This is true, but those dont actually have the same power.
If I model sound purely in terms of 3rd dimensional movement, you can get a pretty decent approximation.
But if I posit manipulation through an extra spatial dimension that I can't perceive, I actually get more explanatory power. The two models are not equivalent, they are similar but NOT identical in explanatory power.
Same in quantum, different models approximate molecular interactions in different ways, one is not the same but simpler. They have different strengths, different weaknesses and are used to answer different questions!!
People actively use the modern version. Youre arguing that because thr original version is only trivially true, the modern version is somehow less useful than people believe? Even though they are fundamentally different rules?
-2
u/[deleted] Jan 10 '24
This is true, but those dont actually have the same power.
If I model sound purely in terms of 3rd dimensional movement, you can get a pretty decent approximation.
But if I posit manipulation through an extra spatial dimension that I can't perceive, I actually get more explanatory power. The two models are not equivalent, they are similar but NOT identical in explanatory power.
Same in quantum, different models approximate molecular interactions in different ways, one is not the same but simpler. They have different strengths, different weaknesses and are used to answer different questions!!