Biology Forums - Study Force

Discussion News Articles and Discussion Topic started by: oemBiology on Jan 24, 2017



Title: Any published paper about Jacob Barnett's perspective on physics?
Post by: oemBiology on Jan 24, 2017
I would like to know on any published paper about Jacob Barnett's perspective on physics.

Furthermore, referring to attached image, how can he see the Math of 32?

Does anyone have any suggestions?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions


Video (16:20)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq-FOOQ1TpE
Forget what you know | Jacob Barnett | TEDxTeen


Title: Re: Any published paper about Jacob Barnett's perspective on physics?
Post by: bio_man on Jan 25, 2017
Has he published anything that the general public can read?

According to his Wikipedia page:

Quote
Barnett claimed that the Big Bang theory did not account for the amount of carbon that exists in the universe outside of stars, and thus "the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together." However, the relative proportions of the elements that exist through time are accounted for by Big Bang nucleosynthesis and subsequently stellar nucleosynthesis, and the observed abundance of carbon is in line with the production rates associated with helium burning in stars along with the rates of known enrichment processes that transport carbon out of stars into the interstellar medium. Although his view that the Big Bang did not occur is at odds with the nearly universal agreement of astrophysics experts, creationists reported with some excitement on Barnett's skepticism of the Big Bang. As of January 2017, Barnett has not publicly said anything more of his efforts to disprove the theory beyond his interview with the Indianapolis Star.


Title: Re: Any published paper about Jacob Barnett's perspective on physics?
Post by: oemBiology on Jan 25, 2017
Has he published anything that the general public can read?

According to his Wikipedia page:

Quote
Barnett claimed that the Big Bang theory did not account for the amount of carbon that exists in the universe outside of stars, and thus "the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together." However, the relative proportions of the elements that exist through time are accounted for by Big Bang nucleosynthesis and subsequently stellar nucleosynthesis, and the observed abundance of carbon is in line with the production rates associated with helium burning in stars along with the rates of known enrichment processes that transport carbon out of stars into the interstellar medium. Although his view that the Big Bang did not occur is at odds with the nearly universal agreement of astrophysics experts, creationists reported with some excitement on Barnett's skepticism of the Big Bang. As of January 2017, Barnett has not publicly said anything more of his efforts to disprove the theory beyond his interview with the Indianapolis Star.

I understand on what make people special, Super memory + focus on details.  Referring to following attached image, it is very interesting on how Barnett thinks in Math 32.

Do you have any clue on how it works to represent 32?
What kind of structure make him faster on calculation?

Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks you very much for any suggestions


Title: Re: Any published paper about Jacob Barnett's perspective on physics?
Post by: bio_man on Jan 25, 2017
Hi oem7110,

I can't seem to find any reference to his math perspective. I skimmed through the video, and I couldn't find it :-\


Title: Re: Any published paper about Jacob Barnett's perspective on physics?
Post by: oemBiology on Jan 26, 2017
Hi oem7110,

I can't seem to find any reference to his math perspective. I skimmed through the video, and I couldn't find it :-\

The attached image already mention at 1:24 minutes for him to describe his math perspective.

Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks you very much for any suggestions



Title: Re: Any published paper about Jacob Barnett's perspective on physics?
Post by: bio_man on Jan 26, 2017
I don't think he meant it in the way you interpreted it. I think he was just providing the audience an example of how something so absurd like what he showed can be a way people see the world around them. That's my assumption, otherwise there isn't anything referenced about that online.


Title: Re: Any published paper about Jacob Barnett's perspective on physics?
Post by: oemBiology on Jan 26, 2017
I don't think he meant it in the way you interpreted it. I think he was just providing the audience an example of how something so absurd like what he showed can be a way people see the world around them. That's my assumption, otherwise there isn't anything referenced about that online.

I think he use visual pattern to represent number, since unconscious mind is much faster on handling image, so it is much faster than using conscious mind to do the Math.

Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks you very much for any suggestions


Title: Re: Any published paper about Jacob Barnett's perspective on physics?
Post by: bio_man on Jan 27, 2017
It's impossible to tell. He is autistic, so probably his mind words differently than mine or yours.

Does he use a different numbering system of some sort, it's possible.

Regardless, I wouldn't give it much thought


Title: Re: Any published paper about Jacob Barnett's perspective on physics?
Post by: oemBiology on Jan 27, 2017
It's impossible to tell. He is autistic, so probably his mind words differently than mine or yours.

Does he use a different numbering system of some sort, it's possible.

Regardless, I wouldn't give it much thought


Thank you very much for suggestions :>


Title: Re: Any published paper about Jacob Barnett's perspective on physics?
Post by: bio_man on Jan 27, 2017
It's impossible to tell. He is autistic, so probably his mind words differently than mine or yours.

Does he use a different numbering system of some sort, it's possible.

Regardless, I wouldn't give it much thought


Thank you very much for suggestions :>

My pleasure, thanks for the question.