Mechanics Revolutionized? (Spoiler: Nope)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июн 2024
- To try everything Brilliant has to offer for free for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Martymer81. You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Here's a guy who has an idea that, if it holds up, will completely revolutionize mechanics, including our understanding of gravity. Naturally, it's a big fat case of Dunning-Kruger.
His video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HwKr...
This video was sponsored by Brilliant.
My Patreon: / martymer81
If you don't like Patreon, you can also make donations to martymer81(at)gmail.com via Paypal!
My Twitter: @MartymerM81
To try everything Brilliant has to offer for free for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Martymer81. You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
17:09:000 18:35:000 if anyone wants to submit to SponsorBlock. My browser is janky right now
Respect to him, he's re-enacting the early history of scientific enquiry completely alone. Give him a few hundred years and he'll catch up to modern science.
Fluidic space? That's where species 8472 comes from!
Honestly, I respect him in this regard: science ignorance is far more forgivable than science denial. I appreciate the curiosity at least.
Excellent video as always!
It remains to be seen if it's curiosity or ego. And to borrow a quote from AronRa: ignorance isn't just what you don't know, it's also what you _won't_ know. Deepak Chopra also uses his accent as a substitute for _having a damn clue about anything._ Flip a coin; I say it's even odds this guy went "Ooh, I can do that too!"
@@EdwardHowton True. But if it is curiosity, then we can only hope that he's guided in the right direction to learn before charlatans abuse it for their purposes.
@@MurraySince79curiosity without intelligence is a recipe for disaster.
@@bipolarminddroppings I only slightly disagree: curiosity without proper guidance, in my opinion, is more disastrous. I just think he needs a better opportunity for a formal education, depending on where he lives.
@@MurraySince79 extreme example to illustrate my point:
A chimp is both curious and just smart enough to be shown how to use a soldering iron, but dumb enough for it to be dangerous all the same.
Sounds,to me, that he has "discovered" the aether.
Sounds to me like I need the number of his dealer.
The word that, sadly, comes to mind is 'pathetic'
In it's proper sense...
Took the words out of my mouth.
You get enthusiastic revolutionaries like this in a lot of fields. It's a bit of a recurring theme in a forum I'm in relating to data compression - every one and then someone comes in with a revolutionary new idea. Sometimes their revolutionary new idea is something which can be mathematically proven to be impossible. I've come up with a few ideas such myself, but I know enough to set up proper testing and so far the most any have achieved is to very slightly enhance existing algorithms while doubling the CPU usage. Most fields now have reached the stage of maturity where the lone genius just isn't going to be enough to make an advance - you need a whole team.
🤗❤ So true and so well said. 🤗
Exactly 💯
It’s like UHarc - a few percent more compression in exchange for ridiculous decompression times.
@@magicmulder Most of my ideas involved preprocessors intended to enhance the performance of other compressors. And my ideas work... ish. Just only very, very slightly, and only when paired with compression algorithms that are already obsolete.
Re: about 7:40, the topic of quantum mechanics appearing late in curriculum; the physics course at the college I went to that taught the very basics of quantum physics had 3 semesters of calculus and two of physics as prerequisites for it. With the exception of electron spin, which was brought up once during the lecture about the magnetic force, the first full year of physics lectures is based entirely on classical mechanics. If it takes that much education to be able to _learn_ the very basics of the field, it's incredibly short-sighted to claim to be able to teach it with even less experience
Depends on which level the students are going to be taught quantum mechanics, high school, university etc. Each level will have a different requirement. The teachers of highscool don't need the same education level and degree like a university teacher to teach what the students are ment to take from the class.
The problem is when the teachers have less education into the subject than the class they're supposed to teach.
A highscool teacher not being equivalent to a university teacher isn't a negative to the highscool teacher. But a highscool teacher not matching the standard requirements for a fully educated highscool teacher is a great negative to that teacher. 💁♂️
west peak of mount dunning-kruger
ok, i am so going to steal that, that's amazing
To solve the schrodinger equation, do the following: ank your 4th dimension frequency to the 5th dimension frequency. Once you reach that singularity at the precision of the equinox you are able to excess the akasha records, finding all information there. To come back you have to activate your merkaba.
