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
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 » Wed May 06, 2009 2:44 pm UTC

Did anyone else here believe that there was a quantum string attached to everything, and that it would be very bad for these strings to be tangled? It is because of this belief that I would always turn counterclockwise the same number of times I had turned clockwise. When I went around a tree, I would always go back the same way. When I went down the slide I would always climb back up. I didn't leave it until I turned four, at which point I decided the belief was irrational and ran clockwise around the tree in my backyard for a full two hours.
Shameless Website Promotion: Gamma Energy
My new esoteric programming language: GLOBOL
An experiment to mess with Google Search results: HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY

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 3:41 pm UTC

darkspork wrote:Did anyone else here believe that there was a quantum string attached to everything, and that it would be very bad for these strings to be tangled?

I think I like this theory, or at least a modified version thereof. :) Like one where it's desirable to minimize the tangling as much as possible, and very bad things only happen if lots of strings get really tangled. :)

darkspork wrote:It is because of this belief that I would always turn counterclockwise the same number of times I had turned clockwise. When I went around a tree, I would always go back the same way. When I went down the slide I would always climb back up. I didn't leave it until I turned four, at which point I decided the belief was irrational and ran clockwise around the tree in my backyard for a full two hours.


You really should try to find a copy of "The Revolving Boy" by Gertrude Friedberg.
Derv Nagy is a boy born with an absolute sense of orientation. If, by the end of a long day, his activities have caused him to make fifty left turns and forty-two right turns (to take an example), he'll be aware of the fact, and the deficit will nag at him until he compensates by making two full turns clockwise.

User avatar
roderik
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Below sealevel

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby roderik » Thu May 07, 2009 11:09 am UTC

I once thought of a theory where gravity didn't work like an ordinary force, but simply because the universe tended to prefer energy density to be as high as possible (this was after I convinced myself that all mass is basically just a large amount of energy). I never really tried to imagine what the consequences of this would be, and wetter it would actually be a possible explenation.

User avatar
alitheiapsis
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:29 am UTC
Location: Just behind my eyes, between my ears.
Contact:

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby alitheiapsis » Thu May 14, 2009 10:53 pm UTC

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


You are not alone. I had a sciencey-type book that explained all about how sperms and eggs fuse to create embryos, which grow to become fetuses and then babies. Being made for children, it skipped over the best part. I remember telling my mother, "I know the sperm and egg meet, but how? When people kiss?" And then there were all the logical problems with that like what happens when you kiss someone on the cheek, etc. I am pretty sure my mom answered that she didn't know, but being five or six, I didn't think it through enough to realize that there was something wrong in hearing one's mother say she did not know how the sperm and egg combined.

Deathzorz
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:05 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Deathzorz » Fri May 15, 2009 3:18 pm UTC

It must have been some time in 6th grade, I was finishing up my homework and decided I would solve how to travel at light speed.

Build a spaceship, and at the very end of it attach a device that would be able to "grab" a photon being shot in the direction one wishes to go. The grab would have no effect on the photon, and both (the photon and the spaceship) would travel across the vastness of the universe at light speed. I wish I still had that drawing I made...

Anyway, I'm working with websites these days as a developer, but since college have been fascinated with science, particularly theoretical physics. Thinking one day I may become a science teacher.

TO SCIENCE! (clink!) :)

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 » Fri May 15, 2009 6:45 pm UTC

Deathzorz wrote:It must have been some time in 6th grade, I was finishing up my homework and decided I would solve how to travel at light speed.

Build a spaceship, and at the very end of it attach a device that would be able to "grab" a photon being shot in the direction one wishes to go. The grab would have no effect on the photon, and both (the photon and the spaceship) would travel across the vastness of the universe at light speed. I wish I still had that drawing I made...

Anyway, I'm working with websites these days as a developer, but since college have been fascinated with science, particularly theoretical physics. Thinking one day I may become a science teacher.

TO SCIENCE! (clink!) :)

Not so crackpot as you may think. Ever heard of a solar sail?
Shameless Website Promotion: Gamma Energy
My new esoteric programming language: GLOBOL
An experiment to mess with Google Search results: HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY

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 » Sat May 16, 2009 2:13 pm UTC

darkspork wrote:
Deathzorz wrote:It must have been some time in 6th grade, I was finishing up my homework and decided I would solve how to travel at light speed.
Build a spaceship, and at the very end of it attach a device that would be able to "grab" a photon being shot in the direction one wishes to go. The grab would have no effect on the photon, and both (the photon and the spaceship) would travel across the vastness of the universe at light speed. I wish I still had that drawing I made...
Anyway, I'm working with websites these days as a developer, but since college have been fascinated with science, particularly theoretical physics. Thinking one day I may become a science teacher.
TO SCIENCE! (clink!) :)
Not so crackpot as you may think. Ever heard of a solar sail?
This is why I love this thread so much; it proves that as children, though we may be a little nuts, our imagination provides some of the best ideas, some of which are actually feasible.
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.

