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

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Charlie! » Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:07 am UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:
tv's brad wrote:I really sometimes wonder why we even sleep at all....i heard that scientists have found out that there is no 'law' that actualy says we HAVE to sleep.


Er, yes you do. People have tried not sleeping for 10 days or so. It's not pretty. (The important bit is the REM, it seems.)

The same goes with getting older...there is no genetic proof that we need to age at all...its all fucking wierd and I want to know more. enlighten me.


Well, the basic problem is that cells can't replicate indefinitely--they slowly accumulate errors, etc. Something about telomeres goes here. I really don't know my biology.

Even if you gave all your cells telomerase so they would never shut off, they'd still accumulate those errors. We're cancer waiting to happen, really.
Some people tell me I laugh too much. To them I say, "ha ha ha!"

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:42 am UTC

Oh yes, I just know that there's a telomere system or something that's related to aging...somehow...most of this is going off of half-remembered, suspicion-filtered stuff out of a sci-fi novel. And yes, I don't know biology hardly at all.
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
Patman
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:49 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Patman » Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:16 am UTC

Here are a few of mine and I still like them:

You could make an invisibility cloak of fibre optic strands that stick out like hairs perpendicular to the body being cloaked. These run around the body sticking out the other side. This would bend light around ze body turning it partially invisible (only partially because of the practicality of lining them up perfect and the inevitable gaps between round fibres).

That time travelling would split the universe into two parts, one being where you time travel from and the other where you end up after the time travel. From that point the two universes diverge. One universe would morn your disappearance, the other suffers your exploits. You could never return to your original universe but you could keep splitting universes. I liked it because it solved conundrums involving such as travelling back in time and somehow voiding my own conception and therefore not being able to travel back in time to void said conception.

If we could live without eating meat and therefore killing animals we were morally obligated not to.

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby ACU-LP » Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:14 pm UTC

Personally I think that eating meat is a natural thing, just the conditions under which it occurs are not.
But that is for another thread

Woot for the invisibility fibre optics.
I have always thought you would be able to see a shimmer or something anyway; tru invisibility would be epicly hard
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
wst
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:06 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby wst » Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:55 pm UTC

ACU-LP wrote:I have always thought you would be able to see a shimmer or something anyway; tru invisibility would be epicly hard

That shimmer is what makes invisilbility cool.

Also, true invisibility is impossible, as you'd need tiny holes to let light into some visual system, or it would just be dark inside the invisibility cloak...
Anything I said pre-2014 that you want to quote me on, just run it past me to check I still agree with myself.

User avatar
Patman
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:49 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Patman » Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:02 pm UTC

wst wrote:
ACU-LP wrote:I have always thought you would be able to see a shimmer or something anyway; tru invisibility would be epicly hard

That shimmer is what makes invisilbility cool.

Also, true invisibility is impossible, as you'd need tiny holes to let light into some visual system, or it would just be dark inside the invisibility cloak...

Umm, not if you used a grid of cell phones connected to a super computer... Other frequency's outside of the range an invisibility cloak could be used for some kind of sight, just not the typical visual spectrum.

User avatar
lizz612
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:27 am UTC
Location: Midwest
Contact:

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby lizz612 » Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:12 pm UTC

So the sun rises in the east. And the geese fly south in the fall and winter. I look over my house as a child and I'll be darned, if that sun is rising in the east and it’s definitely the fall... why are those geese flying north? Or maybe the geese are flying south, in which case the sun is rising in the west..... ah screw it. I don't care if I don't know which way is north, I'm 6 and I live in a city.

Turns out the geese were flying north, because the Mississippi jogs north near my house and they were following that. No one ever gave these two bits of wisdom any value judgment, so I didn't know which one to trust more.

I also thought the sarlacc in the Great Pit of Carkoon connected to Jabba's stomach and that’s how he got that fat. I was 4 at the time.

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Charlie! » Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:56 am UTC

Patman wrote:You could make an invisibility cloak of fibre optic strands that stick out like hairs perpendicular to the body being cloaked. These run around the body sticking out the other side. This would bend light around ze body turning it partially invisible (only partially because of the practicality of lining them up perfect and the inevitable gaps between round fibres).

I had the same idea, but I've since come up with the objection that, from an angle, this wouldn't actually look invisible. The parts of the "cloak" at an angle to you would seem darker, so the person would look invisible in the middle and then they would just like a cloak at the edges.
Some people tell me I laugh too much. To them I say, "ha ha ha!"

