the sun revolves around the earth

[Mad Scientist]

The world is flat too, so be very careful when you go sailing...

You're just being an idiot

Well that make two of ya'!

 

[JBeukema]

The world is flat too, so be very careful when you go sailing...

You're just being an idiot

Well that make two of ya'!

You failed your science and your philosophy classes both, didn't ya?

Again, if you disagree, feel free to demonstrate any logical flaw in the adoption of a non-standard frame of reference when describing the relative movement of bodies.

 

[Cecilie1200]

psalms 19: 6

. . . And?

 

[ErikViking]

Again, if you disagree, feel free to demonstrate any logical flaw in the adoption of a non-standard frame of reference when describing the relative movement of bodies.

How can anyone? This is only a student prank, a funnly little missuse of a set of algorithms.

Much like the implications of s=(at^2)/2.

In order to describe a physical world correctly you have to understand energy, entropy and thermodynamics and its implication.

Interestingly enough is the fact that people long before us understood this from instinct.

 

[JBeukema]

So, Erik, you are saying that I am correct in the OP, yes?

 

[ErikViking]

So, Erik, you are saying that I am correct in the OP, yes?

Yes, although I am no expert in the area. (I don´t believe the sun orbits the earth - you can´t throw that in my face later)

 

[JBeukema]

I never claimed it was a useful exercise

 

[editec]

Some interesting statistics:

Only 47 percent of Americans can correctly answer the question, "How long does it take for the earth to travel around the sun one time?"

20 percent believe the sun rotates around the Earth.

20 percent think the Earth circles the sun once a day.

More than 90% CAN'T explain what a molecule is.

More than 75% have no clue what thins the ozone layer.

Only 2% understand what a "scientific theory" is.

64% have no idea what the "scientific method" is or the meaning of "scientific inquiry".

40% of Americans feel confident about the leaders in the scientific and medical communities. Less than 12% feel they are knowledgeable about science.

Less than 40% believe in the science of evolution (more than 80% in all other industrialized nation).

46% said God created man the way he is now less than 10,000 years ago. Statistic unchanged since 1982.

63% believe antibiotics kill viruses.

87% of scientists state that evolution is the result of natural processes with just 32 percent public agreement.

the near consensus among scientists about global warming is not mirrored in the general public. While 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees.

Scientists are the third most respected profession (after the military and teachers) (funny – science gives the military weapons and tells teachers what to say, they good ones anyway)

77% of scientists agreed with the claim that government scientists were not allowed to report research findings that conflicted with the Bush administration’s point of view.

By this time, everyone knows that less than 6% of scientists identify themselves as Republican

Oh, that home schooling.

I rather doubt these claims about how ignorant the general public is.

I doubt home-schooler are this ignroant. I doubt public school educated people are thing ignorant, and I doubt private school educated are this ignorant, too.

Who did this so called survey, and under what conditions?

 

[rdean]

Some interesting statistics:

Only 47 percent of Americans can correctly answer the question, "How long does it take for the earth to travel around the sun one time?"

20 percent believe the sun rotates around the Earth.

20 percent think the Earth circles the sun once a day.

More than 90% CAN'T explain what a molecule is.

More than 75% have no clue what thins the ozone layer.

Only 2% understand what a "scientific theory" is.

64% have no idea what the "scientific method" is or the meaning of "scientific inquiry".

40% of Americans feel confident about the leaders in the scientific and medical communities. Less than 12% feel they are knowledgeable about science.

Less than 40% believe in the science of evolution (more than 80% in all other industrialized nation).

46% said God created man the way he is now less than 10,000 years ago. Statistic unchanged since 1982.

63% believe antibiotics kill viruses.

87% of scientists state that evolution is the result of natural processes with just 32 percent public agreement.

the near consensus among scientists about global warming is not mirrored in the general public. While 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees.

Scientists are the third most respected profession (after the military and teachers) (funny – science gives the military weapons and tells teachers what to say, they good ones anyway)

77% of scientists agreed with the claim that government scientists were not allowed to report research findings that conflicted with the Bush administration’s point of view.

By this time, everyone knows that less than 6% of scientists identify themselves as Republican

Oh, that home schooling.

I rather doubt these claims about how ignorant the general public is.

I doubt home-schooler are this ignroant. I doubt public school educated people are thing ignorant, and I doubt private school educated are this ignorant, too.

Who did this so called survey, and under what conditions?

