THOMAS_KENTON_DONALDSON@cup.portal.com (10/05/87)
Hey hold on a minute! STR or GTR is a THEORY. It may not even be true. There are other ways to interpret the question. We could easily understand, say, radioactivity in a practical sense without STR. We might have another theory instead, or else Poincare and Lorentz would have jointly got the credit. It's like asking where we would be if Columbus hadn't discovered America. Maybe the question needs reformulating: what everyday practical things contain STR or GTR. That should include reactors, radioactivity (medical and otherwise) and probably even the cathode-ray tube on our televisions (and computer terminals).
terry_L_Parker@cup.portal.com (10/06/87)
Why is it that 'the theory' is considered a theory? I thought I understood relativity pretty well (or as well as any 'layman' (non-physicist) can), and thought it was pretty much a 'sure thing'. They have even done experiments to show the affects of acceleration on time (e.g. the atomic clock on the plane) and they've agreed with the theory. So why is it a theory?
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (10/10/87)
In article <869@cup.portal.com> terry_L_Parker@cup.portal.com writes: >plane) and they've agreed with the theory. So why is it a theory? Like most English words, "theory" has several uses. Calling Einstein's theory a theory does not necessarily imply that it's "only a theory" (different usage), i.e. that it's unconfirmed. Any coherent, integrated set of explanations could reasonably be referred to as a "theory". Besides, what else would you call it? "Einstein's fact of relativity"?