Earth revolves around the sun? 1 in 4 Americans say nope

reply to post by The Vagabond


I was agreeing to a degree and expanding on the points I found relevant.

Understand?

reply to post by Marsupilami

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.

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.

Both the Earth and Sun revolve around the Earth-Sun Barycenter. The barycenter is not within the Earth. The barycenter is not near the Earth.

The barycenter is deep within the Sun. Now, because of this, you could take the position that the Sun is revolving around itself but it cannot be said that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

boncho
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.

www.youtube.com...

So empirical sciences are exact? How do you do "exact" measurement? You can not honestly say: this grain of salt is exactly 0.1234568g. 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). Did you saw some number or equation or function or logical expression in a nature? No. But you can think them and you can share them with other human beings without any distortion. This is called perfect intersubjectivity and is possible only because we are talking about pure ideas and not experience. 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.

reply to post by Phage


Your inability to grasp the simple concept of a relative point of observation and/or reference is astonishing. However, as I said, I see no sense in continuing this.

Take care!

reply to post by Marsupilami

Your inability to understand that the Earth-Sun barycenter (about which both "revolve") cannot be considered to be the Earth (no matter what your point of reference) makes this conversation pointless.

reply to post by Phage


I never said or implied anything like this, at all. Again, where are you getting these things? This is ridiculous.
Also yes, I have no self-control over the "done with this topic" thing.

reply to post by Marsupilami

Ok. Let's back up then.

You can state that one revolves around the other, but that's just a matter of definition, nothing else.

You want to change the definition of revolve. I see.
www.thefreedictionary.com...

My definition of "revolves around", in the case of a planetary Solar System would be; Moving in an elliptical path about the primary focus of that ellipse, the primary focus being the barycenter.

How do you define "revolves around" in such a way that the Sun can be said to revolve around the Earth?

reply to post by ausername


In all of Human endevour, not just here on ATS..i wish sometimes, just sometimes people would have the balls to say "yeah...i was talking crap and got it wrong, sorry"

We are all wrong and we all do talk crap from time to time, so what's the problem with admitting to something we all know we all do?

People are strange.

reply to post by JanAmosComenius

So empirical sciences are exact? How do you do "exact" measurement? You can not honestly say: this grain of salt is exactly 0.1234568g.

I think you measure things to get an exact measurement, but who really believes in this kind of heresy?

S9888 SIGMA-ALDRICH
Sodium chloride
ACS reagent, ≥99.0%

CAS Number 7647-14-5
assay ≥99.0%
impurities ≤0.005% Insoluble matter
Molecular Weight 58.44
Density: 2.16 g/cm³
Melting point: 1,474°F (801°C)

I can tell you when you buy sodium chloride from sigma it costs about 50 cents a gram, because they actually do say honestly, x = yz.

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.

There is quantum salt now?



Ok I'm being facetious. But if you knew anything about atomic mass and molar mass, you wouldn't run with such a stupid argument. Oh, and they can measure to the yoctogram now.**

Besides the point though. Your argument is more like saying that whole numbers are not exact when used to represent something. That's a fallacy though since something being accurate to best resolution will be repeatable, making it exact.

For example, with this kind of thing you can calculate volume by knowing weight, etc.

Only exact sciences are math/geometry/logic and paradoxically theology (logic applied on divine texts).

Yeah… So the difference between the laws of physics and laws governing social science is kind of like: If I call someone on the phone one day, they can politely decline, or they can answer one thing and the next day, give a completely different answer, or lie. Same in historical context, in humanities, the winners write the record.

On the other hand, if I jump out of a plane, gravity never takes a day off, and it never lies.

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.

And you haven't read any of my posts in this thread, nor looked at the report/study itself.

70% of people asked to participate in the study declined the 30 min phone interview.
Questions were not all accurately worded as they would be in educational materials, nor how people in the field describe them.

The only thing exact about the study I think we can deduce is that 30% of people called for it don't like answering phone surveys, and there is a frightening number of people that believe their race is "American".

This survey makes me laugh. Who were the 2200? First graders? it doesn't say.

It seems like the survey was done to come up with this answer, though, or it would say, "3 out of 4 Americans are not Stupid"

Has anyone read the report on the NSF by republican senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma?
It's eye-opening in regard to mismanagement, questionable studies, expired funds that haven't been returned to the treasury and jell-o wrestling... seriously.

reply to post by Phage


You're a master of tearing statements out of context.
This article might be of interest to you: en.wikipedia.org...
This section of another article might as well prove helpful: en.wikipedia.org...
Especially the last few lines:

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.

Maybe it's just my poor use of the English language that causes your struggle with this concept.

reply to post by Indigent

Earth revolves around the sun? 1 in 4 Americans say nope

I am just wondering how they came up with the 1 in 4 Americans when they only surveyed 2200 people out of 313.9 million.

So if I were to go to the supermarket and talked to 4 people one of those are going to tell me the sun orbits the Earth, or at least that is what is implied?

reply to post by Marsupilami

Maybe it's just my poor use of the English language that causes your struggle with this concept.

I'm not struggling.

How do you redefine "revolves around" in such a way that the Sun can be said to revolve around the Earth?

reply to post by Indigent


" Wow i can understand that people still dont trust evolution theory as there is holes to it, but still believing that the sun orbits earth? "


Those Darn Catholics .........

70% of the people believe a headline if there is a percentage to it.

I dont believe this one.

reply to post by lernmore


25% of the sample is composed of the
Mid Eastern recent immigrants. Syrians,
Iraquis, ...

reply to post by Phage


If it helps. From your link:
1. To orbit a central point. - True for both geocentric and heliocentric models. Also true for any other point of reference anywhere in space. The sun is not an absolute central point, it is a common point of reference. Please refer to the articles I provided.
So this definition is perfectly compatible with what I wrote.

The other definitions are only mildly related or not related at all in this context. So what did you want to prove? You're stilll arguing that the sun is the absolute center and the only PoR. You ignore any argument that states something different, even the damn articles I Googled for you. Yet it's somehow important to ride about some menial definitions (which don't even support your statement).

Once more, the Heliocentric model is a great tool to teach children about the basic celestial mechanics, the way gravity rudimentary works and the scale of space. It has some applications, works well with those, but other than that, is just one point of view, one frame of reference or one whatever description helps you get this. And stating that only this one is correct is simply false. It's like saying that because you were told that 1 + 1 = 2, that any other addition is wrong, because it leaves the scope of 1 + 1 = 2.

reply to post by Marsupilami

So what did you want to prove? You're stilll arguing that the sun is the absolute center and the only PoR.

No. I'm saying that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth.