Re: [Phys-l] NYT article: Centrifugal force

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

Paolo Cavallo wrote:
> -------- Original Message  --------
> Subject: Re: [Phys-l] NYT article:  Centrifugal force
> From: John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu>
> To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
> Date: Fri Jul 03 2009 05:34:20 GMT+0200 (ora legale Europa occidentale)
>
>   
> > for nearly 100 years now, the prevailing theory  
> > holds that all gravitational forces are inertial forces and that all  
> > inertial forces are gravitational forces.
> >     
>
> Here is the point that I find disturbing about any treatment of gravitational force along the model of QED, i.e. via the exchange of gravitons in a flat spacetime. If we will find that as the "real" truth, what becomes of everything we now keep as our best understanding of the subject? Against the curved spacetime idea, I find the graviton-exchange idea pretty ugly...
>
> Paolo
This thread, as it seems to me, is entirely appropriate to teachers.
It is not about observational data - no one argues that.
It is about providing a coherent satisfying story for students.
That is an entirely worthy purpose.
My initial reaction was that science is only about observed data. But I 
soon recalled
that weaving a story that has predictive value is another hallmark of 
the scientific
effort.    This thread touches on that scientific purpose no doubt.
At least, when it does not start confusing 'story-telling' with Truth.
Better to consider Truth as one of those quasi-religious elements that
blur the difference between science and faith.
My view, as always.

Brian W