Flying is impossible, so is timetravel.

[zoobyshoe]

Bit curious about the basis for that statement (made by Kelvin). He did know that birds et al are "heavier than air flying machines" right ?

Apparently he was famous for overconfident pronouncements:

Scottish mathematician and physicist who contributed to many branches of physics. He was known for his self-confidence, and as an undergraduate at Cambridge he thought himself the sure "Senior Wrangler" (the name given to the student who scored highest on the Cambridge mathematical Tripos exam). After taking the exam he asked his servant, "Oh, just run down to the Senate House, will you, and see who is Second Wrangler." The servant returned and informed him, "You, sir!" (Campbell and Higgens, p. 98, 1984). Another example of his hubris is provided by his 1895 statement "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" (Australian Institute of Physics), followed by his 1896 statement, "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning...I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society." Kelvin is also known for an address to an assemblage of physicists at the British Association for the advancement of Science in 1900 in which he stated, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Kelvin.html

Also:

Here are some famous skeptical quotes by William Thomson

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible"

"Radio has no future"

"X-rays are a hoax"

http://members.tripod.com/~Irishscientists/scientists/KELV.HTM

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, I thought Newton's theories were tested pretty thoroughly before Newton's formulation and after them.

They weren't. While Newton's gravity was tested to perhaps a couple of percent and over short periods of time (good, but not great), Newton's theories on kinematics weren't even tested to with a thousandth of a percent of the speed of light.

This is stretching the truth. The anomalous advance of Mercury's perihelion was first observed by Leverrier around 1840 I think. Newton published his theory of universal gravitation around 1665. That's 175 years ! Now how long has the theory of relativity been around ?

Timewise, it was longer than I realized [actually, I misread something that implied Laplace found some anomalies 50 years earlier], but how much happened in science between those two events? How much better did our measurement capabilities get compared with, say, the past 100 years? At the turn of the century, we couldn't accelerate objects to even 1/1000th the speed of light - within decades, they were sending electrons up to 99.9999...% of the speed of light.

Yes, but that defect in accuracy meant that the theory itself was fundamentally flawed ! What is troubling is that the accepted standards for good accuracy or precision do change (a lot) with advancing technology.

I don't find that troubling - Newton's theories were good enough to cover everything known at the time. Theories don't get much more solid than that!

It's only natural that if you can only test to within 1%, you make judgements based on that. If you can get to 99.99999999% the speed of light, then you make your judgements based on that.

However, it may be in precisely that tiny an anomaly that may demolish an established theory and bring in a new one.

I wouldn't use the word "demolish" - Newton's theories may be fundamentally flawed, but they are still used because they are still useful.

Similarly, any theory that replaces Relativity will necessarily incorporate all that is known about relativity to date. And if it's simpler, people will still use relativity in appropriate situations.

Ill I'm saying is keep an open mind - the theories exalted as sacrosanct today may well prove utterly wrong tomorrow.

Again, you think I'm being too absolute in my acceptance, I think you are being too absolute in your rejection. Not even Newton's theories are considered "utterly wrong".

 

[russ_watters]

According to Igor Novikov, p 57 of The Future of Spacetime, 2002: [re: Kelvin]

As noted, that's a pretty rediculous statement considering I'm sure he'd seen birds before. But perhaps he was talking about technology, not science...?

 

[Curious3141]

They weren't. While Newton's gravity was tested to perhaps a couple of percent and over short periods of time (good, but not great), Newton's theories on kinematics weren't even tested to with a thousandth of a percent of the speed of light. Timewise, it was longer than I realized [actually, I misread something that implied Laplace found some anomalies 50 years earlier], but how much happened in science between those two events? How much better did our measurement capabilities get compared with, say, the past 100 years? At the turn of the century, we couldn't accelerate objects to even 1/1000th the speed of light - within decades, they were sending electrons up to 99.9999...% of the speed of light. I don't find that troubling - Newton's theories were good enough to cover everything known at the time. Theories don't get much more solid than that!
It's only natural that if you can only test to within 1%, you make judgements based on that. If you can get to 99.99999999% the speed of light, then you make your judgements based on that. I wouldn't use the word "demolish" - Newton's theories may be fundamentally flawed, but they are still used because they are still useful.
Similarly, any theory that replaces Relativity will necessarily incorporate all that is known about relativity to date. And if it's simpler, people will still use relativity in appropriate situations. Again, you think I'm being too absolute in my acceptance, I think you are being too absolute in your rejection. Not even Newton's theories are considered "utterly wrong".

