|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:26
|
#1
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The 1970's
Posts: 549
|
The sun revolves around the Earth
And I will believe this until someone proves me wrong.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:27
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,944
|
Re: The sun revolves around the Earth
Quote:
Originally posted by Sub
And I will believe this until someone proves me wrong.
|
You are stupid
__________________
I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which i'm dying
Are the best i've ever had
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:27
|
#3
|
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: autogenic misery
Posts: 872
|
Re: The sun revolves around the Earth
Quote:
Originally posted by Sub
And I will believe this until someone proves me wrong.
|
You are correct.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:27
|
#4
|
Motherfracker
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,985
|
Is this the same Sub that was with WST last night?
And how did you get 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz' into your rank? I didn't think the field was that large.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:29
|
#5
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
It does, if you define the earth as the rest frame. You then have to have all sorts of silly maths to explain the orbit of the sun though.
This is where Occam's Razor comes into play.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:29
|
#6
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The 1970's
Posts: 549
|
Re: Re: The sun revolves around the Earth
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarak
You are stupid
|
If you're so smart, disprove my point!
Quote:
Originally posted by KaneED
Is this the same Sub that was with WST last night?
And how did you get 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz' into your rank? I didn't think the field was that large.
|
No, I'm the good one.
And look carefully at the letters
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:29
|
#7
|
Throwing Shapes
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 797
|
Re: The sun revolves around the Earth
Quote:
Originally posted by Sub
And I will believe this until someone proves me wrong.
|
I reckon that the earth is round and the Sun isnt the same star every day. A new one is launched into the sky each day which goes across the diameter of the flat earth.
CLEARLY.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:30
|
#8
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The 1970's
Posts: 549
|
There are no such things as stars (other than the sun). They are just lights a few hundred km away from the Earths surface.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:31
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,944
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
It does, if you define the earth as the rest frame. You then have to have all sorts of silly maths to explain the orbit of the sun though.
This is where Occam's Razor comes into play.
|
wouldn't this 'silly maths' make newton/kepler a tad upset?
__________________
I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which i'm dying
Are the best i've ever had
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:32
|
#10
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarak
wouldn't this 'silly maths' make newton/kepler a tad upset?
|
Occam's Razor you goon
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:33
|
#11
|
Throwing Shapes
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 797
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarak
wouldn't this 'silly maths' make newton/kepler a tad upset?
|
So far this thread isnt enough of a paradox to warrant the collapse of the known universe
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:35
|
#12
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Occam's Razor you goon
|
when all things are equal, the simplest solution is most likely the correct one
i watched contact yesterday.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:43
|
#13
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Idi
when all things are equal, the simplest solution is most likely the correct one
i watched contact yesterday.
|
That's a really terrible wording of it.
Bloody Jodie Foster.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:45
|
#14
|
Bitch
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 3,848
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
That's a really terrible wording of it.
Bloody Jodie Foster.
|
Proper one, complete with a comic strip
__________________
ACHTUNG!!!
Das machine is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy
schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und corkenpoppen mit
spitzensparken. Ist nicht fur gewerken by das dummkopfen. Das
rubbernecken sightseeren keepen hands in das pockets. Relaxen und vatch
das blinkenlights!!!
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:47
|
#15
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The 1970's
Posts: 549
|
I feel we are moving offtopic somewhat.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:48
|
#16
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: Re: The sun revolves around the Earth
Quote:
Originally posted by CjC
I reckon that the earth is round and the Sun isnt the same star every day. A new one is launched into the sky each day which goes across the diameter of the flat earth.
CLEARLY.
|
lo Xenophanes of Colophon.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:54
|
#17
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
The Earth revolves around Pavarotti.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 18:54
|
#18
|
Rawr rawr
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Upside down
Posts: 5,300
|
Re: The sun revolves around the Earth
Quote:
Originally posted by Sub
And I will believe this until someone proves me wrong.
|
Everything is relative...
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 19:01
|
#19
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,944
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Occam's Razor you goon
|
start off with the assumption that i'm stupid
doesn't the sun rotates around the earth "theory" disagree with newton/kepler?
is it actually possible to 'complicate' matters so that it obeys them and still works?
if you can't complicate them enough with the 'silly maths' to obey them then doesn't that mean Occams Razor is irrelevant
or is the fact that we believe the basis of newtons/keplers equations the 'simple solution' itself?
i'm rambling but you always pull occams razor out of the bag and i still don't think i understand it properly :/
enlighten
ta
__________________
I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which i'm dying
Are the best i've ever had
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 19:03
|
#20
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The 1970's
Posts: 549
|
Re: Re: The sun revolves around the Earth
Quote:
Originally posted by Structural Integrity
Everything is relative...
|
Relativity isn't.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 19:04
|
#21
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarak
or is the fact that we believe the basis of newtons/keplers equations the 'simple solution' itself?
|
Well, we don't actually (General Relativity and all), but at the time they were the simplest explanation.
Physics is, and always will be, an approximation. That's the nature of empiricism.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 19:08
|
#22
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,944
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Well, we don't actually
|
i didn't say we agreed with them in their entirety but the basis of them
replace where i said "newton/kepler" with "relativistically compensated newton/kepler" if that's any better
or if not whichever theory you consider to be the accepted one that currently models celestial mechanics
anyway back to you explaining how Occam's Razor is relevant here.... :)
__________________
I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which i'm dying
Are the best i've ever had
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 19:09
|
#23
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarak
|
NEWTON ISNT RIGHT
EINSTEIN ISNT RIGHT
THEY WERE JUST THE 'SIMPLEST' APPROXIMATIONS
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 19:15
|
#24
|
Doh!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit
Posts: 1,720
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
NEWTON ISNT RIGHT
EINSTEIN ISNT RIGHT
THEY WERE JUST THE 'SIMPLEST' APPROXIMATIONS
|
Is it not the case that the persons you refer to i.e Newton and Einstien are ever so slightly dead? Therefore your statement should say.
NEWTON WASN'T RIGHT
EINSTEIN WASN'T RIGHT
Or have they been cloned, reincarnated or otherwise brought back to life?
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 19:20
|
#25
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Newton, etc being shorthand for 'Newtonian Theory'
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 19:34
|
#26
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,944
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
NEWTON ISNT RIGHT
EINSTEIN ISNT RIGHT
THEY WERE JUST THE 'SIMPLEST' APPROXIMATIONS
|
yes
i thought we had established that
what i'm asking is what exactly is this 'silly maths' that makes a geo-centric solar system work?
and mustn't it at least 'almost' agree with newton/kepler as they were as you said, simple approximations
ie. it can't completely disagree with newton/kepler
or can it?
__________________
I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which i'm dying
Are the best i've ever had
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 19:52
|
#27
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarak
or can it?
|
Given a geocentric solar system has to use 'epicycles' (an orbit which looks kind of like a spirograph), I think it does disagree somewhat.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 19:58
|
#28
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,944
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Given a geocentric solar system has to use 'epicycles' (an orbit which looks kind of like a spirograph), I think it does disagree somewhat.
|
that is kinda my point
when i said "it can't completely disagree with newton/kepler" i meant "it's not allowed to completely disagree with newton/kepler as for all their innaccuracies they are still valid approximations"
we have one theory we know is 'roughly' correct
can another theory that disagrees with the first still be a valid approximation to what is observed?
i don't see how but maybe you do
__________________
I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which i'm dying
Are the best i've ever had
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:06
|
#29
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarak
can another theory that disagrees with the first still be a valid approximation to what is observed?
|
It disagrees in metaphysical reality rather than prediction; as long as it gets the same result out in terms of orbits, it can be as complicated as you like. Hence Occam's Razor.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:09
|
#30
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Occam's Razor you goon
|
"When the truth is too hard to handle, take the easiest option".
Sub is correct, you are all just victims of a communist plot dating back several centuries.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:15
|
#31
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nodrog
"When the truth is too hard to handle, take the easiest option".
Sub is correct, you are all just victims of a communist plot dating back several centuries.
|
I thought it was the illuminated ones
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:16
|
#32
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,944
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
It disagrees in metaphysical reality rather than prediction; as long as it gets the same result out in terms of orbits, it can be as complicated as you like. Hence Occam's Razor.
|
does a geocentric solar system give the same results regarding orbits though?
does it actually 'work'? is it possible to come up with a working (albeit extremely complicated) model that agrees in prediction with a helio-centric solar system?
does making it work involve inventing a whole new system of celestial mechanics to go along with it? or will it work in conjucture with what we accept at the moment?
i understand why you said 'occams razor' now and i know using the word 'impossible' is stupid (so won't) but doesn't a theory have to at least exist before occam's razor discounts it?
__________________
I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which i'm dying
Are the best i've ever had
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:26
|
#33
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarak
does it actually 'work'? is it possible to come up with a working (albeit extremely complicated) model that agrees in prediction with a helio-centric solar system?
|
I mentioned this earlier... 'epicycles'. You won't get an elliptical orbit, or anything like it, but if you expect it you're just PREJUDICED.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:28
|
#34
|
∞+♪²
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: :uo!te]o¯|
Posts: 428
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KaneED
Is this the same Sub that was with WST last night?
And how did you get 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz' into your rank? I didn't think the field was that large.
|
Used to be possible to get it longer, after improving the html a little. Just checked, seems they changed it...
__________________
Structural Integrity for Creator - since he'll probably make PA turn 3D.
Wikipedia forum
Note to self - Don't write Chinese letters with bold and italics... 猫
<!--Last incarnation: Nov 2000-->
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:31
|
#35
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarak
does a geocentric solar system give the same results regarding orbits though?
does it actually 'work'? is it possible to come up with a working (albeit extremely complicated) model that agrees in prediction with a helio-centric solar system?
does making it work involve inventing a whole new system of celestial mechanics to go along with it? or will it work in conjucture with what we accept at the moment?
i understand why you said 'occams razor' now and i know using the word 'impossible' is stupid (so won't) but doesn't a theory have to at least exist before occam's razor discounts it?
|
without gravity (and newton's three laws of motion), there is no reason why celestial objects can't take whatever damn route they want through the heavens.