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby ACU-LP » Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:37 am UTC

Charlie! wrote:
Patman wrote:You could make an invisibility cloak of fibre optic strands that stick out like hairs perpendicular to the body being cloaked. These run around the body sticking out the other side. This would bend light around ze body turning it partially invisible (only partially because of the practicality of lining them up perfect and the inevitable gaps between round fibres).

I had the same idea, but I've since come up with the objection that, from an angle, this wouldn't actually look invisible. The parts of the "cloak" at an angle to you would seem darker, so the person would look invisible in the middle and then they would just like a cloak at the edges.

That would be cool nonetheless though. HEHE (evil plans)
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.

Poobar
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:57 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Poobar » Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:44 pm UTC

Actually not crackpot:

I remember thinking as a young kid abuot light- if I could get 2 mirrors and trap a lightbeam between them, would it stay there forever? And if so, could I add light to it until there was a really bright bit of light? (bah, a few decades earlier and I could have invented lasers...)

I even got two little mirrors and a torch and tried to (very quickly) turn the mirrors to try trap some. Which did not work.

User avatar
Patman
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:49 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Patman » Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:36 pm UTC

Poobar wrote:Actually not crackpot:

I remember thinking as a young kid abuot light- if I could get 2 mirrors and trap a lightbeam between them, would it stay there forever? And if so, could I add light to it until there was a really bright bit of light? (bah, a few decades earlier and I could have invented lasers...)

I even got two little mirrors and a torch and tried to (very quickly) turn the mirrors to try trap some. Which did not work.

That is pretty sweet but the question remains; would you have come up with an acronym as cool as LASER?

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby ACU-LP » Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:52 am UTC

Thread revival, because its too awesome to let die.
I used to have a theory when I was little that computers/computer viruses, etc were just another form of life.
After discussion on the topic, thats actually pretty much the case. Yay.
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
The-Rabid-Monkey
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:00 am UTC
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby The-Rabid-Monkey » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:28 am UTC

Patman wrote:
wst wrote:
ACU-LP wrote:I have always thought you would be able to see a shimmer or something anyway; tru invisibility would be epicly hard

That shimmer is what makes invisilbility cool.

Also, true invisibility is impossible, as you'd need tiny holes to let light into some visual system, or it would just be dark inside the invisibility cloak...

Umm, not if you used a grid of cell phones connected to a super computer... Other frequency's outside of the range an invisibility cloak could be used for some kind of sight, just not the typical visual spectrum.


This made me think of that Doctor Who episode, where there was a background frequency that got everyone to vote the Master in as prime minister, and then they had the Tardis keys that put them on a different frequency and they were not invisible but unnoticed.
Doctor who science is weird. Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey.
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right. - Salvor Hardin, From Isaac Asimov's "Foundation".

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:29 pm UTC

Actually, the Master's field wasn't interfered with by the TARDIS keys. The TARDIS keys just give off slight cloaking (well, SEP) fields of their own accord.
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
Ashi
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:50 am UTC
Location: New York, USA

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Ashi » Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:54 pm UTC

I used to be a bit silly.
(Not that I'm not now :P)

When I was 8 or so, I used to think that inside mirrors was an alternate universe, parallel to our own exactly, but just reversed. If we found a way to get the people on the other side to stop touching the mirrors when we did, we could pass into the universe and visit them. But, alas, every time you put your hand on a mirror, the other you does as well, blocking you. I used to try to trick the "other me" into not putting her hand up. I had very little success.
BomanTheBear wrote:Do not go looking for the stupidest thing ever said on the internets.

You might find it. Then it will be too late to help you.

User avatar
suffer-cait
Yes, that's my perfectly normal house cat, why do you ask?
Posts: 2573
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:01 am UTC
Location: da aina
Contact:

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby suffer-cait » Sat Nov 08, 2008 9:59 pm UTC

too much alice in wonderland for you
ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby emceng » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:28 pm UTC

I remembered something from my childhood last night. When I was growing up, we had this small rotisserie oven thing. It was kind of like this: http://www.popeilfamilystore.com/y6tw.html

For some reason, I thought it was called a turkey baster.

Obviously, this caused much confusion whenever I heard a turkey baster joke.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

solitarysock
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:12 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby solitarysock » Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:15 pm UTC

I have read that some here thought of the number line as a circle. When I was about 14, I took this one step further: a 2D coordinate system was an infinitely big ball (which, being infinite, would make the coordinate system flat again!), so on the other side, exactly opposite of (0|0), there would actually be the point [imath](\infty|\infty)[/imath], which would be the same as [imath](-\infty|-\infty)[/imath] or any other combination of these two. Nobody believed me, of course (or understood what I meant, probably. I wasn't very good at explaining...)
Actually, I had been dreaming instead of listening in maths and when the teacher asked why a function could suddenly switch from positive to negative at a pole (or something like this), I told him that was because "it goes once around, to infinity and back on the other side". Unfortunately he had been looking for a much less creative answer along the lines of "because it's not defined", and probably never even thought about what I had just told him.
It works for a lot of functions, who will then look more like several huge more-or-less circles around a ball. It doesn't work for lots of other functions, which simply don't come "around the ball" a second time (y=x² anyone? that'd look pretty stupid...)

