Re: wrong physics explanations-misconceptions

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

I'm a little (v. slightly) troubled here.   I know of no bio. process
that "splits" atoms or chemical processes (assuming there is no cold
fusion) that doesn't conserve mass (actually that's not true either, but
is it measurable?)

The mistake these people have is not limiting the applicability -- they
are using rules that have useful applicability in their fields, but are
not generally true.  Is the "universal law of gravitation "truly" true --
is it true over a few billion light years and at sub fermi distances?
(bc displaying ignorance)

bc

J Montgomery wrote:

> On the other hand, when the ether theory is STILL
> treated as fact in a 1950s encyclopedia as was=20
> described, I think that we can safely call that a=20
> misconception.  We were also perfectly justified for
> years in thinking that atoms could not be split, but
> when my high school biology teacher told my class
> (in 1991) that atoms were indivisible, that certainly
> was a misconception as well.
>
> Julie Montgomery
>
> -----Original Message-----
> =46rom: FOUAD AJAMI [mailto:ajami@NETCOM.CA]
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:45 PM
> To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
> Subject: Re: wrong physics explanations-misconceptions
>
> I would not consider the ether theory, (or even the Ptolemaic astrono=
> my) to
> be misconceptions. At the time, it served a purpose, and it was not d=
> esigned
> to mislead.
>
> We owe our predecessors some respect. There are some things we accept=
>  now
> that will be overturned in a few years, or a few centuries.