LtBadd wrote:Rupes wrote:Let me finish reading
Then I'm going to give this a crack and build one. Then I'll check out this space time thing.
send me the Cliffs notes
+1 Send them to me too.
It is currently Sat Apr 29, 2017 9:18 pm Advanced search
Rupes wrote:I'm going to use this to go back in time to tell my past self its not worth reading the 86 page manual which came with the welder I just bought. Actually wait a minute, if I don't read it, I won't need to build a time machine and then I won't end up going back to ... f$#ken causal paradoxes
Better send the notes first eh
Otto Nobedder wrote:Most people see Einstein through a mythology. He was not a super-genius like the characters on "The Big Bang Theory" or "Scorpion". There are similar I.Q.s to his here on this forum. I think he was in the 140's, which is still considered "genius" on that bell curve.
His talent was in seeing the numbers when he'd do thought experiments. I don't see the numbers when I think through issues like General or Special Relativity. They are secondary to me. I see the visual representations in my mind of what I perceive to be happening, then compare them to the provable and/or accepted facts, and adjust accordingly.
I have no way to express, mathematically, the theory I put up. Math is something I am good at in a technical sense, meaning I can make it work for me solving problems I can put my hands on. Math is not something I can use in an abstract sense, to explain an idea.
... and I could be completely wrong. I've just never seen physics explored from this angle, which I find odd since it seems obvious to me that one should not simply assume the nature of something so intangible as space-time.