Page 6 of 11

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:03 pm UTC
by Tez
When I was a kid I used to ask my dad what would happen if I cut a piece of would in half, then repeating the process again and again infinitely many times (although not in those words). He explained to me about atoms and particles, it was fascinating. Then I began to wonder if you could do the same things with empty space. I found this fascinating and confusing at the time. Sometimes today it still seems curious and a little counter-intuitive that if we can break matter and energy down into discrete packets, why are space and time special? Why can we break space-time down into infinitesimally small points? After all, empty space is an energy too...

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
by Fnord
I had several, when i was younger.

I concluded that everything was pre-determined. Not trough a divine force, but because things were not random, not happening by chance. If an object hits another object, it bounces off (or crushes that object), and the same had to be true on a molecular level. Chemical reactions were not random, they happened because a molecule managed to hit another molecule with enough force to make it split, and form something new. Thus there were no such thing as free will, as thoughts are biochemical reactions in our brain, and as molecules bounce of each other in predictable ways (like rubber balls). I must have been 12 or 13 when I started to argue with my classmates about this. They did not agree with me. They did not like the idea of no free will.

I was also sure of the fact that there were no such thing as a kind action. We did everything to better our own position in the group, and while something might look kind on the surface (me giving candy to a friend, for an example (yes, that was an example I used when I was younger)), I did it because I wanted him/her to like me more, thus improving my position in the group, or because I wanted something in return. I think I was 13 or maybe 14 when I came up with this idea.

I should also add that I disliked quantum mechanics as a kid, because I had heard about Schrödinger’s unpredictable alive/dead cat. Things were supposed to be predictable.

With all that said, i also had some stupid ideas as a kid. I thought that if you put something in water, it lost weight. So if you would put some water on a scale (in some kind of container, of course), and some wood (or other floating object) in the water, the scale would not register the added weight.

I also had some idea about creating a machine that would run for all ethernity. This would be done by having a generator, and some electromagnets. The generator would give the electromagnets power, which in turn would make them spin (N/N or S/S ends facing each other), and thus I would create energy. My teacher did not agree with me, but i did believe in my idea. :( This was an idea that i had when i was ~10-11

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:57 am UTC
by Tez
Even if the brain does operate on classical laws of physics (which it does), I don't think that that is a basis for lack of free will.....when we manipulate an object, we exert a force on it, this force is determined by our thinking, and influences what will happen physically. We decide what will happen to that object. I don't see how this is different to our brains...

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:24 am UTC
by ACU-LP
Tez wrote:Even if the brain does operate on classical laws of physics (which it does), I don't think that that is a basis for lack of free will.....when we manipulate an object, we exert a force on it, this force is determined by our thinking, and influences what will happen physically. We decide what will happen to that object. I don't see how this is different to our brains...

Ah, but it can be contested wether the act itself is free will; studies have shown (I know...studies arn't always the most reliable of things...but it was on catalyst (an aussie science show)), that you will actually act before the impulse in your brain that shows a desicion has been made has been fired/reached its destination.
Hopefully that made some sense

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:25 am UTC
by Naurgul
I hope I don't make a habit out of this (dropping by a conversation only to provide a link) but there's this little story that offers an explanation on how the concept of free will can be valid in some form all the while having a completely deterministic system of physical laws. I have actually kinda forgotten the actual content and I don't remember fully agreeing with it but I do remember it was interesting.

Spoiler:
By the way, I promise to never again do the drop in - drop link - get out manoeuvre ever again on this forum.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:32 am UTC
by ACU-LP
Naurgul wrote:
Spoiler:
By the way, I promise to never again do the drop in - drop link - get out manoeuvre ever again on this forum.

You do know that we'll hold you to that.
But I disgress. I would post another theory of mine....but I've forgotten it....dang

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:30 am UTC
by Angua
I've just remembered another of mine. I figured that the reason that some authors can develop such developed fantasy worlds was that they can actually see/ sense things from a parallel universe. If you're lucky, you manage to see into a parallel universe that's cool enough to write about.

Oh, I also thought that dinosaurs were still alive and in the zoo up until about age 6 as I'd seen a T-Rex robot and my mum had a picture of her with one. I was very disappointed when I found out it wasn't real :(

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:19 pm UTC
by andrewxc
ACU-LP wrote:"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?)"