Chirios
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 12:47 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Chirios » Sun May 17, 2009 1:14 am UTC

When I was thirteen I came up with a theory that gravity was a curving of space. My prediction to test this theory was that if space was curved, then light from stars should change path, and that by sending spaceships to distance stars, we should see that they are quite a few angles away from their apparent position.

A few weeks ago we started learning about general relativity at college.

mikeyberman
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:25 pm UTC

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby mikeyberman » Sun May 17, 2009 4:51 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 wonder how many AA batteries it'd take to power a city (vehicles included)?
Image

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 » Sun May 17, 2009 5:05 am UTC

By my second-grade logic, only one.
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
olleoc
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 5:08 am UTC
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby olleoc » Mon May 18, 2009 3:21 am UTC

"I sometimes ask myself how it came about that I was the one to develop the theory of relativity. The reason, I think, is that a normal adult never stops to think about problems of space and time. These are things which he has thought of as a child. But my intellectual development was retarded, as a result of which I began to wonder about space and time only when I had already grown up." - Albert Einstein

I think this ties in rather well, as it's when we are young that we usually begin to wonder over anything and everything, and we don't limit ourselves back then, we let our minds wonder off to seemingly ridiculous tangents, never questioning but imagining and marvelling at the possibilities. It took the un-biased perspective of a man like Einstein to take a first look at the problems of space and time and create his paradigm-shifting theory.
What if epsilon were less than zero? Woah...

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 May 18, 2009 3:34 am UTC

I'm reading a biography of Einstein at the moment. One of the most fascinating things was his willingness to pursue an idea and its implications even if it went against "obvious facts". Really, there are quotes from other people (Poincare, etc) that make you think "Wow, how did one of these guys not figure it out?" But they just weren't willing to discard certain preconceived notions. Some of them died still denying relativity.
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
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 » Mon May 18, 2009 4:25 am UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:I'm reading a biography of Einstein at the moment.

Which one? I read "Subtle is the Lord" by physicist Abraham Pais years ago. It's excellent. Pais' biography of Bohr is almost as good.
Sir_Elderberry wrote:One of the most fascinating things was his willingness to pursue an idea and its implications even if it went against "obvious facts". Really, there are quotes from other people (Poincare, etc) that make you think "Wow, how did one of these guys not figure it out?" But they just weren't willing to discard certain preconceived notions. Some of them died still denying relativity.

I get the feeling that Poincaré never really "got" relativity (even SR), although undoubtedly he was a genius with a great physical intuition & a first class mathematician. OTOH, maybe something got lost in the translation. (I've never tried reading physics in French - my highschool French isn't quite good enough).

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby WholeLottaSean » Mon May 18, 2009 2:13 pm UTC

I still like to think this could be true:
First, just think of how the brain likes to make sense of nonsense, and put jumbly things into some sort of meaningful thing. Like when you hear your name being called in a crowd of people, just because that's your brain making sense of the noise of the crowd.

Ok, now picture time as one bug jumble, everything that ever has happened and everything that ever will happen is happening right now, everything is definite and it's all happening.
It's the human brain that puts this huge jumble into meaningful order, it makes sense of it all and plays it out in a way we can understand.
I like to think this could be plausible.

Second theory:
Trees have no way of knowing humans are around because they're just not advanced enough to sense us. This could be true also for humans, and there are these little creatures running around outside what we can sense. I call them Gorwins.

User avatar
Whelan
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:16 pm UTC
Location: Londonshire.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Whelan » Mon May 18, 2009 5:06 pm UTC

I call them microbes :P
Anyway, unlike you lot I never had any childhood theories, but then I'm still a child so there's time yet.
"I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth; I have a horror of blinding people with science"- Richard Dawkins
Weeks wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:And all I get is this tame space dragon. Where's my recognition?!
A tame dragon is its own reward.

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 » Mon May 18, 2009 7:49 pm UTC

I led a mathematical search for an operator "lower" than addition ever since learning about powers and the existence of operators that were "higher".

I only abandoned this project upon proving its nonexistence two years ago.