User avatar
wst
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:06 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby wst » Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:46 pm UTC

I used to think aircraft control surfaces worked by pushing the air around, so if the left aileron was pointing down, it would push the air down, making the plane roll. It worked in practise as well, with many an errant paper-plane being fixed with a twist of the wings.

Turns out I was sorta doing the opposite of the Bernoulli effect.
Anything I said pre-2014 that you want to quote me on, just run it past me to check I still agree with myself.

User avatar
danpilon54
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:10 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby danpilon54 » Sat Nov 29, 2008 2:47 am UTC

solitarysock wrote:I have read that some here thought of the number line as a circle. When I was about 14, I took this one step further: a 2D coordinate system was an infinitely big ball (which, being infinite, would make the coordinate system flat again!), so on the other side, exactly opposite of (0|0), there would actually be the point [imath](\infty|\infty)[/imath], which would be the same as [imath](-\infty|-\infty)[/imath] or any other combination of these two. Nobody believed me, of course (or understood what I meant, probably. I wasn't very good at explaining...)
Actually, I had been dreaming instead of listening in maths and when the teacher asked why a function could suddenly switch from positive to negative at a pole (or something like this), I told him that was because "it goes once around, to infinity and back on the other side". Unfortunately he had been looking for a much less creative answer along the lines of "because it's not defined", and probably never even thought about what I had just told him.
It works for a lot of functions, who will then look more like several huge more-or-less circles around a ball. It doesn't work for lots of other functions, which simply don't come "around the ball" a second time (y=x² anyone? that'd look pretty stupid...)


This is actually common-place in complex analysis. Consider a sphere centered at the origin of the complex plane. Each point from the plane is mapped to the sphere by taking the line from the top of the sphere to the point, and using the point that line intersects the sphere. This makes positive and negative (well technically real and imaginary) infinity the same point (the top of the sphere). Zero is the bottom of the sphere. Its a cool coordinate system (and useful) because infinity is now a usable point.

If you consider just the circle along the real axis, and use the same rules, you get what you mentioned.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Well, I killed a homeless man. We can't all be good people.

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5334
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Xanthir » Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:55 am UTC

Specifically, it's called the Riemann Sphere.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

Tocharian Candidate
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:50 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Tocharian Candidate » Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:55 pm UTC

When I was about 7 or 8 I had a very complicated system to remove the silly market based price system and replaced based off a complicated series of formulas based on the amount of energy (measured in joules) necessary to make any object, and then changed base off the condition it was in and the amount it was stored, how close it was to expiring, how much energy it took to transport the object etc. I ran into a wall when I realised that a power plant would create negative currency :roll: .

DharmaBum
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 4:02 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby DharmaBum » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:17 pm UTC

ACU-LP wrote: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.


OP, I have a feeling you, like me, were reading a lot of Stephen Hawking at that age.

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Outchanter » Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:31 pm UTC

Tocharian Candidate wrote:When I was about 7 or 8 I had a very complicated system to remove the silly market based price system and replaced based off a complicated series of formulas based on the amount of energy (measured in joules) necessary to make any object, and then changed base off the condition it was in and the amount it was stored, how close it was to expiring, how much energy it took to transport the object etc. I ran into a wall when I realised that a power plant would create negative currency :roll: .

That's where the idea of discounting comes in: a resource available now is worth more than the same resource available in the future.
~ You will eat a tasty fortune cookie. Oh look, it came true already! ~

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby ACU-LP » Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:57 am UTC

DharmaBum1234@gmail.com wrote:
ACU-LP wrote: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.
OP, I have a feeling you, like me, were reading a lot of Stephen Hawking at that age.
Heh, I only started reading stephen hawkings stuff when I was in double digits.
I was just crazy as a kid. Scratch that. I am just crazy.
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
ThinkerEmeritus
Posts: 416
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:32 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby ThinkerEmeritus » Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:15 pm UTC

wst wrote:I used to think aircraft control surfaces worked by pushing the air around, so if the left aileron was pointing down, it would push the air down, making the plane roll. It worked in practise as well, with many an errant paper-plane being fixed with a twist of the wings.

