explain.


I never knew of that before....Thats just plain cool....And epic....But I cant help but think that it causes soooo many more questions. Like....*BOOM*
There goes my head again....hehe
I Am Raven wrote:Math is like a penis: it can be very satisfactory, but also a pain in the ass.
Red vs Blue wrote:Wash: That was the worst throw ever. Of all time.
Caboose: Not my fault. Someone put a wall in my way.

Herman
Posts: 559
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 2:46 am UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby Herman » Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:52 pm UTC

So apparently light is both a wave and a particle. This can be explained if light is a particle that _traces out_ a waveform as it moves along. Consider the implications! Low-frequency light moves faster than high-frequency light, because it has less arc length to get through!

I picked up an idea somewhere that "the speed of time" (that is, the speed you must travel in order to go back in time) is three times the speed of light. Exactly three. They couldn't be the same, of course, because in Star Wars, when they "Go to lightspeed," they don't travel back in time too.

User avatar
ThinkerEmeritus
Posts: 416
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:32 pm UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby ThinkerEmeritus » Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:13 pm UTC

Meteorswarm wrote:
Outchanter wrote:At some point I thought that since linear motion is relative, rotational motion should be relative too: spinning yourself should have the same effect as spinning the universe around yourself. (Lucky I was wrong.) Around the same time I thought that with a clever arrangement of spinning discs you might be able to propel a spacecraft without having to eject any matter.


Actually, according to The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene, (I am certainly on expert on this) if you run the numbers, spinning yourself is indistinguishable from sitting at the center of a very very very very very large sphere with the mass of the observable universe that is rotating at the same angular velocity.

So you were right on your first point.


Not really. On p. 74 of that book, Green writes
And so the discussion we we had earlier for the [rotating] bucket in special relativity holds equally well to general relativity. ... general relativity proclaims that even in an otherwise empty universe, you will feel pressed against the inner wall of the spinning bucket.


Since you would not be pressed against the wall of the bucket if the universe spun around you, the two situations are observably different. Not visibly different, but observably different.
"An expert is a person who has already made all possible mistakes." -- paraphrase of a statement by Niels Bohr
Seen on a bumper sticker: "My other vehicle is a Krebs cycle".

hitokiriilh
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:15 pm UTC
Location: UVa
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby hitokiriilh » Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:22 pm UTC

Meteorswarm wrote:
Outchanter wrote:At some point I thought that since linear motion is relative, rotational motion should be relative too: spinning yourself should have the same effect as spinning the universe around yourself. (Lucky I was wrong.) Around the same time I thought that with a clever arrangement of spinning discs you might be able to propel a spacecraft without having to eject any matter.


Actually, according to The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene, (I am certainly on expert on this) if you run the numbers, spinning yourself is indistinguishable from sitting at the center of a very very very very very large sphere with the mass of the observable universe that is rotating at the same angular velocity.

So you were right on your first point.


That's called frame dragging....and sitting in the center of any rotating mass distribution looks to an external observer out in flat space far away from the mass like you're rotating.

Edit: Hrmm...actually I don't think you were talking about exactly what I thought you were talking about. What would a rotating universe mean, anyway? All the things around you were rotating? Maybe...sounds like a consequence of Mach's principle. But yeah...it would be indistinguishable in kind of a trivial way...anything that requires you picture the universe as embedded in a higher-dimensional space-time is trivial imho (I mean doing so tells you nothing about the internal dynamics of the universe, which is all that matters anyway as long as you aren't interested in multiverse theories)

Gadren
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby Gadren » Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:17 pm UTC

It's not science, but back before I understood programming, I thought that 3D games simply stored every possible image of the screen and then displayed them with some sort of logic. Maybe it was because of slideshow games like Myst.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7551
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby phlip » Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:31 am UTC

When I was in high school Physics, around the time we learned conservation of momentum... I was convinced that if you added up the momentum of everything in the universe, you could find the sort-of net velocity of the universe... which would give you an absolute reference frame to measure velocities against...

Actually, looking back, it wan't quite so crackpottish... aside from the unfeasibility of actually measuring the momentum of the universe, is there any reason why this wouldn't work? Some relativistic effect I've forgotten (and hadn't learned yet, at the time)?

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

hitokiriilh
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:15 pm UTC
Location: UVa
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby hitokiriilh » Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:51 am UTC

phlip wrote:When I was in high school Physics, around the time we learned conservation of momentum... I was convinced that if you added up the momentum of everything in the universe, you could find the sort-of net velocity of the universe... which would give you an absolute reference frame to measure velocities against...

Actually, looking back, it wan't quite so crackpottish... aside from the unfeasibility of actually measuring the momentum of the universe, is there any reason why this wouldn't work? Some relativistic effect I've forgotten (and hadn't learned yet, at the time)?


Hrmm, well 1) it would be difficult mathematically because momentum dwells in the tangent spaces on space-time. You can't compare two vectors from two different tangent spaces without parallel transporting on vector to the other, which in general depends on the path you choose. Relativistically, one can generally only concern themselves with local behavior. 2) Mach's principle suggests the velocity should be 0 anyway. 3) Ignoring peculiar velocities, the uniformity in the expansion of the universe would force the answer to be 0.

I do, however, think that was a very clever idea you had. :) Vaguely reminds me of the idea that if you add up all the effective 'gravitational potential energy' (negative values) and the energy stored in everything else in space-time, you'd get a net of 0 energy. OOoooOOOOooo :lol: Not sure if there anything really significant about this though other than it's a 'hey cool' result.

ducksan
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:45 am UTC
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby ducksan » Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:46 am UTC

Let's see.

-Had no idea what fire was, why it seemed to give off some strange mass of glowing energy or something. Black body radiation helped figure that one out, I've only really known what's going on there for a couple of years at most. (College sophomore now. Stupid lack of early-life chemistry knowledge.)