Terrence Howard said you need to half the octave and it will double each time until you achieve perfect tangential flight.
I just cross-referenced this with the napkin scribblings of Thoth and as long as your wavelengths harmonize with your spiritual frequency, you can feed leftover Arby's to your cat.
@@rafetizer mine won't do take out...🐱 chefs are so expensive these days...😭
What kind of essential oils and crystals would I need for that?
Nah! I just use flower of life. It solves everything.
He might misunderstand physics, but I admire his enthusiasm. I hope he takes that and studies properly.
Unfortunately, it's very apparent that he already thinks that he understands everything perfectly, far better than all of those "experts". So he won't bother to study.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 That all depends on if he'll listen to people telling him that he doesn't understand and needs to study more.
@@Scarletpooky I would be _very_ surprised if he indeed does listen. According to my experience, about 99% of these people with "alternative theories" don't ever listen when you correct them and point out that they need to learn more.
I kind of get where these "I have a new idea that will revolutionise X field" people are coming from. I read a lot of stuff about QED a few years back. It really piqued my interest. I don't have the maths to fully understand everything, but I can understand the concepts and follow the conclusions if the maths is laid out for me. Anyway, I thought I'd found something that all the best physicists had missed. It seemed to make perfect sense, and might even be the beginning of a possible explanation for dark energy... and of course, when I asked a real expert they were able to point out why it was not correct. I had misunderstood a tiny piece of the puzzle, but one that was very, very relevant to my idea. But for that couple of days when I thought I had something, it felt great. Of course, I accepted it when somebody with greater knowledge showed me my mistake, whereas some people will just double down. But I can kind of see why they do it.
Still, I'd rather be correct than hold on to that excitement. And I learned a lot from that mistake.
I should mention, I know that have a layman's understanding. Even when I thought I had found something new, I was aware that the chances of that being true were small.
"Of course, I accepted it when somebody with greater knowledge showed me my mistake, whereas some people will just double down."
Not only "some people" - in my experience, _most_ people will refuse to accept that it might be them who are wrong, not the thousands of experts. Lots of people are incredibly full of themselves. :/
Kudos to you for accepting the correction. :)
It is the mistakes we often learn the most from, and that make us "grow" - if we can accept the "failure" and try to be better the next time.
I’m kinda curious what your idea was.
At least I can respect his attempt at understanding the world instead of shrugging and going "god dun it". What he lacks can be resolved by a several years at a proper university to give him the knowledge base to build off of.
Unfortunately, it's very apparent that he already thinks that he understands everything perfectly, far better than all of those "experts". So he won't bother to study.
An Aquarium Filled With Water and HydroGel Beads. I thought it was Ice at first. lol
For a moment, I thought this would be another smackdown of Terryology, but this is alright, too 👍
Another good resource is MIT's Open Courseware. This is basically entire semesters of courses recorded and available for anyone to watch. Definitely worth checking out.
Harsh, but honest review of that person's ideas.
This is science at work.
Now I hope that that person has the humility and foresight to take this as an opportunity to educate himself further and in small steps understand what he tried to do better.
Without Professional Physics Educators How Would We.... Help me out here Folks, I'm drawing a Blank. XD
Fiiiine Martymer..... you're useful enough for us to keep you around a while longer.
My degree is in stage art and has nothing to do with physics. But at the theatre academy they told us something that feels fitting in this context.
“It is ok to break the rules. But you have to know the rules before you break them”
11:52 _"You are NOT prepared!"_
Your honesty is really admirable, Martymer, and you are kind to share what you have learned. To the aspiring scientist: your fervor is admirable, too.
When I was first reading (and watching documentaries, series, RUclips videos...) about QM, I was rather concerned that the concept of the tiny size of the subatomic particles _didn't_ freak me out. There were famous physicists saying that they couldn't imagine it, that trying to picture it screwed with their minds, but I could.
