Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Some maga fuckup told him his opinion on relativity was a hoax. So he went back to being a peasant.The major advancements in physics in the last 150 years have been made by people who studied physics at some point in their life prior to making those contributions. If scientific knowledge is not cumulative, why do people need knowledge of the existing physics in order to advance physics? For that matter, why wasn't Einstein's Theory of Relativity proposed in 3,000 B.C. by an uneducated peasant out of nowhere?
The Earth is flat.The major advancements in physics in the last 150 years have been made by people who studied physics at some point in their life prior to making those contributions. If scientific knowledge is not cumulative, why do people need knowledge of the existing physics in order to advance physics? For that matter, why wasn't Einstein's Theory of Relativity proposed in 3,000 B.C. by an uneducated peasant out of nowhere?
The major advancements in physics in the last 150 years have been made by people who studied physics at some point in their life prior to making those contributions. If scientific knowledge is not cumulative, why do people need knowledge of the existing physics in order to advance physics? For that matter, why wasn't Einstein's Theory of Relativity proposed in 3,000 B.C. by an uneducated peasant out of nowhere?
So, tell me why is it neccesary to study the existing physics in order to advance physics? Notice, I didn't say sufficient, I said neccessary. For that matter, why didn't the ancient Egyptians come up with the Theory of Relativity?Modus Tollens
It would be a gross anachronism to refer to flat earth geopgraphy as mistaken. It is merely incommensurate with later paradigms.The Earth is flat.
Okay.It would be a gross anachronism to refer to flat earth geopgraphy as mistaken. It is merely incommensurate with later paradigms.
Because each advance in science is built upon the progress, understanding and foundations of prior advances, just as you can reach higher apples in a tree from having already climbed part way up the trunk than from the ground, and cannot finish the last 100 mile leg of a journey without having first undertook the first 400 miles already. For instance, we wouldn't know how to build a jet today without having already first learned how to make an airplane. This is all pretty obvious, euclidean stuff to anyone who has any background in science. Do you?So, tell me why is it neccesary to study the existing physics in order to advance physics?
Because the very ideas related to space/time curvature and time dilation were entirely outside of their scope and experience from building water ducts and waterwheels and stone buildings. Knowledge and scientific advances are like the framework of a home where you must build the foundation first, then the walls, before you can realize the need for a roof--- without rooms and a foundation to keep dry, a roof by itself makes little sense.Notice, I didn't say sufficient, I said neccessary. For that matter, why didn't the ancient Egyptians come up with the Theory of Relativity?
If scientific knowledge is not cummulative, none of that would be the case.Because each advance in science is built upon the progress, understanding and foundations of prior advances, just as you can reach higher apples in a tree from having already climbed part way up the trunk than from the ground, and cannot finish the last 100 mile leg of a journey without having first undertook the first 400 miles already. For instance, we wouldn't know how to build a jet today without having already first learned how to make an airplane. This is all pretty obvious, euclidean stuff to anyone who has any background in science. Do you?
Because the very ideas related to space/time curvature and time dilation were entirely outside of their scope and experience from building water ducts and waterwheels and stone buildings. Knowledge and scientific advances are like the framework of a home where you must build the foundation first, then the walls, before you can realize the need for a roof--- without rooms and a foundation to keep dry, a roof by itself makes little sense.
So, tell me why is it neccesary to study the existing physics in order to advance physics? Notice, I didn't say sufficient, I said neccessary. For that matter, why didn't the ancient Egyptians come up with the Theory of Relativity?
If scientific knowledge is not cummulative, none of that would be the case.
If scientific knowledge is not cummulative, none of that would be the case.
Is someone claiming that scientific knowledge is not cumulative?The major advancements in physics in the last 150 years have been made by people who studied physics at some point in their life prior to making those contributions. If scientific knowledge is not cumulative, why do people need knowledge of the existing physics in order to advance physics? For that matter, why wasn't Einstein's Theory of Relativity proposed in 3,000 B.C. by an uneducated peasant out of nowhere?
However, if you view the earth from almost anywhere it appears that the earth is flat covered by a dome that allows the clouds, sun, moon, and stars to be viewed as if they were inside of that dome.It would be a gross anachronism to refer to flat earth geopgraphy as mistaken. It is merely incommensurate with later paradigms.
