So, basically, we don’t know that much on anything besides understanding it’s really complex and difficult to figure out.
To quote someone a lot wiser than myself:
It’s a shame stupid people carry themselves through life full of certainty while the wise ones suffer a life of doubt.
That’s a paraphrase of a famous Bertrand Russell quote. The original is as follows; “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
There’s also the William Butler Yeats corollary; “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
No, before the scientific method was invented, the religious consensus was that “All is known”.
And Aristotle was worshipped to the point where if people knew from personal experience that something he said was wrong, they’d assume their own experience was what was mistaken. And this despite him not having any connection to their religion at all.
One example is that they used to think that objects could only have one force acting on it at a time. This could be the “natural force”, which is what makes objects fall when you drop them, or forces resulting from an action being performed on it. As a result, projectiles would travel straight in the direction they were thrown until the natural force took over, at which point they would fall vertically. Somehow this was still popularly believed (by academics at least) well after the catapult had been invented and used in sieges for centuries. It was believed by people who could throw things and observe how they moved with their own eyes.
No it hasn’t. Many religions and spiritual texts covered all this stuff in just a couple of pages.
Please do show the spiritual texts which cover general and specific relativity.
Not really. It’s all about models - we have for normal stuff, but it breaks apart in extreme situations
So clearly the model is fundamentally wrong… Which is pretty cool, because it means FTL travel, antigravity, or travel between dimensions could be possible
But we know now normal shit acts - we have models that work perfectly for 99% of all situations, and we’re probably not going to stop using them. We understand what happens when you throw an object, and it’s a basic equation up until like mock-2 or 3, where our models stop working and we have to switch them out completely
Can you build a model that works for both? Absolutely. It’ll be closer to the truth even. But it’ll be way more complicated for nearly all practical, human scale situations
At the end of the day, a model that describes reality exactly is almost useless… Without simplifications to ignore everything not relevant, just trying shit live would be easier than calculating the prediction
What I don’t understand is if the goal is to eventually be able to model everything perfectly, if we achieve that goal, doesn’t that just mean entropy is a lie?
Not really, OP’s image is somewhat misleading. The truth is that we’re constantly trying to improve our understanding of physics and some theories are not completely correct but they often provide a way for future scientists to dig deeper and figure it out. Then with new knowledge, new hypothesis can be suggested creating a gateway to deeper understanding of some concepts further down the timeline.
Actually, we know everything there is happening in solar system. What we don’t know requires energies or distances or times incomparable with human life.
We don’t know why space spawns. We don’t know why the sun’s corona is hotter than its surface. We don’t know why the sun spins faster around its equator than at its poles. We don’t know why shampoo makes strange squiggles when being poured out of its bottle. Just four things off the top of my head.
Actually, we know everything there is happening in solar system.
Oh really?
Then I’m sure you can tell us where we can locate Planet 9, or even if Planet 9 exists.
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/the-case-strengthens-for-planet-9/
The answer is 42, guys.
I highly recommend the book “We Have No Idea” by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whitesom. Great explanations of what we know about the universe (with hilarious comic illustrations) and a profound message of just how much we don’t know.
Thanks for this recommendation! I love books that show me how little I truly know about anything.
Like all of Randall Monroe’s books (xckd guy).
Any more book recommendations?
Tide goes in, tide goes out… You can’t explain that.
Copernicus deserves a mention. Galileo’s problems resulted (in part) from him being a proponent of Copernicism after the church had declared it heresy.
Heliocentrism was suggested by Copernicus and Galileo built on that, including developing physics to the point where he couldn’t believe otherwise.
The heliocentric models predicted the orbits worse than epicyclic geocentric ones and that is the reason Galileo was told to shut up, the court transcript is like 99% science and then a single subordinate clause saying “it also contradicts the bible”.
Galileo insisted on circular orbits which was his downfall, ironically “because circles are perfect and god would furnish the universe perfect”: That kind of religious language while also being worse science than what was already established did him in. Kepler, based on Brahe’s data, was the first one to get a heliocentric model right and more accurate than the epicyclic ones.
Also earth doesn’t revolve around the sun. If anything both revolve around their shared centre of gravity but really it’s a matter of your frame of reference. Paraphrasing Archimedes: Give me a fixed point in the universe and I will move all your models.
The sun. Does the earth and moon orbit a gravitational center that they share? Does that center revolve around the sun? How imperceptible is this, considering the shared point is likely inside the earth given the difference between its mass and lua’s?
Does the earth and moon orbit a gravitational center that they share?
Yes.
Does that center revolve around the sun?
No, it revolves around its shared centre with the sun. Things get complicated fast in gravity with more than two objects involved.
How imperceptible is this, considering the shared point is likely inside the earth given the difference between its mass and lua’s?
It’s how we can detect exoplanets. Well, we can tell there must be these and these planets based on the star’s wobble dunno if we can do the same for moons of planets: It would certainly work in principle but our instruments might not be good enough.
Does the earth and moon orbit a gravitational center that they share?
https://www.skymarvels.com/gallery/Vid - Earth-Moon Barycenter.htm