Initially I thought it might have something to do with my synaesthesia. I "see" what I hear, usually music but not always, so I guessed that my "third eye" (it's how I describe where I "see" sounds) was making it up to "help". Whereas I cannot prove that to be untrue, I eventually realised that I just didn't understand enough to _be_ freaked out!
Sometimes you just need to realise what you truly understand and what you don't. General rule of thumb - if you think you understand something declared to be difficult without such difficulty, you're either a greater than Einstein genius, or you completely missed the point. Chances are, it's the latter.
if the fluid had 0 viscosity i think orbits world work.
It's like watching Howard playing a role of himself. Only this guy can do math. But the "space is filled with pressure" stuff, etc... spot on.
To be fair, most people wouldn't benefit from advanced science education. Also, there are "lay scientists" and "lay engineers" that are brilliant. But for every brilliant one, there are many more like the man in the video.
"You may have learned about this fact and this fact and you have developed a model that fits those three, but what about all those facts over here?"
That's the same issue the flat earth community has. They don't seem to try and figure out how their model would actually work; instead they just focus on objections and work out models that "defuse" those particular objections. As a result, they have 30 different partial models, each addressing a different objection, but those all don't work together as a coherent whole that covers all the facts at the same time.
Honestly, when I listen to some debunking videos it’s humbling to understand how little I do know, despite not worst of educations.
And it’s sad that people who knows less than me try to pretend like they know more than professionals or experts.
I think it's possible for someone without a formal education to contribute to a field.
For example, a friend of mine used to volunteer at archeological digs.
Another example is back when I was in school a group of astronomers had set up a website where anyone could analyze images from a dataset looking for exoplanets.
Awesome, another Terrence Howard. Just what we needed.
"This video is no available anymore"
The author of the mentioned book, "A saucerful of science", apparently also is not a real physicist - he describes himself as an "independent researcher", apparently is not employed at any university, and I can't find anything about his actual education. So that he mentioned someone in his book is not a good recommendation at all. :D
@16:40, you really wanted to say "Dumb it down" but managed to hold it in in case anyone thought you were insulting them. 😂
Did he… Yeah. He did. He re-invented the luminiferous æther theory.
1. FWIIIIIIIIIING, goes most of this, right over my head. Sigh...at least I can LAUGH at how ignorant I am. I don't have a problem with his accent, but if he could get a WORSE mic, that would be "great."
2. I DON'T know anything about GR or QM, soooooo...why are they irreconcilable? Like, okay, I don't know, if you can't make them f*ck and have a baby together, can you at least make them kiss? If not, why not? THIS IS HOW LITTLE I KNOW.
3. Wait, is he implying that all motion takes place in liquid? That's demonstrably false. Or am I misunderstanding him?
4. Hm, I dunno: people discover shit y accident all the time. The Europeans stumbling on the continent I'm currently squatting on, the dude who invented potato chips, you know, cool stuff. CAN YOU stumble your way into something new in such a mathematically inclined field, though? Because two and two will never equal anything but four. You can't play with that. Which, by the way, is why I don't like math. It's either right or it's not, while, in the fields in which I'm most adept, if the answer isn't A, don't present the false dichotomy of "A or B," or of "A or not A." Be SMART enough, that's all, to find C, D, E, F, G.
5. POLITICS, speaking of which...you're right; a nation benefits from having a well-educated populace, BUT the wealthy do not. If we as a body get smart enough to self-govern, we will eventually sweep away the privileged castes and have Distributivism, if not outright Collectivism or Anarchy. The good kind of Anarchy. Read Noam Chomsky if you have any interest in poly-sci, but I have NO idea what you political inclinations are.
6. Snort, GREAT transition into the ad. Ciao, bella; I never stick around for this part.
You talking about education around 16:20 struck me with a question; Marty (if you don't mind my asking) how late do you think is too late to study physics/science academically? I'm 31 (with a Law BA) and I'm in a place I don't find great. Education is potentially open to me but I'm worried that starting into science now with science education up to the age of 15 (not counting the hobby science interests like Kerbal, though 4000 hours of crashing Kerbals at least shows interest if not incompetence..). I guess I'm writing this more as a way to express my fear than actually worrying if it'll work or not.
