Yes. it's too expensive to vary texts with every scientific advancement. Science moves forward constantly. what's important to find out in class may be a method of learning, not facts.
When I need to college I learned almost everything i used to be taught in highschool about science was wrong. Many sciences are supported wild extrapolations supported assumptions we all know can’t be constant for very long but we use them anyway because they're the simplest assumptions we will make. As science moves forward we learn that some assumptions are very wrong and the way and where they vary. The sciences that extrapolate out with wild assumptions that are the simplest we will make are astronomy and astrophysics, evolution, and paleosciences, climate sciences, medicine, quantum physics , relativity, etc basically everything that's mostly theoretical and impossible to watch directly. Most of what I learned in college has been revised or replaced repeatedly over since I graduated. Mot many of us continue with leading edge science. and therefore the theories that find yourself replacing what's believed are nearly always initially rejected by the experts within the field.
All the ape-man ancestors of man had short lived places there before being proven to not be an ancestor of man. Almost every new find held that position for a brief period of your time before it being disproven. i feel it had been how to urge immediate credibility for anthropologists finding a replacement species to say it had been an ancestor of man. And anthropologists were wanting to embrace it because none had yet to be found.
Some like substance and dark energy are just made up to balance equations that won’t balance as long as we all know the mass of the universe because someone calculated it supported observations. this is often still believed, but did it never occur to anyone that equations that don’t balance with a theoretical value means value must be revised, or the laws of physics that exist in our little corner of the universe don’t apply everywhere within the universe. Or that light doesn’t travel a line so what we expect we are seeing isn’t necessarily what we are witnessing.
Our understanding of the atom as mostly empty space has been altered. i will be able to leave it up to people whose expertise is there to elucidate it.
Our understanding of gravity has changed from a force of unknown origin to a bending of space time. which has probably been replaced by a replacement theory by now.
We understood the fundamentals of solar activity before i used to be born, but new research has discovered many new solar cycles we didn’t realize , and allowed use to calculate all past a future solar cycles supported the gravitational interactions of the planets with the Sun. We learned the Sun rotates every 27 days. That there are solar cycles tied to the 179 year revolution of the Sun round the barycenter of the universe. That there's a retrograde a part of the orbit where the Sun circles back thereon revolution which causes 3 inactive cycles of twenty-two years each. We learned that the Sun’s polarity flips every sunspot cycle making the particular cycle to return to its original state 22 years, not 11 years. We learned that solar activity is directly tied to fluctuations within the solar magnetic flux and not sunspot cycles. which most the variation is within the UV spectrum of sunshine , so instead of alittle fluctuation across all the spectrum produced by the Sun, solar variation causes a way larger flexion in high energy UV light.
We were taught that the rotation of the world was the most thing generating the Earths magnetic flux in class . But since then we learned that the tidal effects of the moon and Sun keep a number of the core molten which keeps our magnetic flux strong.
The above lessons are important within the advance of climate science. once I visited highschool we were taught the large concern was gobal cooling. Then in college we were taught that CO2 was causing heating . But recent advances like those mentioned above show the important danger for a climate disaster is within the upper atmosphere from changes there. We learned oxygen is converted to ozone by absorbing high energy UV light around 185nm. And ozone is converted to oxygen by absorbing mid range UV light from 240nm to 315 nm. UV light in these wavelengths are toxic to cells. we've been producing chemicals that destroy ozone allowing far more of the damaging wavelegths of UV light to succeed in the Earth’s surface.
Then we learn that the large danger from CO2 isn't within the atmosphere. it's changes to the oceans where most of the CO2 from burning fossil fuels find yourself . it's caused large chemical changes within the ocean that couple with the increases in UV light to cause large changes there that affect the worlds climate through phytoplankton reaction to UV light increases by producing DMSP which is converted to DMS by bacteria. That gets into the atmosphere and acts as a cloud condensing nuclei(CCN) that increases cloudiness helping to lower the strain on the phytoplankton from sunlight. The CO2 increase dissolved organic compounds which increases the penetration of UV light into seawater making this effect more widespread by depth. But the DMS molecules are too small a CCN to form it rain therefore the increased rainfall happens when the clouds run into larger CCN. This features a massive effect on climate because it can lower or increase rainfall downwind by 30% counting on when it finds large enough CCN.
Our understanding of dinosaurs have changed dramatically. We learned they evolved into birds. That they were warm blooded rather than cold blooded.
0 Comments