Tell me /sci/ why am i good at math but absolute shit at physics

Because you have Autism instead if ADD

inb4 this turns into a math vs physics shitflinging contest

>>9086334
Overdeveloped maths part of the brain. The rest is underdeveloped.

In essence a brainlet.

>>9086344
Physics > Maths

File: IMG_3321.jpg (62KB, 550x535px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 550x535px

>>9086352
But without maths you wouldnt have physics, and without physics we wouldnt have maths.....
AAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!

>>9086357
>without physics we wouldn't have math
W R O N G

>>9086357
tell me, how applying mathematical theory in physics 200 years or so after it was invented helps maths?

File: vortex.gif (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>9086334
You lack discipline.

By "good at maths" you probably mean "good at plug and chug" which is not the same thing. At the same time, physics requires a minimum of creativity on your part, so plug and chug won't fly.

>>9086334
What level of math and physics are we talkin here?

File: newton-leibniz_eng.jpg (14KB, 400x275px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x275px

>>9086357 >>9086363
Newton & Leibniz invented Calculus.
Without Isaac Newton, Leibniz would took the credit instead.

>>9086357
Without Physics we would not have the Modern Technology.
Without Physics Math would applicable just in Economics.

File: download (2).jpg (7KB, 246x205px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 246x205px

>>9086334
While most theoretical Physicist have to be good in both Math & Physics.
Physicists who don't know well math become experimental Physicist though.
A lot of (pure) Mathematicians out there don't have a clue about physics. They know the math theorems very well but not so much how to apply it in Physics.
Some (applied) Mathematicians like John Von Neumann are good in Physical applications though.

>>9086334
I can understand this desu. It just requires a very different kind of intuition. In physics you have to be comfortable doing a lot more hand-waving and intuitively knowing when a simplifying assumption will be good enough. In mathematics, even the more hand-wavy parts need to be logically justified, so you have to be a bit more detail-oriented and, in a way, more autistic.
I sort of admire the fast-and-loose approach physicists take, because it helps them work around problems that would keep mathematicians occupied for decades. But I don't think I could do that myself, at least not for a whole career. It just feels dirty. Every time I see a physical derivation of something where they go "now for small v, this approximates this, so we'll just set them as equal" or something similar, a part of me dies a little.