Its never too late. You'll contribute regardless - first to yourself, then to others. You'll learn more about how the world works to start, then you'll help some projects somewhere get to where they're going.
@@etch-e-sketch4051 Thanks :D It's not even about contributing to some groundbreaking thing, I'd be happy just being in the science sphere being a regular Joe. I'm just scared that the space is so... rigid/competitive/intense that if you don't start early you're on a practical level not really going to make a career out of it (like how for music you need to start REAAAAL early)
@@Bridgeru Yeah, I feel you. But I think it's important to point out that all of the groundbreaking stuff comes off the back of thousands and thousands of man hours of the 'regular joe' folks just adding bits and pieces to the pile of human knowledge, ya know?
"West peak ..."
Gonna steal that term, and use it without explanation whenever anyone says a stupid.
@2:17
I am the person described here, except, I am painfully aware of how little I know, and how much there is that I don't know. And the ass of it is, I do _not know_ how to go about rectifying this.
About 18 months-2 years ago, I accidentally epiphan..ied my way into suddenly "understanding" a simplistic but, I worry, unfalsifiable (I'm too ignorant to know how to falsify it), conceptual framework for the universe, that for me made "sense" of the following:
The 'beginning' of the universe
The 'heat death' of the universe
The continuous expansion of the universe
Why we can't accelerate things beyond a certain point
Why an accelerated thing would necessarily gain mass
Time dilation being a thing
Decay existing
Black holes dissipating ostensibly via radiation
And, in my attempts to undo the effects that this epiphany had upon my "understanding" of the universe, I tried to come up with some "prediction" of something that I believe should occur within this 'framework', and fully anticipated I'd discover something that would break it, allowing me to get on with enjoying popular lay people science shows and armchair philosophy, like I used to.
I failed. I discovered the 'thing' I tried to test my simplistic stupidity with, is a thing, it has a name, zero-point energy. I was specifically hoping to find that my idea about what I would expect to find at the extremes of the small / cold of known reality were face palmingly backwards. Apparently not.
And I genuinely don't know how to proceed. I have no higher education, I'm not remotely capable with maths, and I am very aware that I could easily end up confirmation biasing my ass into believing I'm a god damned genius, start up my own RUclips channel, and confidently spew my wooey, horse crap "science" explanation for all of reality, a fate I wish to avoid.
In all seriousness though, I have been genuinely distressed by this. I don't even know what questions I could ask to allow me fix it.
Well, I have two questions but I don't think they can help, I don't know enough to understand why the answers make sense.
Why is it even a question that the expansion of the universe is a thing? I honestly do not understand why this isn't what is expected, or why anyone would expect anything different.
Why is "gravity" a question, or problem quantum physics is trying to solve? I don't understand how those two things are connected, or why they're supposed to be connected. It's like my brain translates this as something like the idea of trying to figure out the nature of oxygen, or hydrogen atoms, using 'monsoon theory', based on how well the behavior of water in the atmosphere, relating to weather patterns, is understood.
Like, yeah . But no. It doesn't apply to individual oxygen atoms.
And I can't seem to find appropriately dumbed down explanations.
If you've read this far, I'm sorry about your lack of interesting things to experience in life...
If anyone knows of a way I can fix my brain, that isn't simply suggesting I learn all of maths and physics... I literally am not capable, try as I do, and I do try, you would legitimately be helping a fellow human in genuine distress.
Hi Marty
@6:41 That's demon script right there! Marty tryna summon Beelzboob or Mefrisco! Math is numbers and letters, who you tryin to fool?!
The Great Courses have a lot of lecture series on the principles and history of mathematics, physics, science, etc
Literally in all nations you have to pay for your education yourself.
Sure some of that money comes from people who don't get a higher education but it is presumed that with a higher education you will be earning more money than uneducated people and thus you are likely to pay more for your education (in taxes) than those people who didn't get the benefits from it.
Maybe there's a lot more uneducated people than those with college education and in that case you could say that the people who get the benefit of higher income from education have been given that priviledge mostly by the people with lower income who do not get the benefits.
