[Phys-L] Re: Quotation

[Pentcho Valev <valevp@BAS.BG>]

Brian Whatcott wrote:

> At 11:32 AM 4/24/2005, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > [quoting] Bryan Wallace:
> >
> > "I expect that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant
> > abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now
> > consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of
> > a pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it."
> >
> > http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
> >
> > Pentcho Valev
>
> Quantizing angels on a pin head was a theological research
> topic of the middle ages, rather than being at all scientific.

Ordinary people don't see much difference:
http://www.dailypress.com/features/columnists/dp-01520cm0apr20,1,2903237.column?coll=dp-features-columnists&ctrack=2&cset=true

"GS: I sure wish you could explain relativity to us.

AE: You see, sometimes time takes more time than it does at other times. It has
to do with speed and gravity. Also, sometimes the same distance is a longer
distance."


>   Still, one COULD point to Galilean Relativity as
> a science theory that was all well and good, but inadequate in the
>   light of Special and General Relativity.
>
> And one can suppose that as science proceeds, some other theory
>   will find S & G Relativity inadequate in the light of some other
>   experimental circumstance.

This "other experimental circumstance" consists in the fact that the speed of
light is not independent of the speed of the source or observer (is not
relativistic in the c sense) - rather, it does depend on the speed of source or
observer (is relativistic in the c+v sense). If you don't believe that, take it
as a hypothesis. Then should we return to Galileo or should we look for another
theory consistent with the "other experimental circumstance"?

Pentcho Valev
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l