Autistic 12 year old boy with an IQ of 170

[Uncle Al]

Found this on Facebook - - PLEASE READ

Autistic boy, 12, with higher IQ than Einstein develops his own theory of relativity

Facebook comments - -

Comment 1) Cool if he could debunk the Big Bang Theory. It's ridiculous to think that, given it's infinity in all
directions, that the universe even HAD a beginning, let alone one with all physical bodies coming from one
massive piece of . . . mass.

Comment 2) More ridiculous than what? I'm no physicist, but I have a fair-to-middling understanding of the concepts,
had to take four semesters of it for my major (and passed), and of all the alternatives explored so far it's the theory
that best explains the facts. I know that doesn't mean it's correct in all its particulars, but he will definitely have
an uphill battle to prove it invalid.

Comment 3) Thanks! I have two kids with autism. My son is obsessed with computer coding.

Uncle Al

[Jack Williams]

Amazing. We need more boys like him in the world.

[Kirbstone]

That's why they ran the 'Rain Man' out of Vegas, because they saw that he'd clean them out in no time.

It'll be interesting to see how that young man's career pans out.

T.

[BobM]

Found this on Facebook - - PLEASE READ


Facebook comments - -

Comment 1) Cool if he could debunk the Big Bang Theory. It's ridiculous to think that, given it's infinity in all
directions, that the universe even HAD a beginning, let alone one with all physical bodies coming from one
massive piece of . . . mass.

Comment 2) More ridiculous than what? I'm no physicist, but I have a fair-to-middling understanding of the concepts,
had to take four semesters of it for my major (and passed), and of all the alternatives explored so far it's the theory
that best explains the facts. I know that doesn't mean it's correct in all its particulars, but he will definitely have
an uphill battle to prove it invalid.

Consider this: What you get out of the equations of general relativity depends entirely on your starting assumptions.
If your starting assumptions are that the universe is unbounded and has no center, then the equations produce an old universe and point (so some think) to a Big Bang).
But if you posit that the universe is bounded and does have a center, then the very same equations produce a universe that is old at the edges and much younger near the center. There is no scientific reason to favor one set of assumptions over the other. Arbitrarily declaring that the former must be valid, as orthodoxy demands, betrays personal bias that has no place in honest science.

[Jim]

Consider this: What you get out of the equations of general relativity depends entirely on your starting assumptions.
If your starting assumptions are that the universe is unbounded and has no center, then the equations produce an old universe and point (so some think) to a Big Bang).
But if you posit that the universe is bounded and does have a center, then the very same equations produce a universe that is old at the edges and much younger near the center. There is no scientific reason to favor one set of assumptions over the other. Arbitrarily declaring that the former must be valid, as orthodoxy demands, betrays personal bias that has no place in honest science.

That's an interesting idea. Can you give me a reference to explore it more?

Thanks.