Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Ooh, a scientific theory for you all...
2012
unknownj
OK, I often make a huge fuss about idiots thinking of time as just another dimension. It isn't. The three dimensions we experience are the three spacial dimensions. The idea of others is just silly. If they existed, we'd notice. If we existed on two dimensions in a three dimensional world, things would be forever passing through our plane and would appear as things materialising and dematerialising. That simply doesn't happen, except in the heads of weirdoes and UFO fanatics (perhaps that second type is rendered redundant by the first). But let's assume, for the sake of morons, that time is just another dimension in the same way as the others. Since we can't perceive four spacial dimensions (because there exist only three), we have to knock out one of the others. Suddenly, the universe is a flat circle, and time is the line perpendicular to this plane. If you then watch the universe from day one. It starts as a point. Which, as it expands, also moves down on the time axis. At the half-way point, gravity finally kicks in and brings the universe back to a single point at the end. Now, I'd have to ask Matthew about this more, but if I'm not mistaken, then this maps the flat universe to a sphere. And if the universe were a point, it would map it to a filled circle. Thus, assuming time to be a fourth dimension, the universe could be said (or perhaps even proved) to be a four dimensional sphere. I just felt like explaining that all to you - I wrote up a large essay on that theory in my very first free period in year 12, when I was bored. Now nobody can steal it off me without me being able to prove I came up with it first (although Matthew is so far the only one I told it to who could understand it)

Anyhow.... So I managed another formula today. It was one he already knew, but I dunno if he had a decent explanation of it because he asked me to write one for him. He basically asked me to figure it out, and when (5 minutes later) I said I'd done it, he was very quick to point out that I'd left out the part at the end which corrects for the atmosphere only being 20.9% oxygen. However, I'd asked Victor if that mattered, and he'd responded in the negative, so it's not my fault. The poiunt was, however, that the way in which he corrected it suggested "Yes, you're very good, but you missed out one vital thing". Which suggests that he was impressed with what I did (and quite rightly so :o) Anyhow, basically, the formula I'm most proud of converts a readout from an instrument in Parts Per Million and a known flow level (in these experiments, always 100cc/min) into a reading of how many grams per square metre per atmosphere pressure per day permeate through a film. The formula works by first converting to a percentage of the total flow, and then to an absolute reading of how much water is permeating through. From that you convert from cc/min of water to cc/hour, then cc/day, then moles per day. You can then get to a weight measurement by knowing one mole of water weighs 18 grams. But apparently, I'm the only person capable of working out that formula. Oh, and of course, you then have to divide by the partial pressure of the moisture on the other side of the film in order to correct for different atmospheric conditions.

Anyway, enough of the silly science stuff. Boring, I'm sure (except to me)... Anyway, the above got me thinking. I appear to have some sort of knack for lateral thinking and the developing of equations to represent scientific processes. Or something. Anyway, I figure I can probably make a living out of this sort of thing, if I like. After all, I have two grade A Maths a-levels, a B in Chemistry, that ought to be enough to get me a job involving maths and chemistry. Nothing big that requires a degree, obviously (although since I'm doing that in Maths, I'm OK there anyway). Ought to start up my own business as a contractor or something. Or something......

Anyhow, I was thinking today about dividing my day up so it seems shorter. Basically, I have the following set of nice landmark times. Note, lunch occurs between 1 and 2, hence why the times don't quite work. But basically, this shows how much of my day I've completed at different times:
10:00 - 1/5
11:00 - 1/3
11:30 - 2/5
12:15 - 1/2
13:00 - 3/5
14:30 - 2/3
15:30 - 4/5
16:00 - One hour to go!
16:30 - Half an hour to go!
17:00 - Home time
Sad, I know. But that's how I get through the day - thinking "Ooh, I'm 1/3 through already, the time flew by, so the other two thirds probably will as well". Not that I don't enjoy my job - just that I'm always bloody glad to get home again :o)

Right, well, right now I'm talking to Dirk, Squiggy, Stephie and David. Fun... More later.

?

Log in

No account? Create an account