Turns out I was sorta doing the opposite of the Bernoulli effect.


It worked out in practice because it is right. The air pushes the flying airplane up (there is nothing else to do it), so Newton's third law says that the airplane must be pushing the air downward. Nothing prevents air being pushed downward from moving downward, so down it goes. Pushing the air downward can be done by air striking a tilted surface, i.e. by angle of attack. This is how the ailerons work and partly how the wings work. The air can also wind up going downward because it takes a looping path over the top of the wing, moving downward toward the rear edge of the wing, and continuing to move downward when the wing is no longer there. This effect is the Bernoulli Effect, and it contributes to the lift of the wings. I understand that the lift is mostly Bernoulli, but IANAn aeronautical engineer and could be wrong. IADA* physicist so I am sure that air would move down because of any Bernoulli effect acting on the wing.

*IADA = "I am definitely a." At least I am supposed to be a physicist, or close enough to fool a lot of people.
"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".

DharmaBum
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 4:02 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby DharmaBum » Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:46 pm UTC

ACU-LP wrote:
DharmaBum1234@gmail.com wrote:
ACU-LP wrote: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.
OP, I have a feeling you, like me, were reading a lot of Stephen Hawking at that age.
Heh, I only started reading stephen hawkings stuff when I was in double digits.
I was just crazy as a kid. Scratch that. I am just crazy.


Just remember, the madness inspires you. Chaos is creation and destruction, which in turn are both synonym and antonym at the same time. ;)

dic_penderyn
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:29 am UTC
Location: Merthyr Tydfil, Wales

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby dic_penderyn » Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:35 pm UTC

When I was around 8 years old I tried to suck the gravity out of an empty plastic coke bottle. I had dropped in a penny in the hope that I would see it float.
After many failed attempts I decided that the penny wouldn't rise because gravity was seeping back in to the bottle because I was too slow in sealing the bottle with my hand. My solution was to put the bottle top in my mouth and when I had sucked the Gravity out, try to screw the bottle into the cap.

I quickly gave up this experiment after getting the inside if my cheek caught between bottle and top.....there was much blood. :oops:

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby jmorgan3 » Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:23 pm UTC

When I was a kid, I reasoned that the day was hottest around 3PM because that was the point where the earth (the local bit of it, anyway) started losing more heat than it gained from the sun. Many years later, in high school, I realized that I had intuitively stumbled upon an important calculus concept.
This signature is Y2K compliant.
Last updated 6/29/108

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:24 pm UTC

dic_penderyn wrote:When I was around 8 years old I tried to suck the gravity out of an empty plastic coke bottle. I had dropped in a penny in the hope that I would see it float.
After many failed attempts I decided that the penny wouldn't rise because gravity was seeping back in to the bottle because I was too slow in sealing the bottle with my hand. My solution was to put the bottle top in my mouth and when I had sucked the Gravity out, try to screw the bottle into the cap.

I quickly gave up this experiment after getting the inside if my cheek caught between bottle and top.....there was much blood. :oops:


With some refining, this could be the coolest misinterpretation of flux ever.
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.

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby ACU-LP » Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:56 pm UTC

DharmaBum wrote:
ACU-LP wrote:
DharmaBum1234@gmail.com wrote:
ACU-LP wrote: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.
OP, I have a feeling you, like me, were reading a lot of Stephen Hawking at that age.
Heh, I only started reading stephen hawkings stuff when I was in double digits.
I was just crazy as a kid. Scratch that. I am just crazy.
Just remember, the madness inspires you. Chaos is creation and destruction, which in turn are both synonym and antonym at the same time. ;)
Hmmm. Now I have a legitimate excuse for being a nutjob. YAY!
I had another theory somewhere, but I cant for the life of me remember. It was something to do with the physics behind pokemon....how to make it viable....
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
Senefen
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:09 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Senefen » Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:01 am UTC

I can't remember my exact working but I remember predicting the gravitational constant about a year before I learnt about it in class.
Something along the lines of of if x amount of mass bends space y amount then we can use one to determine the other.
Now if only I could do it with something new
ImageImageImageImageImage

solitarysock
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:12 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby solitarysock » Wed Dec 03, 2008 12:47 pm UTC

Xanthir wrote:Specifically, it's called the Riemann Sphere.

That's nice to know. I don't actually really understand the wikipedia article, but now I have evidence to retaliate for all the times people didn't believe me back then. Except that one of those persons is studying mathematics now, so she might actually know what I'm trying to be talking about...

