It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No. Two objects can (and do) revolve around a common center. That is what the barycenter is. That does not mean you can arbitrarily say one object is revolving around the other.
You can apply the same mathematical principles to both of them, simply the values of some variables would change. Other than that, there would be absolutely no difference. You can state that one revolves around the other, but that's just a matter of definition, nothing else.
reply to post by Indigent
Im busting your balls.
Social sciences will never be exact. That's the only point I was making. 100% of people willing to take a telephone survey answered how they would answer in most of the data sets. You can take that one to the bank.
A few of them came from face to face and questionnaires too.
You can state that one revolves around the other, but that's just a matter of definition, nothing else.
So empirical sciences are exact? How do you do "exact" measurement? You can not honestly say: this grain of salt is exactly 0.1234568g.
ACS reagent, ≥99.0%
CAS Number 7647-14-5
impurities ≤0.005% Insoluble matter
Molecular Weight 58.44
Density: 2.16 g/cm³
Melting point: 1,474°F (801°C)
There is no method how to measure it exactly. Not only because there are no exact scales but also because there is no grain of salt which is pure salt. Yeah, in quantum world it is possible, but ... it is complicated beyond scope of this argument.
Only exact sciences are math/geometry/logic and paradoxically theology (logic applied on divine texts).
An exact science is any field of science capable of accurate quantitative expression or precise predictions and rigorous methods of testing hypotheses, especially reproducible experiments involving quantifiable predictions and measurements. Physics and Chemistry can be considered as exact sciences in this sense.
The term implies a dichotomy between these fields and others, such as the humanities.
As we are talking about ideas, we are in reign of humanities. Social sciences are part of humanities. BTW what are you expecting from historiography? How it can be "exact"? Your comment only shows that you know almost nothing about many facets of science, its powers and limits.
However, such selection of "geocentric" or "heliocentric" frames is merely a matter of computation. It does not have philosophical implications and does not constitute a distinct physical or scientific model. From the point of view of General Relativity, inertial reference frames do not exist at all, and any practical reference frame is only an approximation to the actual space-time, which can have higher or lower precision.
Earth revolves around the sun? 1 in 4 Americans say nope
I'm not struggling.
Maybe it's just my poor use of the English language that causes your struggle with this concept.