Tag: philosophy, physics, science

One of the various theories proposed to explain the negative result of the famous Michelson-Morley experiment with light waves (conceived to measure the absolute space), was based on the ballistic hypothesis, i.e. on postulating that the speed of light predicted by Maxwell’s equations was not given as relative to the medium but as relative to the transmitter (firearm). Had that been the case, the experiment negative results would have not caused such perplexity and frustration (as we shall see in forthcoming sections).

It is worth noting that a wrong folkoric definition of an Inertial Frame in the Popular Science literature (even in text books) reads that ‘it is a frame in uniform motion’. We know very well by now that the idea of motion requires a frame of reference, so that such a definition of an Inertial Frame has no meaning whatsoever, confusing the reader because it tacitly reaffirms the idea of absolute motion — when the goal of every didactic exposition of Relativity Theory should be precisely the opposite.

It is curious that the human mind could blindly accept an infinite speed but had reservations to accept a finite one, simply because it was too large!

When we say two bodies ‘touch’, what we mean (without knowing it) is that both electromagnetic fields are interacting to avoid physical interpenetration and … that happens well before subatomic particles touch!

There is no problem more difficult to solve than that created by ourselves.

It is curious that the human mind could blindly accept an infinite speed but had reservations to accept a finite one, simply because it was too large!

When we say two bodies ‘touch’, what we mean (without knowing it) is that both electromagnetic fields are interacting to avoid physical interpenetration and … that happens well before subatomic particles touch!

There is no problem more difficult to solve than that created by ourselves.