As a child, I used to make detailed plans of stuff I wanted to build one day (I think I had no idea just how big 9 km² is for a garden (well, it had a forest...)), I really should look at what I wrote back then, it might be interesting. I haven't got access to it right now, unfortunately. There was an intricate device that would result in a circular swimming pool with handles, so some people could push it and thus rotate it. I should just have tried to rotate a glass of water...
Also, I had complex theories of how and how much I would pay any employees I'd need for my giant castle and garden, as well as the farmers living there. I think it was some weird mixture of feudalism and communism (of which I didn't know anything yet).

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby frezik » Tue May 05, 2009 11:07 pm UTC

Sure, it's a 5 month necro, but I just remembered this one. I believe I was around 8 when I came up with it.

Einstein said as you approach the speed of light, you travel forward in time faster. Therefore, if you go backwards close to the speed of light, you'll go backwards in time.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Mous
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:00 am UTC
Location: Virginia

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Mous » Wed May 06, 2009 2:07 am UTC

I used to believe and still do that we are all part of a virtual reality, but really nothing is real.

I thought this because I noticed that if you close one eye, everything's tinted blue, and if you close the other it's tinted red. Just like... 3D glasses.

Yeah...
Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby ACU-LP » Wed May 06, 2009 2:12 am UTC

Mous wrote:I used to believe and still do that we are all part of a virtual reality, but really nothing is real.
I thought this because I noticed that if you close one eye, everything's tinted blue, and if you close the other it's tinted red. Just like... 3D glasses.
Yeah...
I had this very theory for a while. But then I thought about my other theory that other people will see colours differently to us, but because of their conditioning, my blue would be their 'blue' so to speak. I eventually decided it was the same thing but on a much more subtle level; each eye sees just slightly differently and the brain attempts to normalize it such that it is hard to notice.
But the theory about the people seeing colours differently could still be true; its just currently impossible to prove.
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
Mous
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:00 am UTC
Location: Virginia

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Mous » Wed May 06, 2009 2:23 am UTC

ACU-LP wrote:
Mous wrote:I used to believe and still do that we are all part of a virtual reality, but really nothing is real.
I thought this because I noticed that if you close one eye, everything's tinted blue, and if you close the other it's tinted red. Just like... 3D glasses.
Yeah...
I had this very theory for a while. But then I thought about my other theory that other people will see colours differently to us, but because of their conditioning, my blue would be their 'blue' so to speak. I eventually decided it was the same thing but on a much more subtle level; each eye sees just slightly differently and the brain attempts to normalize it such that it is hard to notice.
But the theory about the people seeing colours differently could still be true; its just currently impossible to prove.

I had that theory before too, when I was in elementary school. I remember me and my sister talking about it while walking to school once. I ended up deciding against it, just because the mixing of colors is also the same for everyone (mixing of light, and of pigment), so it didn't seem very reasonable to me.
Then I got really pissed off last year when the teacher brought it up in Theory of Knowledge and everyone in the class was like "Oooh, what a brilliant, new idea!" and that was all they would talk about.

But it's true, you can't prove or disprove it..
Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby frezik » Wed May 06, 2009 2:46 am UTC

ACU-LP wrote:I had this very theory for a while. But then I thought about my other theory that other people will see colours differently to us, but because of their conditioning, my blue would be their 'blue' so to speak. I eventually decided it was the same thing but on a much more subtle level; each eye sees just slightly differently and the brain attempts to normalize it such that it is hard to notice.
But the theory about the people seeing colours differently could still be true; its just currently impossible to prove.


Hey, I had that one, too, and discarded it for the same reason.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Username4242
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:03 pm UTC
Location: (Previously) Montana State University--Bozeman, Montana.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Username4242 » Wed May 06, 2009 8:04 am UTC

I reasoned that the Bigfoot creature was in fact a member of Gigantopithecus blacki that had crossed over the land bridge into the states (which made sense to me given that most bigfoot stories are centered in its original Asian habitat and the United States).

Turns out it was the leading 'if Bigfoot were to exist, what could it be' theory.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3652
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Mid north coast, NSW, Australia

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby PM 2Ring » Wed May 06, 2009 2:40 pm UTC

Mous wrote:I used to believe and still do that we are all part of a virtual reality, but really nothing is real.

This concept has been investigated extensively in science fiction (not just The Matrix series). For a more serious discussion, you may be interested in Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science and the works of David Deutsch. Also see Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? by Professor Nick Bostrom.

Mous wrote:I thought this because I noticed that if you close one eye, everything's tinted blue, and if you close the other it's tinted red. Just like... 3D glasses.

Yeah...

That's very unusual. It sounds like you're a tetrachromat. If so, your sons have a good chance of being colour-blind, I'm sorry to say.


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests