[CharonY]

Quote

""That bridge will hold 20 tons" If one is a mathematician and a pure scientist it may be considered throwing numbers around. Is there scientific proof?"

The context here is statics. The calculations of stability is based on well-established mechanical frame work. Just stating a value without that context is meaningless.

Quote

IQ measures something.

Yes. But what?

Quote

There will certainly we can all agree a higher potential in the upper pool of test scorers than the lower pool.

Potential of what?

And which way around is the correct association? I.e. geniuses have an easy time with IQ test hence they usually have high IQs. But then IQ may still be a lousy predictor because you can get a high score without being a genius. Or is it a cut-of? Maybe chances of being genius is lower at IQ below, say, 120 but does not scale with higher values?

This post has been edited by CharonY: 19 July 2011 - 05:18 PM

[amanda more]

 CharonY, on 19 July 2011 - 05:04 PM, said:

The context here is statics. The calculations of stability is based on well-established mechanical frame work. Just stating a value without that context is meaningless.

CharonY

Wrong. Meaningless? You want truckers to do what?

[Stephen Tuck]

 amanda more, on 5 July 2011 - 12:30 AM, said:

Thank you! The language of science is math. There are two groups- scientists,technologists, mathematicians and everybody else. The everybody else keeps wanting us to use words. But they refuse to learn the baby steps of math. Why can't we have hardy discussions throwing numbers around. Or/and are we afraid some professor would be fine with logical fallacies, poor lucidity, inaccuracy with words but use some math and then powers that be come down on you if not exacting. Example: My friend wants to date and I think she should date smart men. I have always valued smart people that are in front of me. Yet, I just didn't do the math til looking at it now. If someone is so smart as to be in the 1 out of a thousand in IQ then there are 300,000 in the US. Half are male. 150,000 Then a third older than her 50,000. If half are single 25,000. Average per state is then 500. Wow. My opinion style estimate is half are drug or alcoholics so that leaves 250 actual dateable humans on average per state. Women should gravitate to silicon valley and men to Washington, DC to up their odds due to gender imbalance. So whether the word genius or not can be used she has a preference for high IQ just like someone may want a redhead (although that is like 2% of the population). It doesn't have to make brunettes feel leftout. My point- by using one objective criteria (however imperfect it is) we just figured some rather discouraging odds for her but realistic. As a twist on other dating advice- if you met in a bar, you may actually be as pretty as you are but he could have gotten dumber.

I absolutely agree. The language of science is math. Over the last year and a half, I have persued and completed the "Theory of Everything" from a mathematical standpoint. Really, the equation I developed guided my efforts. I was lucky enough that my theories were initially correct, but the equation really helped to unravel the mysteries of the universe. I have really run out of mysteries to explore. The only thing that remains is expanding the equation into the Equation of Everything that unites all the fundamental forces and laws of nature. Conceptually, I know how to proceed and have seen parts of this great equation. However, it is a massive equation that would entirely fill a blackboard. It would include Deterministic Quantum Mechanics through the Dirac Equation (since the Dirac Equation is a pseudo-relativistic varient of my equation: the Tuck-Einstein Equation), Electrodynamics and Gravitation through the velocity variable, Entropy through an Entropic equation, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (since it is an equation of Special Relativity), the Standard Model of Physics, and a modified version of String Theory. What is interesting is that my equation is the base equation of the Theory of Everything and defines the very dimensions of time and space. In fact, the equation can be proven through Dimensional Analysis because it defines the very system of measurement. I have learned so much like that energy is length (since the Length Contraction equation is defined within my equation), that both matter and space consist of photons that combine together (decreasing frequency - the time-component) and increase mass (which is the space-component) through the "Lorentz Mechanism" that replaces the theoretical Higg's Mechanism. I've also learned and defined the boundaries of the Electromagnetic Spectrum and learned the geometry of the universe through my equation (which is a conic section). My work is really too much to explain in only a few pages. The most challenging thing I have now is to write a perfect manuscript teaching my knowledge from the ground up for publication in a scientific journal. Additionally, science is political and I will have to fight for recognition of my work (especially since I have never been to college).

The great genius of Einstein was in his DNA. Genetically, I was fortunate to share his traits. Just recently I learned from a Time magazine article that he had a occipital protuberance on the back of his head. I have the same thing on the back of mine. It is a Neanderthal genetic trait. He recieved his Neurobiological DNA from his Jewish ancestory, while I recieved mine from my red hair (a recessive gene passed down from Neanderthal origin). Therefore, I would tell your friend that if she wants a genuis then perhaps she should look for a redhead. Below is my equation and a link to my ToeQuest thread where I have documented all of my work along the way. I post it online so that if something should happen to me, that my work would not die with me (because it is too important to the technological advancement of mankind).





http://www.toequest....rything-55.html

[amanda more]

 Stephen Tuck, on 22 July 2011 - 02:51 AM, said:

This thread is about IQ.

I,personally, have absolutely no interest in this. But I'm odd. One guy at a coffee shop thought if he talked jazzy then everyone could get their ears talked off by his views on UFOS. I do not care.

