Are you smarter than a 12 year old??

[chris_cr33p]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110329/ts_yblog_thelookout/for-12-year-old-astrophysics-prodigy-the-skys-the-limit


check out this link and tell me if u are smarter?

[HEA7]

damn u jeff foxworthy...

[KRILLIN]

Yeah, saw that on MLG. I'm definitely not smarter than that one.

[MidKnight]

easy question... no lol

[Fierce]

Without a doubt

[Gaucho]

It's most likely scripted, or he's just brilliant.

[chris_cr33p]

its not scripted

[Luke]

That was sick

[PK Toolboxxx]

wow.....

[ShuTDowNizHyped]

I saw it on yahoo too...crazy.

[SmartzOvahShotz]

Holy crap!

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/26/12-year-old-genius-expands-einsteins-theory-of-relativity/

No way staged

[Jewjitsu]

that kid's so smart that he's a dumbass, what a dumb theory, light accelerating sideways, gimme a break.

lol jk. he's a genious, but he only has 21 points on me in the IQ category :D
edit: that kid was probably smarter than us before he was born.

[ReFlex]

he lost me at .9x faster than the speed of light i didnt get that and it moving sideways but this kid has my iq beat by 3 points

[Cheeky]

My IQ actually calculated = 147
Which I was told makes me Gifted (Load of crap)... (I like to think: Slightly Above Average)

This kid is just insane.
I was doing 500 piece puzzles at 7, but this is just amazing.
I'm good with Math and Science, but..... English and History...Got nothing haha

My IQ has decreased since playing video games...

[Jewjitsu]

he lost me at .9x faster than the speed of light i didnt get that and it moving sideways but this kid has my iq beat by 3 points

167, wow you must be smart as shit!! i'm actually surprised that his iq is only 170. einstein's was like 184 or something. that kid's iq will probably be 190 in a few years though.

[MidKnight]

i still dont get what hes trying to prove, but damn it sounds smart

[SullyVan]

Yeah, saw that on MLG. I'm definitely not smarter than that one.

hahaha this

[SmartzOvahShotz]

Hes trying to disprove the big bang theory.

Sure why not, when you got some spare time...

[Cinderella_Man]

very impressive read, I love this kind of stuff.

EDIT: I put this as my facebook status haha ^.^ thats how good this read is.

[forefront]

I concur.

[HavkinKnight]

what he is saying is that there has to be a speed faster than light to colide with in the Big Bang seeing as light moves forward and backwards at the same rate so moving sideways would cause a new rate of speed but for there to only be light then there was nothing to traval through in space due to there is nothing in space prior to the big bang so this being said two forces had to have hit at 2 rates of speed to stop or slow or bring Friction that caused a "Bang" and he has titled his idea E2

[Pegasi]

Holy crap!

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/26/12-year-old-genius-expands-einsteins-theory-of-relativity/

No way staged

I'd seen that article on it before, but only just noticed this bit:


We figure he'll find a way to pencil that in between dating his girlfriend and playing Halo: Reach, one of his favorite video games.

[xMortyZx]

Havinkin, you're getting there!!

One, I am not attempting to take anything away from Jake here. The kid is 12 for god's sake, extremely intelligent, and very enthusiastic. Two, I'm just posting this to help explain to the TLN community my thoughts on what he was asking. And I'll stay away from posting equations as that tends to confuse and not assist.

Ok, quick physics history lesson. Issac Newton gets hit on the head with an apple. Through that event he links what is happening on earth with what is occurring in the heavens. (the same force that caused that apple to hit his head keeps the moon orbiting around the earth).

