Sound right?

[93berettagt]

*DISCLAIMER

I'm an idoit, I've been at osu for 6 years and still no degree (I've switched my major 5 times now) I've had one astronomy class there that mentioned Einstien and relativity. I have no clue on the math behind any of it (highest math I took was 151 or something i think) but I was curious about it so I read more on the internet (again just theory because I don't understand the math) and in general just think about things and trying to get a better self-understanding of it.

 

*2nd DISCLAIMER

These 6 years haven't paid off with my writing abilites so I ask all you grammer nazi's to show no mercy and let me know where there are the slightest mistakes. (If you want that is) Also I think the ending is lacking but its a paper for my cousin for a gec so I got bored and kinda rushed it.

 

So my cousin asked me to help her write a small paper on social/technological lag for her sociology class at cscc. I told her to write about time and how most people still think its a solid force no one can alter (Thats not the case, the problem is we just don't know HOW to alter it). After she told me those people were right, I decided to write her paper myself about it.

 

So bascally what I'm trying to get at is I've never talked to anybody "offical" about this and I know a lot of you on here know a good amount about this. What Im asking is, if I'm completely off, let me know. If it makes sense but I'm just off scientifically or whatever help me out. And If I just happen to be right what do you think about it?

 

Any help/advice/comments will be fully appreciated. Hope you enjoy it!

 

 

When Newton first discovered and defined the basics of physics (what must go up must come down, etc…), he did so based of a universal, unalterable eternal time. Newtown’s work was revolutionary, and with the knowledge of his era his discoveries were correct. In fact today they still work if used for calculating simple physics pertaining to Earthly numbers. However Newton was wrong, as Einstein came along and created his theories of relativity. These theories (proven true based off algorithms all GPS systems use to compensate for time dilation) demonstrated how time is not how we sense it in everyday life. That time in itself is not an ever-steady continuously flowing event. Basically put, that there isn’t some big godly clock somewhere in the heart of the universe keeping time for everything. What Einstein discovered is time is a changeable 4th dimension of things (the other 3 dimensions being the physical world) or that time and space are both alterable, not just space.

 

Today though if you talked about this to an everyday person, chances are not only would they not know what you are talking about, they would probably look at you like you were crazy. The problem for this is, unless taking some college classes in physics or astronomy or what-have you, no one teaches it. The problem for this (they stack up quickly here) is because top scientist of today still don’t fully know the answer to just how time and space relate, just that they’re relative to each other. The problem with the situation as a whole, is that waiting on the second problem to be fixed first (scientists figure it all out). THEN focusing on solving the first issue of teaching kids about it is backwards in reasoning. I do not know why our educational system is the way it is (Religion interference, traditional teaching strategies, and unknown reasons, but that is a totally different book to be written by a top sociologist someday.) but always teaching things fully thought out, only leads to everyone thinking that they know everything. This in turn, makes most people who were taught Newtonian physics in 8th grade to not even question what time is. So to them, once they get into college and a professor mentions Einstein’s theory, it’s no surprise it seems unnatural. That’s not the full extent to the problem with teaching in a backwards manner either. Quite literally, if 90% (guess on number, literal on the problem it brings) of the people don’t even know that time isn’t fully thought out, then how will it ever be solved? Other words, No one’s going to answer a question they don’t even know exists. Sure that other 10% who happened to find out about this will eventually solve it, but it’s been 95 years since we’ve known this, and still today people as a whole have no idea about it.

 

This technological and cultural lag still hasn’t been fixed, we are still teaching newton physics in grade school while waiting on this to be solved. A solution best to me, is teach kids early on the theory of this while they are still defining what their world is (waiting to late like in college or high school makes it harder for us to change up our set rules of, “how things are”). It’s nothing complicated in theory, the math that’s ridiculous, so just stick with theory at first. Then once in college if they decide to crunch the numbers have the physics class to do so. This probably could be done for a lot of scientific lessons (elements on the whole for example) don’t wait till the numbers are solved then teach the people at the school level required by its math. Teach them the theories early on while they still are able to create the much truer complex universe, then it’s just a matter of a numbers game. They don’t need to reconstruct their inner universe like we are doing all the time now after each new discovery.

 

So again to clarify everything about this lag I will break it down numerically. 1, kids are taught Newton physics not Einstein physics because Newton’s are fully figured out. 2, the reason is unknown why. That’s just how the educational system works, teach kids what we know for sure/fully. 3, this creates a problem because. A, creates the false perception of that’s the final answer to it (e.g. we know everything) and b, people can’t help finish what they don’t know isn’t finished. This is a social lag that hasn’t been fixed yet and in a way, why lags in general even exist. 4, the solution to this would be teach kids early on the most complex theories available while they still are creating their identity and relations to how the universe works/is. Don’t worry about numbers, just theory (teach it like a religion, not a single formula is mentioned anywhere in religion but it creates the most solid image in our brains on what our universe is). This would allow them to just figure out the science behind it later on if they decided to do so without having to re-rational everything behind it again in their heads.

