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

DrZiro
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:51 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby DrZiro » Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:59 pm UTC

When I was really little, I thought that it would be possible to make a perpetual engine.
Then I learned about the first law of thermodynamics, so I figured, it should still be possible to make a perpetual engine, as long as it is also a perpetual refrigerator.
Then I learned about the second law, so I figured, it should still be possible to make a perpetual engine, as long as it is also not only a refrigerator but also a radio emitter.
(Since the radio waves are a more entropic form of energy than heat, right?)
I don't think the third law of thermodynamics prevents this, but there might be another law that does. If you know of one, do let me know, so I can move on to the next stage.

Sir_Elderberry wrote:
History might have been very different if Einstein had been right.

I'm calling "citation needed" on this. Einstein wasn't much into practical applications spent the time between the World Wars being an extreme pacifist.


Understandable. Sadly, said professor died two years ago, so I can't ask him to verify it. He liked telling stories like this, and they were perhaps not always literally true (Einstein probably didn't say it in those exact words, etc.) but he usually knew what he was talking about. I guess I could remember it wrong, tho. Maybe it wasn't the air force? Some civilian aircraft manufacturers?

ThinkerEmeritus wrote: the bump on the top of the wing would cause lots of turbulence on the top of the wing, make the Bernouilli approximation very poor, reduce the lift, and possibly crash the airplane.

Apparently, the plane didn't crash, but wasn't very pleasant to fly with. It simply tilted a little backwards, using the angle of the wing for lift and ignoring the bump. No citations for that either, I'm afraid.

Charlie! wrote:
DrZiro wrote:I also had an interesting theory regarding colour. Why is it that we perceive colour as a circle, when there is nothing repeating about frequency / wavelength?

I thought it was the octave thing too :P The real reason, I think, maybe, is that we have 3 color pigments, so it only takes a circle or a hexagon to show 3 primary colors and the 3 combinations of 2 colors in various degrees.

Maybe I don't quite understand your answer, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with there being three primary colours.


About relativity: My dad tried to explain that to me. Why can't an airplane go arbitrarily fast? Because when things go really fast, their mass increases. And then the plane would fall down.

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Charlie! » Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:25 pm UTC

DrZiro wrote:When I was really little, I thought that it would be possible to make a perpetual engine.
Then I learned about the first law of thermodynamics, so I figured, it should still be possible to make a perpetual engine, as long as it is also a perpetual refrigerator.
Then I learned about the second law, so I figured, it should still be possible to make a perpetual engine, as long as it is also not only a refrigerator but also a radio emitter.
(Since the radio waves are a more entropic form of energy than heat, right?)
I don't think the third law of thermodynamics prevents this, but there might be another law that does. If you know of one, do let me know, so I can move on to the next stage.
Conservation of energy. If your machine goes on forever in the same state and it puts out energy as radio waves, that's infinite energy, which is illegal.

Charlie! wrote:
DrZiro wrote:I also had an interesting theory regarding colour. Why is it that we perceive colour as a circle, when there is nothing repeating about frequency / wavelength?

I thought it was the octave thing too :P The real reason, I think, maybe, is that we have 3 color pigments, so it only takes a circle or a hexagon to show 3 primary colors and the 3 combinations of 2 colors in various degrees.

Maybe I don't quite understand your answer, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with there being three primary colours.

I'm sayin' that color wheels are only possible with 2 or 3 pigments.

Okay, though experiment one. Imagine that we now had four different colors. The fourth color is called (oh, say..) octarine, and it cannot be reproduced by any mixture of any three conventional primary colors. Now try to make a color wheel that contains (at maximum saturation) every pure color and every possible combination of two colors.

So normally it's like this: Red-orange-yellow-green-blue-purple-red.
If you add in a fourth color at any point in this wheel you get something like this: Red-orange-yellow-green-blue-octablue-octarine-octared-red

But we had to eliminate purple! And where's octayellow? With three primary colors you can make a color wheel. With four it's impossible.
Some people tell me I laugh too much. To them I say, "ha ha ha!"

User avatar
run.dll
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:54 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby run.dll » Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:36 pm UTC

I recall a "theory" I had when I was very young (maybe three or four years old?). Looking at my Mother's arm, I noticed that the lengths of her upper and lower arms were about the same, whereas my upper arm was distinctly shorter than my lower arm. As kids will do with new observations, I dwelt on this for some time (on and off). As time went by, I noticed that my upper arm was approaching my lower arm in length and attributed this to normal changes as one grows, such as getting larger overall.

It was only much later in remembering this, that I realized that my initial observation was prior to my development of a sense of perspective (i.e., I didn't realize that one's upper arm is usually foreshortened due to viewing angle). I've never looked into the psychology of child development to see when kids gain a sense of perspective, but such a study might give a hint as to the time span of my observations, ranging from first noticing the apparent length difference to noticing it going away to realizing that it wasn't an actual effect but only one of perspective.

I wonder how many other little kids have noticed this but just never remembered it later when they were old enough to explain the effect. I have quite a few very early memories. I remember reaching from my crib for a toy for instance, and clearly remember learning to walk. (and for the smart asses: No, I didn't learn to walk at 10 :-)
Spoiler:
I find it odd that one can have a spoiler for a sig, and moderately disappointing that spoilers can't be nested.

User avatar
lulzfish
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:17 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby lulzfish » Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:01 am UTC

My first CS teacher, who was teaching Java at my high school, probably said something like this:
"Java is cross-platform because the programs can run on an x86 processor or x86_64 processor or Mac PowerPC"

But what I totally thought I heard was:
"Compiled programs are not compatible between different computers (even like a Pentium II and III)"

So it took me a few years to figure out why you could install a Windows program on any x86 CPU without re-compiling.
After years of study, I have determined that all x86 CPUs ARE intercompatible, to some extent.

And that Java had a good idea, but couldn't stack up against the huge number of C / C++ libraries.
If only I had any clue how to link them... Java seems like such a good idea.
Now, don't tell me. I don't want to ruin the surprise.

*continues programming exclusively in C++ like an idiot*

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby SlyReaper » Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:46 am UTC

I always saw the universe as a sort of 4 dimensional expanding shell. So bigger shells are more advanced in time, and the very central point would be the big bang. You're always moving with speed c, outwards from this point, and if you travel fast in a spaceship or something, the time component of your velocity necessarily reduces to allow a spatial component of the velocity vector, so that your speed remains c.

I also figured that the reason you get time dilation near massive objects was that the expansion of space was trying to push them out, but they were resisting the force (as massive objects tend to resist actual force), thus creating little dents in that fabric. The dent makes them closer to the centre than they would be if they weren't massive, so that's why you get time dilation.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Nlelith
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Nlelith » Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:51 pm UTC

When I was around 9 or 10 I came up with the idea that you could travel to parallel universes by going through a black hole or anything that distorted space enough. For whatever reason I thought that universes were all separated by some fixed distance and that you could close this distance if you bended space enough. Here's a picture:

Spoiler:
Image

I don't think I really believed it, though.

User avatar
InkL0sed
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:46 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby InkL0sed » Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:48 am UTC

A couple years ago, I was pondering the grandfather paradox, and concluded that if time travel is possible, then the universe must be deterministic. I reasoned that if you travelled back in time, then whatever you did in the past must have happened before the time you left from. This means that when you go back in time, your actions (and their consequences) must lead to you going back in time again. This means that you cannot kill your past self, or anybody who hadn't been murdered by yourself when you first left. Confusing use of tense, I know, but you catch my drift.

In any case, only then did I find out someone else had thought of that already...
Last edited by InkL0sed on Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:35 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

melthengylf
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:45 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby melthengylf » Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:01 am UTC

I kind of got the idea that light was sometimes a particle, and sometimes a wave. I knew the two and one holes, I just thought that through vacuum, light was photons with information about the phase that when reaching a particle would be reabsorbed and reemitted, changing the particle, and therefore, it would be seemed as a wave if you only saw the particles affected, and as particles, if you only saw the travel of light through vacuum.

Anticitizen
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:26 am UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories *EPIC THREAD*

Postby Anticitizen » Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:33 am UTC

ACU-LP wrote:
Nomic wrote:I did (and still do) "jump" over shadows in the road when the car passes them by tightening the muscles in my legs and butt. And I imagne annoing people suddenly bursting in flames or exploding in a fiery blast.


The jumping over shadows thing is done by a lot of people, especially xkcd forumites. Its pretty much the showing of a mild form of OCD, like not stepping on cracks, etc. There is a thread reffering to that somewhere....*Cant find*


Well, count me in as another among ye. I did the same thing, and I do have other manifestations of OCD.

Sourire
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Sourire » Sun Jul 05, 2009 4:37 am UTC

From when I was in third grade, so... 8 or 9.

"If we accept the concept of numbers extending to infinity, then any combination of letters of any length must, at some point, describe a number."

I'm still not entirely sure if this holds accurate, but my teacher certainly didn't know how to respond to that in her elementary lectures on infinity. :)
Emi: Let the urge take you on a magic coaster ride of innuendo!

Kewangji: The universe is having an orgasm. Right now.

User avatar
Josephine
Posts: 2142
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:53 am UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby Josephine » Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:40 am UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote: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!


I know this is from all the way back on page one, but I had precisely the same idea.All you need is one little tiny generator and a bunch of really hefty transformers.
Belial wrote:Listen, what I'm saying is that he committed a felony with a zoo animal.

User avatar
Naurgul
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:50 am UTC
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Naurgul » Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:17 am UTC

Sourire wrote:If we accept the concept of numbers extending to infinity, then any combination of letters of any length must, at some point, describe a number.
If you talk about numbers that can be described with a finite number of digits, then of course the same is true if you use letters instead of digits.
Praised be the nightmare, which reveals to us that we have the power to create hell.

morumotto
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:57 pm UTC
Location: N00b York City

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby morumotto » Sun Jul 05, 2009 5:27 pm UTC

Ahhhh first post!

Okay, maybe this theory wasn't so crazy...
When I was three I "discovered" that some numbers, like 10 and 12, could be split into pairs of "friends". Other numbers, like 11 and 15, always had one guy left out of the pairs. The latter group was my favorite because I liked being alone, too.

You can't imagine how miffed I felt when my Kindergarten teacher told us about even and odd numbers. :x

User avatar
Jack.
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:28 pm UTC
Location: South England, Britain, Europe, Earth, The Sol System, God's Science Experiment.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Jack. » Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:51 pm UTC

As a child, when i first learnt about genes and DNA, I thought there was a gene that makes you die, and if you removed it, voila! Immortality!

...I was one of those deluded take-over-the-world kids...

A year or two later i dismissed it as impossible, just, y'know, out of hand - cos it was crazy. But a few years after that, I heard a discussion on the radio about the 'mortal' gene. It brought back memories, but i didn't really look in to it again. I figured it might have something to do with apoptosis (the self-termination of cells), so then asumed that by removing it from an embryo you would instantly cause cancer because cells would not self terminate.

Any biologists in the house that can verify?
"Quotes are just a cheap, quick, and tacky way of trying to look intelligent." - Me.

WaterToFire
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:09 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby WaterToFire » Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:13 pm UTC

Sourire wrote:From when I was in third grade, so... 8 or 9.

"If we accept the concept of numbers extending to infinity, then any combination of letters of any length must, at some point, describe a number."

I'm still not entirely sure if this holds accurate, but my teacher certainly didn't know how to respond to that in her elementary lectures on infinity. :)
I remember coming up with the same theory around the same time. I'm not sure if it holds true, however, because number-names are generally assembled from Greek affixes. As such you could conceivably create any number's name simply by sticking the correct affixes next to each other. You'd never have to resort to creating new affixes, simply new combinations thereof.

User avatar
Josephine
Posts: 2142
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:53 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Josephine » Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:53 am UTC

Aww, too bad. That's a theory I had too.

Up until I was about 11, I thought that there was no way mass travelling at C could have infinite mass, because there wasn't a single infinity, nor a zero in any of the equations.
Belial wrote:Listen, what I'm saying is that he committed a felony with a zoo animal.

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 Jul 07, 2009 3:16 am UTC

Jack. wrote:Any biologists in the house that can verify?

Some biologists believe that death is not an inherent part of an organism, but rather something organisms have evolved. Death by old age clears out the previous generation, so all resources can go to the new generation, who can then go have more kids and pass on their genes. As long as it kicks in after reproduction, it could be a selective advantage.
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
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby SlyReaper » Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:34 pm UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:
Jack. wrote:Any biologists in the house that can verify?

Some biologists believe that death is not an inherent part of an organism, but rather something organisms have evolved. Death by old age clears out the previous generation, so all resources can go to the new generation, who can then go have more kids and pass on their genes. As long as it kicks in after reproduction, it could be a selective advantage.


It's an advantage I'd rather not have if I'm honest.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
lulzfish
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:17 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby lulzfish » Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:02 pm UTC

It's not the death that gets me, it's the aging. I wouldn't mind living a little under the normal lifespan if only my body wasn't going to go to shit on the way there.

User avatar
WholeLottaSean
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:51 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby WholeLottaSean » Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:41 pm UTC

You should ask Hugh Jackman how he does it. I suppose the 'cannot die' gene for him is only turned on upon reaching adulthood (obv).

vslayer
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:57 pm UTC
Location: rakaia, NZ
Contact:

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby vslayer » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:01 am UTC

i just remembered a theory i developed when i was about 9 or 10, after a discussion with my father (who works with behaviour disorder children) i turned on the TV to see yet another rap music video. it was at this point i proposed the idea that the reason people listen to rap music despite the fact that it can barely be called music is that all of the naked women in every rap video ever made acted to instill positive feelings in people which they then consfused as being associated with the music rather than the naked women, hence; people listen to rap music because it turns them on.

i shall re word this in the morning when i am less under the influence, just needed to write it down while it is fresh in my mind.

User avatar
Jakell
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:39 am UTC
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Jakell » Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:21 pm UTC

Even though electrons are too small to have color, i always thought they were probably yellow. So, I always thought of electric fields as yellow, and (cause i like the color) magnetic fields as blue. For my electromagnetism class, i had a green binder...
Unfortunately, i had them backwards. And now I feel bad calling my yellow truck sparky.
Physics Rocks!
Indigo is Bullshit.

Why not?

If you can't hear your heart pounding in your ears several times a day, you aren't dong it right.

User avatar
Jakell
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:39 am UTC
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Jakell » Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:33 pm UTC

Charlie! wrote:
Charlie! wrote:
DrZiro wrote:I also had an interesting theory regarding colour. Why is it that we perceive colour as a circle, when there is nothing repeating about frequency / wavelength?

I thought it was the octave thing too :P The real reason, I think, maybe, is that we have 3 color pigments, so it only takes a circle or a hexagon to show 3 primary colors and the 3 combinations of 2 colors in various degrees.

Maybe I don't quite understand your answer, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with there being three primary colours.

I'm sayin' that color wheels are only possible with 2 or 3 pigments.


Color wheels are nice and round because we draw them that way. Our visible spectrum actually acts more like a rounded triangley-shape thing. Well, for trichromats. The rare folk who have a fourth cone might need to add a thin extra dimension to the shape, while folks who are missing a cone would have a color...row? monochromats would just have one color, poor folks!
The color triangle itself isn't perfect, because there is a bit more to it. Folks who have had their eye's lens removed can sometimes see further into the UV, I find the near IR (750-850 nm) to be a particularly rich, if dim, shade of redder-then-red.

sorry, weird vision stuff is kinda my thing...
Physics Rocks!
Indigo is Bullshit.

Why not?

If you can't hear your heart pounding in your ears several times a day, you aren't dong it right.

User avatar
Josephine
Posts: 2142
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:53 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Josephine » Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:27 am UTC

The rare folk who have a fourth cone might need to add a thin extra dimension to the shape


That exists? Damn, that would be awesome.
Belial wrote:Listen, what I'm saying is that he committed a felony with a zoo animal.

Mactabilis
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:06 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Mactabilis » Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:20 pm UTC

Crazy philosophy theory.

I am some inconceivable being floating through and endless empty void. i got so bored and lonely after eons of just floating that i came up with this really elaborate hallucination that my subconscious controls. I could fly around and rule the world, but then the hallucination would unravel as I became aware that it was only a dream. my subconscious wont allow this.

this stemmed from the thought that we are all one consciousness experiencing every aspect of our personality and our environment in order to know ourselves and our physical reality.

i was like 11ish

Crazy science theroy.

time is not liner but has multiple dimensions just like space. this meant you could make an x,y move but not change your z and some really weird shit would happen.... never really came up with what that weird shit would be. also always wondered what was propelling us through time at a constant rate along all axis of time

also around 11 ish

userxp
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:40 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby userxp » Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:16 pm UTC

When I was a child, I thought that if you were fast enough, you wouldn't have time to do anything, so if you ran really, really fast towards a wall, you wouldn't have time to crash and you'd pass through it. Fortunately I never tried it :wink: .

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby SlyReaper » Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:19 pm UTC

userxp wrote:When I was a child, I thought that if you were fast enough, you wouldn't have time to do anything, so if you ran really, really fast towards a wall, you wouldn't have time to crash and you'd pass through it. Fortunately I never tried it :wink: .


That sounds like flying by throwing yourself at the ground, getting distracted, and missing. :mrgreen:
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
darkspork
Posts: 532
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:43 am UTC
Location: Land of Trains and Suburbs

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby darkspork » Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:43 pm UTC

userxp wrote:When I was a child, I thought that if you were fast enough, you wouldn't have time to do anything, so if you ran really, really fast towards a wall, you wouldn't have time to crash and you'd pass through it. Fortunately I never tried it :wink: .

The universe has crappy collision detection then.

With the right physics adjustments and Garry's Mod, you can make a particle accelerator. The Source engine can't detect collision when objects travel more than 300mph, so no matter what you throw (chairs, guns, buses) the object will pass through the wall.
Shameless Website Promotion: Gamma Energy
My new esoteric programming language: GLOBOL
An experiment to mess with Google Search results: HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY

billiamo
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:48 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby billiamo » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:38 pm UTC

Aged about 5, I thought that cats and dogs were the female and male genders of a single species.

When I was maybe 11, I thought, like someone posted very early on in the thread, that since light is a wave and a particle, it must be a a particle travelling in a wave motion. So radio waves are travelling a lot faster the visible light. If we could straighten out radio waves, they'd go thousands of time faster than visible light.

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 » Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:01 am UTC

darkspork wrote:The universe has crappy collision detection then.

Yes it does. (Quantum Tunnelling.)
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.

Thibaw
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:32 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Thibaw » Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:18 pm UTC

I always thought, I could transmit information faster than lightspeed. With a device called "the magic stick".
The magic stick is just a very long and stiff stick. If I poke something with it, the poke at the other end happens at the very same moment as the movement at the end I am holding.

Then someone pointed out, that the stick would be elastic and bend first before transmitting the poke.

Well and finally I found out, that "the poke" travels only with sonic speed of the respective material of the magic stick.

But wait! Who says that sonic speed < light speed for every material?

User avatar
scikidus
Posts: 792
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:34 pm UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby scikidus » Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:33 pm UTC

I had so many physics ideas when I was little that I kept a journal. I still have that journal.

(Quick background: around the time of this journal, I attended monthly lectured led by now-famous astrophycist Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He may have inspired most of the physics ones, and I still have some e-mails from when I used to bounce my 11-year-old crackpot ideas off of him. Oh, and we're still on a first-name basis. I love NYC. :D)

Let's see what we've got here...

Ah!

1. My best friend and I decided to build Jurassic Park. It was a simple plan: my friend would find dino DNA, and I would build a DNA replicating machine to build a dinosaur. Then we worried if the large reptiles would be hard to contain. My solution: just make 1/10th of the DNA, and the dinosaurs will be 1/10th of their original size!

