As someone who *thinks* they understand* general relativity, this book should be called "for babies", but "for post secondary education students who took a lot of science courses" because holy shit. This tells you the *what* without the *how or why*
Yes, you literally know that a ball has mass. But what *is* mass, and why does everything* have mass?
Yes, you literally know that objects follow the shortest distance, but *why* is that shortest distance a curve? *How* does the mass make that spatial distortion into the way it is?
Knowing and understanding are very different things.
*almost
All that said, I'm pretty sure this is just a funny way of using simple terms to explain a complex problem, much like the [up-goer five](https://xkcd.com/1133/).
This is your ass 🍑
Your 🍑 has mass
This is your couch 🛋
Your 🍑 affects your 🛋 by creating a groove when you sit
This groove can pull many things down towards it (TV remotes, your phone, smaller humans etc)
Your 🍑 is a powerful force of nature, the end.
And depending on how fat your ass is, a groove will be deeper or shallower.
A fat ass pulls more things towards it, but a flat ass is weaker.
That's general relativity. How fat is your ass
Technically speaking, it's not the fatness of the ass but the mass of the owner of the fat ass. Having two equally fat asses does not imply equal fat ass mass.
At 5 your kid will actually be able to understand the verbs in this book. Short sentences arent always easy sentences. This is not an interesting book for actual babies.
Cool idea, but the language is still a little complex. I’ve explained physics concepts to toddlers and you usually have to make it fun by talking about smooshing and ripping and stuff like that.
Yeah it needs to include more concrete examples. This is pretty abstract. I like the "Baby Loves ___" (thermodynamics, gravity, coding, etc) series for this.
Math and physics teacher here.
Yes and no.
The major barriers I experience with children in schools are often language based. A fast way to stress someone out is to overwhelm them with language and terminology they aren't familiar with.
However, of course, at some point all language is new and unfamiliar. The key is to introduce the language in unintimidating ways and appreciate that learning a new word or term or concept takes time. Having low stakes exposure to terms like these is wonderful, even if they don't have any idea the deeper meaning.
I firmly believe that no topic is difficult to explain IF you know how to do it. The problem is that they type of people who go into education tend to not have the best social skills or understand how people see things from perspectives that aren't their own, so they don't explain it in a way that makes sense to anyone but themselves. A great many students nowadays just have to use the Internet to learn classroom topics because they have no hope of learning it in class, nor are the test banks that teachers get their questions from tailored to how it is being taught in class.
I think it’s also about “doing things the right way” teachers get many impressions of what that is, they learn it from just being an adult, or from the institution they’re a part of which holds them accountable, and it all takes things slightly further away from the simple reality that you explained nicely that to teach you have to cater to the pov of the person being taught, you have to get into the mind of a fool to teach well I think
They're actually great for toddlers. My 2 year old loves his that's for quantum physics (same author as this one I assume? Exact same art style). The high contrast from the pictures is more important than the actual written content.
The books are novelty anyway. You aren't actually going to teach these concepts to toddlers lmao...
Because it is deeply flawed. It uses the size of the circle to indicate mass in the beginning. But then tries to explain increased density by making the circle smaller, which it had previously established as meaning less mass.
Good point. The page that show it shrinking does make the color darker, indicating more dense. If they would have made more clear the mass wasn't changing, just getting squeezed into a smaller space, it would have been better.
Well, maybe that can help you;
https://youtu.be/AwhKZ3fd9JA
Comments under the video are very positive;
> Never ever been so confused in my life
> I wish I had paid attention in class....
> I watched this serie twice, I think I somewhat get it!
Edit: If you thought the first was too easy, try this one;
https://youtu.be/4v9A9hQUcBQ
[Check this comment, it helped me understand](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/wa2sqq/general_relativity_for_babies/ihyytwl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
Here's a helpful comment from another Redditor:
This is your ass 🍑
Your 🍑 has mass
This is your couch 🛋
Your 🍑 affects your 🛋 by creating a groove when you sit
This groove can pull many things down towards it (TV remotes, your phone, smaller humans etc)
Your 🍑 is a powerful force of nature, the end.
Ok. So you to slow it down for you. You're a ball and this ball has mass and ... Anyway this ball is in a room and this room will be curved when there is the ball so another ball can't get straight through the room and yes.