I didn't learn about the Ackermann function until three months after that.
Shameless Website Promotion: Gamma Energy
My new esoteric programming language: GLOBOL
An experiment to mess with Google Search results: HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7556
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby phlip » Mon May 18, 2009 11:35 pm UTC

You may be interested in this thread, darkspork.

Code: Select all

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

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 » Tue May 19, 2009 3:09 am UTC

phlip wrote:You may be interested in this thread, darkspork.

When I discovered these forums, I became curious about it again, and my first post was about it. I was led to the same thread.
Shameless Website Promotion: Gamma Energy
My new esoteric programming language: GLOBOL
An experiment to mess with Google Search results: HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY

Deathzorz
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:05 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Deathzorz » Tue May 19, 2009 6:20 pm UTC

darkspork wrote:
Deathzorz wrote:It must have been some time in 6th grade, I was finishing up my homework and decided I would solve how to travel at light speed.

Build a spaceship, and at the very end of it attach a device that would be able to "grab" a photon being shot in the direction one wishes to go. The grab would have no effect on the photon, and both (the photon and the spaceship) would travel across the vastness of the universe at light speed. I wish I still had that drawing I made...

Anyway, I'm working with websites these days as a developer, but since college have been fascinated with science, particularly theoretical physics. Thinking one day I may become a science teacher.

TO SCIENCE! (clink!) :)

Not so crackpot as you may think. Ever heard of a solar sail?



Interesting! I love finding out new ways to harness the power of the photon. :)

Thank you Monsieur Spork.

User avatar
Beacons!
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 2:17 pm UTC
Location: The Grand Unifying Intermahweb

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Beacons! » Tue May 19, 2009 6:34 pm UTC

PM 2Ring wrote:If so, your sons have a good chance of being colour-blind, I'm sorry to say.


Colour-blindness really isn't bad. What you lose in the ability to tell light pink from light grey etc, you more than gain in a good topic of conversation at nearly all social events. What you're trying to say is "I'm sorry your sons can't be pilots or bomb defusers", both life threatening jobs.
"Woof!", explained the dog

samk
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:33 pm UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby samk » Wed May 20, 2009 5:21 am UTC

That this world is just a blueprint for a more real, more detailed one.

Hitoversit
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:36 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Hitoversit » Sat May 23, 2009 11:40 pm UTC

I've always been a worm collecting kinda guy (family grew 60-80% of all veggies/fruits when we lived in oregon) so when it rained I'd pick up the stray nightcrawlers along the street and deposit them in the plots/gardens. Well, I had some that died and wanted to bring them back to life. So I did things in reverse order really, put them into the bucket, started adding water, some dirt and other organic water. Gave it a stir and let it sit. About a day later I had some shorter than nightcrawler and white worms swimming around in the bucket, I figured the size and discoloration was a side-effect. ;)

User avatar
ssbookyu123
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:26 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby ssbookyu123 » Sun May 24, 2009 2:35 am UTC

Once I thought that if I pump enough electricy in to somthing I could bring it to life. Well I was around six and I wanted to bring a hole puncher to life so I striped a lamp plug and then I attached to the hole puncher. BIG boom and the power went out in like six other apartment flats. The morel of the story is don't play with high voltage.

Voco
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:29 pm UTC
Location: A land of blind idealism.

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Voco » Sun May 24, 2009 3:31 am UTC

That if I wore an incorrectly calibrated (that is, an adult-size) life preserver vest, I would float helplessly into the sky.

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

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby DrZiro » Tue May 26, 2009 10:08 am UTC

Wow. So much to quote, so little time!

No, that's not true. I have lots of time. But let me start with my own "theories".

Around age five or so, I independently invented the Linnean naming system, but for teddy bears. Not so much a theory, but still.

When I was very little I thought that babies spontaneously appeared in women's bellies, and that the doctor then had to cut them open to get the baby out. As for the second part, it's not a bad theory, seeing as I myself was born with caesarian. Whether the first part also is true for me, I can neither confirm nor deny.

And while we're all bragging about how wonderfully clever we were when we were little: In sixth grade I invented logical circuits and designed a machine that could do multiplication. It would use... let's see, I still have it here somewhere... 2448 little electromagnetic relays, for 8-bit multiplication. Sadly I never got to build it.

