WriterCarlDobbs's tags:
WriterCarlDobbs reads (0):
Who's reading WriterCarlDobbs (13):

What Einstein has to say about High School Geometry.

 

If you read Albert Einstein’s book about his theory of Relativity, you’ll find that his first chapter debunks geometry (Euclidian geometry in particular – the type we learn in High School).  He calls it a complete falsification of known fact.


Some of the things he claims are wrong.

1: There is no straight line in the Universe.

2: All of the measurements you get from geometry are off.  For instance, the area of a cirle is not Pi R Square except in a very specific circumstance where the circle is perfectly motionless (with you as a inertial reference) and you are measuring it in that state.  You would also have to be in a place where there is no gravity.  Only then can the measurement be accurate according to the formula geometry gives you.  Otherwise gravity and speed warp time and space so that your ruler that you measure the circle with is no longer a fixed length.  Even the spinning of the circle makes its dimensions change.

This is borne out by the fact that global positioning satellites subscribe a giant circle as they orbit the Earth.  But the warping of space occurs because of the movement of the object through space and the gravitation field of the Earth.  This makes the calculations of the satellite go way, way off course unless the calculations are corrected for the changes in the fabric of space because of the speed of the craft and the warping of time and space caused by the mass of the Earth.

 

So all you get with your high school geometry is a tool good enough to approximate every day calculations.  Once you test it in the extreme, the calculations can no longer apply.  They are simply become incorrect and must be disgarded.

 

Now the calculations of Isaac Newton are good enough to send our space craft to Mars accurately but they, too, are disregarded when very precise measurements must be taken.  Albert Einstein’s calculations must be used for very precise measurements.

 

Also, Nasa, itself, is telling you what they know is incorrect when they say that gravity is a force that pulls you down.  It is nothing of the sort.  It is the warping of time and space.  Einstein proved this in 1905, over 100 years ago.  It is interesting that most school children are taught wrong things out of ignorance or out of convenience..

 

I urge all parents to learn the true science and instruct their kids on what people have known for over a  century.  That way they don’t grow up ignorant.  The future is theirs and they must be included in the science that exists today, not the science that was proven false 100 years ago.



del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • SeanRenaud said on Sep 24, 2008....
    Wow.  Just wow. 
  • RollingC said on Sep 24, 2008....
    If the Moon suddenly stopped circling the Earth and came to a full stop...what would happen ?
  • WriterCarlDobbs said on Sep 24, 2008....
    Answer:  It would fall straight toward the Earth.  Why?  There is a fourth dimension of TIME.  It's time direction brings it to the center of the Earh as well as its 3 dimensional warp.  In fact, the time dimension is more responsible for the curvature of the moon's path than are the other 3 spacial dimensions.
  • RollingC said on Sep 24, 2008....
    How come they teach in High Schools that it's gravity that will bring it down.  Is this theory not accepted yet by the community at large?
    Is gravity part of the process?  I'm too much of a newbie at science to get into a discussion.  Just curious
    Thanks
    Rc
  • tsacluos said on Sep 25, 2008....
    it is from y=mx+c that you get to e=mcc
  • tsacluos said on Sep 25, 2008....
    How do you get to einstein directly without doing the rest? Thru a wormhole I guess. It is already quite a gargantuan task to go from science to O level physics, and then again leap from O to A levels.
    Mr Dobbs please share your strategy....
  • anonymous said on Sep 25, 2008....
    Even Isaac Newton didn't claim that gravity was a force.  To him it was impossible for one object to act on another over a distance without anything connecting them.  All he did was to describe what he saw.
    Before Isaac Newton, the word "gravity" meant that something was "grave," like a sad emotion.   He borrowed the word to describe what he meant.  It's just like the word "levity" meant the force which caused smoke to rise.  They didn't understand what it was, they just labeled it as levity.  Levity, today, means "humor" or a light mood.  So words change. 
         It just seems to me that people who teach science today are too lazy to discuss Einstein's proven theories.  It is simple to believe that gravity is a force so they call it one.
          Now there is a new theory called "M" theory having to do with quantum physics where they are trying to prove that gravity is actually a force.  But this is extremely new, only a few years old.  It is purely a mathmatical solution to the problems of a lot of things.  But Einstein's theories are so well established that NASA sent up a space craft called "Gravity Probe" that actually proved Einstein's theory that as the Earth spun that it dragged space and time.  It's space dragging was absolutely observed.  So Einstein has been proven right over and over again.
         Besides that, in 1909 scientists discovered that light beams from distant starts changed course after they passed next to our sun.  These photons are massless remember.  The only explanation for the accuracy of his calculatons was that space warped around a massive body.  Einstein's equations were proven inaccurate.  He did predict some bending of the light but his was off by 50 percent. 
         So why is an archaic theory still taught?   It shouldn't be.  It keeps people ignorant.  Read Einstein's book, available at all libraries, describing his theory of relativity.  It will amaze you.
  • tsacluos said on Sep 25, 2008....
    If you don't get y=mx+c, will you comprehend  y=axx +bx+c consequently e=mcc.........
  • WriterCarlDobbs said on Sep 26, 2008....
    Read Einstein's book "The Theory of Relativity."   He explains everything in minute detail about the fallacy of Euclidian geometry.  He essentially calls it hogwash.  There are no straight lines.  There is no "area of a circle is Pi R square" when you have to take into the Lorenze transformations for moving objects.  It is fully explained why Euclid's concept of time and space are so out of whack none of his formulaes are truly accurate.  They are based upon obsolete concepts.
  • hotaka said on Sep 27, 2008....
    It reminds me of how Creation was/is taught because more complex theories had not yet arisen or were not yet accepted. I can see it being convenient to learn Euclidean Geometry when in school for, as you say, day to day calculations. But there are a lot of things we learn in school that are meant to be basics, foundations, that are later scrapped when it becomes necessary to do higher level calculations. Heck, most adults I know can't add double digit figures in their heads let alone multiply them. Why would they need to learn how to calculate the radius of a cirlce in motion around an gravity well? It's not what we need to know. But I always liked the science teachers who told us that what we were learning was not the real case but it was what we had to learn as our foundations. Some science and math teachers told us there was more but that we could learn later in uni.