I agree with most of your points. I'm not being too "absolute" in my rejection of anything (even Newton), merely pointing out that violent changes in paradigms and dogma can result almost overnight with even miniscule observations. This is well borne-out in the history of science. The (relativistic) idea that motion could alter the fabric of space time would've been considered utterly revolutionary in Newton's time, for instance. In fact, if someone as brilliant as Einstein had proposed the idea back then (without the necessary experimental evidence, for it wouldn't have been forthcoming), he would have been laughed at as a fool. Knowing something of how unpleasant Newton was as a person, he would probably have branded this guy a heretic and had his chuch friends do some horrid Braveheart type stuff to him.

 

[QuantumTheory]

I think one thing to note here is that if time travel were possible and currently happening... we wouldn't have a clue that it is since these things or peopel woudl be in and out of our 'time frame' in an instant. A lot of strange problems would be occurring as well, philisophical and scientific. When we say things in quantum mechanics are probabilities... I would assume there has to be some huge problems since the idea of natural randomness could no longer exist if everything already has been pre-determined.

Thank you! This is what I was trying to say!

What I mean't was, this program was credible! It also had one of the few pioneers int ime travel, Kip. Also, it was on the science channel (By discovery) Everything on there is fact. There was also one on quantum physics abuot what is light, a wave or a particle? It is both. I learned so much. It is great

What i meant was, as someone else mentioned, we caused subatomic particles to go 99.999999999% the speed of light. This is what I meant. they encoded these on a music lase beam, and sent them across the room. It didn't go anywhere, but it was cool and they were able to get the speed. In fact, they said it went 2x the speed of light. You may not believe it, i just wish i wouldve written down the names..

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Although I never saw the show, this is either a bad program or a misunderstanding on your part of what was achieved. To start with, music is not made of particles. It's simply information encoded in some manner (in this case, as modulated photons). There's no way that it went faster than light, because photons are light.

If this is the show I am thinking of I don't think it was a very good one.
I was quite suprised when a friend of mine told me that the way Superman taveled back in time by flying around the Earth really fast wasn't so silly a notion. I think it made him feel bad when I started laughing. He then showed me a program on television on discovery channel or something that actually said this.

 

[Pengwuino]

What i meant was, as someone else mentioned, we caused subatomic particles to go 99.999999999% the speed of light. This is what I meant. they encoded these on a music lase beam, and sent them across the room. It didn't go anywhere, but it was cool and they were able to get the speed. In fact, they said it went 2x the speed of light. You may not believe it, i just wish i wouldve written down the names..

They didn't, trust me. Someone else will be able to explain what they ACTUALLY did.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Thank you! This is what I was trying to say!
What I mean't was, this program was credible! It also had one of the few pioneers int ime travel, Kip. Also, it was on the science channel (By discovery) Everything on there is fact. There was also one on quantum physics abuot what is light, a wave or a particle? It is both. I learned so much. It is great
What i meant was, as someone else mentioned, we caused subatomic particles to go 99.999999999% the speed of light. This is what I meant. they encoded these on a music lase beam, and sent them across the room. It didn't go anywhere, but it was cool and they were able to get the speed. In fact, they said it went 2x the speed of light. You may not believe it, i just wish i wouldve written down the names..

Ok maybe I'm not thinking of the same show but I still had to share that story.

 

[QuantumTheory]

If this is the show I am thinking of I don't think it was a very good one.
I was quite suprised when a friend of mine told me that the way Superman taveled back in time by flying around the Earth really fast wasn't so silly a notion. I think it made him feel bad when I started laughing. He then showed me a program on television on discovery channel or something that actually said this.

Actually, on Discovery channel and the science channel, they have several about time travel and quantum physics. It was merely to illustrate a point. The point was, as I recall, that if you COULD go faster thant he speed of light you would theortically go backwards in time. Of course, nothing can go faster than Light (C) but it was just an EXAMPLE.

The show was actually quite accurate. Do you really think the science channel would show a show that is not 'very good'? Of course, it is controverisal, no one really knows for sure -- because no one can prove it. But they mentioned it was highly inprobably as well.