Good lord, you actually talked like that when you were 11? My dad used to dream about flying on a wooden door (when he was like... 7), and to move through the air and turn, he would have to warp the door's shape, much like the aileron of an airplane. He's now a pilot :)

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:39 pm UTC
by Plasma Man
One that I came up with when I was about twelve and I'm still half convinced of today: Antimatter doesn't have normal mass and gravity, it has anti-mass and anti-gravity. Therefore if you can find a way of containing antimatter, it will lift it away from the Earth, so you can lift a spaceship with it. As far as I know antimatter hasn't been produced in enough bulk to look for gravitational effects, so it might still turn out to be true.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:56 pm UTC
by thecommabandit
Plasma Man wrote:One that I came up with when I was about twelve and I'm still half convinced of today: Antimatter doesn't have normal mass and gravity, it has anti-mass and anti-gravity. Therefore if you can find a way of containing antimatter, it will lift it away from the Earth, so you can lift a spaceship with it. As far as I know antimatter hasn't been produced in enough bulk to look for gravitational effects, so it might still turn out to be true.

Funny thing, they're planning to test this at some point in the future. I think it might've been at CERN. I'm not certain how, but they were going to try and test which way anti-hydrogen falls. I personally think that all matter and anti-matter has a kind of "gravitational charge", but different from electromagnetism: like mass-charges attract and opposites repel. I suppose we'll see assuming the results of that experiment are conclusive.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:49 pm UTC
by ThinkerEmeritus
Plasma Man wrote:One that I came up with when I was about twelve and I'm still half convinced of today: Antimatter doesn't have normal mass and gravity, it has anti-mass and anti-gravity. Therefore if you can find a way of containing antimatter, it will lift it away from the Earth, so you can lift a spaceship with it. As far as I know antimatter hasn't been produced in enough bulk to look for gravitational effects, so it might still turn out to be true.


There are a few antiprotons in ordinary nuclei, coming from temporary creation of proton-antiproton pairs. There are enough that the Eotvos experiments verifying the equality of gravitational and inertial mass would have failed if antiprotons fell upwards on earth. Obviously that is indirect, and a direct experiment would be even better, but the experiment has the advantage of already having been done.

Edit: fixed typo

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:56 am UTC
by Sir_Elderberry
If gravitational mass = inertial mass, then

F = -Gmm/r^2

A = F/M = -F/-M = A

In other words, it accelerates gravitationally the same way. Neat trick. (However, looking at this, the other object would presumably still repel, meaning that the two masses would follow each other around or...or something. I have very little clue.)

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:05 am UTC
by phlip
Negative inertial mass would be... weird...

You'd apply a force to the left to an object, and it'd accelerate right...

I want one.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:13 am UTC
by ACU-LP
phlip wrote:Negative inertial mass would be... weird...

You'd apply a force to the left to an object, and it'd accelerate right...

I want one.

Man. The screwy/fun things you could do...

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:57 am UTC
by darkspork
1) I believed that no ground existed between any two known points (i.e. between my house and grandmother's house) because I wasn't tall enough to see out the window and observe said ground. Therefore, it did not exist.

2) I designed a machine that would roll forever simply using gravity and magnets. (Perpetual motion machines are awesome!)

3) Attempting to divide anything by zero on a calculator would result in a black hole. (I actually screamed "DON'T!" when the second grade teacher instructed us to do so.)

4) Were I ever to move an object in a way that, were there a string attached to it, would result in the two becoming tangled, it would cause some sort of bad kharma or something. (Some of you followed the white-floor-tiles-are-electrified-at-the-mall theory religiously, and I followed this one.)

5) I believed I was an expert computer technician... Seriously, the only thing that I never took apart at that age was my game boy because it had triangle screws.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:10 am UTC
by Sir_Elderberry
darkspork wrote:3) Attempting to divide anything by zero on a calculator would result in a black hole. (I actually screamed "DON'T!" when the second grade teacher instructed us to do so.)



Am I the only one whose first thought was, "I'm totally going to tell my kids that"?

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:12 am UTC
by darkspork
Sir_Elderberry wrote:
darkspork wrote:3) Attempting to divide anything by zero on a calculator would result in a black hole. (I actually screamed "DON'T!" when the second grade teacher instructed us to do so.)



Am I the only one whose first thought was, "I'm totally going to tell my kids that"?

As you can imagine, it was relatively hilarious.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:54 am UTC
by Blinke
Speaking of zeroes, my granddad managed to convince me that the . on the calculator was used to 'refill' it with zeroes. It made sense to me. Normally, pressing 0 wouldn't do antything (at least on the calculator we had back then), but as soon as you added a . you could type 0.0000... as much as you wanted.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:25 pm UTC
by Fin Archangel
Sir_Elderberry wrote:
darkspork wrote:3) Attempting to divide anything by zero on a calculator would result in a black hole. (I actually screamed "DON'T!" when the second grade teacher instructed us to do so.)



Am I the only one whose first thought was, "I'm totally going to tell my kids that"?