 

This would probably solve other lags too, because that’s why people lag on whatever. Their inner creation of how the world works doesn’t comply with the newest whatever. The only difference from one lag to another is complexity. Take for example, the essence of time for society vs. Cellphones for old people. They at first seem very different, but relatively speaking they have the same underlying principle. Old people’s image of the world doesn’t have cellphones, just like we think time is stable and unchangeable. Sure it’s a lot easier to accept cellphones into your world, but most old people don’t simply because it’s a change to their system of how things work. As society advances and the faster things start to change, the more we will see tradition and “how things are” go away, aka social/technological lag. Humans are astronomically smart in perceptive reasoning/abstract thought (but unbelievably dumb at utilizing it) so its undeniable that we as people will see how minuscule a cell phone really is and it no longer will be an issue to let it into our worlds. In other words our brains will eventually force us to realize that a day/week/life is not long relative to length of all things, or that our planet/solar-system/galaxy is not big relative to the size of all things. Making it so much easier for us to “get over it” when something big changes how we function. This can be helped for the time being by never teaching the young to think this is how it is. Instead teach them, this is how we think it is right now, and that this is what we might think it could be more precisely (Look into analog vs. digital vs. optical to understand what I mean about preciseness). Until then however, we will continue to think this is how the world is and every time it changes we will have to self-adjust our world.

Edited March 6, 2011 by 93berettagt

[87GT]

TL;DR

[93berettagt]

I just want to make the dumb joke myself before anyone else does.

Sound? how does your paper make sound? lol *some smiley face*

[TTQ B4U]

Sorry bro, if a post has more than 1" of pure text without a set of titties between the words, I ain't reading it all.

 

http://www.petitemallette.com/iphone/ruler_V.jpg

[93berettagt]

lol i am getting a feeling you guys think its too long. It really isn't though, only 3 pages double spaced in word. Would an attached doc or pdf make it seem better? Or better yet should I just throw some titty pics in between the paragraphs to keep things interesting? Edited March 6, 2011 by 93berettagt
lied, looked at word its 3 pages not 2

[87GT]

MLA Format with boobies

[Trouble Maker]

I stopped reading as soon as you I saw a parentheses.

[93berettagt]

I stopped reading as soon as you I saw a parentheses.

 

Didn't know those were bad. I throw them in to explain things while not losing track of the orignal senctence. If the paper were more serious I would use citations and mla and all the above but it was an opinion paper to be no more than 3 paragraphs (I ramble a bit more). But hey thanks for trying to read it

[Mensan]

 

This would probably solve other lags too, because that’s why people lag on whatever. Their inner creation of how the world works doesn’t comply with the newest whatever. The only difference from one lag to another is complexity. Take for example, the essence of time for society vs. Cellphones for old people.

 

Am I being trolled?

[Furloaf]

Incomprehensible. Delete it and start over. Actually, delete it and don't start over. That would be a better plan.

[Doc1647545523]

I wouldn't say you're "completely off." I think it's a valid observation that the science we're taught in junior high and high school is a simplified version of things (Newtonian physics). Advanced study later on in the educational process shows us that things are actually more complicated (Relativity). But Relativity is counter-intuitive and also is not very useful to the understanding of 99.9% of what we observe and measure. I don't see the advantage of trying to teach that to children who are challenged by abstract reasoning, even though it's a more accurate description of things than is provided by Newtonian physics.

 

A more extreme example: in first and second grade, when we learn subtraction, we are taught we "can't take a big number away from a small number." The teacher proves this to us by saying, "If you only have five apples in the basket, you can't take away ten apples from your five." This helps us understand subtraction at an elementary level.

 

Later on in school you learn that in fact, you can subtract a large number from a small number; if it's five degrees outside and the temperature drops ten degrees, it's then negative five degrees outside. So, did your first grade teacher lie to you? Perhaps, but I would say it was a misrepresentation which helped you understand subtraction until your mind was later ready to grasp the concept of negative numbers. Try teaching negative numbers to someone just trying to learn substraction. I think you'll find the concept is too complex and confusing to grasp at that time.

 

It's much the same in teaching physics in middle school and high school. Students are introduced, in a fairly superficial way, to the concept that time is a dimension and is not absolute. However, they don't have the math skills and generally don't have the sophisticated abstraction needed to fully wrap their minds around Relativity. For the problems of their world, Newtonian physics works fine. For that matter, what physics do we need for the race track or for the drag strip? Newtonian. For driving on an icy street? Newtonian. For throwing a football? Newtonian. You need to switch over to Relativity for improved accuracy in calculations on atomic levels, and for things approaching physical limits (speed of light, huge gravitational fields).

 

I think you'll find that there are many other fields of knowledge that use oversimplifications (which are to some degree inaccurate) in their initial teaching. Is a child's religious understanding the same as an adult's? We talk to a child about the sun "coming up" and "going down" but later teach them that it doesn't really do those things. It seems to me that Relativity is one of those things that you need to learn after you're acquainted with the simpler explanations in physics. Unfortunately, most Americans never even get to the point of being comfortable with even basic physics.

 

Getting back to your cousin's paper that you're "helping" her with, I'm not sure that teaching about Relativity is a very good example of socio/tech lag. Relativity theory goes back over a century--plenty of time for word to spread and for texts to be updated. I think it's more a matter of how our high tech world increasingly is created by a highly specialized science beyond the average person's education or understanding. Just one example of that from my own personal experience: When I was in high school, we did calculations on a slide rule. I could explain to you exactly how that tool worked. I could even make a primitive one if I needed to. Nowadays, I do the same calculations on a handheld calculator. It's faster and more accurate, but I haven't the faintest idea how it works and couldn't make one if my life depended on it.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Doc

[Trouble Maker]

Am I being trolled?

 

That is the worst whatever I've ever read in my entire whatever.

The OP is actually Charlie Sheen and our brains just can't comprehend the winning... I mean whatever.