 

[Pengwuino]

Actually, on Discovery channel and the science channel, they have several about time travel and quantum physics. It was merely to illustrate a point. The point was, as I recall, that if you COULD go faster thant he speed of light you would theortically go backwards in time. Of course, nothing can go faster than Light (C) but it was just an EXAMPLE.

The show was actually quite accurate. Do you really think the science channel would show a show that is not 'very good'? Of course, it is controverisal, no one really knows for sure -- because no one can prove it. But they mentioned it was highly inprobably as well.

You sound like you do not have a very good understanding of things like quantum physics so I'm not sure how valid your assertation of "quite accurate" is. The discovery channel has shown inaccurate shows before from what I've heard on this forum.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Actually, on Discovery channel and the science channel, they have several about time travel and quantum physics. It was merely to illustrate a point. The point was, as I recall, that if you COULD go faster thant he speed of light you would theortically go backwards in time. Of course, nothing can go faster than Light (C) but it was just an EXAMPLE.
The show was actually quite accurate. Do you really think the science channel would show a show that is not 'very good'? Of course, it is controverisal, no one really knows for sure -- because no one can prove it. But they mentioned it was highly inprobably as well.

From what I remember of the show it really glossed over most details to where I wasn't even sure exactly what they were getting at in many instances. Even when they were discussing relativity I had no idea how they were making the jumps in logic they were. So no I don't think it was very accurate because they didn't even describe their material in a comprehensible manner. Compilation of odd scientific phenomena and huge leaps in logic are what junk science is made of. You should listen to Coast to Coast so you can get a handle on how to identify crack pot ideas.
Travel beyond the speed of light, possible or not, does not necessarily mean traveling through time as far as I understand. Aside from theory the only thing that comes even close to supporting this was when they had a photon(?I think?) located in two places at the same time for a small fraction of a second.
I've yet to ever hear a logical explination on how time travel is possible. The closest thing is the worm hole theory and I think that even that has several problems with it. Perhaps the closest thing to time travel is just a sort of bending of "spacetime".

 

[ZapperZ]

The show was actually quite accurate. Do you really think the science channel would show a show that is not 'very good'? Of course, it is controverisal, no one really knows for sure -- because no one can prove it. But they mentioned it was highly inprobably as well.

1. How can you judge if the show was "quite accurate" when you yourself have admitted that you haven't learned that much physics yet?

2. The Discovery channel has had shows about ghosts and paranormal events. Enough said.

I hate to think that these are you primary sources of knowledge to justify your claims on here. I thought people are wise enough to know that we demand better quality of sources on here?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Thank you! This is what I was trying to say!
What I mean't was, this program was credible! It also had one of the few pioneers int ime travel, Kip. Also, it was on the science channel (By discovery) Everything on there is fact. There was also one on quantum physics abuot what is light, a wave or a particle? It is both. I learned so much. It is great
What i meant was, as someone else mentioned, we caused subatomic particles to go 99.999999999% the speed of light. This is what I meant. they encoded these on a music lase beam, and sent them across the room. It didn't go anywhere, but it was cool and they were able to get the speed. In fact, they said it went 2x the speed of light. You may not believe it, i just wish i wouldve written down the names..

I think this just illustrated what I just posted. You have to be VERY careful on establishing what you are seeing from these shows especially considering you do not have the background to properly interpret these things.

The apparent superluminal speeds here, I'm guessing, came from a "tunneling" experiment. And as in any TV shows, they didn't tell you the details, nor did they tell you the OTHER side of the story. This superluminal claim is highly controversial. If you had bothered to look at the list of evidence for the postulate of Special Relativity in my journal, you would have seen at least a couple of entries on this particular claim. The superluminal claim is neither accepted, nor has been verified. In fact, there have been theoretical description that the SIGNAL velocity was in fact below c in such experiments!

You cannot use "TV shows" as sources to back up your physics arguments, especially when you haven't fully understood the fundamentals. Physics is not done this way. Use these TV shows for what they're meant - as a "fable" for the general public to get a brief flavor of physics. They are NOT meant to TEACH physics.

As Integral has said, there is a difference between learning physics, and learning ABOUT physics. I think you have confused the latter with the former.

Zz.

 

[FredGarvin]

Do you really think the science channel would show a show that is not 'very good'? Of course, it is controverisal, no one really knows for sure -- because no one can prove it. But they mentioned it was highly inprobably as well.

I have seen quite a bit of, well, crap for lack of a better word, come out of the Discovery Channel and the like.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Travel beyond the speed of light, possible or not, does not necessarily mean traveling through time as far as I understand.

Around the time of the Einstein Centenial (late 1970s) a lot of magazines were quoting Einstein, and particularly quoting anything he said that seemed to suggest strange things were possible.

I think I read back then that Einstein said that if we could exceed the speed of light and catch up to light that had relfected off the Earth ages ago, we'd be able to "see" the Earth's past.

This is akin to realizing that looking at the sun is to receive 8 minute old information, or that looking at a particular star might mean we're seeing hundred thousand year old information.

This may be where the notion that faster-than-light travel means going back in time comes from. It would be a misunderstanding of this.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As noted, that's a pretty rediculous statement considering I'm sure he'd seen birds before. But perhaps he was talking about technology, not science...?

Something akin to saying that we could never generate enough energy to significantly warp spacetime, perhaps.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The thing that gets me is that we find so much prognostication over an imcomplete theory; or really, two. Now how scientific is that?

 

[QuantumTheory]

I hate to think that these are you primary sources of knowledge to justify your claims on here. I thought people are wise enough to know that we demand better quality of sources on here?
Zz.

What you said, is the kind of crap I can't stand. Dude, I'm 17. No, I haven't TAKEN a physics class, so I may not UNDERSTAND the 'fundamentals' of physics. In fact, I just graduated high school. I am very good at math, but before high school I wasn't. I became very good and loved math in high school. The farthest I've gotten in school was some algebra (Didnt get to quadratics or factoring that welll, or paraboles), most f geomtetry, but i never took trig, pre calc, or calc. So naturally, I can't do physics without knowing calc, I don't think?

Just so you know, I do know a lot of properties of physics. I do understand the fundamentals of special relativity, relativity, some quantum mechanics, although I do not know the mathemathics behind it, so you can say I "dont know it", whatever. I do know a lot about the shrtonnger cat I believe it was demonstrating the cat as 'alive and dead'a t the same time or that a photon is both a particle and a wave.

I also understand inertia as well. I believe it is when you are traveling in a car, and you stop with the brakes, and you do not have a seat belt you, you can feel your body moving forward. I believe this is due to 2 forces: 1) Gravity. 2) Ineria. Newtons theory says that an actoin will have an opposote and equal reaction, therefore, when you stop, you are moving forward at the same speed the car was going the instanteous moment before it stopped. I may be wrong here, but dude, give me a break. I'm fricking 17.

Sorry, if it wasn't accurate, by he way. I didn't know this. Yeah, I can' bieleve discovery would have shows on ghosts, but come on. I was just wondering if time travel as theortically possible, that's all. But you get on my case because it isn't 'propery material'. I am interested in physics, and I do understand a lot of it.

However, I do not appreciate you trying to argue with me. I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me what to correct, etc. But it's useless to argue with me. Why? Because I probably am wrong at things, you've taken physics, I haven't. And you're most likely not as young as me, therefore have more knowledge

Also, please don't say I don't know a lot for my age. I have a feeling you'e going to say "You don't know much for your age." , most teens know a lot more about physics than you. This doesn't help the situation.

Thanks

 

[ZapperZ]

What you said, is the kind of crap I can't stand. Dude, I'm 17. No, I haven't TAKEN a physics class, so I may not UNDERSTAND the 'fundamentals' of physics. In fact, I just graduated high school. I am very good at math, but before high school I wasn't. I became very good and loved math in high school. The farthest I've gotten in school was some algebra (Didnt get to quadratics or factoring that welll, or paraboles), most f geomtetry, but i never took trig, pre calc, or calc. So naturally, I can't do physics without knowing calc, I don't think?
Just so you know, I do know a lot of properties of physics. I do understand the fundamentals of special relativity, relativity, some quantum mechanics, although I do not know the mathemathics behind it, so you can say I "dont know it", whatever. I do know a lot about the shrtonnger cat I believe it was demonstrating the cat as 'alive and dead'a t the same time or that a photon is both a particle and a wave.
I also understand inertia as well. I believe it is when you are traveling in a car, and you stop with the brakes, and you do not have a seat belt you, you can feel your body moving forward. I believe this is due to 2 forces: 1) Gravity. 2) Ineria. Newtons theory says that an actoin will have an opposote and equal reaction, therefore, when you stop, you are moving forward at the same speed the car was going the instanteous moment before it stopped. I may be wrong here, but dude, give me a break. I'm fricking 17.
Sorry, if it wasn't accurate, by he way. I didn't know this. Yeah, I can' bieleve discovery would have shows on ghosts, but come on. I was just wondering if time travel as theortically possible, that's all. But you get on my case because it isn't 'propery material'. I am interested in physics, and I do understand a lot of it.
However, I do not appreciate you trying to argue with me. I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me what to correct, etc. But it's useless to argue with me. Why? Because I probably am wrong at things, you've taken physics, I haven't. And you're most likely not as young as me, therefore have more knowledge
Also, please don't say I don't know a lot for my age. I have a feeling you'e going to say "You don't know much for your age." , most teens know a lot more about physics than you. This doesn't help the situation.
Thanks

Oh, so now you're psychic also?

Note that I have never mentioned anything about your age? What does THAT have anything to do with anything?

And you still have no clue when I said that there's a difference between learning physics, and learning ABOUT physics. You got the latter, not the former. This is not physics. All you got was similar to receiving a description through 2nd hand channels about the color "blue" without ever seeing the color itself.

Time travel? Based on our current understanding, there is no such thing. Is it possible ever for human beings? Based on our current understanding, no human can survive such a thing.

I thought this answer was given WAY early in this thread already! Now does this put this idea to rest finally?

Zz.

 

[Pengwuino]

Quantum, you need to give everyone a break here, people here know a LOT about physics including the mathematics behind it all. I mean god knows how many phd's are on this board!

What you are basically saying is that you want someone to agree with you and no one can really do it. When you say you "understand physics" but then say you have absolutely no mathematical understanding of it, it's like saying you know how a car works because you press the accelerator and it moves but then ask "why can't my car be totally silent, go 400,000mpg and travel 80000mph using water as a fuel!".

 

[QuantumTheory]

Oh, so now you're psychic also?
Note that I have never mentioned anything about your age? What does THAT have anything to do with anything?
And you still have no clue when I said that there's a difference between learning physics, and learning ABOUT physics. You got the latter, not the former. This is not physics. All you got was similar to receiving a description through 2nd hand channels about the color "blue" without ever seeing the color itself.
Time travel? Based on our current understanding, there is no such thing. Is it possible ever for human beings? Based on our current understanding, no human can survive such a thing.
I thought this answer was given WAY early in this thread already! Now does this put this idea to rest finally?
Zz.

Age corresponds with knowledge. The older you are, the more you understand. That is why there are different IQ tests for older people .

OK< I'll admit it, I'm stupid. I am a retard. In fact, i am so stupid I am a disgrace tot hi forum because everyone is smarter than me. So I'm not posting here anymore. Have a good day.

 

[arildno]

Age corresponds with knowledge. The older you are, the more you understand.

Well, aren't we a bit optimistic about the intellectual level of adults here?
Sigh.
(You're excused, you're only 17..)

 

[Pengwuino]

Well, aren't we a bit optimistic about the intellectual level of adults here?

optimistic is definitely a nice way of putting it.

 

[z-component]

Dear QuantumTheory,

I suggest that if you are truly sincere about learning physics that you enter the discussion with an open mind and prepare yourself for a little criticism. You should learn that if you want to raise a "shakey" topic in front of a highly-esteemed audience when you yourself are still learning, you must anticipate being "smacked-down." In fact, it is the way some people learn. In college, you are encouraged to challenge your professors to arguments only to find that you've been disproven! I suggest that instead of being immature and saying you'll never post here again that you first acknowledge what other people say with an open mind.

PF is a wonderful place for the discussion of science, simply put. As a newcomer to PF, you will find youself unknowing of a lot of the things discussed here, as do a great number of PFers-- it's normal. In essence, you should reconsider not partaking in discussions anymore, if you are truly devoted to science, and learn how to accept criticism without causing difficulty.

 

[Cosmo16]

Of course time travel is possible!

I can travel through time! One second at a time...

 

[Pengwuino]

Of course time travel is possible!
I can travel through time! One second at a time...

We've already gone over this joke

 

[Cosmo16]

oops, now you tell me.

