The Scientist Who Sucked at Math 

I'd like to see the biographies of Kepler, the real father of gravity; and Guericke, the real father of electricity.

MAXWELL was given faradays laws of electromagnatic induction to write them in the maths after he discovered them and discovered a generator, maxwell has nothing to do with those discoveries , today we can write them in our own maths and throw out the maxwell because he has nothing to do with it. he was just another rich kid looking for opportunity to be famouse on some one else works so he is finally out...

Carl Friedrich Gauss, Bernard Rieman, Schrödinger

Wasn't Heaviside the true originator of the equations?

Emmy Noether; Julian Schwinger; Sophie Germain; Paul Weiss; Joseph Jacobi.

Good one! 😂

Haha! Nice!

I see what you did there!

My favourite ever. Watched the documentary with glassy eyes

He inspires me to publish my theories as a not academic person. 😊

Andrew Carnegie for us non stem majors

Heard his story as a kid and realised that anyone can make something of themselves if they have dedication and belief. This guy is inspirational and one of my heroes.

exactly

@@ethansocrates4252 He only knew upto algebra

​@@ayanokojikiyotaka2413where u know the fact?

@@Liwidyanto789 Wikipedia

@@Liwidyanto789 and some biographies

No narcissism in that comment 🙄

🤡🤡🤡 wtf

@@waynec369you clown

there are no "lines of force". its an illusion.

@@paradiselost9946 isnt any mathematical formalism an illusion?

mathematicians are not scientists.....

and newton is a much more revered scientist who also literally invented calculus

That's... not a very plausible comparison.

@@TheKimbit Your some what right and wrong. Mathematician themselves dealing with just math is not a scientist. But the field of Mathematics goes beyond knowing math. Its a understanding of all applied math. So when you go to school to be a mathmatician you are also using datasets like in statistics. just using a graphing calculator you can create your own algorithms cause your dealing with math over time when your using graphs. An example could be a team of scientist that study climate change over time. The team may require a mathematician to take in datasets and analyze climate change over time based on historical data to predict or determine the causes. In this case a mathematician is a scientist. He doesnt even have to know anything about climate change, all he is focused on is the record sets and variables to punch in to get a result dataset. These types of things require study. As long as you understand the subject at which your applying math to your a scientist. But that same mathimatician could also take his degree and be a professor or teacher in which he is not a scientist. Your field of study does not make you a scientist, your field of work does.

@@anthonygordon9483 you're saying if a math major decides to be a scientist, then they are a scientist. That's obvious. But a mathematician is never a scientist. Your definition of mathematician seems to be "anyone who uses math in their career" which is obviously not the case. A mathematician is a person whos primary goal is to study math, which objectively means, nothing to do with the sciences unless it is mathematical applications that MAY be used in sciences, which is still not science. Also, no mathematician studies datasets? Then you are doing data analysis or some applied math FIELD, but not mathematical work.. If you go and do scientific work, then you are not a mathematician anymore, unless you do mathematics study as a hobby Saying " the field of Mathematics goes beyond knowing math" is obviously not true, by definition. You seem to think anyone who uses math is a mathematician, which is certainly not the case, a mathematician is someone who studies math for the sake of knowing math. If you study math to do statistics, then you are studying statistics or data analysis.

Hundred percent. It always makes me wonder, where we would have been, had it not been for them. God bless their brilliant souls 🙏

Thanks Nate - and really appreciate you letting me use your footage too!

He was bad at math because he didn't KNOW how to do it, that's all.

@@s.f.f.f.t11- That’s right. He wasn’t bad at maths, he was simply under-educated in maths.

there is a world of difference between having an intuitive grasp of how something actually WORKS, versus being able to arrange squiggles from one side of an equals sign to the other. do you spend more time struggling with the concept, the physical processes, or do you struggle and waste time moving squiggles around on a page? my experience is we seem to get blinded by the task of moving squiggles. maths is only of any use if you understand how the squiggles relate to the physical process they are supposed to describe. but one can understand the physical process by simple observations. no squiggles required. some of the BEST "engineers" i know can barely write their own name. drop-outs. but they already knew how things worked. just had no reason to prove they can move squiggles around, preferred proving it by simply doing it. be amazed just how much of our modern world came about by so called "uneducated" or "self taught" people...

Appreciate it!

so you know understand? are you sure? because you know it works the other way? what if the coils shorted out? what if the coils open circuit? if you understood at all, you wouldnt understand but would be more confused than ever!

Did you really understand it, if you're satisfied with understanding that the inverse is also true?

To anyone interested, here is the book that inspired young Faraday: tile.loc.gov/storage-services/public/gdcmassbookdig/improvementofmin00watt_0/improvementofmin00watt_0.pdf

sad truth, in this era, Faraday wouldn't even be acknowledged.

@@RuneMamba ...and blacklisted. hundreds of scientists with doctorates today, who happen to be creationists, will attest to that 😠

This is something I've also been thinking lately. I realized that we are not taught how to uniquely think about the things. Instead, we're more focused on learning the mathematical formulas (which is important) but completely ignoring the intuition and the scientific method in the process. I think we should focus more on the intuitive part and then derive the mathematics out of it instead of doing the reverse.

I think science got much more complex and vast since then. Therefore math became more crucial to formalize scientific ideas and to harness them as forms of engineering studies.

He wasn't bad at maths he just couldn't do it because he wasn't formally educated in it

Yes, but don't forget Kepler, the real father of gravity; and Guericke, the real father of electricity.

There are thousands of Europeans who need to be mentioned

Archimedes and Newton stabd abobe others in my opinion. However, there are many legendary scientists.

And Nicola Tesla.

good luck 😢

You are not chemist.you lied, chemist do math for the courses. 👎👎

@@Liwidyanto789 lied? Of course not. In fact, I'm an analytical chemist. Screw you. I don't give a fuck about your opinion.

Sounds like gymnopedie av no 1. Or maybe it’s #2 or #3. All 3 are by Kevin Macleod.

Yes if you could afford it.

Math it's overrated, but it's important and very simple, if applied correctly. Even without Maxwell, they would have discovered all the math behind electromagnetism. Unfortunately math has become a useless quiz race, and all this useless piss contest started even before 1700. Today we are still in the middle of this quiz race. If Faraday was born today, he wouldn't make it in the elitist scientific world.

@@myuncle2 hear hear! moving squiggles around a page means rather little if you have no idea what those squiggles mean, or how they relate to physical processes. and as for maxwell... i have this issue with faradays "lines of force"... something about magnetised particles and how they tend to line up end to end, making long strings, but also tend to lie side by side, and as they cant flip to achieve neutrality, they tend to repel from each other... so you get what appears to look like "lines of force" when you drop your iron filings over a magnet. thin strings or magnetised particles attached end to end but also repelling away from each other with a force at RIGHT ANGLES to the so called "line of force". are they actually lines of FORCE? are they stationary, a solid tangible thing? no. i can poke any string of filings and it moves freely. but the adjacent lines tend to move... that really does suggest to me that the force happens to be BETWEEN the lines? then i get into curl, and theres this thing i cant help but contemplate... newton. action and reaction. generally, to make something spin one way, there is an equal and opposite reaction the other way... why does whatever is "curling" not produce this corresponding reaction? wheres the TORQUE to produce the "curl" COMING FROM? i once was really good at re-arranging squiggles. then about halfway through a scholarship i started asking myself what those squiggles actually meant... they didnt seem to actually have anything to do with what was going on? when you start thinking like that you start to question the whole system based on those concepts... getting carried away with making squiggles based on an illusion... or at least, a misunderstanding. an assumption. of course, sometimes i do use squiggles still. flux density and cross sections of cores and permeability and amp-turns and ohms law amongst various things. but at no point have i had to deal with "curl" and its lack of torque or corresponding reactions. i was told to shut up and do the maths when i raised issues.