Random Science Talk

Science!
41
As far as I recall, I had a ton of memories. Some of them were even from when I was like 2 years old. The only problem is that they become more vague overtime.
I wonder if we could possibly fix those issues with the brain being more defective with aging. Maybe if we could either genetically modify the brain to make it able to grow and mature again or shoot it with a ton of stem cells via the blood circulation to make it re-gen itself.
42

A big part is exercise. How often do you try to calculate sums larger than 10 by head? Now, how often have you done that as a kid?

1 Like
43

As a kid, I didn’t need practice. I was just really fast.

Sums larger than 10? Really often. I do it very well. I was talking about very large calculations, including complex ones (e.g. calculus).
And it’s not just calculation I suppose. When I was a child, I was always lucid. Now, sometimes, I feel like I’m aware without being aware. I feel like some zones in my brain can’t be accessed and feel heavier than the rest of the brain. Though, it’s not a physical sensation, it’s really a mental sensation. I’ve had it since I turned 15.
When I turned 16, I felt like something changed. Something in my head. I didn’t know what it was. But I knew there was something. The same sensation re-appeared days later. All I suppose is that it may have been related to brain maturation or growth.
44

And how do you know that? Because you did it often. There’s no way in hell a teacher will accept ‘no I’m just so smart that I don’t need practice’ as excuse for why you didn’t do your homework. Also, I feel like you did not do complex calculations often before your 16th year.

Yeah that’s called depression my dude. Either that, or a heavy lack of sleep. (Which can come from depression.)

45
Never said I didn’t practice. Just said I didn’t need so much.
And holy belgium, I didn’t know I was depressive! damn — [blackjacksike.exe stopped working…]
46

Yeah don’t take the word of a smartass remark based purely on 1 line of text explaining that you’re having cognitive dissonance as the word of a psychologist. But what I do know, is that it ain’t healthy.

1 Like
47
First off, would you kindly talk less rudely? I didn’t want to sound offensive or narcissistic and I didn’t know I sounded that way. I’m sorry if I sounded like that, but please don’t talk too rudely such as using the word ‘smartass’ when it comes to talk about/to someone.
Also, I know I can suddenly and consistantly change from one idea to another (cognitive dissonance), but what does it have to do with depression? I was just surprised to learn that I might have depression.

Sorry if I sounded offensive.

48

You realize I was talking about myself right?

1 Like
49

Wait a minute, what?

Update: Oh, now I understand. I thought that ‘smartass’ was linked to ‘remark’.

I just misunderstood you, sorry.

50

anyone ever think about complex numbers in the context of special relativity? i’ve heard imaginary numbers and tachyons are a sign of an unstable theory, but if they actually existed, yk. there are very few resources on special relativity and complex numbers, so if anyone is a physics major or can point me in the direction of a cool video essay on how particles with a mass of i would work or something, that’d be great.

51

Others may post stuff about what they hear on the internet here, but I’ll just use it to relay my thought processes:

So, lets start with time dilation, the basic idea is that as you speed up, your time slows down, right? Some physicists say this would allow time travel if you went beyond the speed of light, but, in reality, it will just make the time of the traveler go backwards, this does not mean they will go all the way back to being a child, but, instead simply act in a way so that if nothing effects it from the outside (assuming it stops going faster than light) than all particles will eventually reach the same points and be traveling at the same speed as before the FTL jump. If you have any arguments against this let me know.

Next, particle physics. So, quarks, are weird. They have the habit of popping in and out of existence, in fact, in a proton or neutron, the number of quarks only averages at 3, meaning there can be 2, 4, 5, 6, etc, but, and your probably thinking this, wouldn’t that chance what type of particle that proton is? Yes actually, and it would account for atomic decay, why it only happens in larger atoms, and why it only deems to decay in 1 direction. The basic mechanism of this is that a neutron in an atom will switch to a proton, which will eject another proton out of the atom, causing atomic decay. Another thing quarks random appearance and disappearance could explain is why stuff keeps randomly appearing in most true vacuums, since the idea is, when 2 quarks get to close, they spawn 1 or 2 more, making protons or neutrons, which then catch electrons which also apparently spawn in the void and pop in and out of existence and act differently when observed. But yea, please let me know your thoughts on my idea in a reply to this post.

2 Likes
52

Some time ago I was talking to a friend and I asked him about something I saw in a meme and we kind of ended up destroying the wormhole theory with thermodynamics. Yes.

53

So, another idea I had a few days ago, but, what if black holes have a limit to how much they can hold, and by that, I mean, what if when a black hole gains enough mass it just, well, explodes, essentially recreating the big bang, It’s a dense wave of particles going at or near the speed of light destroying everything in it’s path, meaning that no information can be sent out, because the wall is moving at the speed of light, and no information can get in, because it would be scrambled as it tried to enter the wall, according to this idea the universe has always existed, just as reoccurring events, where eventually a black hole reaches it’s upper limit, and the reset button is pressed. Leave your thoughts on this bellow.

54

Any math backing that up? Or hinting at it?

55

Just thoughts, I’m not that good at making up equations, just spouting ideas based off of what I know, but don’t discredit me because of it, I mean, Steven Hawking didn’t use any equations in his original theories, I’m just applying what I know or hear or see to what could be.

56

Steven Hawking did use equations, that was pretty much his job…

The only reason that they aren’t shown to the great public is because it’s extremely complex algebra.

1 Like
57

I was talking about in his original theories, from when he could walk and somewhat talk, not the later ones, the exact equations were added afterward.

58

Two issues: From what I know larger black holes are more stable. Black holes do explode under Hawking’s math, but when they’re small, not large. Idk maybe you’re theorizing about an unrelated cause of explosion but I’ve never heard of that cause so I’d assume you’d need some more evidence or something
Second: the big bang wasn’t a gravitational singularity exploding per se, in fact we really don’t know, as our reverse-predictions don’t end with an explotion or clear event, the big bang is just the point we can’t see before, all the CMBH is from the big bang and not before. Under things like string theory and, I dunno are there even any other grand unified theories (jkjk I know there are I’m just too lazy to remember any)? Well, those have mathematically predictable things but I don’t think those are gravitational singularities.
So anyways idk maybe. I’m not smart enough to tell.

1 Like
59

Any fans of sci-fi classics here

60

Does Speaker for the dead count? I don’t like Heinlein but starship troopers is good.