The inverse square law states that the intensity of a physical quantity (like light, or radiation) decreases with the square of the distance from the source. In other words, if you double the distance from the source, the intensity becomes one-fourth as strong. Mathematically, it's expressed as \( I \propto \frac{1}{d^2} \), where \( I \) is the intensity and \( d \) is the distance from the source. This law applies to phenomena that spread out uniformly in all directions from a point source.
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 9 monthsAug 2, 2024 16:36:37 ago (+2/-1)
Of course it wouldn't. Why would the inverse square law apply to relativity? Why would the second law of thermodynamics apply to relativity? Why do any laws have to apply to relativity?
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 9 monthsAug 2, 2024 16:33:57 ago (+2/-1)
In his seminal work, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), Copernicus touches on the limitations of mathematics in proving physical reality.
"I see no reason why it should not be true that mathematics can help us understand the celestial bodies, even if it does not prove their physical reality."
In this passage, Copernicus suggests that while mathematics is a powerful tool for understanding celestial movements, it does not necessarily prove the physical nature of those celestial bodies. Instead, mathematics serves as a means to model and interpret observations.
[ - ] Love240 1 point 9 monthsAug 2, 2024 17:02:42 ago (+2/-1)
Instead, mathematics serves as a means to model and interpret observations.
Right. And that's why their most pronounced fallacy is that of Reifying the Model.
They then Beg the question, which is when they bake into the question the assumptions of their model.
You see it all the time when you realize what they are doing.
Finally they top it off with the Invincible Ignorance fallacy/Pig-headed fallacy, wherein they simply deny arguing with logic and ignore evidence so they can continue forward.
But they can't shelve their anger, so that comes out as Ad hominems.
[ + ] Portmanure
[ - ] Portmanure 3 points 9 monthsAug 2, 2024 16:29:07 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 9 monthsAug 2, 2024 16:34:40 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Portmanure
[ - ] Portmanure 2 points 9 monthsAug 2, 2024 16:35:48 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 9 monthsAug 2, 2024 16:36:37 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 2 points 9 monthsAug 2, 2024 16:28:53 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 9 monthsAug 2, 2024 16:33:57 ago (+2/-1)
In this passage, Copernicus suggests that while mathematics is a powerful tool for understanding celestial movements, it does not necessarily prove the physical nature of those celestial bodies. Instead, mathematics serves as a means to model and interpret observations.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 1 point 9 monthsAug 2, 2024 17:02:42 ago (+2/-1)
Right. And that's why their most pronounced fallacy is that of Reifying the Model.
They then Beg the question, which is when they bake into the question the assumptions of their model.
You see it all the time when you realize what they are doing.
Finally they top it off with the Invincible Ignorance fallacy/Pig-headed fallacy, wherein they simply deny arguing with logic and ignore evidence so they can continue forward.
But they can't shelve their anger, so that comes out as Ad hominems.
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 1 point 9 monthsAug 2, 2024 16:51:39 ago (+1/-0)
Glad to see you nonwhites consistently have no comprehension of white technology.
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 1 point 9 monthsAug 2, 2024 16:52:20 ago (+2/-1)