And if you don& #39;t know the answer, just tell them that there is no relativistic formulation of thermodynamics (since it deals with extended bodies) so it is not one of our best scientific theories https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="😜" title="Winking face with tongue" aria-label="Emoji: Winking face with tongue"> https://twitter.com/morallawwithin/status/1302345433860190211">https://twitter.com/morallaww...

I don& #39;t believe many people working on the metaphysics of physics are confused about basic concepts from HS physics and chemistry, but I& #39;m also not sure these notions are more relevant to their work than classical mechanics& #39; notion of the moment of inertia

A more difficult challenge is one raised by people like David Wallace. When metaphysicians talk about the implications of special relativity for debates about temporal persistence, he will ask why they aren& #39;t talking about GR

Since SR works locally, it would be fine for making points about stuff near the surface if the earth. But I don& #39;t quite know how to defend using SR in arguments for fully general theories of temporal persistence. (Not saying it can& #39;t be done tho!)