2. A perpetual motion device. A motor on a base would spin magnets past coils which would power the motor. Hah! At some later point I added a footnote: doesn't work. :D

3. A page labeled "Dark Matter Existence Conjecture". IIRC, I didn't know the differecne between anti-matter and dark matter. I considered everything in the universe between 0 and 1 c to be the "realm" of normal matter, and everything int he universe between 1 and 2 c to be the "realm" of anti/dark matter. How cute! I even drew closed time-like curves showing that time ran backwards for the anti-matter. Didn't Feynman have something like that? I thought antiparticles in Feynman diagrams went backwards for this reason too.

4. My "relativity sphere"! I actually remember this one: I tried to think up relativistic effects beyond the speed of light.

5. Nuclear rocket engine. Yawn.

6. Heh, an algebra problem! The rest of my class was on fractions. :P

7. Oh, crap! Apparently this thread is actually older than I thought.

8. An artificial gravity rocket, which worked by centripetal force. I believe I was on vacation when I came up wiht that one.

9. "Particle Structure Ideas". This was probably after I watch "The Elegant Universe" on NOVA for the first time. I attempt to explain why some particles interact more weakly, and why were more resistant to merging under Big-Bang-like conditions.

10. "Flat Glasses". You step on them, they flatten out. Hmm.

11. Ah, yes, "sumorial". Note that I knew nothing of Gauss at the time, and independantly figured out how to calculate 1+2+3+...+n. I called it "sumorial," and I gave it a symbol similar to the factorial's ! -- I combined a $ and a !.

12. Back to astrophysics. I conjecture that matter and antimatter falling into a black hole "rob" the black hole of mass by annihilating.

13. I suggest that after black holes evaporate, some of their gravitational presence remains as "overstreched" regions of spacetime.

14. From my rudimentary knowledge of the law of the conservation of angular momentum and dumbed-down physics, I predict how exactly black holes die after evaporation, "Hawking-style". I can't believe I wrote "Hawking-style".

15. I try to explain inflation! :D

16. Something about dimension-traveling gravitons, called "KK particles". I had obviously just come home from one of Tyson's lectures, because this page is brimming with astrophysics.

17. Is the 5h dimension probability?

18. An electronic book, with LCD screen pages and internet access, and some kind of eBook service. Dated February 4, 2006. Amazon, I want royalties for the Kindle, damnit.

19. I play around with bases with radii other than a natural number. Included: base -2, base i, base 1/2, and base -1/i. I gues I didn't notice that that last one was just i.

20. If the square root of -1 is i, then what is the square root of i? No, of course it's not (1+i)/root2, it's an ultra-imaginary number! Whoopie!

21. The only idea in here I've ever actually tried to patent: the Privasphere. Essentially a speaker cancels the sound of your voice beyond a certain point by inverting the sound waves of your voice. One problem: it's nearly impossible.

22. What is now more formally known as decimal time: 10 hours in a day, 100 minutes in an hour, and 100 seconds in a minute. I'm still rooting for this one.

23. A formula for the nth Fibonacci number: Fn = (Fx+1 * Fn-x) + (Fx * Fn-x-1), where x is anythign you want it to be. (This one's actually correct.)

24. An extension of the one-time pad cipher by using digits of an irrational, unending number (say, pi or 8.3*e/45.23) as the key, and a start point along the string for added security. As was pointed out to me, this would require massive computation beyond simply handing out books of random numbers. Note: publicize this one when quantum computers roll around.

25. A digital camera which would use cellphone towers to wirelessly send your pictures to your computer/e-mail. This idea became obsolete when cellphone cameras got a lot better.

26. I basically state that since 1/0 = -1/0, infintiy = - infinity, and the number line is an infinitely large number circle.

-------

That's about all I want to share. There are in fact a few nuggets in there, and therefore don't belong in this thread. Sorry that this list is so long! I was bored in school, and this journal was the result. If anyone wants to see more or even cares, let me know.
Happy hollandaise!

"The universe is a figment of its own imagination" -Douglas Adams

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 Jul 26, 2009 11:57 pm UTC

Meteorswarm wrote:
Thibaw wrote:But wait! Who says that sonic speed < light speed for every material?
The fact that the atom-atom interactions that allow your sound burst to propagate are mediated by electromagnetic repulsion, which is carried by photons.
Oh SNAP!
Sorry....in my mind that sounded as a really witty comeback, nerd style.
....Yeah.....I'm weird....
....I'll go back to lurking now....
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
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7557
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby phlip » Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:14 am UTC

I totally misread that and thought you meant to read the "Oh, SNAP!" in Spock's voice.