So yes, geocentric works. It's just that with geocentric you get all kinds of crazy curlicues and so on.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:31
|
#36
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,944
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I mentioned this earlier... 'epicycles'. You won't get an elliptical orbit, or anything like it, but if you expect it you're just PREJUDICED.
|
ok
the orbit shape is irrelevant isn't it?
the predictions we're concerned with are more along the lines of "if i look at this piece of sky here at this time i will see this" aren't they?
do both theories 'work' in the sense that they agree with each other on this prediction?
__________________
I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which i'm dying
Are the best i've ever had
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:33
|
#37
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,944
|
Quote:
Originally posted by acropolis
without gravity (and newton's three laws of motion), there is no reason why celestial objects can't take whatever damn route they want through the heavens.
So yes, geocentric works. It's just that with geocentric you get all kinds of crazy curlicues and so on.
|
that's why i said, "does making it work involve inventing a whole new system of celestial mechanics to go along with it?"
so you're saying we'd forget about newton and come up with a new theory that gives the same predictions as newton but allows the orbit path to be different?
__________________
I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which i'm dying
Are the best i've ever had
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:33
|
#38
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarak
do both theories 'work' in the sense that they agree with each other on this prediction?
|
I believe that the Moon is being pulled through the sky by a giant beetle, which gradually eats and regurgitates it in a cycle lasting about 30 days.
That agrees with predictions, doesn't it?
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:38
|
#39
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,944
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I believe that the Moon is being pulled through the sky by a giant beetle, which gradually eats and regurgitates it in a cycle lasting about 30 days.
That agrees with predictions, doesn't it?
|
yes
so a geocentric system would still give the same predictions as a kepler/newton based system?
the position of the sun in the epicycle system relative to the earth at a certain time would be the same as that in the kepler system?
__________________
I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which i'm dying
Are the best i've ever had
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:45
|
#40
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarak
so a geocentric system would still give the same predictions as a kepler/newton based system?
the position of the sun in the epicycle system relative to the earth at a certain time would be the same as that in the kepler system?
|
Theres no inherent predictions of a geocentric or helioentric model. It all depends on the numbers you put in.
If you want to make it reach the same predictions, you can.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:50
|
#41
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The 1970's
Posts: 549
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nodrog
Sub is correct, you are all just victims of a communist plot dating back several centuries.
|
Do you know what's rich? They managed to convince these people that light is both a particle, and a wave! And they call me stupid.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:52
|
#42
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,944
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Theres no inherent predictions of a geocentric or helioentric model. It all depends on the numbers you put in.
If you want to make it reach the same predictions, you can.
|
that feels like cheating tho :/
by 'numbers' i'm assuming you mean things such as G, g, Mass of Earth, Mass of Sun, radius of orbit, etc
aren't some (all?) of those numbers required to be a specific value so that other phenomena work as we predict eg. radiation from sun, throwing a javelin, etc
wouldn't making the numbers what you needed to be also require you altering just about everything in physics?
__________________
I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which i'm dying
Are the best i've ever had
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:54
|
#43
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarak
wouldn't making the numbers what you needed to be also require you altering just about everything in physics?
|
Different model, sweety.
You might as well say that our current model involved altering all the numbers from the old model.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:58
|
#44
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,944
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Different model, sweety.
|
a heliocentric model has a set of accepted values that gives a prediction close to what is observed
a geocentric model has a set of values that gives a prediction close to what is observed
the 'set of values' are not the same for both models
so a geocentric model would also involve everything else being different or working by a different model?
__________________
I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which i'm dying
Are the best i've ever had
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 20:59
|
#45
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Probably only a differing understanding of gravity, although it's hard to see how they would hold such inconsistent views about the gravitational force and, say, electrostatics.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 21:04
|
#46
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The 1970's
Posts: 549
|
What is gravity?
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 21:06
|
#47
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,944
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Probably only a differing understanding of gravity, although it's hard to see how they would hold such inconsistent views about the gravitational force and, say, electrostatics.
|
think we've reached the same conclusion now
probably
__________________
I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which i'm dying
Are the best i've ever had
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 21:11
|
#48
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sub
What is gravity?
|
The effect that we derive from the action of one property of a material, which we measure and refer to as mass, on the 'mass' of another object.
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 21:32
|
#49
|
I'm not a poet
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Uppsala
Posts: 603
|
Another way to put it is the effect mass has on other mass.
__________________
'There's no place like 127.0.0.1...there's no place like 127.0.0.1'
|
|
|
20 Feb 2003, 21:33
|
#50
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
Another way to put it is the effect mass has on other mass.
|
That's imprecise.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:59.
| |