# Crackpot...erm...\*unorthodox\* science theories...which forum **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 8, 2001, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/crackpot-erm-unorthodox-science-theories-which-forum/92205 "2001-11-08T15:56:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/crackpot-erm-unorthodox-science-theories-which-forum/92205/1 "2001-11-08T15:56:59Z")
If I decided to post my proof that all quarks were made up of a new sub-sub particle called peanutbutterandjellyium, or if I decided that circumcision and eating too few carrots leads to civil unrest and has prevented us from developing a unified field theory or if I felt that a number…oh, let’s 1.6180, to choose a number _completely_ at random, was proof that the soul existed and space-time donuts fell through trumpet shaped erotic hyper-vortexes… …and I wanted to “give an introduction to the hypothesis, which would set the ground work for a possible debate at a later date.” Would that go in GD or MPSIMS? I assume intent matters. If I’m posting to be silly, MPSIMS is the clear winner. But if I’m **serious**? Fenris ---
**Author:** ![Why\_A\_Duck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/13edae/32.png) [@Why\_A\_Duck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Why_A_Duck)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/crackpot-erm-unorthodox-science-theories-which-forum/92205/2 "2001-11-08T16:21:58Z")
Hmmm, who could **Fenris** possibly have in mind? Everybody: **Give me an "h"** **Give me a "i"** … ---
**Author:** ![Chez\_Guevara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/aeb1de/32.png) [@Chez\_Guevara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chez_Guevara)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/crackpot-erm-unorthodox-science-theories-which-forum/92205/3 "2001-11-08T16:24:34Z")
There are no peanutbutterandjellyium sub-sub particles in a quark. Quarks are made of marmaladium. ---
**Author:** ![stofsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dfb087/32.png) [@stofsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stofsky)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/crackpot-erm-unorthodox-science-theories-which-forum/92205/4 "2001-11-08T17:08:58Z")
Gee, Fenris, glad you posted this. I thought that the horse you were beating was dead. Guess I was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/crackpot-erm-unorthodox-science-theories-which-forum/92205/6 "2001-11-08T17:18:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stofsky \* > \*\*Gee, Fenris, glad you posted this. I thought that the horse you were beating was dead. Guess I was wrong. \*\* Evidently you were. But I’m overjoyed that my post made you glad. If I can bring just a little happiness into your life, it fills my heart with joy. **Nostradamus** : Wasn’t there a movie about a quark that was about to die or evaporate or whatever the hell they do but it had to put on a show or something? “Meson-Rouge” was the name of the film I believe. And the Quark’s theme song was Lady Marmalade. _So it all fits!_ :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Chez\_Guevara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/aeb1de/32.png) [@Chez\_Guevara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chez_Guevara)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/crackpot-erm-unorthodox-science-theories-which-forum/92205/7 "2001-11-08T18:22:21Z")
_Meson-Rouge_, the movie which pays homage to Quarks in a manner not attempted by any other film before or since, had a working title of _Muon-Rouge_. The Quark’s signature song was originally intended to be _Bleu Muon_ (b/w _Under The Muon Of Love_) but someone noticed the Rouge/Bleu paradox and they had to change things around. The problem with _Lady Marmalade_, or _La Belle Marmaladium_ as the French will insist on calling it, is the line about _mocha chocolata_. This is an oxymuon if ever I saw one. Also, _Voulez Vous Coucher Avec Moi Ce Soir_ is a line which just doesn’t work for me. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/crackpot-erm-unorthodox-science-theories-which-forum/92205/8 "2001-11-08T21:32:15Z")
Oy. 😃 As with more serious (non-crackpot) topics, Fen, it depends on how it’s phrased. **MPSIMS** : “The Voices just told me that quarks are made up of a new sub-sub particle called peanutbutterandjellyium.” **IMHO** : “Vote Here: Are quarks are made up of a new sub-sub particle called peanutbutterandjellyium?” **General Questions** : “Need quantum mechanics help–are quarks made up of a new sub-sub particle called peanutbutterandjellyium?” **Cafe Society** : “Hey, how about that _Quarks: The Sequel_? With JELLY this time!” **Great Debates** : “According to [this CNN report,](http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/News/9910/04/showbuzz/index.html#story1) quarks are made up of a new sub-sub particle called peanutbutterandjellyium, but when I closely examine the quarks in question, I can see for myself that this is not true. Anybody agree or disagree?” **BBQ Pit** : “Fucking quarks, always stuck to the roof of my mouth!” I’ll let someone else address the question of erotic hyper-vortices, as they generally involve Marshmallow Fluff, and my field of expertise extends only to PBJ. 😃 * * * Seriously? Seriously, if you wanna _debate_ it, phrase the OP so as to make it clear that you want a _debate_, a serious discussion. If you just wanna talk about it, hash it over, shoot the breeze about it, put it in MPSIMS. If you just wanna run it up the flagpole and see how many other people believe there are bullets and a bottle of suicide pills stored in the ball thingie at the top, IMHO is the place. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/crackpot-erm-unorthodox-science-theories-which-forum/92205/9 "2001-11-08T21:47:00Z")
[Quark](http://www.foodtv.com/terms/tt-r2/0,4474,2395,00.html) works well in a variety of dishes. The subparticles go well in side dishes. **Duck[sup]2[/sup] Goose** as always makes a number of salient points. Her veiled reference to _fluffer nutters_ vis-a-vis erotic hyper-vortices, however, is obviously meant to lead toward the slippery slope of secondary pornography employment arguments, and I’m not going there. **Fenris** , I am starting to think you have a thing for He Who Shall Go Nameless. Or you’re jealous. Or both. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2001, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/crackpot-erm-unorthodox-science-theories-which-forum/92205/10 "2001-11-08T21:55:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\*Oy. 😃 As with more serious (non-crackpot) topics, Fen, it depends on how it’s phrased. > > **MPSIMS** : “The Voices just told me that quarks are made up of a new sub-sub particle called peanutbutterandjellyium.”\*\* This is the one point on which we disagree. To me, this (and Hiyruu’s silliness) is Witnessing (albiet on a non-traditional topic) and goes in GD as surely as “I prayed to Ahrulman and he asked me come here and tell you about the joys of Zoroastrianism.” If the poster is kidding (ie the peanutbutterandjellyium), it goes in MPSIMS, but if they’re seriously putting forth a theory, it’s Witnessing and GD territory. Zoroaster and I eagerly await your (and the Mods/Admins) response! Fenris ---
**Author:** ![Dijon\_Warlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9a28c/32.png) [@Dijon\_Warlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dijon_Warlock)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2001, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/crackpot-erm-unorthodox-science-theories-which-forum/92205/11 "2001-11-09T10:27:04Z")
I would tend to agree with the good Mr. **Fenris** on this one. **Hiyruu’s** posts are in a sort of no-person’s-land of not quite GQ (“Is this theory accurate?”) and not quite IMHO (“I heard this theory the other day. What do the Teeming Millions think?”). He’s seriously trying to convince people of the validity of these things, yet seems to expect to get it done with no proof whatsoever. It’s rather like (no offence intended, please) literalist Christians (that **SavedByJesus** character comes to mind) insist that we should all believe them because their Bible says we should, our friend **hiyruu** seems to be of the opinion that we should all agree with him because _his_ bible (authored by Dan Winter, whoever he is) says we should. Even though it’s pseudo-science rather than religion, it still amounts to evangelizing in my book. That being said, I still read and like his threads. Partly for the humor that I know will raise its silly head, but also because I’ve always been fascinated by recursion/self-reference and its funky manifestations. The Phi ratio is so emblematic of this quality that if ever we DO find a Grand Unified Equation, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Phi show up in it somewhere. The Universe describing itself is about as self-referential as you can get, no? Plus, no one has proven **Hiyruu** _wrong_, now have they? 😃 [Loon]It’s because you CAN’T! He’s right and you’re all **WRONG!!!** Wah-aha-haha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!![/Loon] 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2001, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/crackpot-erm-unorthodox-science-theories-which-forum/92205/12 "2001-11-09T10:52:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > **Cafe Society** : “Hey, how about that _Quarks: The Sequel_? With JELLY this time!” I saw that one. It was about the cosmological implications of the “spread” of marmaladium during the creation of the universe. Except they called it **Space Jam**. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2001, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/crackpot-erm-unorthodox-science-theories-which-forum/92205/13 "2001-11-09T15:38:06Z")
Oh, okay. I was not aware that there is a Church of the Holy Huh? with Hiryuu as its High Priest. See, this is what I get for automatically hitting the Back button as soon as I see the word “ontological” in the OP. So yeah, if his posts, taken together, form a Doctrine, then I guess it’s Witnessing and we’ll just have to put up with it in GD for a while. It’ll make a nice change from remote viewing, I suppose.