Tell me what you know about Black holes

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
You weren't doing compsci, you were doing programming.
You probably just started recently learning about proper comp SCIENCE.

You aren't quite correct. Intro CS and AP CS were pretty much just programming (with a hint of real compsci through big-O), but all of my CS courses in HS after that were real compsci, as have all of my college CS courses (I skipped the two semesters of programming).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


I don't get your point.
If somebody gets that out of reading the book, that's already much better than nothing no?

My point is the wasted effort on the parts of both the scientist writing the book and the person reading it.

If that's all people can get out of the books then that's all the books should say.

I'm against wordiness in science for the sake of wordiness.

[Odin]

Black holes have no hair.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


So I could accomplish the same thing by claiming that black holes radiate through the mechanism of magic pixies shuttling mass out of them?

Well you could probably get people interested yes.
Again, I don't understand what you want to argue this point abstractly.
In practice, people, even people that end up becoming experts, usually try to learn about ideas that are still way ahead of them, because it's motivating, just like looking at a distant peak.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


My point is the wasted effort on the parts of both the scientist writing the book and the person reading it.

If that's all people can get out of the books then that's all the books should say.

I'm against wordiness in science for the sake of wordiness.

I edited my post , I'd like if you could comment the rest.

You don't like wordiness, but the book is not aimed for you!!
I want to learn about up to date stuff in math, I read a research paper which is aimed at people like me.
A 12 year old kid will read a dumbed down version, will not get true understanding of what is happening, but will get interested and become a mathematician later.
What is the problem with this?

[KrazyHorse]

I learned not to do that fairly early.

Learn one thing and learn it well. Then learn the next thing.

Jumping all over the map is a waste of effort.

[KrazyHorse]

I think even your view of how people become experts in their field is distorted.
Let's take you for example.
I am willing to bet that you did not learn all the subjects linearly like you've explained it should be done to become an expert, but instead read ahead, getting dim views of things you didn't understand yet, but that gave you interest and motivation to understand better what you were learning at the moment, and later clarified your understanding on these more advanced topics.

You'd be wrong. After the age of 12 or 13 I realised how much I didn't know, and gave up on attempting to learn the complicated stuff without learning the stuff in between.

That's part of the reason I can do undergraduate level physics better than anybody else I know.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I learned not to do that fairly early.

Learn one thing and learn it well. Then learn the next thing.

Jumping all over the map is a waste of effort.

Call it fairly early if you want.
What about before that?
How did you figure out you wanted to be a physicist?


You seem to speak like everybody is born with a plan to become an expert in a specific field and education is just minimizing work to get to that point.

Once you're an expert, it can seem that way sometimes, but in fact it's a ridiculous notion.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I think even your view of how people become experts in their field is distorted.
Let's take you for example.
I am willing to bet that you did not learn all the subjects linearly like you've explained it should be done to become an expert, but instead read ahead, getting dim views of things you didn't understand yet, but that gave you interest and motivation to understand better what you were learning at the moment, and later clarified your understanding on these more advanced topics.

You'd be wrong. After the age of 12 or 13 I realised how much I didn't know, and gave up on attempting to learn the complicated stuff without learning the stuff in between.

That's part of the reason I can do undergraduate level physics better than anybody else I know.

You keep skipping to the point were my assumptions are not true.
I'll ask again:
What about before?
How did you even decide at 12 or 13 that you even wanted to learn the complicated stuff?
How did you realize how much you didn't know?

The obvious answer is that you had read about stuff you didn't understand.

[Lul Thyme]

I don't want to dwell too long on your case, because it may not be generic and you can say anything anyway.
But there are many examples, in both our fields for example, of top researchers who have admitted being inspired by this type of publications when younger.
Just this fact is enough justification that they fill an important role no?
If it was enough to convince Fields Medalist to become mathematicians, the fact that you get to correct Spec on black holes is close to irrelevant...

[Lul Thyme]

Basically I see it like this.
Such books induce a "wow this field is cool" feel in some people, and will make some of these seek further (proper) understanding of the field.

This is not just my opinion, it is a very well commented on phenomena in science, and most people deem it crucial to the strength of future generations of scientists.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
The obvious answer is that you had read about stuff you didn't understand.

If you'd bothered to read my previous posts you would have seen this one:

I got into physics through popular books on astronomy (~5 years old) and later from science fiction.

I read A Brief History when I was 13 or so. I had the sneaking suspicion that wheelchair-bound bastard was lying to me, and I found out later I was right.

[KrazyHorse]

I did not read a popular book on modern physics until I was well and truly interested in the field already. And every time I did read one I was really annoyed by it, not interested.

[KrazyHorse]

I can list the popular modern physics books I've read on one hand:

A Brief History (Hawking)
QED (Feynman)

errr....that's it

[Kuciwalker]

I liked QED.