Actually I would like to see the percentage breakdown for different countries on how much of your education you pay for yourself and how much is paid by the lower income people who didn't get the benefit of education.
> with a higher education you will be earning more
Citation needed. Yes, a college education gives more employment opportunities. But in most countries, say, theoretical physicists or professional mathematicians by and large make a pittance compared to people who go into business or industry (depends on the industry tho). So the most highly educated people usually earn actually significantly less.
This is so naive way of thinking.
In Germany education is free as in some other countries too.
@@ExtremeMadnessX Naive in what way? Which part?
@@frankvomberg6628 I mean ... it's free where I live too. That doesn't mean I won't be paying for it for the rest of my productive life.
When something is free you still need to ask who's paying for it (and are they getting a good deal)
This is why local free public libraries are vital.
Gotta tell ya marty. Stress the importance of calculus cuz it never made sense till i took physics in college.
C'mon Marty! He's TRYING, bless his heart :P
The problem with many autodidacts IMO is that they tend to have very little or no idea about the things they might NOT know. Not that they can't be very good at whatever it is they do. But yea this poor dude is way atop Mt. Stupid & a prime Dunning-Kruger exemplar. & not to nitpick but, my understanding is that the credential of expertise in a field is typically a Masters whereas a PhD indicates an expert who has already contributed something additional(however trivial or significant) to siad field.
8:21 He was not wrong, you are just assuming a particulate "aether" but he said it is fields and he is right. He is wrong about everything else, but space is not "empty". The universe is a plenum. Its just called quantum fields and spacetime today.
6:30 I dont think anyone will ever unify GR and QM. I think they're separate things.
QM doesnt need a universe, or spacetime to operate within, the laws were very likely to already be working before our universe began.
GR requires (or seems to) spacetime and matter/energy to operate, and likely the laws came into operation when our universe did.
I dont think there is a single theory that encompasses both, but I also dont think I'm likely to be right about this, either, as every other physics grad I know (and just about every eminent physicist) thinks there is a unifying theory.
You had the opportunity to insert a line from pulp fiction there.
This makes me sad. If he had been given opportunity he might be one of the worlds great researcher. He seems motivated.
Has anyone ever thought about turning debunking pseudoscience into a stand-up routine that comes with the disclaimer: "Caution - You Might Learn Something"? I always thought Bill Nye should have tried stand-up, go on tour or do shows like Eddie Murphy's Raw and Delirious complete with all the "filth, flarn, flarn, filth" using pseudoscience as his punchline.
Genuine, earnest cranks are a dying breed, these days. I think this is for a couple of reasons, mainly:
1) There was a buildup of unaired crankery prior to the advent and democratization of the internet.
2) Nearly 30 years on, this surplus of crankery has been largely depleted, mostly due to the simplicity of gaining wide exposure and the slow replacement rate of debunked cranks.
But it looks like you found an outlier, an edge case as we say. Good for you, good for us.
But is weight a pseudoforce? for a pseudoforce there always exists a reference frame that eliminates it globally. like changing out of a rotating reference frame can remove a centrifugal force. thats not possible for gravity. when you look at 2 freefalling elevators on the opposite sides of earth you can eliminate gravity locally by placing your reference frame into one of them, freefalling with it. but then the elevator on the other side of earth accelerates with 2g in the reference frame of the elevator your falling with. so there is no single reference frame that lets all the weight vectors in a gravitational well disappear, thus its a real force. did i miss something?
I think you missed the fact that relativity uses _only local_ reference frames, not Earth-sized ones. For each of the two elevators, the reference frame that falls with it is the "true inertial", and that reference frame _does not apply_ to the other elevator, as it's too far away.
Your weight would be different in a stronger or weaker gravitational field. However, your mass would stay the same everywhere. Weight is a product of mass interacting with gravity.
I hope this helps.
Along the spacetime geodesic would be the reference frame. To feel ‘weight’ you’ve got to ‘accelerated’ ‘upward’ (generally by the repulsion of the electrons within the atoms of the ground) ‘against the flow’ of spacetime.
