Albert Einstein was an exceptional intellect. Most people aren't. If anyone here could display basic knowledge of physics sans egregious error, I wouldn't be emphasizing this point so much. Albert Einstein understood physics on a deep level. Anyone who understands physics at a modest level will be able to converse intelligently on the subject regardless of their education.
If I'm the one you (ad-hoc) judge to need a tracheotomy, pardon me if I don't share your confidence, at least up to this point. You might be one of the reasons tort laws are they way they are.
While I agree in principle with the intent of these remarks, it is a practical fact that the entire basis for the foundations of physics -not just ALL of the everyday work - is grounded in mathematics. The symmetry principles and group theoretic concepts of abstract algebra not only govern the core of modern physics, to a large degree they drive it. It IS possible to understand a lot of physics principles without ever dipping into equations, but it is not possible to DO physics without them.
To emphasize how deep the connection goes, I challenge you to define momentum (the quantity described in the law of conservation of momentum) or kinetic energy using only words. The propensity of matter in motion to stay in motion and energy of motion, respectively? Wow, those are nice, touchy feely words. What do they mean? How does one work with them? How does one use those words to precisely calculate the motion of a celestial body for all time, given only initial conditions?
Momentum is defined to be the product of mass times velocity, and THAT is the BEST way to understand it. Likewise kinetic energy is the product of mass times the square of velocity times a constant. That's what those concepts really are, and the form you must reckon with if you want to DO any physics using them.
It's actually quite insulting to someone who went through the effort to get a degree in physics to make such a sweeping generalization using such a mundane analogy. I could query you on whether you know whether water or a particular fire-suppression chemical is indicated for any given type of fire - would you know the answers without looking them up? Even if you did, acknowledge that most don't. Your analogy breaks down at that level of consideration, at least.
But "simple physics" is NOT as simple as putting out a fire, and to portray it as such reveals either an ignorance of the subject (common!) or a deliberate attempt at being disingenuous (rare). Other than being able to state the basic laws of physics in natural language, there is little that can be done in physics WITHOUT math. Mechanics, a cornerstone discipline within physics, STARTS with setting up and solving an equation of motion.
Can you do that? If not, what do you really know about physics?
Incidentally, the aspect of physics 9/11 is most concerned with is the mechanics of progressive collapse. A narrow specialty within a sub-discipline of one of the hardest and most uncommon mainstream degree programs there is. A subject which certainly was not covered in my undergraduate mechanics, though in terms of complexity it certainly could've been.
The point is, when you have someone CLEARLY talking out of their ass, and they've had not one minute of formal or informal instruction, is there a problem with pointing that out? People who take and pass classes in mechanics don't make these mistakes. People who've taken and passed high school physics don't make these mistakes. That's the important and true takeaway from this, NOT the fact that Einstein didn't do high school!