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? For some reason the cells that are supposed to react to the lowest frequency (red) apparently also react a little to the highest frequency (purple). Why is that? My theory was that it's because the frequency of purple is twice the frequency of red, so it causes some kind of resonance - it's an octave! So just like sounds that have frequencies which are a power of two apart sound similar, the same might apply to light.
I discussed this theory with a physics professor; I was about nine or ten or so, and there were not that many people my age in the lecture. He was rather baffled and never did give me a straight answer.
I'm still not entirely sure it's wrong, but it's starting to sound a little implausible.

ducksan wrote:Had no idea what fire was, why it seemed to give off some strange mass of glowing energy or something. Black body radiation helped figure that one out

I have to admit I'm still not completely clear on this: Is the light from fire just black body radiation, or is it something chemical? It sure looks like black body radiation, continuous spectrum and all that, but in that case, why is it that an object, say, a stone, placed in a fire, doesn't glow too? It has the same temperature as the fire, doesn't it?

nescalona wrote:when bored in the car I would imagine I had Cyclops eyes with red lasers that would slice perfectly through anything I looked at. As our car drove along I'd slice off the tops of cars, make trees fall on houses, decapitate people, etc.

I used to imagine a little character jumping on the rooftops, like a platform game.

ikkleste wrote:I used believe that gravity worked in a way similar to archemede's principle. That we only stayed down on the ground because we were denser than air.

Well... yes. If you were not denser than air you wouldn't stay on the ground. But it's more like Archimedes's principle works like Archimedes's principle. (By the way, am I the only one who spells it like that - "-s's"? It seems like the logical thing in English. If indeed anything is logical in this peculiar language.)

PM 2Ring wrote:Derv Nagy is a boy born with an absolute sense of orientation.

I have heard (from reasonably reliable sources) about some peoples who see all directions in an absolute way. They have no words for left and right, only for north, west etc. So even if you lead them down into an underground labyrinth, they still know which way is north.

ThinkerEmeritus wrote:I understand that the lift is mostly Bernoulli

My favourite professor told us a couple of things about this. Apart from being a physicist (and a number of other things) he was also an avid flyer. In order to pass the test for the certificate, he told us, he had to say that it is Bernoulli's principle that makes the plane fly. However, it is really not.

Bernoulli says that since the upper half of the wing is curved, air above the wing travels a longer distance, gets "stretched out" to lower density, and therefore pulls the plane up. Einstein, back in the days before WW2, thought about this and decided to create a new kind of airplane. Instead of curved wings, it would have a "bump" on the top. So the profile would be shaped something like this:

Code: Select all

   ______/\______
  /              \
  \______________/


He sent the design to the German air force. They thought "bollocks, never going to work". So he went in person to their headquarters in Berlin, told them basically "I'm Einstein, therefore I'm right, so start building these airplanes". And so they did.

History might have been very different if Einstein had been right.

In fact, it has very little to do with Bernoulli. Rather, it has to do with the viscosity of the air, and the wings being at an angle (if I remember it right).

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby WholeLottaSean » Tue May 26, 2009 11:54 pm UTC

DrZiro wrote:But it's more like Archimedes's principle works like Archimedes's principle. (By the way, am I the only one who spells it like that - "-s's"? It seems like the logical thing in English. If indeed anything is logical in this peculiar language.)


The correct use would be: "Archimedes' Principle"

If the apostrophe is used to show possession in a word that ends in 's', the apostrophe goes after.
e.g. If a map belongs to a group of boys, it is the boys' map.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7556
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby phlip » Wed May 27, 2009 12:36 am UTC

That's the rule for plurals... for singular posessives, you add 's regardless.

Some style guides say that if both of the last two syllables end in s, then you don't add a third s at the end (eg "Jesus'" and "Moses'"), but personally that sounds odd to me (I'd use "Jesus's", both aloud and in writing).

Code: Select all

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

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 » Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 am UTC

He sent the design to the German air force. They thought "bollocks, never going to work". So he went in person to their headquarters in Berlin, told them basically "I'm Einstein, therefore I'm right, so start building these airplanes". And so they did.

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby Charlie! » Wed May 27, 2009 3:28 am UTC

phlip wrote:That's the rule for plurals... for singular posessives, you add 's regardless.

Some style guides say that if both of the last two syllables end in s, then you don't add a third s at the end (eg "Jesus'" and "Moses'"), but personally that sounds odd to me (I'd use "Jesus's", both aloud and in writing).

Both 's and ' are acceptable after words ending in s, (I mean it's English, there's not much to stop you :P ), but I think that just because it's more in common usage I prefer Archimedes' principle.