His equations are ABSOLUTELY without question scientific doctrine for the next 200 years. In fact NASA engineers only needed his equations to send rockets into space. Think about that for a moment. Then along comes this Swiss Patent Clerk named Albert who has a serious problem with Newton due to his personal study of the behavior of light. He publishes General (gravity) and later Special (light) Relativity. Both fly in the face of 200 years of Newtonian physics. Let's just safely say he didn't make many friends. But his equations become factual due to the math working for THE VERY LARGE. In describing the behavior of stars, planets, moons, supernova's, etc. he is spot on and he does this by quantifying light as the cosmic speed limit (Nothing, and I mean nothing can travel faster and at the time this was Einstein's assumption). Light can slow down however and does so when it passes through a prism or moves out of a vacuum. This takes Einstein 10 years!!! 10 YEARS!!! Imagine that, one mans quest to explain the universe. HOLY SH**!

Then along comes Niel Bohr (you physics nerds out there, i'm aware of maxwell and electromagnetism (your first example of unifying two seperate elements, electrictiy and magnetism); i'm just going to use Bohr's team as my example)) Bohr and his collected group of researchers are puzzlingly over an experiment regarding the behavior of microscopic particles. When they fire a controlled beam of light (just think of it that way) through one slit cut in a lead board they get a line of that light collected on another board behind the lead one. Ok, no real problems here. But when they fire the light through two slits cut in the lead board they don't get two lines. They get an interference pattern; essentially the light is everywhere (a wave pattern). This is a problem. They think, well maybe the molecules are bouncing off one another and causing that. So they rig the photon emitter to fire the particles one at a time through the two slits. They still get the interference pattern. UMMMMM...Well, they're smart guys right? The math is telling them that the particles are only going through the right slit, or only going through the left slit, or both slits, or neither of the slits! So they want to watch what the individual particles are doing the moment they pass through the slits. They put a microscope there to observe. Know what happens? They get the two light slits on the collection board they were predicting in the first place. So the simple act of observing the particles changed the outcome of the experiment; it changed the way the particles behaved. You now have a rough baseline for quantum physics. Ohhh, and I do mean rough!

Now this is a serious problem for Einstein. In his explanation of the heavens everything is very orderly and choreographed with grids and wraps in space time caused by massive objects. In Quantum physics everything behaves very chaotically, has absolutely no order, and gravity in and of itself is a very weak element. Remember Einstein said, "God does not throw dice with the universe." It is in response to this and a couple other ideas. So physics divides into two houses; two separate schools of study and thought. One to study the very large (GR & SR), and one to study the very small. And they are both correct. But how can that be? They both explain how the universe works. This simply can't be. Einstein spent the reminder of his life struggling to solve this issue. (we turn a blind eye through most of the 20th century).

Now light travels in waves. But those waves need a medium to pass through. Sound has air, waves have water, etc. It was believed at one point in time that the vacuum of space had a mysterious ether element for light to travel through. But some guys in the 1800's proved this to be incorrect when attempting to explain light moving around a planet. (of course now you have dark matter, etc but I don't really want to go into that).

Jake is quoting the time dilation equation from Einstein but is seeking to change c2 (or speed of light squared) constant in that equation by attempting to question lights motion forwards and backwards in a 4 dimensional universe. Believe me, Einstein thought of this. Jake just hasn't gotten around to memorizing GR (General Relativity yet). Light can be bent (moving sideways) by a gravitational field and by magnetism (maxwell) through lateral acceleration but Einstein says "bent" is relative to the observers position. Its still traveling in a straight line, forward and backwards, on a curved space-time. What changes is you the observers position. Remember, the universe isn't flat. And remember I explained to you how observing particles changes their behavior. Its a paradigm! That damn cosmos!

Jake is kinda confusing the two schools of physics I talked about. And if I heard him correctly he wants to replace c2 with e=mc2 which is an abbreviation for the full equation. Which leads me to believe he is unsure in what he is asking. But again, he's 12! What I believe he is really questioning is why don't we have UNIFICATION (enter string theory). Which is the holy grail of physics. Not to knock Jake, sincerely, he's going through what most basic students of physics struggle with.

If this seriously interest's you I recommend "Elegant Universe" & "Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene (from which I have cliff noted quotes) and Physic's for Future Presidents. I forget the author. I wish Jake the best in his future endeavors.

[SmartzOvahShotz]

I can't believe i actually enjoyed that read. I'm such a nerd