Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 March 31

= March 31 =

Are UFOs possibly time travelers from the future, and is there an article about this?
I am definitely not a conspiracy theorist, and am sceptically minded. But I guess I should say up front that I do believe there is a lot more to UFO sightings than "officials" would have us believe. To the point where it seems like there is a direct campaign to discredit anyone who puts forward any theory (other than military testing and weather baloons) explaining UFO sightings as being a "crack pot." One of my pet theories is that, rather than UFOs being piloted by extraterrestrials, it is much more likely that UFOs, if they are a real phenomenon, are actually humans from the future observing past events, either in person in time-travel ships, or, more likely, remotely through devices like some sort of recording equipment. Anyway, my own interests aside, my question is...is there an article about this fringe theory?...Because there is tons of web/book sources that talk about how, instead of aliens, UFOs may very well be time travelers. If not, I'd like to write one. Searches for this on WP are hard, because it's hard to figure out how an article of this nature would be titled, so I'd also take any suggestions for an article name as well. Also, if you think it's a waste of time, I'd appreciate feedback on that as well. Thanks! Quinn CLOUDY 02:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If they are, and if you meet someone piloting one, ask them when or if the Cubs are ever going to win the World Series, so I'll know whether to bother rooting for them or not. I first heard the time-traveler hypothesis decades ago. Since there's no physical evidence whatsoever that flying saucers have ever existed, you have to be careful in writing about them. Personally, I don't know that it would merit more than a sentence in the UFO article; something like, "one hypothesis is that these craft, if they exist, might be time-travelers." I mean, what else can one say about it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would recommend you start a blog, perhaps at a service like Blogger, if you're interested in discussing this with other people. Wikipedia is definitely the wrong venue for you, because our policies require that everything you write in an article be supported by existing, notable publications, not just the speculations of editors.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, as I understand it, WP is based on verifiability and sources. So do a Google/Google Books search for "UFOs are humans from the future" and then tell me if you think this is any less relevant than the latest Pokemon character? Quinn CLOUDY  03:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never researched much about UFO's but I wouldn't be too surprised if there are reliable sources discussing this theory. I mean, we already have an article on Men in Black, Star jelly etc. The only caution is to be very careful when writing about something you believe strongly in-whether it is on UFO's or politics it can be tough to maintain a NPOV when dealing with a deeply held belief. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised if there WERE reliable sources discussing this so-called theory, since no valid source can possibly take this subject seriously, except as a cultural phenomenon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Back to your fist line - If you really "do believe there is a lot more to UFO sightings than "officials" would have us believe", then you definitely ARE a conspiracy theorist. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am a conspiracy theorist b/c the US Government has deemed it so. Do some independent research. As far as @ Qrsdogg Don't worry, I'm not pushing an agenda here.  This is just a hobby, basically stemming from years of Google Alert notifications of "UFO sightings". I know the difference between a good and bad article, and would respect any AFD that found said article to be insufficient.  My main concerns are:  Is there an article that directly deals with this, and, if not, what is a good title would be.  Maybe UFO alternate sources theories for example. Quinn CLOUDY  04:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing encyclopedic in having an article like that that assumes they exist, as there is no actual evidence that they exist. You might as well have a separate article on perpetual motion machine alternate design theories or taxonomy of pixies alternate theories. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an article called UFO, and this hypothesis maybe should be mentioned there, as it doesn't seem to be at present. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Last word from me here. Do a Google search/books for "UFOs are humans from the future" and tell me if you think sources are lacking.  Otherwise, without a goof good suggestion on what to name this article, I will go forward on creating it myself.  Thanks, Quinn CLOUDY  04:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Finding sources on any subject is easy. Finding sources that meet wikipedia standards would be another matter. It's good that you brought this up here. It's just unfortunate that you're not getting the drift. If you actually create such an article, if it presupposes the actual existence of UFO's it will probably be shot down in a New York second. Note that the MIB article never pretends that such things exist, only that their alleged existence is a cultural phenomenon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so not my last word, but what ever...Well, weirdly, I can see how this would fall under WP:CRYSTAL but anyway, assuming that there ARE sources and I AM WILLING to accept a prod or AFD (based on consensus) can we get back to what the article title should be? Alternative UFO explanations dealing with the theory I mentioned among others, or Extraterrestrial phenomenon alternate theories. That is what I am having trouble with. Quinn CLOUDY 04:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The first title is better (the second one seems as opaquely telegraphic as a news headline). I see we already have Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs, which, inevitably, "has multiple issues". For a fun challenge, you could try to make a similar page (Time travel hypothesis about UFOs) which doesn't have any issues at all. I'd be impressed if you pull it off. 81.131.17.180 (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Conspiracy theorist" really means "irrational dogmatist about conspiracies", though. I believe in conspiracies: I believe there was a conspiracy to blow up the house of lords in 1605, and another to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914. I am not, however, an obsessional nut who is determined to ignore contradictions, or to see hidden meanings where there aren't any, and this is the real implication of "conspiracy theorist", so be careful with meanings. 81.131.17.180 (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've seen the "UFOs as time-travellers" thing mentioned often enough that I don't think making an article about the idea is out of the question. The key to making it a good article would be in carefully phrasing each sentence such that it's completely clear when someone is expressing an opinion. "X claims that..." and so on. Also, make sure that you don't put words into another's mouth. While it's normally good to paraphrase, in a case like this you'd want to err on the side of the direct quote to make it clear that the article is merely repeating what was said and not providing any kind of support for any claim. If it helps, consider the phenomenon the same as you would a popular fiction and write things with the same kind of "distance". Matt Deres (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

perhaps writing the article first would suggest it's own title. Might save a lot of agonising.190.56.16.226 (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Especially if he writes it as a sub-page to his own user page. Then he could call it "article 51" or whatever sequence number, and seek input on it, hopefully avoiding the fast deletion that an article might trigger. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If your hypothesis were true, wouldn't you expect UFO sightings to take place near major historical events rather near drunk people in fields? --Tango (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That issue was also raised long ago, when the demographics of UFO reports (especially stories of abductions) began to display a pattern. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not really up to us do decide whether the hypothesis has merit (I mean, here we do, but this question is from the POV of writing an article), only to decide if it is sufficiently notable. We have articles about lots of things that are utter rubbish or simply conspiracy theories of questionable factual merit. Matt Deres (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, as with your cited example, which states the notion and then promptly debunks it. Using a similar approach, the OP's so-called "theory" (which is really just a hypothesis) could be stated, and then it would be easy to find sources that point out that (1) there is no physical evidence that flying saucers exist or have ever existed; (2) there is no evidence that backwards time travel has ever occurred or even could occur. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Those first two are good points. It might also be good to note that current theories of backwards time travel require some kind of exit ("time machine") to already exist at the destination, implying that future development of the technology wouldn't lead to a hoard of time tourists. The last point, "no evidence that it could occur", perplexes me because I don't think that's a fair thing to demand: no theories rest on it, and consequently I can't even tell what kind of evidence it would be. You might follow the line of argument of Russel's teapot and say the theory of time travel is no good unless it shows us how to test for the possibility; but I'm not sure this applies to the existence of possibilities, rather than entities - it seems very negative to have a rule against needlessly multiplying possibilities - anything is possible (if it isn't ruled out by the laws of physics). 81.131.42.140 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stephen Hawking said it well: Time is a vector. Here's the thing: If you start inventing backwards time travel, you have to start considering all the possible paradoxes. Just like the guys who invented the crystalline spheres had to do. Eventually it becomes clear that the paradoxes are there because the concept defies the laws of physics. But you're right that such a hypotheses has to be tested... somehow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why far-out hypotheses about Time travel and spaceships could not be added at Time travel. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would have to state that it has been proven there is absolutely no concrete evidence about time travel being possible at all. Lemon_martini (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2392 (UTC)
 * That is not what the OP is asking, though. In any case, many years ago there was no concrete evidence that human travel through the air was possible, but that didn't stop Da Vinci from designing a helicopter. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  16:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Are there any 24-hour coffee shops and libraries within 10 miles of 66502?
In case anyone falls homeless, it would be a good idea to know some 24-hour locales. At least there, one could use a pre-paid smartphone (or a paid-for laptop) to search for any money-making opportunities through the locale's wi-fi network. Thanks. --70.179.169.115 (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming you mean Linwood, Kansas, typing "Coffee shop Linwood Kansas" into google gets me this. You can search through to see what is availible: .  -- Jayron  32  12:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's 66052. You transposed the numbers around. I mean Manhattan, Kansas. Besides, would a coffeeshop search be able to narrow them down by hours of operation? --98.190.13.3 (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than a paid-for laptop, you could get a Kindle and get the free internet. Matt Deres (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Although it's a pretty inefficient way to search for money-making opportunities. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If your main purpose is to find advertised ways to make money, this might help. The ad. read   (Send only $20.95 and I will send you details of a proven way to make $5000. per week) After sending his money Joe received the valuable information and it said "Do as I do"190.56.16.226 (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that ad sound like a scam? --98.190.13.3 (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Total Euros minted
If you were to take every single Euro coin and note that have been minted how much would you have, a question my son asked me and I haven't a clue maybe someone here might be able to tell me the answer. Mo ainm ~Talk  15:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the tables published by the European Central Bank (who I gather is in charge of the EU money supply), it's around 820 billion Euros in notes and a little over 22 billion in coins as of February 2011 (and this is out of 13.5 billion total notes, and 93 billion total coins). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the USA at least, most of the monetary notes produced by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing are actually replacement bills for worn-out bills returned via the Federal Reserve banks. Are worn-out Euros replaced in some similar fashion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. If you fish around on that page, you can find links to statistical databases that give the numbers for how many are "sorted to unfit" each year and removed from circulation. Presumably that is taken into account when the total value of Euros in circulation is cited. The one thing that makes me wary about the statistics is the linear growth of bills in circulation — it strikes me as quite steep, which might imply they aren't registering removed notes. But I'm not an economist, so I could just be suspicious about nothing. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that, in the modern economy, actual printed currency notes and stamped coins represent such a small portion of the actual money supply that most central banks place little importance on their numbers. Actual monetary policy is based on the amount of total money in the system, which mostly exists as entries in computer ledgers indicating transfers and holdings of money, not in actual printed cash.  When a central bank wants to "print more money" in order to affect the economy, they don't actually print more cash; they simply lower the interest they charge on loaning money to other banks; this loaned money is "created out of whole cloth" essentially, so THAT is the source of new money in the money supply.  Printed money is a convenient way for some customers to represent some of their wealth, so it is still used, but it is more a representation of wealth than any actual source of wealth itself.  Certainly, the number of actual bills in circulation has some importance, but not as much as most people assume.  Bills aren't printed for economic reasons, they are printed for pragmatic ones.  Basically, they are printed as they are needed, not to provide any change to monetary policy.  -- Jayron  32  21:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Something from Econ 101, the "multiplier effect". Each dollar spent creates multiple dollars in the money supply. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Spending money doesn't create a multiplier effect. It's lending money that does that. --Tango (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not what the econ teacher said, but maybe the theory has changed since then. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are both right - see fiscal multiplier (spending) and money multiplier (lending). Gandalf61 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I read some of those 'cites'. Quite enlightening but not comforting. It sounds like central banks loan a representation (numbers on documents) of wealth that does not yet exist to banks which then loan a representation of that representation to corporations who then pay their employees a representation of the corporation's representation. the employee then spends his representation in a store which accepts the representaion of a representation of a representation of a representatio of a representation from the central bank of wealth that didn't exist in the first place. Did I get it right?190.56.17.226 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not quite. "Wealth" is not the same thing as "money", and what the central bank is loaning is "money". --Carnildo (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I've got it now. Money is not wealth. Only a representation of wealth. I just checked my entry again and I think I typed representation one too many times. I'll have to recalculate.190.56.17.226 (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * First: Congratulations on discovering capitalism.  But seriously, you miss the point.  It usually takes capital to create capital; if you don't have the capital to begin with, it's hard to create more.  So:  The bank loans a million (mostly previously non-existent) dollars to someone who starts a business.  That person makes a 15% profit and repays the bank with 5% interest from out of the profit.  The million dollar loan (money that didn't exist, except as a small percentage of reserve requirement) now exists as actual $50,000 interest paid to the bank, and $100,000 profits made (after subtracting the interest) by the business.  So, yes, money is created out of thin air in the dual ledgers of financial institutions -- but the previously non-existent money creates real money in the form of profit and interest ... and eventually creates more by further multipliers (e.g., wages and consumption), minus defaults.63.17.37.103 (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Trivia question! What’s the sum total of one each of all the euro coin and note denominations?
 * Bonus question: Where might this be considered something special?
 * DOR (HK) (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea but I'm curious about the answer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The answers are €888.88 (because of the simple pattern of the denominations), and presumably China. 130.88.134.221 (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You forgot to include the €100,000 commemorative gold coin that Austria made. Googlemeister (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a more useful subtitle. StuRat (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Toy cars that are "powered" by inertia?
Some toy cars have a sort of "ultra-inertia" going on, whereby if you push them, you encounter high rolling resistance, but after you let go, the car continues going by itself longer than it would have, due to some mechanism or other attached to the wheels. It often makes a "quiet motor" sound. What are these toys called? (I'm not talking about cars that power up by being pulled backwards, but rather ones that are normally pushed forwards.) ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 19:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I remember these from my childhood. In Britain at least, they were called "push and go" cars. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also known as Friction motors - yes, we have an article! AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I used to have toy motorcycle that worked by this principle, but the fly wheel also acted as a gyroscope, keeping the motorcycle upright, one of my favorites for a time. -- Daniel 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not rolling resistance that you feel, it is the inertia of the internal flywheel. The mechanism is a step-up gear train that converts each wheel rotation into many rotations of the flywheel in order to store large kinetic energy in a small space. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a picture of a friction motor here. For sale at £2.75 each! AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Back when Kinder Surprises had good toys, there was a fairly common one that was a kit to make your own tiny friction-powered car. It was the best toy ever, and we were always trying to get it. Without any explanation, you could easily see/feel the basic principles of how it worked. I wish they did such awesome toys now, rather than solid models of comedy penguins or whatever. 86.164.73.72 (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for the replies! ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 23:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See related, Pullback motor - 220.101 User talk:220.101.28.25\ 19:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If I were a time traveler...
If I were a time traveler trapped in the US just before the Stock Market Crash of 1929, and I knew that the crash was coming, what would be the best stock to invest in that would guarantee that I would not lose my money when the crash occurs? I'm thinking maybe buying land would work, or possibly gold or silver, though I'm not sure when the gold/silver standards were discarded... Corvus cornix talk  23:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough, the best thing for you to do with your money might well be to keep it in the form of cash. (But don't put it in a bank!!!) The stock market crash was followed by several years of steady deflation, so as time goes on, your money buys more and more. Looie496 (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this and other articles, gold mining stocks were ... ummm ... a gold mine. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the best things to have done would have been to leave it where it was and ride it out. Things would have sucked for a few decades, but if you left in in the market, in 30 years you would have doubled your money, and in 35 years you'd have quadrupled it.  Those aren't bad returns.  As long as you had no pressing need for that cash during, say the 1930's and early 1940's, you'd have more than made it back eventually.  See .  -- Jayron  32  02:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "in 35 years you'd have quadrupled it" -- wow, a 4.04% annualized return, minus a 1.69% annualized inflation rate (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt) -- a real return of 2.35% annualized! I'm rich!63.17.37.103 (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do on Oct. 23, 1929, would be to short-sell everything. Also, here is a discussion of companies and industries that did well during the Depression. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be a bummer if the actions of the time-traveler turned out to have triggered the stock market crash. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well true, but then not doing it would alter the future into who knows what. Googlemeister (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Would anyone notice? There is an episode of The Simpsons in which Lisa has her future predicted by a fortune teller. Lisa asks whether now that she knows her future, Can she change it?. The teller replies No, but try to look surprised when it happens. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That was the plot of a short story. Can't recall who wrote it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right Jayron32,  eventually . Anyone who bought stocks in mid-1929 and held onto them saw most of his or her adult life pass by before getting back to even. The time travelling OP can enjoy spending their money now, then travel back in time and steal back their own money. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep it in cash, I would advocate you do so in quarters as they were silver back then and worth a fair amount now, especially if they are in tip top condition. Googlemeister (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Physical money didn't do to badly: American history isn't my strongpoint, but apparently there was about 28% total deflation during the period, a 39% is the real-terms value of the dollar. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Those numbers are accurate from October 1929 through May of 1933 -- less than four years - after which (THANKFULLY) inflation re-commenced. But you're right -- cash from 10/29 to 3/33 (when it first hit its peak, lasting a couple months) had an annualized "return" of 9.72% ... better than going bankrupt, but hardly exciting.63.17.37.103 (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Better than currency would be putting your money in U.S. Treasury notes, since they paid positive (though low) interest and the Treasury never defaulted. Then, when the market bottoms out in 1933, you can put everything in IBM.   John M Baker (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, all of this would assume you took back vast amounts of period currency with you in your time machine, as your modern US$ would be unusable (and would possibly get you arrested for counterfeiting). You'd need quite a few suitcases if you really wanted to make any money from this deal. It would be hard to get that much in modern times - banks don't stock it anymore, so you'd need to go to collectors of old currency. This will probably cost you a lot in the first place. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  15:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Better would be to take back human made gemstones that would not be detectable as unnatural with the technology of the day. Googlemeister (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)