Actually, I don't have kids yet, so...

I would totally tell them that, though.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:59 am UTC
by tv's brad
I had a theory about ghosts. They arent ghosts at all. They are time travelers from far away. Why would a ghost come back to mess around with light switches and doors? They are beings from other worlds curious about how our shit works. That is why they are transparent. Some wierd thing that has to do with time and distance so they don't really exist but they do. Sorry I just saw the: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories. But I will post this anyways. Could get a laugh.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:16 am UTC
by blakat1313
darkspork wrote:5) I believed I was an expert computer technician... Seriously, the only thing that I never took apart at that age was my game boy because it had triangle screws.

Those and the hex-head screws annoyed me to no end as a kid. I had the same compulsion to disassemble stuff at that age, but I never thought about putting it back together. I actually thought for a while that they put the weird shaped screws on the electrical things so people couldn't get into them.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:42 am UTC
by ACU-LP
tv's brad wrote:I had a theory about ghosts. They arent ghosts at all. They are time travelers from far away. Why would a ghost come back to mess around with light switches and doors? They are beings from other worlds curious about how our shit works. That is why they are transparent. Some wierd thing that has to do with time and distance so they don't really exist but they do. Sorry I just saw the: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories. But I will post this anyways. Could get a laugh.

The thread acutally started off as a crackpot theory thread. I changed the name as some of the theories actually seem to be relatively feasible, or at least something that might occur in the future.
I have heard another explanation for ghosts; that there are other planes of existence and all that, but say one of them occurs at such an 'angle' relative to ours that it appears to be perpendicular (being a different timespace I put the angle in apostrophes as angles may not exist there as we know them), but as a person walking along their plane (like a person would on ours), a two dimensional / cross sectional image may be temporarily observable from our plane.
Or at least it was something along those lines.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:17 pm UTC
by Sir_Elderberry
ACU-LP wrote:
tv's brad wrote:I had a theory about ghosts. They arent ghosts at all. They are time travelers from far away. Why would a ghost come back to mess around with light switches and doors? They are beings from other worlds curious about how our shit works. That is why they are transparent. Some wierd thing that has to do with time and distance so they don't really exist but they do. Sorry I just saw the: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories. But I will post this anyways. Could get a laugh.

The thread acutally started off as a crackpot theory thread. I changed the name as some of the theories actually seem to be relatively feasible, or at least something that might occur in the future.
I have heard another explanation for ghosts; that there are other planes of existence and all that, but say one of them occurs at such an 'angle' relative to ours that it appears to be perpendicular (being a different timespace I put the angle in apostrophes as angles may not exist there as we know them), but as a person walking along their plane (like a person would on ours), a two dimensional / cross sectional image may be temporarily observable from our plane.
Or at least it was something along those lines.



No, no, those are Cybermen.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:30 pm UTC
by Kingreaper
Tez wrote:When I was a kid I used to ask my dad what would happen if I cut a piece of would in half, then repeating the process again and again infinitely many times (although not in those words). He explained to me about atoms and particles, it was fascinating. Then I began to wonder if you could do the same things with empty space. I found this fascinating and confusing at the time. Sometimes today it still seems curious and a little counter-intuitive that if we can break matter and energy down into discrete packets, why are space and time special? Why can we break space-time down into infinitesimally small points? After all, empty space is an energy too...

Well, from what I understand, at least some models on the quantum level state that space and time are quantised. This may or may not be related to the uncertainty principle.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:14 pm UTC
by wst
blakat1313 wrote:
darkspork wrote:5) I believed I was an expert computer technician... Seriously, the only thing that I never took apart at that age was my game boy because it had triangle screws.

Those and the hex-head screws annoyed me to no end as a kid. I had the same compulsion to disassemble stuff at that age, but I never thought about putting it back together. I actually thought for a while that they put the weird shaped screws on the electrical things so people couldn't get into them.

You were right.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:34 pm UTC
by Charlie!
Angua wrote:
Charlie! wrote:
ACU-LP wrote:
_Big_Mac_ wrote:I wish all this new-age pseudoscience we hear about today had half as much sense as the "crackpot" theories supplied in this thread...

I may have mentioned this earlier, but funny thing is, like the stuff found in science fiction, crackpot theories such as ours (some of which could be quite valid actually) may eventually be fully investigated, with new discoveries possibly following, or at least new ways of thinking.
Think how much technology and how many concepts we have gained from someone looking at something in a science fiction movie and thinking, is that really so impossible?

