Einsteinian physics gives us our best understanding of the natural world, so why are we still hung up on Newton?
Very good point @namark
@binsrc @namark apparently i am dissing this guy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blair_(physicist)
He has some points, https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/einstein-relativity-quantum-physics-for-kids/11765670 but it is nonsense to call Newtonian physics a lie. And you're going to teach them QM? Like, go straight to relativistic QM, like QED. Oh oops, that's uses special relativity and not general relativity, so that's a lie too! And we don't even know the GR QM version.
You could teach them that theory and reality are not the same thing.
@binsrc @namark and the students don't "understand it". It's gonna be some very simplified stuff that'll be fed to them. See pictures https://www.einsteinianphysics.com/
That said, maybe this promotion of themselves is an inaccurate portrayal itself.. It might be more about some sensitivities.. But Newtonian physics is still much simpler and should be tought first. (Maybe even add special relativity though.)
We should have an Einstein-first economics & politics curriculum https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
@binsrc Newtonian physics can actually be taught at a low level as it only requires algebra if taught with a few kinematic equations and the full view comes with only basic calculus. Attempts to teach "Eistienian physics" will simply be teaching a pop science version of the ideas fairly removed from the actual theories. I mean the article talks about straight lines intersecting in curved space but what the heck is a line in curved space! You need the math.
@binsrc "All models are wrong, but some are useful". George Box
Newton's model isn't perfect, but is good enough for most situations and it's easy to implement too. It's also a good tool for teaching that you need to be a bit sceptical toward all models. They all have their limitations and you need to be aware of them in order to use the model responsibly.
@binsrc it boils down to fast approximation vs slow precise answer. When you are constrained on time, you just can't be slow. In teaching the constraint could be the amount of attention the student is willing to pay before getting any tangible results/gains.
The point of what's more correct becomes moot, especially when you realize that most practical applications of mathematical theories are fast approximations.