Enter the content which will be displayed in sticky bar
John Erik Persson
  • Home
  • Affiliates
    • Community
  • Login
  • Register

Euclid Was Wrong

John Chappell Natural Philsophy Alliance > John Erik Persson > Mathematics > Euclid Was Wrong

Euclid Was Wrong

Aug 12, 2015John-Erik PerssonMathematics, Philosophy0 Comment

An earlier contribution from this author was called The Definition of Parallelism. The article stated that the definition of parallelism in Euclidean geometry is wrong. The motivation was that the lack of a point common to two lines was used in the definition. Instead it was stated that only existing concepts should be used in a definition. The discussion following the article gave no important arguments neither for nor against the suggested idea. The intention with this article is therefore to provide more arguments regarding the definition of parallelism in Euclidean geometry.

Euclid’s greatest error

Euclid had a focus on straight lines and defined parallelism with a tacit assumption that this restriction also was valid for the concept of parallelism. Therefore , he never discovered that curved lines also can be parallel. We can see this in an example with two circles. If the two circles are concentric they also are parallel. A bending railroad is also an example of parallel curved lines. An engineer would not define the railroad by stating that the rails should not be crossing each other. From these examples we can conclude that parallelism must be defined by constant separation between two lines. Separation is constant if the two lines are bending around the same center of cuvature. If this center also is fixed we get two concentric and parallel cicles.

Separation can be defined as a distance from (and in a right angle to) one line to the other line.

With the asumptions made here we find that the Euclidean definition is wrong by reasoning in absurdum. We find that according Euclid’s definition one circle and one straight line can be parallel to each other. We can also see that in the case restricted to straight lines we can easily find a second point. With two points a unique straight line is defined. Therefore, one point and one straight line can also define a straight line. We do not have to demand the defining point to be outside the defining line.

Conclusions

Euclid was right regarding his fifth postolate. However, he could not prove that since he used a wrong definition of parallelism.

John-Erik Persson

john.erik.persson@gmail.com

www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/johnerikpersson

 

Written by John-Erik Persson

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

← The Behavior of Light
Petr Beckmann Explains Michelson’s Failure →

Affiliations

The John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society The Natural Philosophers Community

Recent Posts

  • The sad story of quantum gravity
  • Mathematics is powerful and dangerous
  • Decontamination of physics
  • Gravity does not move!
  • The illusion of time dilation, Big Bang and Pioneer anomaly

Archives

  • June 2023
  • September 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • April 2022
  • August 2021
  • March 2021
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • January 2019
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • May 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • March 2015

Categories

  • Aether
  • Directors
  • Gravity
  • Light
  • Mathematics
  • Members
  • Philosophy
  • Physics
  • Relativity
  • Space-Time
  • Time
  • Uncategorized
  • Wave Particle Duality
© Copyright - 2013 : All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress & Designed by Aivahthemes
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Dribbble
  • LinkedIn