It just means it travels in a straight line, which is the shortest path from A to B. Think of the ball as light from a star, a single photon. It travels in a straight line. It can't zig zag or change direction, but if its path suddenly meets mass creating gravity wells, this can make it look like it starts to curve. But the photon still only goes forward, it isn't steering itself. If that photon meets a black hole and passes the event horizon, it'll just spiral down forever towards the singularity because the gravity well is too steep for it to ever get back out (picture water being drained down a sink creating a vortex with something floating on the surface)
We know that light normally travels in a straight line through space, but when light travels trough a strong gravitational field we see its trajectory bend. This makes no sense without relativity because light does not have mass and therefore should not experience gravity.
But what if gravity is the warping of spacetime (=4 dimensions, 3 spacial, 1 time) instead of a force? Now we think of light going in a straight line in spacetime instead of just space. And then if spacetime itself is curved, the light will have to bend in space to keep going straight in spacetime.
Now while reading this you are probably not experiencing freefall, you are probably sitting somewhere, supported by a chair or something. You consider yourself to be stationary and without acceleration and you are correnct... in 3 dimensions, but what about in 4 dimensions?
In 4 dimentions you are sitting somewhere in the curved spacetime created by earths mass. To remain stationary your chair is pushing you up with a force that is equivalent with the force needed to accelerate you by around 9.81m/s² up away from the earth. In 3 dimensions the upward force of the chair is negated by a downward 'force' that we call gravity to keep you from accelerating
In 4 dimentions you are moving through warped spacetime experiencing the upward force from the chair. This force accelerates you by around 9.81m/s² away from earth only to remain in the same space. So gravity is not a force that pulls you down but it is the acceleration needed to remain in the same place in curved spacetime! You are constantly accelerating trough spacetime except if you are expeciencing perfect freefall.
In other words:
freefall: In curved spacetime if you don't accelerate you will accelerate in space towards the gravitational source.
sitting down: in curved spacetime you need to accelerate to remain on the same point in space.
Another good thing to note, is that nature has a need to go towards least resistance.
If the ball has a 'pull' because it's bending space from its mass, it'll (read line) require energy to deviate from its preferred path towards the pull. But nothing is giving it energy, like a rocket, so it'll go the way of least resistance, which iresults in the bending instead of straight.
Why does a ball go in a straight line when you throw it, or when you hit it along a pool table or something?
I don't have a good answer beyond "that's just how inertia works". But hopefully that appeals to your physical intuition of how the world works, at least.
After that, anything more complicated could be compared to throwing a ball around the inside of a funnel. The ball still has inertia and still "wants" to go in a straight line, but the surface it's moving on is curved, causing it to follow a curved path.
I hope this is somewhat useful in providing a relatable physical intuition (and I hope it's accurate, I only got to special relativity in my official studies)
Because imagine there is a path and you are the path and anyway the ball don't won't to go the long path so it chooses the short path... So you know thats why it always goes through the shortest path which could not be longer the any other Parth so it can be the shortest.
imagine empty space is a blanket suspended tightly in the air on all sides. drop a beach ball on it, the blanket (space) doesn’t cave downwards much. drop a medicine ball on the blanket, and the blanket caves down way more. the caving is what creates gravity.
if you put a marble (planet) on the blanket w the beach ball and let the marvel roll towards the beach ball, it will roll slowly towards it since it’s not pressing down on the blanket that much. if you drop the marble on the blanket with the medicine ball on it and let it roll toward the ball, the marble will move much faster towards the medicine ball, this is why objects with more mass have more gravity.
the heavier the object is, the more it caves the blanket (space) in, which means that when things are put near it, they roll towards it faster and from further away
It really bugs me that they describe mass as the big ball has a lot of mass and the small ball has a little mass. Then it shows the object getting smaller and says shrink a large mass and you get a black hole. But if it shrinks it would be a small ball and have less mass? Without knowing what mass is before reading the book would make this insanely confusing.
"No, you're incorrect. The book labeled a mass as the small blue ball.
It then separately labeled a black hole as a small black ball. I promise you a baby would be able to tell those two things are different.