It would be so great if Brilliant could give this guy lets say a year free schoolarship. It would work wonders for them as publicity... Just saying.
For me it is less the accent, and more the recording environment. 3 times to figure out what he was saying.
Edit: You get about 0.01% of mass from Higgs Field. The rest is good old E=mc^2.
Also, he may mean spacetime rather than outer space, but he's still wrong in all the ways that matter. (If space went "around" objects, i don't even -where do those objects exist and how do they occupy volume?)
My first suggestion to him would be: Don't measure things with your eyeballs. Do not move you thing in fluid using your arm, which is inconsistent in so many ways.
Why diid I know the sponsor for this video would be Brilliant?
there is no problem with time dilation (kinematic or gravitational), inertia, and the 3rd thing he said. I read posts all the time "we don't know anything about gravity"...BS we know tons...the theory predicted time dilation (observed), non-static universe (observed), black-holes (observed), Shapiro delay (curved spaced, observed), The geodetic effect (it takes less than 360 degrees to go completely around a mass, observed), Lens-Thirring Effect (aka frame dragging--indirectly observed, direct observation is done, but noisy), and ofc gravitational radiation (2 Nobels, one for indirect, one for direct observation).
Regarding quantum gravity--that really is the domain of experts, and is ofc an open problem and will be an open problem for some time, and its not getting solved on RUclips.
BTW: special relativity is reconciled with quantum mechanics, and led to the greatest agreement btw theory and experiment in the history of Mankind (electron g-2).
in flat earth debunking, your "west peak" is known as mount stupid.
I want to ask these people if they can solve ANY problem in a Physics Textbook, that involves a bit of calculus. Or I just won't take them serious.
Comically enough when educated people start talking in Math the information turns into a string of spells written in Old. I say this as somebody who seeks expanded knowledge, not every field can be understood to high degree which explains all the Specialization that comes with higher education.
Also, is that not just fluid dynamics the guy is trying to explore? Is that not already well worked field of study for all things flying/floating/swimming?
what would change if gravity was based on speed and not mass? I guess the faster you go the more you would weigh??
The funny thing is, this is actually partly true (or, rather, mass depends partly on your velocity). It just doesn't become relevant until you reach appreciable fractions of light speed.
To be fair not adding new things to the science, but at least this level of mechanics can be learned from cheap textbooks.
I wounder what his hightest formal education is. It kind out sounds like he has the level of understanding. that he thinks he understand it. But not enough to understan why it don´t work the way he think it should.
Is space-time fluid?
Amusing. Thanks.
Let's all make up our own physics, I guess.
Is he trying to prove the aether?
Joe Rogan: you just blew my mind.
The Dunning Kruger Effect is basically pseudoscience and science advocates shouldn't be promoting it. Especially the popular interpretation as opposed to the paper.
Firstly the whole "mount stupid" and "valley of despair" curve that you flashed up wasn't even in the paper and it's a pure pop culture invention. There are two straight lines in the actual paper. One is an x=y tracking skill and the other is a line representing self-appraised skill that intersects in the middle with a lower slope; x=y*2 -1 sort of thing.
The authors concluded this showed the unskilled being relatively more confident than the skilled. That's a fundamenrtally unsound conclusion. It's just regression to the mean. Unless people are perfect at estimating their skill then you're always going to get two lines like that even when there's nothing of substance to observe. There was correlation between skill and self-appraised skill but, as you'd expect, those with lower skill tended to over estimate and those with higher underestimate.
This is unsound because those with 0% skill can only overestimate and those with 100% skill can only underestimate; so you will always these this characteristic distribution when measuring something of this sort; regression to the mean.
Im just gonna assume this violates at least one law of thermodynamics.
Based on the title alone.
At around the 7 minute mark I'd have to say, no. I do not understand anything you just said. I believe you do. But, sadly, anything more than a + or - in my equations and I leave it to those that know. ha ha
At least he's starting with some small😂😂
Oh wait
A quick look at that book's description and I already see some problems.
He probably don't even understand the basics of Newtonian mechanics.
