• hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I don’t think in this case the logic is circular, it just explains how the light cone shows that FTL breaks causality, and assumes that you’ll learn the math behind the light cone somewhere else. Maybe the author assumes the light cone can be better learned from other sources

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      But it doesn’t explain it. It is a graph of the equation. But that doesn’t explain the equation. That’s why I gave the parabola example.

      Showing a graphical form of the equation is still only the question but in another format. That’s what makes it circular. If you ask why something is Y = X^2 and I only show you a graph of Y = X^2, that’s not answer. It’s the question in a graphical format.

      • hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        it explains it using other formulas. It’s like if the teacher taught you trigonometry using algebra. They expect you to either already know algebra, or to learn it from somewhere else. You could say that the teacher is just restating trigonometric questions in algebraic format, and that might be a fair way to interpret it, but that also might be enough for people who already know algebra