I told him if one landed a block away I would not be one of the ones who would go look.

Equation to your heart's content. Start it as a new subject line. I am not checking physics or speculations for a reason. There is a huge body of knowledge that I will never know much of and lots I just can't be bothered with it.

 CharonY, on 19 July 2011 - 05:04 PM, said:

And which way around is the correct association? I.e. geniuses have an easy time with IQ test hence they usually have high IQs. But then IQ may still be a lousy predictor because you can get a high score without being a genius. Or is it a cut-of? Maybe chances of being genius is lower at IQ below, say, 120 but does not scale with higher values?

There is this kind of thinking. Now we could go on and on about George. He has this kind of thinking. We look on him as odd. But wait. Here is Jane. She also has this kind of thinking.

The struggle may be if we color coded different groups of people then maybe it would be a more neutral evaluation. Having more of the kind of thinking measured on a test does not imply higher esteem. It is like saying the red colored M and Ms are somehow more elevated than the yellow ones.

And is it really true that someone with athletic ability is, instead of a different category of M and M somehow the Duke, or Count or King in some kind of feudal system? A high IQ is a potential for genius. Derek Jeter could have had a test showing athletic promise. It doesn't make him a better person or a superior person and a high IQ doesn't make anyone of higher status than anyone else.

We are kind of OK accepting that some are born with a level of natural athletic ability. Of these most will not make the major leagues. Why not accepting that some are born with a little more of just those skills measured on IQ tests? Especially since it may also test a different outlook on life?

Unless George happens to run across Jane he may not fully appreciate the loneliness and lack of in depth in communication with others.

By virtue of this highly complicated intricate modern era, personally, I have no problem finding a way to find the Georges and at least not crush them. The Derek Jeters of another generation may be born without the ground to play and run. We then won't have any more.

Constant adamant consideration of George only and "that way he is" can be most counterproductive. Suppose Will liked to sit around and stare at a box every Sunday and Monday night in the fall? Although he may be surrounded by these creatures who never do it themselves, he can take heart. There are millions of others showing him that he is not alone.

He is thus put in the group of green M and M's that watch football this much.

[Stephen Tuck]

 amanda more, on 25 July 2011 - 03:08 AM, said:

This thread is about IQ.

I,personally, have absolutely no interest in this. But I'm odd. One guy at a coffee shop thought if he talked jazzy then everyone could get their ears talked off by his views on UFOS. I do not care.

I told him if one landed a block away I would not be one of the ones who would go look.

Equation to your heart's content. Start it as a new subject line. I am not checking physics or speculations for a reason. There is a huge body of knowledge that I will never know much of and lots I just can't be bothered with it.

Sorry, I thought you might be interested in seeing the completion of Einstein's work on the "Theory of Everything" considering your interest in understanding what defines genius. His name is synonymous with genius because of his great abilities (which I also have due to our evolutionary, neurobiological link to Neanderthals). I am also quite certain the modern phychological diagnosis of this condition is Aspergers Syndrome.

I can tell you that IQ tests are quite worthless when it comes to measuring intelligence. There is the intelligence of mathematicians and engineers that can solve problems with known solutions, and then there is the intelligence that is able to figure out solutions to problems previously unknown. I think problem-solving skills are much more important than knowing large volumes of data. It is the ability to make connections that other people can't make (in which details can really matter). I can program a computer to solve problems at much greater speed, efficiency, accuracy, and lower cost of existing knowledge. However, I can't program one to solve the mysteries of the universe.

I can tell you that I am a slow reader and not a fast test-taker, I would probably only score above average on an IQ test, and I have absolutely no college. However, I correctly determined how the universe worked theoretically, then developed a new equation to prove it, from which I read to unravel all the mysteries of the universe. I can prove the equation through Dimensional Analysis. I know how energy correlates to length (of which I actually defined what is length), and I can even mathematically prove that time is a dimension. All that is important because it helps mankind not only technologically, but also to understand what really makes a genus such as Einstein.

You may have a different opinion on what makes a genus. I only know of my intellectual gift and of Einstein's. Einstein spent 30 years working on the Theory of Everything. I am 30 years old and finished it in 1.5 years. The only thing lacking is fully expanding my equation into the "Equation of Everything," which I would gladly do is I had the time, money, and environment conducive to finishing my research. Eccentric geniuses are overbalanced in certain areas and deficient in others. I am audacious because I have a passionate persuit of my work, such an incredible knowledge of the universe, and exceptional accomplishments. That gives me great strength to fight for recognition of my work for the benefit of mankind. If I lacked such confidence and boldness then I certainly couldn't overcome the obstacles for which I face in the politics of science. Nothing is above corruption, not even science. I have gone through intense mental and emotional pain and suffering that made me into what I have become (which my theories were a convenient distraction). It defined my philosophy: "Strength of Mind and Strength of Heart; Question Everything and Trust No-one." That allowed me to see the errors made in science and accomplish more than I ever thought possible!

This post has been edited by Stephen Tuck: 25 July 2011 - 05:46 AM