Editing 675: Revolutionary
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
[[Cueball]] concedes that it is possible for such a revolutionary idea to come from a relative outsider. One example is {{w|Albert Einstein}}'s own formulation of {{w|special relativity}}, which came while he was working at a patent office in Switzerland, although he did already have a Ph.D in physics. A {{w|thought experiment}} considers some hypothesis, theory, or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. | [[Cueball]] concedes that it is possible for such a revolutionary idea to come from a relative outsider. One example is {{w|Albert Einstein}}'s own formulation of {{w|special relativity}}, which came while he was working at a patent office in Switzerland, although he did already have a Ph.D in physics. A {{w|thought experiment}} considers some hypothesis, theory, or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. | ||
− | The "racecar on a train" idea alludes to thought experiments involving {{w|Frame_of_reference#Simple_example|frames of reference}}, which are important in relativity. | + | The "racecar on a train" idea alludes to thought experiments involving {{w|Frame_of_reference#Simple_example|frames of reference}}, which are important in relativity. If the philosopher had studied more, he would know that this idea is accounted for by the fact that, when a system is moving at nearly the speed of light, any motion within the system that could otherwise cause faster-than-light travel results in the flow of time changing so as to avoid this issue. |
− | |||
− | |||
The title text is posing a question about the likelihood of two scenarios (possibly to the person with the philosophy degree): | The title text is posing a question about the likelihood of two scenarios (possibly to the person with the philosophy degree): | ||
Line 20: | Line 18: | ||
*That I need to read a little more | *That I need to read a little more | ||
− | This might be a self-referential title text as this question could be considered a simple thought experiment. The philosopher should be able to overturn his theory using this simple thought experiment which reflects the second panel. While his theory is not widely believed the joke is that the philosopher could overturn his first thought experiment (racecar on train) with this thought experiment. | + | This might be a self-referential title text as this question could be considered a simple thought experiment. The philosopher should be able to overturn his theory using this simple thought experiment which reflects the second panel. While his theory is not widely-believed{{Citation needed}}, the joke is that the philosopher could overturn his first thought experiment (racecar on train) with this thought experiment. |
+ | |||
+ | [[Randall]] hints that believing you have found fundamental flaws in a theory is much easier than doing more research on it. This is possibly a statement about using Occam's Razor in arguments, which says the simpler answer is the more likely one, which is commonly brought up in Philosophy. Usually, when someone with little understanding of the subject thinks that they have found a flaw, it takes only a little bit more reading to discover that the flaw is in fact completely explained already. | ||
− | + | As an example, lets say a high school student happens to do sqrt(5-6). His calculator tells him 'Error', and he thinks he has uncovered a function which has no answer. In fact, with a little more reading, he would discover that mathematicians have a whole area devoted to this type of mathematics, namely {{w|Imaginary numbers|imaginary numbers}}. | |
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== |