Re: [Phys-l] Tutoring Please

[JMGreen <jmgreen@sisna.com>]

Jack suggests the following:

> What happened to make this description of matter insufficient?
> That is the underlying question, what set of facts is your theory
> attempting to explain?  You seem to decry the long wait between Empedocles
> insightful construct and the adoption of the "truth" after 1660.  But
> there was no need for a more accurate description of matter until
> quantitative chemistry came along.  What was lacking before (somewhere
> around) the 17th century was access to the technology that gave rise to
> precision measuring instruments.

I don't know, Jack.  It seems to me that most of the advances in 
science come by chance.  There  was no real need to go to the Moon -- 
certainly the search for quarks has no technological value.  In fact 
what do you do all day long.  Rather it would appear that the chief 
mission of science if to get the story straight and for two millennia 
people just sat on two theories and stared at each other. Astronomy 
had the same problem.

Was Aristotle such a powerful figure? -- An unquestioned 
prophet?  Was the Church so overbearing that no one dared think for 
two millennia

And, Folks, what about the other questions???

> >
> > Q1: When did the idea of "earth, air, fire and water" finally go
> > away?  Who last refers to this philosophy in serious scientific discourse?

Note that this concept is being used seriously in some circles 
TODAY.  Do a Google search!

> >
> > Q2: Why did it take so long, >2000 yrs,  to shake the 
> four-element philosophy?

Aristotle???  The Church???

> >
> > Q3: What other concepts in physics persist to this day even tough we
> > know they are wrongish?

Note that the concept of "fire" as a substance is still with us.  Others?

JMGreen