This makes it much more hilarious somehow.

Code: Select all

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

userxp
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:40 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby userxp » Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:50 pm UTC

scikidus wrote:I had so many physics ideas when I was little that I kept a journal. I still have that journal.

21. The only idea in here I've ever actually tried to patent: the Privasphere. Essentially a speaker cancels the sound of your voice beyond a certain point by inverting the sound waves of your voice. One problem: it's nearly impossible.



Ah! I had this idea too. I thought that if you put a microphone directly next to a speaker and invert the sound wave, the speaker would emit "anti-sound" and make the place silent.
Not very related but I also had a more serious idea: If you put a large empty sphere inside a larger one, so that there's about 3cm between them, make the smaller one levitate with magnetism and make vacuum between them, the inside of the smaller sphere would be completely soundproof. I'm sure it could have some uses.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7557
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby phlip » Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:09 pm UTC

I'm not sure that'd be completely soundproof... if the inner sphere vibrates, it'd cause vibrations in the magnetic field that's keeping it hovering... which'd cause vibrations in the device on the outside that's causing it to hover. And vice-versa. It'd be severely dampened, though... trying to measure the vibrations from the outside and figure out what they're saying on the inside would probably just have the signal swamped in the noise...

Code: Select all

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

Anticitizen
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:26 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Anticitizen » Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:45 am UTC

userxp wrote:
scikidus wrote:I had so many physics ideas when I was little that I kept a journal. I still have that journal.

21. The only idea in here I've ever actually tried to patent: the Privasphere. Essentially a speaker cancels the sound of your voice beyond a certain point by inverting the sound waves of your voice. One problem: it's nearly impossible.



Ah! I had this idea too. I thought that if you put a microphone directly next to a speaker and invert the sound wave, the speaker would emit "anti-sound" and make the place silent.
Not very related but I also had a more serious idea: If you put a large empty sphere inside a larger one, so that there's about 3cm between them, make the smaller one levitate with magnetism and make vacuum between them, the inside of the smaller sphere would be completely soundproof. I'm sure it could have some uses.


I thought of that, too... vacuum is also an excellent insulator, so I thought of a similar setup for those Antarctic research stations. Vacuum-packed walls.

Moderator
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:05 am UTC

Childhood crackpottery

Postby Moderator » Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:16 am UTC

I had a theory (or more like a weird notion) that if you threw yourself off a high building, you would learn to fly like a boid IFF these conditions were fulfilled:

1. It had to be high enough so you would die if you hit the ground (there had to be a real risk involved).
2. You couldn´t have rigged some sort of safety equipment, neither could anyone else, even unbeknownst to you (again, the risk).
3. You musn´t be crazy (this was very important, albeit a bit contradictory...) or suicidal, i.e. you would have to WANT to live and have something to lose (like a leap of faith).

If you really believed in it this, physics would somehow alter and you would magically be saved a couple of feet above ground by a great upward swoop - hence, the reward for this faith in cryptophysics would be your ability to fly. But if you had but a small lapse of faith on your way down, you would be doomed!

This sounds a bit like the ramblings of a lunatic child, but I was rather normal and definitely not religous or anything like that. Somewhere I knew this was all bogus but I still really had a feeling it might be for real - just that no sane, non-suicidal person ever had tried it, ¡This cheese is raping me!

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

Re: Childhood crackpottery

Postby ACU-LP » Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:42 am UTC

Moderator wrote:¡This cheese is raping me!
Don't ever use that word in these contexts again.
Ever.
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.

Moderator
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:05 am UTC

Re: Childhood crackpottery

Postby Moderator » Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:46 pm UTC

ACU-LP wrote:
Moderator wrote:¡This cheese is raping me!
Don't ever use that word in these contexts again.
Ever.


Have you ever heard of freedom of speech? So don´t ever try to censor me again. Ever.

Had you however written "I don´t like that word, please don´t use it like this", maybe I would have considered it.


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests