I doubt that anything like that will become standard curriculum. Some conclusions and effects might become common knowglede, but the mechanisms and theory not.

I doubt that anything like that will become standard curriculum. Some conclusions and effects might become common knowglede, but the mechanisms and theory not. It would have to be taught in high scholl, and even then not everyone have a complete high school knowledge. People don't generally know Newtonian mechanics unless they are physics undergrads or graduates. You need calculus to get it. I would argue that Newton's theory was more complex because it required new math. Einstein didn't. The math was already there, and he managed to incept his idea without it. Riemannian geometry just simplified description. It's similar to Maxwell. He had electromagnetism in over 20 equations, then some lad whose name I forgot, made work and closed it down to four, that again 99 percent or more people don't know, though they govern nearly everything at our scale. Touch, vision and chemistry is described by them. I can come with only two things that are part of everyday life, that lie outside. Gravity, in the part that makes us stick to the planet, and atomic energy, though that's fast trasformed back to EM domain. Everything else seems to be far away, except for the fact they make things stable, but we don't harness it. To me ingenuity and creativity are essentially the same. It's the abilty to have those insane ideas, perhaps genius is to pick important ones to ponder upon. I think we agree, that scientific breakthroughs seem to be based on making up grander picture, where what you physically see is some kind of special case of generally opposite rules. One of the greatest example is the idea that movement is generally self sustained, seems crazy here in the atmosphere, where the 1st theories said, that it requires force and work to keep going. Something we all experience. Well, that's a long tought-chain. Hope someone's find it interesting.