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? For some reason the cells that are supposed to react to the lowest frequency (red) apparently also react a little to the highest frequency (purple). Why is that? My theory was that it's because the frequency of purple is twice the frequency of red, so it causes some kind of resonance - it's an octave! So just like sounds that have frequencies which are a power of two apart sound similar, the same might apply to light.
I discussed this theory with a physics professor; I was about nine or ten or so, and there were not that many people my age in the lecture. He was rather baffled and never did give me a straight answer.
I'm still not entirely sure it's wrong, but it's starting to sound a little implausible.

ducksan wrote:Had no idea what fire was, why it seemed to give off some strange mass of glowing energy or something. Black body radiation helped figure that one out

I have to admit I'm still not completely clear on this: Is the light from fire just black body radiation, or is it something chemical? It sure looks like black body radiation, continuous spectrum and all that, but in that case, why is it that an object, say, a stone, placed in a fire, doesn't glow too? It has the same temperature as the fire, doesn't it?

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. On a quantum-ey level, there shouldn't be any reason why a photon of twice the energy should excite a "red" molecule.

On the rock thing, it DOES glow. Try putting a little rock in and then taking it out with tongs. Or just put a hunk of metal (like the end of a marshmallow poker) in. You just don't notice the glowing rock because it's surrounded by a bunch of glowing fire.
Some people tell me I laugh too much. To them I say, "ha ha ha!"

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

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby WholeLottaSean » Wed May 27, 2009 8:15 am UTC

phlip wrote:That's the rule for plurals... for singular posessives, you add 's regardless.

Some style guides say that if both of the last two syllables end in s, then you don't add a third s at the end (eg "Jesus'" and "Moses'"), but personally that sounds odd to me (I'd use "Jesus's", both aloud and in writing).


Huh ok.

Sir_Elderberry wrote:Einstein wasn't much into practical applications spent the time between the World Wars being an extreme pacifist.

That sounds a bit like an oxymoron.

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 27, 2009 10:03 am UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote: Einstein wasn't much into practical applications spent the time between the World Wars being an extreme pacifist.

I agree he was a pacifist: he even changed his citizenship to Swiss from German. But I don't agree with the practical applications bit. He did work as a patent clerk, remember, so was quite familiar with the connection between practice & theory. He even invented a noiseless refrigerator, with the assistance of Leo Szillard.

thicknavyrain
ThinkGravyTrain
Posts: 913
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:41 pm UTC
Location: The Universe

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby thicknavyrain » Wed May 27, 2009 10:25 am UTC

When I was little I used to come up with these doodles for perpetual motion machines that I genuinely thought would work/completely change the world. Then I discovered the energy conservation laws from a science teacher and it all went kaput from there...

Oh well...
RoadieRich wrote:Thicknavyrain is appointed Nex Artifex, Author of Death of the second FaiD Assassins' Guild.

VDOgamez
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 1:49 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby VDOgamez » Wed May 27, 2009 1:29 pm UTC

When I was five or so, I figured out newton's laws of motion. XD

Also, when I was about ten, I theorized that the universe was created by a singularity of a black hole in another universe, which budded and then exploded into a new universe as the big bang.

Around that time I also had the idea to deploy giant solar panels in orbit around the sun, and have them transmit power to Earth via high-energy light rays.

I did this kind of stuff a lot...

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

Re: Childhood crackpot theories

Postby ThinkerEmeritus » Wed May 27, 2009 2:24 pm UTC

DrZiro wrote:
ThinkerEmeritus wrote:I understand that the lift is mostly Bernoulli

My favourite professor told us a couple of things about this. Apart from being a physicist (and a number of other things) he was also an avid flyer. In order to pass the test for the certificate, he told us, he had to say that it is Bernoulli's principle that makes the plane fly. However, it is really not.

Bernoulli says that since the upper half of the wing is curved, air above the wing travels a longer distance, gets "stretched out" to lower density, and therefore pulls the plane up. Einstein, back in the days before WW2, thought about this and decided to create a new kind of airplane. Instead of curved wings, it would have a "bump" on the top. So the profile would be shaped something like this:

Code: Select all

   ______/\______
  /              \
  \______________/



He sent the design to the German air force. They thought "bollocks, never going to work". So he went in person to their headquarters in Berlin, told them basically "I'm Einstein, therefore I'm right, so start building these airplanes". And so they did.

History might have been very different if Einstein had been right.

In fact, it has very little to do with Bernoulli. Rather, it has to do with the viscosity of the air, and the wings being at an angle (if I remember it right).


