Why you say dis
-
-
Replying to @litgenstein @AmneMachin
cause it was purely phenomenological.. the math worked, but we didn't know how gravity "reached" out and communicated it was there .. later einstein developed a gravitational field theory that answered this
3 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
of course this rabbit hole goes arbitrarily deep
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr @AmneMachin
Ahhh so you meant historically this was one case! And to move to more cases we just say (insert anything for which the underlying theory is known here) lol
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @litgenstein @AmneMachin
right .. perhaps i misread it .. wasn't really sure what the hive mind bit was about
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @InertialObservr @AmneMachin
We are a collective consciousness that provides answers I nominate the hierarchy problem
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @litgenstein @AmneMachin
i see .. you're saying that maybe there is no underlying mechanism for the hierarchy but that we are convinced that there must be
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr @AmneMachin
Yeah this seems like one of the best examples given that people are literally split on whether we should expect an underlying mechanism at all. Everyone thinks the interactions btw. macroscopic objects have such a mechanism, it just might be unknown; here is a bit different
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @litgenstein @AmneMachin
it's tough and we really don't know until we try to answer the question
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
ooh is it about what i think it's about? how's it written?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.