/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2993219]

[Anonymous No.2993229]

:3

[Anonymous No.2993239]

>>2993229

[Anonymous No.2993249]

>made use of the 10% myth.
>Said that Einstein used 25%
>Stopped reading.

Honestly, stop using a arbitrary quantities, in a scientific context its very annoying.

[Anonymous No.2993255]

>>2993229

[Anonymous No.2993265]

The only quantifiable information I've heard about Einstein having more access to brainpower was that his corpus callosum (the "bridge" that connects that two halves of your brain) was massively overdeveloped, allowing his imaginative and logical processes to communicate at unusual speed and make extraordinary connections.

And I'm not even certain that's true

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.2993271]

>>2993265
Sounds like an urban legend, though I would love to be proved wrong.

[Anonymous No.2993279]

>>2993229

He claims black holes do not exist.

Black Holes ARE proven, RIGHT /sci/?

[Cave Johnson !grGMmpsPac No.2993286]

>>2993279
Pretty much, we've photographed jet's of electromagnetic energy coming from a dark source, and the stars in the centre of our galaxy are orbiting a massive object we can't see

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.2993289]

>>2993279
We're pretty sure black holes, or something very very similar, to black holes exist. As to whether there exists an event horizon, I think most physicists think so, but there's this one recent paper which put that into controversy.

[Deerp Thought !3PmlUNUKEM No.2993291]

>>2993279
Given they absorb all light they are hard to directly observe. But we have noticed some very very dense objects such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A* which have stars on orbit from which we can estimate the mass.

Meaning we're pretty damn sure that black holes exist.

[Anonymous No.2993299]

What if black holes don't create a singularity, and are instead an INCREDIBLY dense object, akin the size of a pea?

Dense, and with a mass greater than any other, but definately solid to some degree?

Forgive my science illiteracy.

[Anonymous No.2993302]

>>2993229
he never took an IQ test
it is estimated that hes IQ is about 165 not 189
hawking never took an IQ test
10% usage bullshit
he didnt leave thing that no-one understands
QM and ST are not solely based on his work, the most he did with QM was the photo-electric effect
ST was developed after his time, how could he have an opinion on it?
he didnt edit out black holes
special relativity has nothing to do with black holes
Darwinism has nothing to do wiht the big bang

how can someone be so wrong?

[Anonymous No.2993324]

>>2993271
I actually do believe that this was one of the few "Einstein's Magical Superbrain" stories that was actually true. I mean, the man's brain really was thoroughly examined and it really did sport a few anatomical oddities, though as far as i recall, there was nothing that would establish any kind of definitive causal link between Einstein's brain physiology and his actual intelligence.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.2993351]

>>2993299
That's sort of what the paper I mentioned earlier was talking about. It still has to be larger than a pea, but it's possible that it's not a point mass, but it's so small that it's virtually indistinguishable from a point mass. I'm not sure if the paper gave any falsifiable predictions, but it did present some interesting calculations (or so I've heard, way above my head) that infalling matter cannot form an event horizon - it would necessarily radiate faster than it could collapse due to the laws of physics. Again, highly controversial paper.

[Anonymous No.2993352]

>>2993302
>how can someone be so wrong?
Welcome to the Interwebs.

[Anonymous No.2995337]

>>2993265
Can person look at their brain with modern technology and be able to see if they have something similar?

What do I need to do? MRI scan or some shit?