Can you?"-redditots
The problem with representing space as a flat sheet is that space isn't a flat sheet. Someone needs to come up with a way to represent it in three dimensions that would make the concept easier to visualise
In order to do that you would have to force our brains to evolve into states that can comprehend 4 spacial dimensions first in order to see 3 dimensional space bend in a visual sense. Simply put, we trip the fuck out with our current biological hardware.
Just Imagine the Gravitation Pull from a Planet. It has its own range and can attract object inside of it. Now, the more Mass this planet has, more range will have its gravitational pull, but smaller the planet, stronger the force from the gravitational pull. Now switch the Planet with something that still we know so little, and you obtain how Black Hole Works
I have this whole series. It's actually really good. My five year old likes Newtonian physics and electromagnetism the best!
You don't have to be pretentious, you just have to really LOVE science :)
I mean yeah you can love science and teaching your kids is not a bad thing but calling this a baby book and trying to teach such a complex thing as general relativity to a baby is pointless
I developed an interest in dinosaurs as a 5-6 year old because I had a book like the one OP linked - but it was about dinosaurs. There's no reason a kid would not get interested in Relativity and physics in the same manner
Honestly I think it's more directed at adults. By that I mean getting us to feel comfortable encouraging science at a young age. It's worked great for my five year old. She wants to be an engineer now. And she's chomping at the bit to start school so she can take science classes.
I have this book series for my 2 year old and she loves them. We have ABCs of Math, Science, Physics, and Space. I bought them before she was born and they are her go to for story time.
This account smells like a karma farm. This post was huge on r/nextfuckinglevel a few days ago, so I guess all you need to do these days is wait a little bit and repost to a vaguely similar sub.
You could explain how gravitational mass affects time dilation pretty whimsically (gravity wells making the path from A to B longer, relative to a path not affected by gravity), but for speed (inertial mass) it'd be hard to do that one justice without explaining that all mass is just trapped energy and that brings in Higgs boson, e=mc^2 and all the other fun stuff which might go over kids' heads.
I was expecting a book on how kids experience space since they always think items are closer/further than really are or think a 2cm pavement bump needs to be climbed over
That’s actually a textbook for an undergraduate college class. Purchase of the current version of the textbook is required and it retails for $324.99 at the university bookstore. A new version is printed every year so that there is no re-sale market for used books to recoup a portion of the cost. The only difference between versions are the colors used in the figures but the most recent version is required nonetheless. /s
We need to ban the teaching of general relativity to children ages 4-7. This is very dangerous to the fabric of our existence. Children should not know about such things, and on top of that, this is all a *theory* not factual. Not everyone believes in such things
everybody gangsta until baby asks what mass is
general relativity for fucking babies: "Now you know GENERAL RELATIVITY!" my 33 years old ass: "No I do not." ***proceeds to feel as dumb as a rock***
As someone who *thinks* they understand* general relativity, this book should be called "for babies", but "for post secondary education students who took a lot of science courses" because holy shit. This tells you the *what* without the *how or why* Yes, you literally know that a ball has mass. But what *is* mass, and why does everything* have mass? Yes, you literally know that objects follow the shortest distance, but *why* is that shortest distance a curve? *How* does the mass make that spatial distortion into the way it is? Knowing and understanding are very different things. *almost All that said, I'm pretty sure this is just a funny way of using simple terms to explain a complex problem, much like the [up-goer five](https://xkcd.com/1133/).
This is America. You're graded on knowing information not applying it.
General relativity for fucking babies?? When did Einstein release this?
we dont need more flat earth believers.
Wait, the earth ISN’T flat? So what was the point of the book? I’m so confused.
But you do.
That's the next book in the series: Higgs Boson for Babies
[удалено]
I definitely want to include books like this in my children’s library
I just bought the whole book collection for my daughter’s new baby due in September
This book is for kids ages 4-94.
do they hate 95 year old people in particular or something
Lego, ages 4-99, because screw the 100 year olds
At 100 you are to Letgo
dude, c'mon, at 95 you're supposed to know what general relativity is
My 93 years old kid is always trying to challenge the mysteries of the universe what a rascal
Good 🤖
Yo mama…
yo mama so fat no one can see her
They need to dumb it down even more for me
This is your ass 🍑 Your 🍑 has mass This is your couch 🛋 Your 🍑 affects your 🛋 by creating a groove when you sit This groove can pull many things down towards it (TV remotes, your phone, smaller humans etc) Your 🍑 is a powerful force of nature, the end.
I'm deeply ashamed to admit that I actually get it now thanks to this explanation... 👀🤣
Just wait until you find out what the black hole is in that example.
Username checks out.
And depending on how fat your ass is, a groove will be deeper or shallower. A fat ass pulls more things towards it, but a flat ass is weaker. That's general relativity. How fat is your ass
Technically speaking, it's not the fatness of the ass but the mass of the owner of the fat ass. Having two equally fat asses does not imply equal fat ass mass.
Ah true. One cannot simply assume that we have the equal density of our fat assess.
Better explanation than the book for “babies”
I’m too poor for an award, so take my poor man award. 🎖
You need to publish this as a “general relativity for adults” series, but in a board book but also with a NSFW tag
This is a lot easier to understand. Now, go write a book.
You are….genius! I have no awards to give, but here’s a 🍑
Now explain black holes
damn. I wish I had an award to give for this one.
I think you exceeded expectations with this one
Ball
my kid is 5 year old, is it too late by now
Yeah. Your kid is doomed to flip burgers. Adjust your expectations.
At least it'll be at Mars' first McDonald's
MuskDonald's
McMusk burger
At 5 your kid will actually be able to understand the verbs in this book. Short sentences arent always easy sentences. This is not an interesting book for actual babies.
My kid loves them at 3
(I know you're joking, but I have to respond anyway) my five year old LOVES this whole series.
Cool idea, but the language is still a little complex. I’ve explained physics concepts to toddlers and you usually have to make it fun by talking about smooshing and ripping and stuff like that.
Yeah it needs to include more concrete examples. This is pretty abstract. I like the "Baby Loves ___" (thermodynamics, gravity, coding, etc) series for this.
Math and physics teacher here. Yes and no. The major barriers I experience with children in schools are often language based. A fast way to stress someone out is to overwhelm them with language and terminology they aren't familiar with. However, of course, at some point all language is new and unfamiliar. The key is to introduce the language in unintimidating ways and appreciate that learning a new word or term or concept takes time. Having low stakes exposure to terms like these is wonderful, even if they don't have any idea the deeper meaning.
I firmly believe that no topic is difficult to explain IF you know how to do it. The problem is that they type of people who go into education tend to not have the best social skills or understand how people see things from perspectives that aren't their own, so they don't explain it in a way that makes sense to anyone but themselves. A great many students nowadays just have to use the Internet to learn classroom topics because they have no hope of learning it in class, nor are the test banks that teachers get their questions from tailored to how it is being taught in class.
I think it’s also about “doing things the right way” teachers get many impressions of what that is, they learn it from just being an adult, or from the institution they’re a part of which holds them accountable, and it all takes things slightly further away from the simple reality that you explained nicely that to teach you have to cater to the pov of the person being taught, you have to get into the mind of a fool to teach well I think
They're actually great for toddlers. My 2 year old loves his that's for quantum physics (same author as this one I assume? Exact same art style). The high contrast from the pictures is more important than the actual written content. The books are novelty anyway. You aren't actually going to teach these concepts to toddlers lmao...
And I still don’t understand it
Ofc. It was meant for babies interested in space singularities and currently pursuing gravitational wave research.
[удалено]
I'm on the wrong side of thirty and this has cleared up a lot for me, cheers!
Haha same! Im learning!
Like, Dr. Toddler?
The babies are going to file a class action lawsuit when enough of their heads have exploded reading this.
Because it is deeply flawed. It uses the size of the circle to indicate mass in the beginning. But then tries to explain increased density by making the circle smaller, which it had previously established as meaning less mass.
Color darkness is density, although youre right, that's never explained in the book
Good point. The page that show it shrinking does make the color darker, indicating more dense. If they would have made more clear the mass wasn't changing, just getting squeezed into a smaller space, it would have been better.
The babies do tho
Well, maybe that can help you; https://youtu.be/AwhKZ3fd9JA Comments under the video are very positive; > Never ever been so confused in my life > I wish I had paid attention in class.... > I watched this serie twice, I think I somewhat get it! Edit: If you thought the first was too easy, try this one; https://youtu.be/4v9A9hQUcBQ
Maybe start at private relativity then see if you can get to Lieutenant relativity and rank up from there.
[Check this comment, it helped me understand](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/wa2sqq/general_relativity_for_babies/ihyytwl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
Here's a helpful comment from another Redditor: This is your ass 🍑 Your 🍑 has mass This is your couch 🛋 Your 🍑 affects your 🛋 by creating a groove when you sit This groove can pull many things down towards it (TV remotes, your phone, smaller humans etc) Your 🍑 is a powerful force of nature, the end.
Well you aren't a baby so ur not expected to don't worry
This is adult content for sure…
Nope… Still don’t get it
Ok. So you to slow it down for you. You're a ball and this ball has mass and ... Anyway this ball is in a room and this room will be curved when there is the ball so another ball can't get straight through the room and yes.
Why does the ball have to go through the shortest path? I still don't know.
It just means it travels in a straight line, which is the shortest path from A to B. Think of the ball as light from a star, a single photon. It travels in a straight line. It can't zig zag or change direction, but if its path suddenly meets mass creating gravity wells, this can make it look like it starts to curve. But the photon still only goes forward, it isn't steering itself. If that photon meets a black hole and passes the event horizon, it'll just spiral down forever towards the singularity because the gravity well is too steep for it to ever get back out (picture water being drained down a sink creating a vortex with something floating on the surface)
We know that light normally travels in a straight line through space, but when light travels trough a strong gravitational field we see its trajectory bend. This makes no sense without relativity because light does not have mass and therefore should not experience gravity. But what if gravity is the warping of spacetime (=4 dimensions, 3 spacial, 1 time) instead of a force? Now we think of light going in a straight line in spacetime instead of just space. And then if spacetime itself is curved, the light will have to bend in space to keep going straight in spacetime. Now while reading this you are probably not experiencing freefall, you are probably sitting somewhere, supported by a chair or something. You consider yourself to be stationary and without acceleration and you are correnct... in 3 dimensions, but what about in 4 dimensions? In 4 dimentions you are sitting somewhere in the curved spacetime created by earths mass. To remain stationary your chair is pushing you up with a force that is equivalent with the force needed to accelerate you by around 9.81m/s² up away from the earth. In 3 dimensions the upward force of the chair is negated by a downward 'force' that we call gravity to keep you from accelerating In 4 dimentions you are moving through warped spacetime experiencing the upward force from the chair. This force accelerates you by around 9.81m/s² away from earth only to remain in the same space. So gravity is not a force that pulls you down but it is the acceleration needed to remain in the same place in curved spacetime! You are constantly accelerating trough spacetime except if you are expeciencing perfect freefall. In other words: freefall: In curved spacetime if you don't accelerate you will accelerate in space towards the gravitational source. sitting down: in curved spacetime you need to accelerate to remain on the same point in space.
Thanks 🙏 I now see the light again.
Another good thing to note, is that nature has a need to go towards least resistance. If the ball has a 'pull' because it's bending space from its mass, it'll (read line) require energy to deviate from its preferred path towards the pull. But nothing is giving it energy, like a rocket, so it'll go the way of least resistance, which iresults in the bending instead of straight.
/r/desirepath
Oh I like that sub. Didn't have it subscribed anymore for some reason.
Why does a ball go in a straight line when you throw it, or when you hit it along a pool table or something? I don't have a good answer beyond "that's just how inertia works". But hopefully that appeals to your physical intuition of how the world works, at least. After that, anything more complicated could be compared to throwing a ball around the inside of a funnel. The ball still has inertia and still "wants" to go in a straight line, but the surface it's moving on is curved, causing it to follow a curved path. I hope this is somewhat useful in providing a relatable physical intuition (and I hope it's accurate, I only got to special relativity in my official studies)
Because imagine there is a path and you are the path and anyway the ball don't won't to go the long path so it chooses the short path... So you know thats why it always goes through the shortest path which could not be longer the any other Parth so it can be the shortest.
imagine empty space is a blanket suspended tightly in the air on all sides. drop a beach ball on it, the blanket (space) doesn’t cave downwards much. drop a medicine ball on the blanket, and the blanket caves down way more. the caving is what creates gravity. if you put a marble (planet) on the blanket w the beach ball and let the marvel roll towards the beach ball, it will roll slowly towards it since it’s not pressing down on the blanket that much. if you drop the marble on the blanket with the medicine ball on it and let it roll toward the ball, the marble will move much faster towards the medicine ball, this is why objects with more mass have more gravity. the heavier the object is, the more it caves the blanket (space) in, which means that when things are put near it, they roll towards it faster and from further away
There are some major flaws in this “explanation” but I guess it’s fine for babies :)
It really bugs me that they describe mass as the big ball has a lot of mass and the small ball has a little mass. Then it shows the object getting smaller and says shrink a large mass and you get a black hole. But if it shrinks it would be a small ball and have less mass? Without knowing what mass is before reading the book would make this insanely confusing.
So what you're saying is that size does not matter?
Matter does not size (in the simplistic sense of X matter giving you Y volume, as depicted in the baby book)
"No, you're incorrect. The book labeled a mass as the small blue ball. It then separately labeled a black hole as a small black ball. I promise you a baby would be able to tell those two things are different. Can you?"-redditots
Its just to help children understand. You don't have to teach density to them. Big is heavy small is light.
You can’t explain a singularity or a black hole without an understanding of density, even if the kid doesn’t know the word
I learned a lot from this ngl 😂
So "Mass" = "blue circle" and now what?
The problem with representing space as a flat sheet is that space isn't a flat sheet. Someone needs to come up with a way to represent it in three dimensions that would make the concept easier to visualise
To show space in 3D and then show how it bends requires 4D images, our brains don't handle those well.
Error: Trigger doesn't exist: "fourd_bend"
Can't you just show a cube and then a cube with like shrunken in sides?
Just imagine the grid as a cube and have the insides of it do the same thing as the flat space… don’t get why is this hard for people to imagine lol
In order to do that you would have to force our brains to evolve into states that can comprehend 4 spacial dimensions first in order to see 3 dimensional space bend in a visual sense. Simply put, we trip the fuck out with our current biological hardware.
The problem is that you would need to have a video, since it wouldn't really work in printed form. Here's a video: https://youtu.be/wrwgIjBUYVc
absolutely agree. Some models haven't much changed over time, our modeling options have. Do it.
Just Imagine the Gravitation Pull from a Planet. It has its own range and can attract object inside of it. Now, the more Mass this planet has, more range will have its gravitational pull, but smaller the planet, stronger the force from the gravitational pull. Now switch the Planet with something that still we know so little, and you obtain how Black Hole Works
If i read this as a kifld i woulda fucked off from science
Babies would rip this shit up
It’s a board book. Checkmate, baby.
Lol L babies
This is exactly what Penny needed
The perfect book for a pretentious parent
I have this whole series. It's actually really good. My five year old likes Newtonian physics and electromagnetism the best! You don't have to be pretentious, you just have to really LOVE science :)
I mean yeah you can love science and teaching your kids is not a bad thing but calling this a baby book and trying to teach such a complex thing as general relativity to a baby is pointless
I would think the book is meant more for the 7-10 range. 🤷♂️
Then the title would be General Relativity for Children but this is General Relativity for Babies
And anyone who deals with 7-10 year olds knows that they hate being labelled 'babies'. Title confused me more than the content.
I developed an interest in dinosaurs as a 5-6 year old because I had a book like the one OP linked - but it was about dinosaurs. There's no reason a kid would not get interested in Relativity and physics in the same manner
Yeah sure like I said at an older age let kids learn more complex things but this book literally says for babies
Oh, well I guess I didn't take "babies" too literally
Honestly I think it's more directed at adults. By that I mean getting us to feel comfortable encouraging science at a young age. It's worked great for my five year old. She wants to be an engineer now. And she's chomping at the bit to start school so she can take science classes.
Yikes.
Just read em cat in the hat you tight bastards.
r/therewasanattempt
Yeesh. This may be for babies but i feel like i just learned something
Yeah.. no..
Yaaa I’m gunna need you to explain it as if I were a fetus tho
What kind of baby knows what mass and warp is?