 

[QuantumTheory]

Dear QuantumTheory,
I suggest that if you are truly sincere about learning physics that you enter the discussion with an open mind and prepare yourself for a little criticism. You should learn that if you want to raise a "shakey" topic in front of a highly-esteemed audience when you yourself are still learning, you must anticipate being "smacked-down." In fact, it is the way some people learn. In college, you are encouraged to challenge your professors to arguments only to find that you've been disproven! I suggest that instead of being immature and saying you'll never post here again that you first acknowledge what other people say with an open mind.
PF is a wonderful place for the discussion of science, simply put. As a newcomer to PF, you will find youself unknowing of a lot of the things discussed here, as do a great number of PFers-- it's normal. In essence, you should reconsider not partaking in discussions anymore, if you are truly devoted to science, and learn how to accept criticism without causing difficulty.

Thank you , I will take your advice. My mom read one of the responses, adn she agreed I was taking it too seriously, she said there was a lot of good helpful information on it. I guess I overreacted, sorry. But she didnt agree when he said "There's no way you can understand the concepts of algebra." of course i man, I've taken high school algebra, I know how it works, why you have to balance equations, etc. You can't just go through math and memorize it, or you'll never get very far

Alot of people on this forum have different views on science and philophy than me. For example, I find this 'do we exist' thing, in essence, very, very stupid. It's a nice philopsical question, but come on? I have depression and have had serious suicidal thoughts in the past, and honestly, I hate life. It makes things feel very difficult, and I feel like no one likes me. It's like having a constant cloak over you, making everything worse than it actually is. Many people in real life (in fact everyone) tells me I'm smart, it's just people here seem VERY hesitant to due so. Perhaps it's because I'm "wrong" on a lot of counts, and they always try to disprove me. The truth is on anything but science, I'm not "wrong", its just my opininon. ON a second note, if we don't exist, I'll just go kill myself. I mean, why is life worth suffering for if we don't exist? Heck, I don't want to work my whole life for nothing. One person, ultimately, can't make a difference anyway. Also, since religion 'doesn't exist', and evoltuion is always right, why should we live? There's no reason to life. It's a freak accident. really. No one here even believes in 'god designed evolution', heh. Of course, with a condition like the one I have, I really do like to believe I will go to heaven, there is a god, etc, it makes you feel comfortable. This is probably why many people want to believe there's a heaven. Unfortunately, the evidence in the theory of evolution is staggering, while there's no way to prove religion is right.

But one thing I have noticed, 90% of christian people (evenin chatrooms) are the nicest people I've known. Believing in the bible, and being with god, really does make you a good person, of course, there are exceptions, but it seems it can hellp you.

The most someone's said about my intelligence is, "You're fine." What is that supposed to mean? My IQ is below average, I'm worthless. Admit it.

 

[Maxwell]

Thank you , I will take your advice. My mom read one of the responses, adn she agreed I was taking it too seriously, she said there was a lot of good helpful information on it. I guess I overreacted, sorry. But she didnt agree when he said "There's no way you can understand the concepts of algebra." of course i man, I've taken high school algebra, I know how it works, why you have to balance equations, etc. You can't just go through math and memorize it, or you'll never get very far

I assume that you are referring to a comment I made in the IQ thread. I did not say "there's no way you can understand the concepts of algebra." Read my post again. I said there is no way you would be able to understand Calculus. I also told you that it was not your fault and that you should not feel bad -- you just don't have the background yet.

How do I know that you don't have an adequate algebra background? You made a post in the Academic section telling us that you do not know how to factor. Factoring is not advanced algebra like you seem to think. It is a fundamental topic learned in beginning algebra.

Read my post in the IQ thread over again a few times.

The most someone's said about my intelligence is, "You're fine." What is that supposed to mean? My IQ is below average, I'm worthless. Admit it.

PS -- he was trying to tell you this: DO NOT WORRY ABOUT YOUR IQ. DO NOT COMPARE YOURSELF TO OTHER PEOPLE. WORK HARD AND YOU WILL SUCCEED!

 

[zoobyshoe]

Many people in real life (in fact everyone) tells me I'm smart, it's just people here seem VERY hesitant to due so.

Have you seen anyone tell anyone else they're smart here? I've been here since 2003 and have seen such a thing maybe two, or three times.