Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans

a reply to: Acatalepsia

If scientists practiced more abstract thinking habits they might not have to combat anything; combat?

Right.
Quantum mechanics. Now there's something that is not at all abstract.

*hums*
How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all?

a reply to: GetHyped

There are.
There is no definition for scientific fact. It wouldn't be in that source called a dictionary, which as you may or may not know contains definitions.
However, scientific theory is in there. It's amazing.


In other news, you missed the boat on what I was saying fully.
Reread.

a reply to: Acatalepsia

There is a definition for scientific fact. It's not exactly hidden away. I'm on a mobile right now but it won't be difficult for you to find at all.

a reply to: GetHyped

And the answer is...wait for it... wait for it...........They are the same thing.
Again, with the critical thinking skills today.

"But I found it right der on my ol' mobile interweb!"

Sigh x3.

a reply to: Acatalepsia

They are the same thing.

As what?

a reply to: Phage
Scientific theory and scientific fact are the same concept.

a reply to: GetHyped
Irregardless of performing a web search on your mobile phone for the definition of scientific fact, here's no such thing. Critical thinking (using your own thought processes to form a conclusion about a topic) instead of reading and accepting, would (hopefully) lead you to the conclusion that the two are one in the same.

a reply to: Acatalepsia

No they are not. They are very distinct concepts.

a reply to: Acatalepsia

Oh for goodness sake, it was the very first result from a simple search that even I could find on this tiny screen and crappy connection:

In science, a "fact" is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning

en.wikipedia.org...

Before I read the thread, let me guess. They are conservative Fox News patrons. Right?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: KuzKuz

Did you know that approximately 1 out of 4 Americans still believes the sun revolves around the Earth?

link

Those people aren't just resistant to facts they seem to be completely immune to them.

I don't buy that for a second. If somebody gave me a survey on whether or not the earth revolved around the sun, I'd probably pick no just to troll the survey for even asking a question that stupid. I bet at least 75% of the votes for geocentrism are troll votes.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: KuzKuz

Did you know that approximately 1 out of 4 Americans still believes the sun revolves around the Earth?

link

Those people aren't just resistant to facts they seem to be completely immune to them.

I don't buy that for a second. If somebody gave me a survey on weather or not the earth revolved around the sun, I'd probably pick no just to troll the survey for even asking a question that stupid. I bet at least 75% of the votes for geocentrism are troll votes.

You're right.

To the question "Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth," 26 percent of those surveyed answered incorrectly.

The correct answer is "Neither." But I bet the pollster would have marked that as incorrect. I would have a hard time believing that 74% answered that correctly.

When it comes to polls, you can make them say anything you want by specific wording of the questions.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
The correct answer is "Neither." But I bet the pollster would have marked that as incorrect. I would have a hard time believing that 74% answered that correctly.

When it comes to polls, you can make them say anything you want by specific wording of the questions.

This is true, actually. The earth only revolves around the sun if you look at the sun as a stationary object. In reality the sun revolves around the galactic center, so it's more like the earth follows the sun, revolving in a circular pattern behind the sun. Pretty cool stuff, I almost forgot about that.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
The correct answer is "Neither." But I bet the pollster would have marked that as incorrect. I would have a hard time believing that 74% answered that correctly.

When it comes to polls, you can make them say anything you want by specific wording of the questions.

This is true, actually. The earth only revolves around the sun if you look at the sun as a stationary object. In reality the sun revolves around the galactic center, so it's more like the earth follows the sun, revolving in a circular pattern behind the sun. Pretty cool stuff, I almost forgot about that.

Even if you assume the Sun is more or less stationary, Newton's Laws would dictate that the Earth and the Sun revolve around a common point very close to the Sun. Either way, the Earth does not revolve around the Sun, or vice versa, as long as both have mass.

a reply to: dragonridr

Did you miss the part in your where it said, Aristotle rejected his ideas?

Here are some links.


Wiki 1
Wiki 2

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Even if you assume the Sun is more or less stationary, Newton's Laws would dictate that the Earth and the Sun revolve around a common point very close to the Sun. Either way, the Earth does not revolve around the Sun, or vice versa, as long as both have mass.

Now that part is new to me. Are you saying that the sun's pull on the earth and the earth's pull on the sun cause the point of revolution to be not the exact center of the sun? That does make sense, based on physics, although one could still argue that the earth is going around the sun, because the orbit is directly influenced by the sun and the gravitational interaction of the 2 bodies, not the empty space where the central point of orbit may be. Is this what you're hinting at? I could see the 3D view as the planets revolving behind the sun, not directly around it, but not sure if you are referring to this same concept, or if you mean when looking at things from the "top down" view of the solar system that shows the 2D orbits, as we are shown in basic science classes. If you could clear that up for me, I'd appreciate it.

a reply to: Barcs

Here is a wiki link to help explain.

Barycenter

a reply to: Barcs

Think of it this way. If the Earth and the Sun had the same mass, they would orbit a spot halfway between them. If the Earth had half the mass of the Sun, they would orbit a spot 2/3 the distance from the Earth to the Sun, etc. Since the Earth and the Sun both have mass, they both pull on each other. Because the Earth's mass is many times less than the Sun's, that spot will be very close to the Sun, perhaps even below the surface of the Sun. I haven't taken the time to get the figures and do the math. You would also have to take into account the masses and distances of the other planets in the solar system, so it gets kind of messy.

That's how we detect planets around distant stars. When that star appears to "wobble," we know that some gravitational force is pulling on that star. We calculate the mass of the star, measure the wobble, and that gives us an idea of the mass and distance of the planet.

It's probably "close enough" to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but "You've go to be specific, Bob ..."

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: Barcs

That's how we detect planets around distant stars. When that star appears to "wobble," we know that some gravitational force is pulling on that star. We calculate the mass of the star, measure the wobble, and that gives us an idea of the mass and distance of the planet.

Indeed! That "wobble" produces a "Doppler shift" in the star's light spectrum. We can use a spectrometer to measure that red and blue alternating shift. Thus we are able to determine a great deal about the planet orbiting. IF we a lucky enough to catch a glimpse of the star through that planets atmosphere we can determine a great deal more about the planet. This method is known as "Radial Velocity".

The whole subject, the methods and protocols are fascinating.

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: anton74
a reply to: dragonridr

The ancient Greeks brought us Geocentrism and the Christians adopted it because it supported their beliefs(long before the Vatican existed). In fact, it was widely accepted as fact until people like Copernicus came along and was not completely disproven until the mid 1800's.

That is not exactly correct. The dark ages kept the average person in the dark and in the name of religion destroyed a great library in Alexandria that held this knowledge.

We have been navigating by the stars for thousands of years. The few who were masters of Celestial navigation no doubt knew the Earth was not flat. In fact before Christ and Socrates, Erathosthenes calculated Earth's circumference and axis tilt angle with good accuracy.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene

Actually Erathosthenes did a great job considering the numbers he used get the circumference where off.

The "Dark Ages" and Flat Earth are mostly made up myths.