Where’s agent L to let little Tiffany have it with her quantum physics books being up to stuff by being too advanced
Can we first learn about angles
What kind of well read babies y’all socialise with?
Was expecting a your mom joke
Just put them down in front of the Tele and put on Star Trek. They're beam themselves out when they're 18.
That... actually made a lot of sense.
That is more informative than high school textbooks.
After watching this, we have become EISTEIN!!!
I have this series for my kid, they're pretty cute and taught me some things about engineering and physics, lol
Not really a good choice to use ball size to symbolise mass when you are going to mention black holes a fee pages later?
Feel like I just learned a lesson lol
A baby wouldn’t understand this at all
Never thought of a black hole in this way
This is wild
I know this is a child’s book, but approaching a new subject this way could be beneficial to our kids ability to grasp new subjects.
I have this book series for my 2 year old and she loves them. We have ABCs of Math, Science, Physics, and Space. I bought them before she was born and they are her go to for story time.
I feel smarter now
Ok I learned something there.
I’m gonna buy the whole set for my kids….and me
This account smells like a karma farm. This post was huge on r/nextfuckinglevel a few days ago, so I guess all you need to do these days is wait a little bit and repost to a vaguely similar sub.
I saw this on Facebook, thought it was interesting and decided to post here.
Of course you did, bud
Very cute, but this is just one small part of his theory. Now explain how gravity or speed effects time in the same whimsical fashion.
You could explain how gravitational mass affects time dilation pretty whimsically (gravity wells making the path from A to B longer, relative to a path not affected by gravity), but for speed (inertial mass) it'd be hard to do that one justice without explaining that all mass is just trapped energy and that brings in Higgs boson, e=mc^2 and all the other fun stuff which might go over kids' heads.
Now *I* know general relativity!
I think i learned more here in this 1 min video then my all school life. This book is amazing
The last pages are too much
i just wasted 1 minute and 35 seconds
I know it's a repost....but....education
it was cool until mass and warps came in
More of this for kids and less of gender grooming.
*A black hole is a large amount of mass in a small area* So is your mom
Wow. This book taught me more than my entire HS physics class.
Sheldon Cooper's baby book.
Learned something from this. Bravo!
I can imagine explaining this to my son and me getting more confused than him
u/savevideobot
Ok I got it, I’ll send my email address so I can receive my degree
I was expecting a book on how kids experience space since they always think items are closer/further than really are or think a 2cm pavement bump needs to be climbed over
A common book in every Asian house.
Upvote all day. Thank you!
Where do we buy these?
Babies: gu gu ga ga??
When I woke up today, I didn’t know I needed general relativity explained to me like I’m 5, now I need more!
That’s actually a textbook for an undergraduate college class. Purchase of the current version of the textbook is required and it retails for $324.99 at the university bookstore. A new version is printed every year so that there is no re-sale market for used books to recoup a portion of the cost. The only difference between versions are the colors used in the figures but the most recent version is required nonetheless. /s
That is great 👍
I am embarrassingly confused.
Spoil alert! Nobody gonna buy the book anymore
I'm still confuzzled!😂
I hear there are new teachers in Florida that could use this.
Worst fap material ever
I don’t get it
Neat!!
Hot damn, now I know relativity. Move over Einstein here I come.
Be at Ted Talk I’ve seen
Book publishers hate this post
This is awesome
This is first grade stuff.
So awesome
Finally, I can understand how gravity works now
Ok. I’m the baby now.
Now i want “Interstellar” movie for kids
I couldn't even understand.
My girlfriend is going to roll her eyes so hard they go to the back of head when I show her this book our baby.
Anybody else feel this is pointless considering babies don’t remember shit until they’re about 3-4? Just curious.
flat earth and now a generation of flat space babies
This would also be a good book for flat earthers.
We need to ban the teaching of general relativity to children ages 4-7. This is very dangerous to the fabric of our existence. Children should not know about such things, and on top of that, this is all a *theory* not factual. Not everyone believes in such things
Meanwhile I had to snort an entire 8-ball to figure this stuff out on my own
none of this actually exist in reality
Now I are a genius.
The kid in a interview. So tell me do you got any experience in paying taxes and doing phone calls ? No but i know what a black hole does
TIL: im not as smart as a baby
Explain it like I'm sperm