You caught me oversimplifying without really thinking about what I was writing. What I should have said is that the Bernoulli Equation and the additional assumption that parts of the air packet that are split apart by the front of the wing arrange somehow to arrive at the back of the wing at the same time gives an adequate approximation for the lift of a wing. The way I put it hides the additional assumption, which is not really justified, and makes it seem that there is a "Bernoulli process" that competes with a molecular explanation of what is going on.

The understanding of Bernoulli Effect as a separate process is not correct. The Bernoulli equation is derived by using work-energy arguments on the movement of the air molecules, assuming no frictional losses and no turbulent flow. If the approximations are adequate, you can use Bernoulli like you use energy conservation in describing the height reached by a projectile. You can calculate some of the things you want to know without going into all the complications of a calculation of all the forces and trajectories. If the approximations are not adequate, you have a much more difficult calculation to do. For a real airplane wing, there are things that you want to know that require taking viscosity and turbulence into account, so there is reason for abandoning the Bernoulli approximation and doing the full calculation. For a feeling of just how complicated it can get, look at
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/cover367.htm.

Bernoulli and the associated unjustified assumption still give a rough understanding of what is going on, but they don't give everything. The airplane wing is better as an illustration of the Bernoulli Equation than the Bernoulli Equation is as an approximation to the behavior of an airplane wing.

Finally, what was wrong with Einstein's [citation needed] idea, is that 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.
"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".

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 » Wed May 27, 2009 4:24 pm UTC

PM 2Ring wrote:
Sir_Elderberry wrote: Einstein wasn't much into practical applications spent the time between the World Wars being an extreme pacifist.

I agree he was a pacifist: he even changed his citizenship to Swiss from German. But I don't agree with the practical applications bit. He did work as a patent clerk, remember, so was quite familiar with the connection between practice & theory. He even invented a noiseless refrigerator, with the assistance of Leo Szillard.

Granted, he dabbled in it, and I suppose I can't say that it's impossible for him to have tried building that airplane. But he was spending most of his post-WWI time working on either early quantum mechanics or his unified field theory, and he certainly wouldn't have given the armed forces the time of day at that time.
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
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7556
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby phlip » Wed May 27, 2009 11:28 pm UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:he certainly wouldn't have given the armed forces the time of day at that time.

Well of course not... he'd already figured out relativity of simultaneity by that point, right?

Code: Select all

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

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 » Thu May 28, 2009 1:15 am UTC

VDOgamez wrote:Also, when I was about ten, I theorized that the universe was created by a singularity of a black hole in another universe, which budded and then exploded into a new universe as the big bang.
Heh, you're not alone. Read the first post; I had the exact same idea.
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.

VDOgamez
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 1:49 am UTC

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby VDOgamez » Thu May 28, 2009 2:49 am UTC

ACU-LP wrote:
VDOgamez wrote:Also, when I was about ten, I theorized that the universe was created by a singularity of a black hole in another universe, which budded and then exploded into a new universe as the big bang.
Heh, you're not alone. Read the first post; I had the exact same idea.

Looking back at your post, my idea seems to be ever so slightly differient, theorizing about the kind of wormholes and stuff that could bud off new universes...
You didn't think that I missed the first post, did you? XD

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 » Thu May 28, 2009 3:40 am UTC

VDOgamez wrote:
ACU-LP wrote:
VDOgamez wrote:Also, when I was about ten, I theorized that the universe was created by a singularity of a black hole in another universe, which budded and then exploded into a new universe as the big bang.
Heh, you're not alone. Read the first post; I had the exact same idea.
Looking back at your post, my idea seems to be ever so slightly differient, theorizing about the kind of wormholes and stuff that could bud off new universes...
You didn't think that I missed the first post, did you? XD
You'd be surprised how many do. And how many answer something on the first page of a several hundered page thread.
Indeed, you do have a good point there. Interesting....*tangentially thinks*
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
some_dude
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:33 am UTC
Location: Denmark

Re: Childhood (not so) crackpot theories

Postby some_dude » Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:22 pm UTC

When I was about 10 I made a theory to explain continental drift:
The continents are actually not connected to the Earth, they are floating. They're able to float because there are large, hollow caves in the middle of the continents they're like giant ships. The reason they move so slowly is because they're so heavy DUH
It made sense at the time :P However it also made me concerned about the continents capsizing or sinking

Later when I found out that nothing could move faster than the speed of light, but before I learned about special relativity, I thought that if you were flying in a space ship at the speed of light and turned on the headlights, it would cause a nuclear explosion because the light bulbs would be "filled up" with photons that could not escape because they couldn't move any faster than the ship


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: doogly and 8 guests