-When photos were developed, I thought they took the negative from the film and stamped it with some machine to flatten it out and make it bigger, into the final image you were given as a 4x6. Must've been real young (like 5 or 6) because you can get the negatives back with your pictures.

-My dad telling me, about when I was in kindergarten, that he would show me (when I was older) some firecrackers he saved.
I pictured a couple of Ritz crackers on fire.

Epic thread, by the way. Might edit this with more if I can think of 'em.
The science flew off Gordon Freeman's face and landed and blowed up in a BOOM!

Herman
Posts: 559
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 2:46 am UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby Herman » Fri Aug 15, 2008 2:08 am UTC

A revolutionary new theory of time dilation: We experience time because the spatial universe is moving in the "time" direction, but at a slant. (Picture a tilted infinite plane moving straight downward. It's like that, but in 4-D instead of 3-D). If you get in a spaceship and go up the tilt, therefore, time will move slower for you, because you'll be almost stationary in the time direction.

I never could figure out how to make time dilation work no matter what direction you traveled, though.

Oh, also, women have breasts because they are *made out of rib.* (See: Book of Genesis).

Stretching the topic a little, I also derived powers for superheroes that are never mentioned but which they would need to survive having their other powers. Like, the Flash is invulnerable to heat because he's always running around at spacecraft-reentry speeds at sea level.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Fri Aug 15, 2008 2:25 am UTC

Herman wrote:A revolutionary new theory of time dilation: We experience time because the spatial universe is moving in the "time" direction, but at a slant. (Picture a tilted infinite plane moving straight downward. It's like that, but in 4-D instead of 3-D). If you get in a spaceship and go up the tilt, therefore, time will move slower for you, because you'll be almost stationary in the time direction.


I've always used a similar method to grasp relativity. I've got a four-dimensional velocity vector* with absolute value c or whatever, so if I go faster in x, y, and z, I have less to go towards time. I'm not sure if this is consistent with how the universe actually works but it makes a decent conceptual model.

*(I didn't call it a vector when I first learned this concept, but have since understood it to be that. I think this might be how relativity actually describes it, although probably a bit more complicated. I'm sure I've seen a similar four-vector somewhere in a similar context..)

Stretching the topic a little, I also derived powers for superheroes that are never mentioned but which they would need to survive having their other powers. Like, the Flash is invulnerable to heat because he's always running around at spacecraft-reentry speeds at sea level.


I think some of that actually is addressed. Doesn't the Flash have some kind of Speed Force thing that he uses to break physics or whatever? Anyway, one I always noticed is superstrength. When Superman's on the ground pushing on things, shouldn't he be driven down into the ground? If he pulls on a rope or something (to pull something down), shouldn't he go flying up into the air? Then again, if you have the telekinesis to pull off flight, you can probably do that kind of stuff too.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4712
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby poxic » Fri Aug 15, 2008 2:33 am UTC

Just remembered a time/universe theory of my own (unfortunately, I can't blame this one on childhood, just altered states and unbridled creativity).

Multiple bazillions of universes exist, crisscrossing each other at all points through a bazillion dimensions. The track of your life is the trace your consciousness follows as it moves from one moment to the next, generally within the same bundle of very-similar universes.

If you try really, really hard to change your world, though, through positive thinking or transcendence or whathaveyou, you can edge your life-track over to slightly more distant universe-tracks and continue your life there, where things might be better. Or worse, if you push yourself through negative thinking and decadence.

It was a lovely hypothesis; however, it rather suffered from lack of observable evidence.

Edit: the edging of one's life-track to other uni-tracks depended on one changing one's vibrations/resonance/energy/thingummy to match that of the desired uni-track. Way way too New Age to ... confess to. :oops:
Last edited by poxic on Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:08 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
All empires fall.
Don't look back.
- The Secret Knots

hitokiriilh
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:15 pm UTC
Location: UVa
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby hitokiriilh » Fri Aug 15, 2008 2:56 am UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:
Herman wrote:A revolutionary new theory of time dilation: We experience time because the spatial universe is moving in the "time" direction, but at a slant. (Picture a tilted infinite plane moving straight downward. It's like that, but in 4-D instead of 3-D). If you get in a spaceship and go up the tilt, therefore, time will move slower for you, because you'll be almost stationary in the time direction.


I've always used a similar method to grasp relativity. I've got a four-dimensional velocity vector* with absolute value c or whatever, so if I go faster in x, y, and z, I have less to go towards time. I'm not sure if this is consistent with how the universe actually works but it makes a decent conceptual model.

*(I didn't call it a vector when I first learned this concept, but have since understood it to be that. I think this might be how relativity actually describes it, although probably a bit more complicated. I'm sure I've seen a similar four-vector somewhere in a similar context..)


This is exactly right. Another interesting thing about mechanics in relativity: you can think of trajectories as already being determined and think about forces as simply modifying world-lines (makes them curvy) instead in terms of dynamic accelerations and such. Makes things seem almost static. =P

User avatar
Cryopyre
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:00 am UTC
Location: A desert

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby Cryopyre » Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:45 am UTC

Dark matter (or dark energy, I'm honestly not sure) was exhaust from alien and uneven Alcubierre metrics.

Even further back...

Matter is a dent in space

MOAR...

Actually, I do remember telling my dad that if spiral galaxies spin then we probably orbit black holes, he was all like, I don't think so, it's just the collective mass.

Proved him wrong.
Felstaff wrote:I actually see what religion is to social, economical and perhaps political progress in a similar way to what war is to technological progress.

Gunfingers wrote:Voting is the power to speak your mind. You, apparently, had nothing to say.


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests