Apply liquid nitrogen to burned area
I have not read many replies on the list, I am currently engaged in experimentation, or planning it at least.
I want to respond to naita’s accusations regarding dishonesty ore fully, but the short answer is that I was reading Cahill’s paper, but had not yet go to what he was saying about Marinov’s experiment, so commenting in it or presenting something i had not read sound foolish.
And again, I only include experimental evidence out of interest, it is not really the primary thrust of my argument.
Anyway I wanted to point or that it is extremely false to say that if someone either has trouble with math, is uneducated (advanced) with math or avoids math that means they can’t be intelligent!
Are you really claiming that? Really!
Who’s being dishonest?!?!?!
BTW a google search for dyscalculia + intelligence brought up this, which i predict much raging about:
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/files/4457_anderton114.pdf
According to Dr Silbert (expert on learning disabilities)– Einstein had
dyscalculia she says: “Albert Einstein Albert Einstein is definitely one of the
famous people with dyscalculia. Somehow despite his math issues and failing
basic math in school, he created the theory of relativity and worked on the
nuclear bomb program for the U.S. Government.” [1]
Einstein did not work on the atomic bomb program. But given Einstein had
dyscalculia, some of the common symptoms are [2]:
• Normal or accelerated language acquisition: verbal, reading, writing poetic
ability. Good visual memory for the printed word. Good in the areas of science
(until a level requiring higher math skills is reached), geometry (figures with
logic not formulas), and creative arts.
• Difficulty with the abstract concepts of time and direction. Inability to recall
schedules, and sequences of past or future events. Unable to keep track of
time. May be chronically late.
• Inconsistent results in addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Poor
mental math ability.
That all seems to sum up Einstein’s theory – he messed up time as per what
a dyscalculia person would do, and he messed up addition replacing it by
“relativistic addition” [3] etc.
Read the rest from the pdf, short version, I might agree with it but I bet most won’t.
Math might be the most stereotypical/cliche intellectual skill, but show me a math genius that can beat a calculator!
Do tell! When are you planning your first FTL trip?
Certainly they can be intelligent in some ways, but they are never going to be competent to do physics or most other science.
An article based on a ridiculous urban myth doesn’t lend credence to your cause.
Einstein DID NOT fail math in school. He was an exceptional, advanced math student who was far ahead of his peers. The claim that he was anything other than terrific at math is one hundred percent false. It’s a very common urban myth and I know it’s cited in a lot of places as fact, but it is absolutely not true.
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1936731_1936743_1936758,00.html
Can you demonstrate any ability to use a calculator?
Jumpin’ Jesus on a Fucking Pogo-Stick!
You don’t even know the difference between mathematics and arithmetic :smack:
(italics mine) Congratulations, mythoughts. You’re a terrible pretend-physicist, but you’re spectacular at discovering amazing new forms of idiocy. The quote above (from a source you Googled for and didn’t bother fact-checking or considering critically) may be the stupidest thing you’ve said on this thread. I particularly like how the author cites himself: “[3] See my numerous papers on my criticisms of Einstein’s mathematics.”
We’re not mocking you because you’re bad at math. We’re mocking you because you’re a delusional, arrogant, stubborn moron who’s somehow convinced himself that he’s a physics genius despite having nothing to show for it.
Actually, scratch that: The quote above is possibly the stupidest thing you’ve said on this 16-page thread. I’m impressed at how you manage to keep finding new, brilliant ways to be a fucking idiot; it’s almost beautiful. This must be what an art historian feels if he finds an unknown Rembrandt just randomly sitting in someone’s attic. Reading this thread is like being an archaeologist of derp.
And this is where you go wrong. Experimental evidence is e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g, without it all you have is mental masturbation.
You know, I’m sitting here, revising the math test I failed this year, hating myself and everything else in the world, and I see this little gem. I challenge you to find a calculator or computer program that can solve this for y(x):
y(x)’ = sqrt(abs(y(x))) * (y(x)+1)
Or get rid of the integral here:
integral(cos(sqrt3(x))/sqrt3(x)dx)
Or here:
integral(cosh(x)*sinh(2x)dx)
Invent that calculator, and you’ll be a very, very rich man. That last one? That’s an easy question. This is third-semester math for a Bachelor’s degree for computer science. Get an education, or failing that, a life.
Is there ANY question you can answer without getting it spectacularly wrong?
Here’s an easy one, as a test: What color is the sky?
Not to pile on, but to pile on…In 1935, a rabbi in Princeton showed him a clipping of the Ripley’s column with the headline “Greatest living mathematician failed in mathematics.” Einstein laughed. “I never failed in mathematics,” he replied, correctly. “Before I was fifteen I had mastered differential and integral calculus.”
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1936731_1936743_1936758,00.html
Whatever else you can say about Einstein, two things he wasn’t: Bad at math, and modest.
The one thing that mythoughts has actually shown any expertise at is mental masturbation. Unfortunately he insists on doing it in public.
You all know what they say about wrestling with pigs, right? The pig has a good time and you wind up covered in shit.
Anyway, keep on keeping on. Sure the previous thousands of posts have failed to convince my thoughts of the error of his ways, but maybe the next one will. In fact, I’m sure of it!
Point taken; but at this point, I think we’ve all gone from trying to arguing with mythoughts to just laughing at the dumbass.
Indeed. He does seem to fill in the gap left by the demise of Larry Harmon back in 2008.
For those who are interested, Caltech has video lectures and problem sets with solutions posted online for Kip Thorne’s course on general relativity here:
http://elmer.tapir.caltech.edu/ph237/
mythoughts:
First and foremost, please don’t use me as an authority. My background is in organic chemistry, and I probably have some deep misunderstandings about a lot of this material.
Showing that Einsteinian synchronization is “wrong” doesn’t really make any sense. It’s a convention of how we set up clocks – which in turn determines our measurement of the one-way speed of light. Einsteinian synchronization declares by fiat that the one-way speed of light is equal to its two-way speed. Other synchronization schemes give different measurements for the one-way speed, but the same measurement for the two-way speed. Similarly, I can choose to do arithmetic in a number system other than base-10. There’s nothing inherently wrong or right about choosing base-16. The math is different superficially, but both calculations can be easily shown to represent the same thing.
The universe is messy and so, as you’ve noted, things like “inertial frames” and “straight lines” don’t really “exist” for practical purposes. In some sense, we’re all moving as though we were following an orbit about some very distant point. I have two things to say about this:
i. I mentioned before Selleri’s paradox. His argument was that, since linear inertial motion is equivalent to rotational motion about a point infinitely far away, we can think of all motion as being similar to the Sagnac experiment, and the forward/reverse speeds of light should be different. The resolution is that, in the limit of infinite distance, these forward and reverse speeds converge to c.
ii. I really don’t care about deviations due to the sloppiness of the universe. My field – organic chemistry – is built upon a heavily simplified version of quantum mechanics, ultimately because the math becomes impossible. Due to resting on a lot of assumptions and heuristics, there are many observations that don’t neatly fit with theory – but that doesn’t invalidate organic chemistry as a useful tool to understand a specific set of phenomena.
To be fair to you, the Sagnac experiment doesn’t make intuitive sense to me. At it’s core, the objection I can’t resolve is: how can a clock be out-of-sync with itself? I have some friends who work for NASA on various space exploration projects, and some other acquaintances in the astrophysics department at Caltech. When I get around to it, I’ll ask them for a clarification.
Finally, regarding the inverse relationship between education and number of patents held, as well as the notion that patents hold any sort of authority:
Quite simply, a lot of technical patents are bullshit. They claim to do things that they don’t, or under an overly broad set of conditions. Many are vague to the point of not making sense. Much of my job is working with our IP guys (as a chemist) to reproduce the claims of patents that butt up against our IP space, with the intention of invalidating the ones that are not reproducible. The USPTO does not verify your data, that your patented process works, or even if your experimental setup is physically realizable (because they aren’t going to try it themselves).
Nothing wrong with your thoughts. It’s his thoughts that have problems…
The other thing I should mention is that explaining why the speed of light is c, or even explaining why there is such an upper limit, is beyond the purview of SR. This lack of explanation does not invalidate SR any more than it invalidates germ theory or the theory of evolution. As many have stated, we observed that the speed of light is constant in internal frames, and SR was developed as a mathematical description of what the geometry of the universe must be like in order for this to be true.
Copy-pasted that last one into Wolfram Alpha and got an answer within 30 seconds 