> Everything has to “touch grass.”
Not wrong, but it's been said that a videoclip of an apple falling on Newton's head is technically enough information to infer the theory of relativity. You don't need a lot of grass, with a well-ordered mind.
Not wrong, but it's been said that a videoclip of an apple falling on Newton's head is technically enough information to infer the theory of relativity. You don't need a lot of grass, with a well-ordered mind.
It might be enough to deduce Newtonian motion if you have a lot of the required priors already.
A lot of telescope data over time combined with a strong math model and a lot of other priors is probably enough to get relativity. You have to be able to see things like planetary motion and that the results don’t match Newton exactly, and then you need enough data to fit to a different model. You probably also need to know a lot about the behavior of light.