    On the side, I have wondered if the pull of inertia isn't actually an effect of gravity warping an object in four deminsional space. Perhaps when the train slows down and we feel pulled forward it's because the front of the train is actually bending down in four dimensional space. Just a thought.
  • WriterCarlDobbs said on Sep 28, 2008....
    The current theory is that there is a field called the Higgs field.  The super collider, CERN will be operational in about one year.  If the Higgs field exits it will explain inertia.  It is  supposed to be a field that all matter has to pass through when it moves, causing resistence to movement.  It supposed to give matter its mass.  I don't know why it doesn't put a drag on moving objects.  Research the Higgs Field and you may find the most recent answers to your questions.  If the super collider Cern is able to successfully determine the existence of a Higgs field, no scientist would be surprised.  Everyone seems to expect it will be there.  I would be surprised, though.  I can't imagine a field causing inertia without acting as a break for moving objects.  It has never been adequately explained to me.
  • tsacluos said on Sep 28, 2008....
    As I studied the classical stuff way back in high school, inertia is the resistance to change in basic states of motion. The two common states being AT REST, and with CONSTANT VELOCITY. Inertia is also a derived unquantifiable quality of mass. Mass as a measure of particles that make up the body. So more mass, more inertia... harder to start moving and if moving, harder to stop or turn. That I understood till now. Here you come telling the world, teachers are wrong, go with Einstein and relativity. Hotaka and me seem to agree that you have to study classical theories first to go up further to theory of relativity. Don't mean that we say it is wrong... it is another theory, meaning another way to look at it. What about the wave theory of sub atomic particles then? Seems you read A book and now champion it as A cause. Now that we are questioning,you bring up another thing called Higgs Field which you claim not to adequately understand. Then you bring in CERN. The basic question is still how do you teach relativity directly without going thru classical. By the way, I thought CERN is to be used to study existence of transient particles/products when other super high speed particles collide, (last week AL Jazeera news of the gas leak). Anyway I wouldn't understand anything if I was doing the O levels and on a field trip to visit CERN with their chief scientist explaning the whole thingy to me.
  • hotaka said on Sep 29, 2008....
    I read about that super collider. I will look into the Higgs field more. Then at least I will know what's going on when the news comes out. Thanks.
  • WriterCarlDobbs said on Dec 07, 2008....
    Please note that Einstein didn't just propose just another theory.  What he said predicted, accurately, the observed position of 91 stars that surrounded the sun during a lunar eclipse.  The misplacement of start could not have been caused by Newton's idea of the Universe.  This invalidated the idea that gravity was a force and proved Einstein's theory of warped space.  The theory is the only one of the two that is provable by observation.

Comment on "Geometry Teachers got it wrong. So says Einstein!"

Science Dobbs preacher complicated (Click to add tags below)

(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Comment Anonymously

Just tell us your opinion....
Since the publication in May of his book, ''Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science,'' Ian Plimer has been the darling of conservative media commentators and the global network of climate change skeptics...
Exactly how much "in the image of God" are we? Do we have Godly powers to create matter even without knowing that we are? How do we define "reality" and what does science say about the matter?...
Simply, the answer is NO! It doesn't jibe with the rudimentary doctrines of Jesus or even our own sense of morality. Who can condemn a newborn baby for sin? Who can say Adam condemned us all by sinning? It's a crazy concept!...
Did you read the blog entry below about Adam's transgression? Now read this: How does Jesus define righteousness? It it obedience to the 10 commandments? Is it some sort of formula that we have to follow?...