I'm gonna guess not too many, actually. I base this solely on my inability to think up any good examples. Sure, people might get more funding because of movies a la metamaterials research being sold as invisibility cloak research, but I can't think of any currently used products whose conceptual origin was in fiction. Robots as toys maybe? Kind of sort of?

What about submarines (Jules Verne I believe), ships to the moon (Jules Verne again) and geostationary satellites (Arthur C Clarke)? While you could probably argue that we'd have got those anyway, they were still scifi before scientists started working on them.

But there's a difference between writing about something and being the inspiration for something. Sure, jules verne may have written about submarines (though there the first one was built 250 before verne wrote 2000 leagues) and going to the moon (out of a cannon), or having beams of destructive energy, but that hardly makes him the originator. You might more accurately blame the idea of spaceflight on the many sun, moon and star-striding deities that humanity has been exposed to for millennia, or on plato's observations of the moon, or on newton for our understanding of gravity. Basically I'm saying that in a lot of cases where fiction about something predates us actually doing it, the fiction and the reality are both driven by other, harder to describe things, and that it's horribly inaccurate to say "jules verne inspired man to spaceflight."

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:27 pm UTC
by Tez
I had a theory that one we would be able to make copies of ourselves, and that while one of us was sleeping the other could stay awake, so that we don't have to waste time sleeping.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:09 am UTC
by Angua
Tez wrote:I had a theory that one we would be able to make copies of ourselves, and that while one of us was sleeping the other could stay awake, so that we don't have to waste time sleeping.


I saw this once on the animated series of men in black, it was very cool.

Charlie! wrote:But there's a difference between writing about something and being the inspiration for something. Sure, jules verne may have written about submarines (though there the first one was built 250 before verne wrote 2000 leagues) and going to the moon (out of a cannon), or having beams of destructive energy, but that hardly makes him the originator. You might more accurately blame the idea of spaceflight on the many sun, moon and star-striding deities that humanity has been exposed to for millennia, or on plato's observations of the moon, or on newton for our understanding of gravity. Basically I'm saying that in a lot of cases where fiction about something predates us actually doing it, the fiction and the reality are both driven by other, harder to describe things, and that it's horribly inaccurate to say "jules verne inspired man to spaceflight."


While the inspiration may have come from those, (Jules Verne would also have needed inspiration) some scientists may have been able to secure funding from guys with money who thought that it may be worth it. The ideas would probably have turned up anyway, but it still takes imagination on a scifi writer's part to actually conceptualize something, which can then be used as a symbol to help get stuff going. It might be horribly inaccurate, but that doesn't mean that it didn't have any influence.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:56 pm UTC
by Shiyiya
Tez wrote:I had a theory that one we would be able to make copies of ourselves, and that while one of us was sleeping the other could stay awake, so that we don't have to waste time sleeping.


This would be awesome. Or two of you so one could go to school and things and one could stay home and do whatever.

There's a book about people who are genetically modified so they don't have to sleep. I haven't read the full novel yet, just got it from the library, but I read the novella version in a collection of Nebula award winners and it was highly awesome. The book is called Beggars in Spain, by Nancy Kress, if anyone wants to look it up. It's a fascinating idea. (I happen to hate having to waste time sleeping >:( )

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:37 pm UTC
by ACU-LP
Shiyiya wrote:I happen to hate having to waste time sleeping

Well do what I do then; only sleep 4-6 hours a day. If you're nocturnal and dont need much sleep...then its the perfect solution!
and it doesnt seem to have affected me.too badly

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:01 pm UTC
by Angua
Shiyiya wrote:
Tez wrote:I had a theory that one we would be able to make copies of ourselves, and that while one of us was sleeping the other could stay awake, so that we don't have to waste time sleeping.


This would be awesome. Or two of you so one could go to school and things and one could stay home and do whatever.

There's a book about people who are genetically modified so they don't have to sleep. I haven't read the full novel yet, just got it from the library, but I read the novella version in a collection of Nebula award winners and it was highly awesome. The book is called Beggars in Spain, by Nancy Kress, if anyone wants to look it up. It's a fascinating idea. (I happen to hate having to waste time sleeping >:( )


You have to watch out for those duplicates, or otherwise remember that you can turn them into worms if necessary :D (I suppose you could make them good, but they still have a chance of getting out of control)

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:42 pm UTC
by Monty40xi
Charlie! wrote:
Angua wrote:
Charlie! wrote:
ACU-LP wrote:
_Big_Mac_ wrote:I wish all this new-age pseudoscience we hear about today had half as much sense as the "crackpot" theories supplied in this thread...

I may have mentioned this earlier, but funny thing is, like the stuff found in science fiction, crackpot theories such as ours (some of which could be quite valid actually) may eventually be fully investigated, with new discoveries possibly following, or at least new ways of thinking.
Think how much technology and how many concepts we have gained from someone looking at something in a science fiction movie and thinking, is that really so impossible?

