1.The true shape of the Earth has been known far longer than most people realize.

The idea of the Earth being round dates back to ancient Greece. The true shape of the Earth has been known far longer than most people realize. The idea of the Earth being round dates back to ancient Greece. The fact is generally well known that at least during some point in ancient history the world was thought by many to be flat. This should come as no surprise to anyone who went to school at any point in their life, or who has ever been told the history of Columbus' revolutionary voyage across the Atlantic, thereby proving wrong the flat Earth theory. There are parts of this which are undeniably true. Columbus did indeed sail to America in 1492. The world is indeed round. Any honest scholar of the era of Columbus (that is, Europe of the late 15th century), while appreciating the very real contributions Columbus' exploration made in terms of Geography and exploration would be the first to admit that proving to the scientific world that the Earth was round was not necessarily one of them. In reality, scientists, even in the 15th century had been aware for quite some time that the Earth was most likely round. Those who may have feared the idea of sailing off the edge of a flat (as many children are taught) world were generally the uneducated of the time, prone to exaggeration and superstition. The Early Theory of a Round Earth The truth of the matter is that ever since Pythagoras first postulated that the Earth must be a sphere way back in 570 BC, the theory has been quite alive among scientists, and not nearly as taboo as we may have been led to believe. There were surely some holdouts whose superstitions led them to believe otherwise, but to the scientific elite, there was very little question.

Such famed thinkers as Plato and Aristotle (both performing their work in the third and fourth centuries B.C.) agreed with the Pythagorian theory regarding the shape of the Earth (not to be confused with the Pythagorian theorem regarding right triangles, which is a different story altogether), based on observations of the curved horizon at sea as well as the shape of the Earth when seen casting a shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. In the third century B.C., the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes even measured the circumference of the Earth using the shadows cast by the sun during the summer solstice at different locations and performing a bit of clever geometry. His estimate is thought to be within 10% of todays value, which is truly remarkable for the time. From this point on, the shape of the Earth was in constant debate among philosophers, astronomers, Mathematicians and general thinkers alike (during the middle ages, many people fell back into a belief in a flat Earth). While it took Columbus' voyage to finally allow the divergent opinions to mesh together into a unified whole, he wasn't exactly breaking any new ground, scientifically just proving what had already been theorized for more than two thousand years. It should also be noted that at this point in history, the size of the Earth was thought to be much smaller than it actually is. This is why Columbus erroneously thought that he could sail all the way to India in order to open up a new shipping lane for the valuable spices and goods from the East. Had he not accidentally come across the new world, he surely would have died at sea after such a miscalculation. Apart from a few ignorant holdouts (for an amusing example of this, click here) who have for one reason or another continued to assert, despite the obvious proofs, that the Earth continues to be flat, after the time of Columbus it was pretty well accepted by all that the Earth was, indeed, round. The True Shape of the Earth The Round Earth and Christopher Columbus.

2.Newtons mistakes Sir Isaac Newton recognized that an attracting force exists between all objects. He concluded that the strength of the force between two objects is directly proportional to their masses. (To Newton, mass referred to the amount of material of which an object was made.) He further concluded that the force existing is inversely proportional to the distance between the two objects squared. In expressing those conclusions, Newton developed an equation to express those conclusions that states that the force of attraction equals the mass of object one multiplied by the mass of object two divided by the distance between the two objects, squared. Mistake one: If the strength of the attracting force is a function of the mass of an object, then object one produces a force in proportion to its mass and object two produces a force in proportion to its mass and the force applied by one object upon the other object is reduced to compensated for the intervening distance. Mistake two: With each object exerting a force upon the other, the force between the two objects would be the sum of the forces produced by each object after adjustment for distance. That is a significant deviation from the Newton equation where the masses of the two objects are multiplied and with the product then adjusted for distance. Assume two objects of 500 mass units with 1000 units of distance between. By Newtons equation, the force is calculated to be 0.250 units (500 x 500/10002) whereas in reality it should be 500/10002 plus 500/10002 (0.0005 plus 0.0005) or 0.001 units. Mistake three: Newton was unable to accept that a force with no physical component could be responsible for the attraction force an inanimate body produced on another at a distance. Now having benefit of knowledge such as pertains to electrostatic forces, electricity, magnetism, electromagnetic and other various types of radiation, that philosophical limitation is now known to be unfounded. Mistake four: Newton failed to recognize that the energy that produces the attracting force is inherent within, is a component of, mass. Consider that the energy that binds a proton and that binds

orbiting electrons must be a component of the proton mass. It exists in the proton with one unit of strength for each elemental (electron size) particle of which the proton is made. If not so, what would bind the proton together and give the power to attract electrons? When the object has two protons and two neutrons, the resulting mass would then include one unit of attracting energy for each elementary particle of which the protons and neutrons are made. As an object grows so too the strength of the energy that produces attraction grows in direct proportion to the number of elemental size particles involved. The Law of Acceleration concerning free falling objects in response to gravity proves that argument. The mistakes of Newton where compounded by the distortions introduced by Albert Einstein beginning with a change in the definition of mass. Precisely, the force of gravitation is a function of the number of elemental particles of matter, with the electron as one elemental unit. While the speed of an object may affect the force a moving object can inflict upon another object, the speed with which an object is moving does not alter the gravitational attraction force produced by the object. Amen?