Not the general public. Mostly Republicans. I haven't heard of Democrats wanting to teach mysticism in place of science. But I there might be one out there. I know that one of the women on the View didn't know the earth was round.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

since all motion is relative (a body can only move in relation to another body, multiple bodies, or a fixed point within a measurable field as viewed by an outside party- another 'body'), one could image the earth as being stationary and the sun traveling around the Earth. Of course, this requires a much more complex imagining of the motions of the other bodies, which is why it is seldom used (it is far simpler and easier {and therfore more useful} to iomagine or solar system from a fixed perspective which imagines the sun as 'stationary' relative to the orbits of the other bodies). However, one could imagine Earth as the stationary body around which Sol moves while the other bodies orbit Sol and, technically, one wouldn't be incorrect, but rather adopting a non-standard frame of reference for the observation of the movement of the heavenly bodies.

Using this frame of reference, we see that rather than the solar system spinning around a black hole, the black hole orbits the the Earth, getting ever closerand pulling other bodies near to it.

Standard? Definitely not. Useful? Not really? Needlessly complex a model/visualization? A poor choice for a frame of reference for any real application? Perhaps. But technically not wrong...


Next week: we all orbit a single electron....

I do this as an exercise in my History of Mathematics class. For the purposes of a scientific theorem both the Copernican and Ptolemaic views of the universe work as long as they make verifiable predictions. That's how theories built using the scientific method work. There are really good Java applications in class that show celestial movement under the two competing systems.

Of course, there are two problems with this.

The first is a huge violation of Ockham's Razor due to the fact that an Earth centered universe is immensely more complicated to describe scientifically. Ptolemy's Almagest, the definitive work on the topic, was so difficult to follow and apply that reading it required a near superhuman mastery of mathematics.

The second is that once you start accepting Newton's Law of Gravity, you run into problems on the math side of the equation. Newton's Law of Gravity, together with a smattering of Vector Calculus, gives us the elliptical motion of the Earth about the Sun placing the Sun squarely as one of the foci of the ellipse. It also guarantees the observable fact that the planets move in a single plane.

I think it might be possible to rewrite the math a bit to have the Sun revolving about the Earth with the Earth at the focus, however, you run into problems describing the other celestial motions. Part of why everyone revolves around the Sun is because the force due to gravity that acts between the Sun and the other celestial objects is far greater than what acts between the planets. Reworking Earth as a fixed point would still require motion of the other planets in an elliptical path about the Sun needlessly complicating the math.

 

[JBeukema]

The first is a huge violation of Ockham's Razor due to the fact that an Earth centered universe is immensely more complicated to describe scientifically.

OR only decides what model is most useful, not what is reality. Also recall that I not onlty never claimed it was a useful model, but said quite the opposite

The second is that once you start accepting Newton's Law of Gravity,

I never did

I think it might be possible to rewrite the math a bit to have the Sun revolving about the Earth with the Earth at the focus, however, you run into problems describing the other celestial motions.

Only if you use the common maths. With different axioms come different conclusions Mathematics is an inherently incomplete system that can never be confirmed by anything but itself. I believe it was Godel who pointed this out.

Part of why everyone revolves around the Sun is because the force due to gravity that acts between the Sun and the other celestial objects is far greater than what acts between the planets. Reworking Earth as a fixed point would still require motion of the other planets in an elliptical path about the Sun needlessly complicating the math.

See my first response to your objection de Occam

since al

 

[Dr.Traveler]

OR only decides what model is most useful, not what is reality. Also recall that I not onlty never claimed it was a useful model, but said quite the opposite

True. If you're just engaging in a thought experiment and not trying to gain verifiable results, then OR need not apply. I'm just pointing out that the math on an Earth centered universe is more complicated than the math on a Sun centered universe.

That in itself isn't that big a stumbling block for a mathematician like myself if it leads to "interesting" math. However as both assumptions are only going to require and use vector calculus and some cute parametric equations, along with Euclidean geometry, I'm not sure I see the point past curiousity.

I never did

Not accepting Newton's Law of Gravity is an...interesting choice. What's your alternative hypothesis to explain celestial motion in this scenario.

Only if you use the common maths. With different axioms come different conclusions Mathematics is an inherently incomplete system that can never be confirmed by anything but itself. I believe it was Godel who pointed this out.

True, different conclusions produce different results. That is why we still study Neutral Geometries, as they produce useful results true in Euclidean and Non-Euclidean relms.

But I think you missed something with Godel here. Godel's First Incompleteness theorem does what you say (proves that a sufficiently complex system is incomplete), but as far as confirming consistency, that happens outside the system. Godel's Second Incompleteness theorem says that any sufficiently complicated system can't verify consistency on its own.

As I said, from an experimental point of view this is a fun exercise at least.

 

[JBeukema]

OR only decides what model is most useful, not what is reality. Also recall that I not onlty never claimed it was a useful model, but said quite the opposite

True. If you're just engaging in a thought experiment and not trying to gain verifiable results, then OR need not apply. I'm just pointing out that the math on an Earth centered universe is more complicated than the math on a Sun centered universe.

You mean a sun-centered planetary system, right?

That in itself isn't that big a stumbling block for a mathematician like myself if it leads to "interesting" math. However as both assumptions are only going to require and use vector calculus and some cute parametric equations, along with Euclidean geometry, I'm not sure I see the point past curiousity.

There is no point past curiosity and miscellaneous philosophical being-a-pain-in-the-ass. I thought I made that clear?

I never did

Not accepting Newton's Law of Gravity is an...interesting choice. What's your alternative hypothesis to explain celestial motion in this scenario.

My understanding is that Newton's numbers don't compute. I accept General Relativity as the best available model for explaining orbits.

True, different conclusions produce different results.

Wait. What?

That is why we still study Neutral Geometries, as they produce useful results true in Euclidean and Non-Euclidean relms.

You're speaking in tongues to me, now. I've never been good with the numbers side of things.

But I think you missed something with Godel here. Godel's First Incompleteness theorem does what you say (proves that a sufficiently complex system is incomplete), but as far as confirming consistency, that happens outside the system. Godel's Second Incompleteness theorem says that any sufficiently complicated system can't verify consistency on its own.

I''m only familiar with one IT; I'll have to look the other up

As I said, from an experimental point of view this is a fun exercise at least.

It is intended as nothing more.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

My understanding is that Newton's numbers don't compute. I accept General Relativity as the best available model for explaining orbits.

Newton's bran of physics works at sufficiently low speeds and requires a Euclidean universe. For anything close to Speed of Light you need General Relativity and a non-Euclidean world.

Newton's numbers do need some work as there are a lot of "residual forces" in play in that the planets, moons, asteroids, etc are all exerting. Its the "three-body problem" on crack in that the three body problem only involves the Earth, Moon, and Sun... and that was practically insolvable last I knew. With celestial motion close is pretty good.

 

[JBeukema]

Newton's answers might be close enough for everyday applications, but they're still less accurate than Einstein's

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Newton's answers might be close enough for everyday applications, but they're still less accurate than Einstein's

Touche!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey Jellied Butt Sniffer...........is this more of your "facts" that you cherry pick as a way to get people to fight?

Troll.'

 

[Cecilie1200]

Some interesting statistics:

Only 47 percent of Americans can correctly answer the question, "How long does it take for the earth to travel around the sun one time?"

20 percent believe the sun rotates around the Earth.

20 percent think the Earth circles the sun once a day.

More than 90% CAN'T explain what a molecule is.

More than 75% have no clue what thins the ozone layer.

Only 2% understand what a "scientific theory" is.

64% have no idea what the "scientific method" is or the meaning of "scientific inquiry".

40% of Americans feel confident about the leaders in the scientific and medical communities. Less than 12% feel they are knowledgeable about science.

Less than 40% believe in the science of evolution (more than 80% in all other industrialized nation).

46% said God created man the way he is now less than 10,000 years ago. Statistic unchanged since 1982.

63% believe antibiotics kill viruses.

87% of scientists state that evolution is the result of natural processes with just 32 percent public agreement.

the near consensus among scientists about global warming is not mirrored in the general public. While 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees.

Scientists are the third most respected profession (after the military and teachers) (funny – science gives the military weapons and tells teachers what to say, they good ones anyway)

77% of scientists agreed with the claim that government scientists were not allowed to report research findings that conflicted with the Bush administration’s point of view.

By this time, everyone knows that less than 6% of scientists identify themselves as Republican

Oh, that home schooling.

I rather doubt these claims about how ignorant the general public is.

I doubt home-schooler are this ignroant. I doubt public school educated people are thing ignorant, and I doubt private school educated are this ignorant, too.

Who did this so called survey, and under what conditions?

Not the general public. Mostly Republicans. I haven't heard of Democrats wanting to teach mysticism in place of science. But I there might be one out there. I know that one of the women on the View didn't know the earth was round.

You haven't heard of any Republicans wanting to, either. In fact, you haven't heard anything at all except the voices in your own head, which say, "I can't possibly argue with REAL people, so I'll just pretend they said this instead."

Do you honestly think everyone can't see that the only time you dipped your big toe into the waters of actual debate, you got your ass handed to you and had to resort to insisting that I was "advocating mysticism", despite the fact that I never once said any of the things that you kept trying to excoriate me for? And then you subsided into not answering any points at all, but rather just throwing up short little quotes about "Well, Christians are just stupid. They like mysticism." Like this one, in fact.

 

[rdean]

I rather doubt these claims about how ignorant the general public is.

I doubt home-schooler are this ignroant. I doubt public school educated people are thing ignorant, and I doubt private school educated are this ignorant, too.

Who did this so called survey, and under what conditions?