I'm gonna guess not too many, actually. I base this solely on my inability to think up any good examples. Sure, people might get more funding because of movies a la metamaterials research being sold as invisibility cloak research, but I can't think of any currently used products whose conceptual origin was in fiction. Robots as toys maybe? Kind of sort of?

What about submarines (Jules Verne I believe), ships to the moon (Jules Verne again) and geostationary satellites (Arthur C Clarke)? While you could probably argue that we'd have got those anyway, they were still scifi before scientists started working on them.

But there's a difference between writing about something and being the inspiration for something. Sure, jules verne may have written about submarines (though there the first one was built 250 before verne wrote 2000 leagues) and going to the moon (out of a cannon), or having beams of destructive energy, but that hardly makes him the originator. You might more accurately blame the idea of spaceflight on the many sun, moon and star-striding deities that humanity has been exposed to for millennia, or on plato's observations of the moon, or on newton for our understanding of gravity. Basically I'm saying that in a lot of cases where fiction about something predates us actually doing it, the fiction and the reality are both driven by other, harder to describe things, and that it's horribly inaccurate to say "jules verne inspired man to spaceflight."

At least in the case of geosynchronous orbits, and probably powered exoskeletons, it was the authors creating an idea that engineers then pursued, based on what they read.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
by Shiyiya
Angua wrote:
Shiyiya wrote:
Tez wrote:I had a theory that one we would be able to make copies of ourselves, and that while one of us was sleeping the other could stay awake, so that we don't have to waste time sleeping.


This would be awesome. Or two of you so one could go to school and things and one could stay home and do whatever.

There's a book about people who are genetically modified so they don't have to sleep. I haven't read the full novel yet, just got it from the library, but I read the novella version in a collection of Nebula award winners and it was highly awesome. The book is called Beggars in Spain, by Nancy Kress, if anyone wants to look it up. It's a fascinating idea. (I happen to hate having to waste time sleeping >:( )


You have to watch out for those duplicates, or otherwise remember that you can turn them into worms if necessary :D (I suppose you could make them good, but they still have a chance of getting out of control)


Ah, but if they're just plain you, neither good nor evil but human, they should be willing to work for the good of both.

ACU-LP wrote:
Shiyiya wrote:I happen to hate having to waste time sleeping

Well do what I do then; only sleep 4-6 hours a day. If you're nocturnal and dont need much sleep...then its the perfect solution!
and it doesnt seem to have affected me.too badly


I unfortunately need quite a bit of sleep to be able to function as a human being and not walking dead :( I can get by monday through thursday on seven hours a night and then it all goes out the window and I make it all up before the next monday :P (I only have lectures four days a week)

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:10 am UTC
by suffer-cait
Shiyiya wrote:
ACU-LP wrote:
Shiyiya wrote:I happen to hate having to waste time sleeping

Well do what I do then; only sleep 4-6 hours a day. If you're nocturnal and dont need much sleep...then its the perfect solution!
and it doesnt seem to have affected me.too badly


I unfortunately need quite a bit of sleep to be able to function as a human being and not walking dead :( I can get by monday through thursday on seven hours a night and then it all goes out the window and I make it all up before the next monday :P (I only have lectures four days a week)


the perfect sleep time is divisable by 1.5 hours so 3, 4.5, 6, 7.5, 9. try to plan for it if you can, it works amazingly well for me.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:53 pm UTC
by ACU-LP
You know, thinking about it, that seems very true.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:09 am UTC
by Kachi
It is true, accounting for REM. Unfortunately for me that results in me needing 9 to 12 hours of sleep each night to get rested (and too much time awake to total 24).

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?)"


I had a very similar theory, except rather than black holes having saturation points, a "big bang" would occur if two singularities converged, which they would eventually after long periods of gravitating towards one another.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:16 am UTC
by ACU-LP
You know, that acutally makes a lot of sense; such immense levels of gravity on utterly huge amounts of energy in a singularity....something MUST give.
Which reminds me; we shall know if that really would work in 200 billion years.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:46 pm UTC
by tv's brad
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.
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.

PS i think vodka and science goes hand in hand...atleast for me.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:49 pm UTC
by ACU-LP
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.
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.

PS i think vodka and science goes hand in hand...atleast for me.

Erm, ageing occurs due to the fact that we breath oxygen. (at least thats what I thought).
If we had of stayed sulfur based, we would live forever, but oxygen is actually killing us (albeit slowly).

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:18 am UTC
by Sir_Elderberry
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.