3. Einstains wrongs Sir Isaac Newton recognized that an attracting force exists between all objects. He concluded that the strength of the force between two objects is directly proportional to their masses. (To Newton, mass referred to the amount of material of which an object was made.) He further concluded that the force existing is inversely proportional to the distance between the two objects squared. In expressing those conclusions, Newton developed an equation to express those conclusions that states that the force of attraction equals the mass of object one multiplied by the mass of object two divided by the distance between the two objects, squared. Mistake one: If the strength of the attracting force is a function of the mass of an object, then object one produces a force in proportion to its mass and object two produces a force in proportion to its mass and the force applied by one object upon the other object is reduced to compensated for the intervening distance. Mistake two: With each object exerting a force upon the other, the force between the two objects would be the sum of the forces produced by each object after adjustment for distance. That is a significant deviation from the Newton equation where the masses of the two objects are multiplied and with the product then adjusted for distance. Assume two objects of 500 mass units with 1000 units of distance between. By Newtons equation, the force is calculated to be 0.250 units (500 x 500/10002) whereas in reality it should be 500/10002 plus 500/10002 (0.0005 plus 0.0005) or 0.001 units. Mistake three: Newton was unable to accept that a force with no physical component could be responsible for the attraction force an inanimate body produced on another at a distance. Now having benefit of knowledge such as pertains to electrostatic forces, electricity, magnetism, electromagnetic and other various types of radiation, that philosophical limitation is now known to be unfounded. Mistake four: Newton failed to recognize that the energy that produces the attracting force is inherent within, is a component of, mass. Consider that the energy that binds a proton and that binds

orbiting electrons must be a component of the proton mass. It exists in the proton with one unit of strength for each elemental (electron size) particle of which the proton is made. If not so, what would bind the proton together and give the power to attract electrons? When the object has two protons and two neutrons, the resulting mass would then include one unit of attracting energy for each elementary particle of which the protons and neutrons are made. As an object grows so too the strength of the energy that produces attraction grows in direct proportion to the number of elemental size particles involved. The Law of Acceleration concerning free falling objects in response to gravity proves that argument. The mistakes of Newton where compounded by the distortions introduced by Albert Einstein beginning with a change in the definition of mass. Precisely, the force of gravitation is a function of the number of elemental particles of matter, with the electron as one elemental unit. While the speed of an object may affect the force a moving object can inflict upon another object, the speed with which an object is moving does not alter the gravitational attraction force produced by the object. Amen?

Top 10 science mistakes 1.

OK, trick question: do heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones? Today, we all know that they don't, but it's understandable how Aristotle could've gotten this one wrong. It wasn't until Galileo came along in the late 16th century that anyone really tested this out. Though he most likely did not, as legend holds, drop weights from the tower of Pisa, Galileo did perform experiments to back up his theory that gravity accelerated all objects at the same rate. In the 17th century, Isaac Newton took us a step further, describing gravity as the attraction between two objects: on Earth, the most important being the attraction between one very massive object (our planet) and everything on it. A couple of hundred years later, Albert Einstein's work would take us in a whole new direction, viewing gravity as the curvature that objects cause in space-time. And it's not over. To this day, physicists are ironing out the kinks and trying to find a theory that works equally well for the macroscopic, microscopic and even subatomic. Good luck with that.

2.

right. Once upon a time, the Bible was considered a scientific work. Really. People just kind of assumed it was accurate, even when it didn't make much sense. Take the age of the planet, for example. Back in the 17th century, a religious scholar took a hard look at the Bible and estimated that creation happened around 4004 B.C. (you know, approximately). Add in nearly 2,000 more years to get to the 18th century, when Western, Bible-reading geologists started to realize that the Earth was constantly shifting and changing, and you get about 6,000 years. Hmm ... those biblical scholars may have been a bit off. Current estimates, based on radioactive dating, place the age of the planet at around, oh, 4.5 BILLION years. By the 19th century, geologists started putting the pieces together to realize that if geologic change was happening as slowly as they thought it was, and if this Darwin guy was at all right about evolution (which was also a slow process), the Earth had to be WAY older than they had thought. The emergence of radioactive dating in the early 20th century would eventually prove them

3.

You don't have to be a doctor to know how important the heart is...but back in ancient Greece, you could be a doctor and STILL have no idea how important the heart is. Back then, doctors like second-century Greek physician Galen believed (no kidding) that the liver (not the heart) circulated blood (along with some bile and phlegm), while the heart (really) circulated "vital spirit"(whatever that is). How could they be so wrong? It gets worse. Galen hypothesized that the blood moved in a back-and-forth motion and was consumed by the organs as fuel. What's more, these ideas stuck around for a very long time. How long? It wasn't until 1628 that English physician William Harvey let us in on our heart's big secret. His "An Anatomical Study of the Motion of the Heart and of the Blood in Animals" took a while to catch on, but a few hundred years later, it seems beyond common sense -- perhaps the ultimate compliment for a scientific idea.