You’re entirely right, yet also entirely missing the point.
The proof of Physics existing isn’t in the book, and no physicist would claim you take what’s in the book on faith, nor that it’s unquestionable, nor that other books on physics are lies, nor kill/lynch/shun people for studying the universe through other perspectives like chemistry or mathematics or biology.
Asked for proof of Physics, physicists make predictions that can be reliably reproduced, not telling you to read the Physics book harder.
Regardless, everyone is new sometime, why not provide links, a counter argument or anything useful rather than just deriding them? This way you mostly come off as an ass who doesn’t understand the argument.
You’re entirely right, yet also entirely missing the point.
The proof of Physics existing isn’t in the book, and no physicist would claim you take what’s in the book on faith, nor that it’s unquestionable, nor that other books on physics are lies, nor kill/lynch/shun people for studying the universe through other perspectives like chemistry or mathematics or biology.
Asked for proof of Physics, physicists make predictions that can be reliably reproduced, not telling you to read the Physics book harder.
Regardless, everyone is new sometime, why not provide links, a counter argument or anything useful rather than just deriding them? This way you mostly come off as an ass who doesn’t understand the argument.