I teach Euclidean Geometry...and love it. I enjoy Newtonian Mechanics. Lets face it. this is the world we see, feel, hear, touch and smell. It is the world we live in every day and have to deal with. On our scale and from our frame of reference, Euclidean Geometry and Newtonian Mechanics are so close to perfect even NASA doesn't attempt to use GR formulae in space flight trajectory calculations.

On our scale, the Earth is rough or chiral anyway, and only when we stand at the edge of the ocean do we start to get clues that the Earth is not flat. In Physics, one of my classes compared the surface area of a series of spheres, and got our parabola. I threw the chalk along the parabola and laughed at the look on the students faces as they watched the chalk follow the parabola to the ground.

I asked the students to ask the obvious question. Why not just drop the chalk and see if it follows the parabola!? Then I told them to imagine themselves in space, watching the chalk drop...same parabola!

The relationship between gravity and geometry is just too perfect...such an observation MEANS something.

In my Algebra class we looked at a formula and solved it for each quantity to show that the nature of mathematical reality is periodic.

The problem with Newtonian Mechanics is that it is a concept good only at one frame of reference- it is NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT cosmologically valid. Ultimately, in an abstract mathematical sense IT IS NOT EVEN TRUE IN OUR SEEMINGLY FLAT WORLD, for its ultimate "correctness" is found only at any single point tangent to a sphere.

You probably noticed that some bright Chinese guy is posting a lot of controversial stuff on this forum. I don't have the time to evaluate it all, but he was mixing Newtonian concepts with GR; mixing two completely different concepts...and that is a no-no.

You told me that I can do anything I want with the universe conceptually by increasing dimensions, and I really enjoyed that...of course you are completely right! I picked the 7-D model for certain reasons relating to observed reality, and the problems we must solve if we are to get a viable picture of the universe the way it really is.

This Chinese guy is mixing oil and water conceptually, and it is no wonder everything seems to him to be contradictory. At first glance his math seems ok but spatially and conceptually he can't see the difference between a circle and a square, much less see certainty to impossibility as another kind of periodicity!

The fact that what we see, feel, hear, touch and taste is NOT correct cosmologically is profound and implies a certain creepy quality to our existence... that we are parts of something whose ultimate purpose is not congruent with our day to day perceptions.

The universe remains mysterious, but GR does have powerful experimental veracity. A casual search of the internet will give anyone interested an impressive, up to date list of its triumphs.

Best Wishes, Sam Cox