Not the general public. Mostly Republicans. I haven't heard of Democrats wanting to teach mysticism in place of science. But I there might be one out there. I know that one of the women on the View didn't know the earth was round.

You haven't heard of any Republicans wanting to, either. In fact, you haven't heard anything at all except the voices in your own head, which say, "I can't possibly argue with REAL people, so I'll just pretend they said this instead."

Do you honestly think everyone can't see that the only time you dipped your big toe into the waters of actual debate, you got your ass handed to you and had to resort to insisting that I was "advocating mysticism", despite the fact that I never once said any of the things that you kept trying to excoriate me for? And then you subsided into not answering any points at all, but rather just throwing up short little quotes about "Well, Christians are just stupid. They like mysticism." Like this one, in fact.

No offense chuckles, you never beat me in a debate because you don't know how to debate.

Just so you know, the def of Debate: A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

You are nowhere near a "Master Debater". In fact, you are not even a "cunning linguist".

And just for you edification, "magical creation" IS mysticism. Anytime someone suggests that things shimmered into being "whole and complete", THAT'S mysticism.

Here's one of your best quotes, "Excuse me, but evolutionary changes - changes between species - are ALLEGED to happen over a long period of time, since no one can actually provide conclusive evidence of them ACTUALLY happening. All there is are guesses, a la Charles Darwin, that they "must have" happened.

And this is you teaching me what Darwin saw on the Galapagos Islands, "And it's clear that you know nothing about what he observed on Galapagos, because it wasn't evolution. It was minor adaptation, which didn't even last."

Don't forget this absolutely brilliant statement, "The method WAS the theory, you dink. What the holy hell do you think we're talking about here, anyway? Do you really think all this hullabaloo is over the painfully obvious and boring observation that things change over time? Is THAT what you seriously believe Darwin's theory of evolution was?" --Well, uh, yea, things change over time? That'll work.

And finally, your greatest statement that firmly plants you in the center of the Pantheon of the Park of the Silver Trailers, "The theory of evolution is unproven guessing, touted by moronic poseurs like you who can't even make a coherent argument for it, but just KNOW that it must be true, because you've been told that all educated people believe it. It's sad to watch.
and I'm the only one talking science and scientists here."

And you schooled ME on science? Pow, wham, you just received an ABS -

Atomic
Bitch
Slap

 

[SmarterThanHick]

since all motion is relative (a body can only move in relation to another body, multiple bodies, or a fixed point within a measurable field as viewed by an outside party- another 'body'), one could image the earth as being stationary and the sun traveling around the Earth. Of course, this requires a much more complex imagining of the motions of the other bodies, which is why it is seldom used (it is far simpler and easier {and therfore more useful} to iomagine or solar system from a fixed perspective which imagines the sun as 'stationary' relative to the orbits of the other bodies). However, one could imagine Earth as the stationary body around which Sol moves while the other bodies orbit Sol and, technically, one wouldn't be incorrect, but rather adopting a non-standard frame of reference for the observation of the movement of the heavenly bodies.

Using this frame of reference, we see that rather than the solar system spinning around a black hole, the black hole orbits the the Earth, getting ever closerand pulling other bodies near to it.

Standard? Definitely not. Useful? Not really? Needlessly complex a model/visualization? A poor choice for a frame of reference for any real application? Perhaps. But technically not wrong...

No, that's not quite right. Or rather, it's right if and only if you completely throw out all of Newtonian (and even relative) physics. If these things were moving in space from some outside force (say, large planet-sized rocket packs strapped to each), you could make that claim. Where you go wrong is by ignoring the fact that each of these celestial bodies is responsible for the motion we're seeing on the other.

To demonstrate this in a simplified manner, I will use basic physics.

Force = mass * acceleration ( which is the same as F=ma )

In the case of planets/suns, the "force" we're talking about is gravitational. If we model planetary (or any other type of) orbit, equilibrium exists when the sideways motion and the gravitational force causing one body to "fall" towards another balances in such a way as to create satellite movement. So let's ignore the "sideways" motion, and focus in on the gravitational "falling" force.

F=ma. Newtonian physics states that forces need equal but opposite forces. In this case, the force exerted on the earth by the sun is exactly equal (but opposite) to the force exerted on the sun by the earth. Therefore:

(m*a) of sun = F = m*a (of earth)
Well, we know what the masses of each are, and can plug them in accordingly:

(1.98892 × 10^30) * acceleration of the sun = (5.9742 × 10^24) * acceleration of the earth

dividing, we can get a ratio of the acceleration of the Earth compared to the sun:
acceleration of earth / acceleration of sun = 3.3 x 10^5 meters per second squared

In other words, we KNOW for a fact that the Earth accelerates five orders of magnitude faster than the sun, which accelerates at a negligible rate (essentially, it is unmoving with respect to the earth)

gg.