3 ms·
I was really disappointed to see that sort of thing mentioned; I had been hoping for better, more wild-goose-chase-y examples where the wrong hypothesis was com
by KaeseEs 16y ago
I was really disappointed to see that sort of thing mentioned; I had been hoping for better, more wild-goose-chase-y examples where the wrong hypothesis was compelling and consistent with equations that accurately modeled reality - things like the luminiferous ether, which yielded the accurate Lorentz equations, and the caloric theory of heat which yielded many accurate equations and experimental results (indeed, its fluid model of heat is so parallel to reality that you probably recall your mechanical engineer friends at school taking "thermals and fluids" classes). The Earth being flat was debunked the first time someone saw a boat come in to pier and is thoroughly uninteresting.
- Natsu 16y agoWell, what about the notion of a fixed earth around which other things rotate? Granted, this gets fuzzy about how wrong it is when you consider that there's no absolute reference frame, but if you read history, you'll find out that the reason they couldn't believe that the earth was moving was that they could not measure the stellar parallax. In other words, they knew that the stars should appear to shift a little if the earth was moving. Yes, they do in fact shift, but they're so many light years away that it took a long time before anyone came up with anything that could measure it.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago>Well, what about the notion of a fixed earth around which other things rotate? As you, and relativity, say - it's not wrong to choose an arbitrary fixed point. >it took a long time before anyone came up with anything that could measure [stellar parallax] Indeed, the Pythagoreans assumed terrestrial motion (according to Copernicus) just as others assumed opposite. Neither assumption is bad, neither is worse given that there was no obtainable evidence to support either position at the time.