Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Lounge
Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Methodology / Philosophy of Science
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="BWV, post: 6530942, member: 88243"] I don’t see the issue, and are you conflating theories and hypothesis? science works by building on existing knowledge, so I fail to see how a ‘new theory’ being reliant on an exiting one is a problem. It would be problematic if the new theory completely discarded elements of a former one that were established. GR built on Newtonian gravity and was proven by the tools of Newtonian astronomy - by explaining the formerly unexplainable precession of the prehelion of Mercury. How would one even go about making equipment based on GR to test it, and why would it matter? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
The Lounge
Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Methodology / Philosophy of Science
Back
Top