Is it time to stop teaching Euclid and Newton...

[subversive science]

in favor of Einstein?

(Pun intended.)

The problem of talking about gravity waves is that you can’t explain them without explaining Einstein’s idea of gravity. Recently I began to ask why it is so difficult to explain gravity, why the concept is met with glazed eyes and baffled looks. Eventually I came up with a theory I call the Tragedy of the Euclidean Time Warp.

http://theconversation.com/explainer-gravity-5256

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Euclid and Newton are approximations that are perfectly suitable for understanding the maths/physics necessary for most purposes on Earth.

In fact, Newton's mechanics are perfectly adequate for interplanetary travel. The alterations due to relativity don't come into play significantly until gravity/acceleration or velocity become very large. To get to the moon and back, they can be factored in to a tiny +/-% error that can be adjusted for with a quick burst of the engines.

So, given the fact that Newtonian mechanics are FAR easier than Relativistic mechanics, why bother using Einstein unless you have to?

If all you want to do is build an average-sized house, you can just use Euclid. Approximate the Earth's surface as flat and all vertical walls as parallel. Why not? The error is so tiny that an extra few millilitres of mortar will paste over the gaps. If you are building the Petronas Towers, you may want to revise your calculations with a little Newtonian Gravity Theory. But there is no reason whatever to consider the relativistic implications of clocks running a tad faster at the top - it simply doesn't make a difference greater than the margins of error allowed for in the construction process.

Approximation is an incredibly useful tool. Knowing when it can (and when it can't) be used is an even better one.

[Audley Strange]

Would that not be like dismissing arithmetic and going straight to algebra?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Would that not be like dismissing arithmetic and going straight to algebra?

Pretty much. All (practically usable) maths is a model of the world. Simple problems require simple models. More complex problems require more complex models. There is no point in using trigonometry to work out your change when buying groceries. Similarly, there is no need to use relativity to calculate the height of a lighthouse, knowing how far it is away and the angle it makes with sea-level.

Choose your tools to fit the work.

[JimC]

It is important to tell students in high school that the Newtonian physics they are learning is a special case of a broader theory, a special case that applies excellently for a very wide range of problems.

[laklak]

Good enough for government work.

[cronus]

The issue is that fifty per cent of the population have a IQ of 100 or less, they understand how building blocks work. They might become brickies or stack shelves. They won't understand non-euclidean geometry....they'll treat the idea as anything goes(some already do). Have the egg heads and geeks thought this through?

[Hermit]

The issue is that fifty per cent of the population have a IQ of 100 or less, they understand how building blocks work. They might become brickies or stack shelves. They won't understand non-euclidean geometry....they'll treat the idea as anything goes(some already do). Have the egg heads and geeks thought this through?

The question is, have you? Architects probably populate the upper half of the IQ domain, yet, as Xamonas Chegwé has mentioned a couple of times already they do not need to utilise the theory of relativity or the maths required to comprehend in order to go about their work either. Why your condescension? Does it help you feel superior to brickies, shelf stackers, egg heads and geeks?

[JimC]

F = ma

So there!

[Hermit]

F = ma

So there!

*raises hand in classroom*

I know, I know!

Fuckwittery = masturbatory arrogance

[cronus]

I'm saying not everyone is gonna get the idea of relativity, best give them something simpler they will understand. It's a dangerous thing to remove a rung from their limited cognitive ladders. Some of these folks drive cars and pay taxes. Do you want them asking awkward questions about their reality whilst behind the wheel of a auto-mobile?

[Hermit]

I'm saying not everyone is gonna get the idea of relativity, best give them something simpler they will understand. It's a dangerous thing to remove a rung from their limited cognitive ladders. Some of these folks drive cars and pay taxes. Do you want them asking awkward questions about their reality whilst behind the wheel of a auto-mobile?

The condescension, it verily drips floods. Also, I'd like to see statistics on the damage done by people while driving because someone inflicted awareness of the theory of relativity. If it is significant, I agree; we must protect the simple folk from such dangers.

[cronus]

No, not condescension more a precaution look at 9/11? the human mind is a variable thing and for some, endowed with the dense matter, the limitations of their dimlit reality needs to be taken into consideration. If they understand Newtonian physics that is a great leap forwards for them, why expect 'base animal thinking' to understand stuff it'll never experience in its everyday life? You'll simply confuse it, and make it more likely to do dumb stuff.

[Hermit]

I got it at last; you're taking the Mickey.

[MiM]

Meh,

While we are at it we could ditch also chemistry, biology and all other lesser sciences and derive everything from the basic laws of physics. Actually we could ditch even relativity, and focus all our effort on solving the time dependent Schrödinger equation of the universe.