Thread 16776833

>Drop known material and unknown material of similar size into water.
>Whatever sinks the fastest has the highest density.
>Determine identity of unknown material with periodic table.
Scientists are hiding circular reasoning, aren't they?

Where is the circular reasoning exactly?

>>16776833 (OP)
Mass is not defined circularly. Theres two equations with two variables that define it:
Newtons law of universal gravitation
Newton's third law
Both include the concept of force and mass, which are undefined on their own. You use both equations to solve for acceleration, which is a measurable quantity, and can be integrated into position and trajectory, like an orbit.
You can define mass in this sense, operatively by the orbits. For instance two equal masses orbiting each other at a given distance and speed must have some specific mass given by newtons gravitational constant.

>>16776833 (OP)
What's circular? You didn't even make a statement in support of your question.

>>16776833 (OP)
Any deduction based on a generalization of empirical evidence is ultimately circular because it presupposes that the generalization will hold true in that specific case despite the potential of it being counterevidence for it, yes.

>>16776833 (OP)
>you will never drink her breast milk

>>16776833 (OP)
There're very few things denser than metallic lead or copper, most of them are metals. Of those metals very few can exists as native metal, and of those only gold and the platinum group isn't quickly tarnished by oxygen or sulfur. By elimination you can conclude that it's "platinum" (an alloy of the platinum group), of the platinum group only the group of heavy have comparable density to gold, and only Iridium is similar enough to platinum to be mistaken but it's way rarer.

>>16776833 (OP)
>these 2 materials are the same because they behave the same in every environment
thats how science works chud

You waited a while to post this op, this episode came out weeks ago