This guy just wants to live in a fish tank
I am blaming social media for making itso easy for anyone to have a platform and think they can add to our collective knowledge. Only a couple of decades ago, you would never know about people like these, they would be able to get an adience and quickly give up.
Cant wait for Gravity 5.0
Chris Hamberg is mega butthurt about lacking education
Always misunderstanding Newton's Third Law and they never recognise their misunderstanding doesn't actually match reality, or if they do recognise it is because Newton was wrong not that they misunderstand him.
17:00 Again, the textbooks have the exercises. And by the way, the greatest mathematician of all time, Fermat, was, "self taught." Just because it's hard to do doesn't mean it can't be done, but those who do and succeed will absolutely dwarf your pathetic pay-for-play college, "education."
Textbooks have exercises, but they don't always have answers or correct answers. Textbooks also vary in degrees of quality.
School surrounds you with like minded peers and experts along with expensive equipment that allows you to perform complex experiments.
I suggest you actually try going to a decent college before bad mouthing it.
You also learn much much slower without guided education.
Fermat was, ironically, university educated and, also ironically, claimed a lot of mathematical proofs of which there is no evidence of him doing and took completely unknown mathematics at the time to prove.
And if you think college is "pay to play" you are sorely mistaken, you actually have to pass your courses to get your degree. Colleges will happily keep your money if you drop out or never pass.
College education produces more individuals that contribute to the advancement of scientific understanding than self-education does. It doesn't matter if someone _can_ self teach, it about the odds. And the odds of an individual 'succeeding', as you put it, are astronomically greater with formal education than not.
@@etch-e-sketch4051 The odds are greater only because hiring managers are stùpid. Not because college is magic.
@@user-oj7uc8tw9r I've been to college. It is for children.
At least he's not a flat earther.
Legal weed has failed him...
Xox a smoker. But, Come On!
Hey, I'm from the Russian mob. Hold on, ... nevermind.
You don't need a school for a formal education. You need discipline, rigor, and the textbooks.
From the folk that brought us math... sad bra
I mean, if we let the string theorists parade around claiming they've got a theory of everything, I say we let this guy have a turn xD
I know what u mean, but, Their work is based on actual physics, though. The origins of string theory are based in sound, now accepted physics of gluons inside the nucleus of an atom.
Plus, string theory has, despite what you might have heard, made real contributions to physics and even just recently string theory was used to derive pi. Which at least shows its mathematically sound.
@@bipolarminddroppings String theory has no basis in evidence of any actual physical observations, it is largely kept alive by the fact that no one has disproved it. As far as I'm concerned that makes it unfalsifiable.
String theory did not predict the strong force, nor has it discovered a way to calculate pi. I'm not even sure why a physicist would feel qualified to talk about that when pi is a purely mathematical concept.
@@PlatinumAltaria String theory may be unfalsifiable right now, but at least as far as we know it is compatible with the known facts. Conflating string theorists with uneducated moron is highly regarded.
Question: Aren't you worried that doing spromotion for a sponsor like this will reinforce the derp's vision of you as "just a shill working for the Big Educa" or something like that?
Marty. You are just insanely jealous that this monumental genius has revolutionized physics. So now you, CIA, MI6, the vatican and the rest of academia are attempting to hold him back. You, you... monster!
Also the Swedish Teamsters locals 408, 563, and 212 cooperative. And the association of satanic librarians, the regional branch of freemasons, the Italian mob foreign services division, and the IRS.
I hope this guy will accept that he was ignorant & wrong, unlike virtually every flat-Earther I correct on basic factual inaccuracy...
You don't know allllll of the facts. It's completely fine to ask questions, no matter now "dumb". That's how people learn. Get off your high horse.
Nobody is faulting the guy for asking questions, we’re laughing at the audacity and hubris of him thinking he can replace the currently accepted theory without even bothering to learn it.
Sorry, my hearing is not great. I can't understand his speech. I assume (perhaps unfairly. Sue me.) that Martymer is more correct than Chummy. Sure, props to the guy, but apparently, misguided.
Me too !