It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

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

page: 9
29
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:32 PM

I believe it. My neighbor's daughter is 17. She's not dumb and she has a 3.7(ish) GPA. We were talking about the moon one day and she said "I can't believe it shines all by itself like that" and I confirmed what I feared she though with a couple of questions. She seriously didn't know that the light was a reflection of the sun. And another person who I work with asked me if the people on the other side of the planet can see the moon when we see it.

I hate blaming the schools but these kids are smart and do well with their grades. I don't see how you can graduate without knowing these things.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:33 PM

Yes, I know. That's what you know and anything that might build up on that, extend it or add a different and already established perspective is automatically wrong. You're viewing a 3-Dimensional object from one side, and ignore all the rest.

I salute to you. Over 29k posts obviously come from somewhere. To reach that one can not consider and contemplate. Sorry for wasting your time!

Concerning your last statement. Saying that one is correct and the other one isn't actually implies that one is the absolute. So yes, you have been arguing that the sun is the center of everything. The acceptance of a relative frame of reference concludes an infinite number of such, one of which can be the earth, the sun, or any other point. This makes it obvious that the Heliocentric model is equally complete or incomplete as the Geocentric one. As stated by me in many different way already, and by the linked and quoted articles.
edit on 15-2-2014 by Marsupilami because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:35 PM

Like Albert Einstein quite eloquently pointed out, it is a matter of perpective or Relativity.
Indeed you could say any point is fixed and the whole entire universe rotate's or move's around and through that point and that is any point including the point of perspective of a person of faith and is simply a matter of how you see the universe as in reality they are no more wrong or right, though from an external point of view it would appear to the observer (Whom is still a fixed point) that indeed the solar system including the earth rotate around the sun as indeed the sun rotates around the galaxy which in turn may be in a loose orbit of the local cluster and you would have to forgive him if he got a little dizzy.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:37 PM

Is she blond?

I hate blaming the schools but these kids are smart and do well with their grades. I don't see how you can graduate without knowing these things.

Obviously astronomy has taken the way, way back seat to other subjects. But my daughter is 11, she gets it so I don't know if you can blame "schools".

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:38 PM

So yes, you have been arguing that the sun is the center of everything.
No. I haven't. I have been saying that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:43 PM
You're both beautiful.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:45 PM

Yes you have. You've been arguing the whole time that one point of reference (sun) is correct, and the other one (earth) is wrong, while they are absolutely equal in what they are, points or frames of reference.
With earth as reference, the Geocentric model is correct.
With sun as reference, the Heliocentric model is correct.
With pluto as reference, both of them are incorrect, yet, both can still be used in perfectly valid and 100% correct calculations.

It's like talking to a wall.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:47 PM

boncho

Question: 134
Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?
l> Earth goes around Sun
2> Sun goes around Earth

If it had been "orbit" it wouldn't be so ambiguous. Go around is still correct, but the term could imply the sun goes around Earth's sky (perspective). Orbit eliminates this interpretation.

Seriously, this is over-thinking.

It should be obvious what is meant...even by using a term like "goes around".
IMHO this is not a question which leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

The Sun does not "go around the Earth"...that is not correct UNLESS they would have used a word like "apparently".
But the "apparently" and then forming a (false) theory around it, we should have already set that issue to rest 6 centuries ago : )

It should also be (.... common sense) that a halfway (lol) scientific question will as the correct answer NOT have the subjective interpretation but instead the "actual fact"...and this is that the Earth "goes around the Sun", no matter how you bend this : )

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:48 PM

Klassified

AngryCymraeg

I've observed Venus and its phases using my telescope. And I've studied Astronomy at school.

Well, it's not Earth, but it'll do. Have you recorded your observations, and done the calculations which would verify that Venus orbits Sol? Can you personally verify that Venus orbits Sol, using nothing other than your personal experience?
edit on 2/15/2014 by Klassified because: (no reason given)

We studied Venus over the course of a year. We observed its retrograde motion over that period. Jupiter too if I recall correctly - it was a long time ago. We also studied Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:48 PM

ChuckNasty

Technically, you are incorrect.

Dependent on how a question is asked and available responses is important.

The Earth doesn't change her fricking motion depending on HOW I ASK..cheezus people....

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:50 PM

Phage

Is she blond?

I hate blaming the schools but these kids are smart and do well with their grades. I don't see how you can graduate without knowing these things.

Obviously astronomy has taken the way, way back seat to other subjects. But my daughter is 11, she gets it so I don't know if you can blame "schools".

Coincidentally, she is blonde, yes. My point was that she does well in school as well as that kid I work with (he's graduated but he did well while attending).

Your daughter probably "gets it" because you do what I do with my daughter and read science (or otherwise educational) books to her at bedtime. I thought it was safe to read Dr. Seuss to her but... when I talk to these kids who are graduating, I'm thinking we need to stick with Bill Nye.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:52 PM

Actually, I've said that as far and the Earth and Sun are concerned both revolve around the barycenter of the two. This means that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth.

You seem to be having trouble providing a definition of "revolve around" by which the Sun can be defined as revolving around the Earth.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:52 PM

Indigent

A National Science Foundation survey offers a sobering reflection of knowledge in today's all-knowing world. Many people really do believe the sun circles the Earth. And more than half don't know that humans evolved from animals.
This bracing statistic comes from a survey of more than 2,200 people conducted by the National Science Foundation.

Fifty-two percent of Americans had no idea that humans evolved from animal species. This may be the 52 percent of people who believe that mayonnaise comes from the mayo plant.

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

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?

This is something proven since the 16th century, how it came to be that 1/4 of the population of the country with the biggest military, economy, espionage agency and nuclear weapon stock does not have basic knowledge. is it representative? does 25% of military/government also believe in dark age believes?

I would guess not and even think this is no mistake, Americans are being made dumb on purpose for easier control, this does not happen in any other first world country and such wide spread lack of knowledge can only be instituted from the government.

At least that is what i prefer to think, its not your fault you are being made like this

edit on 15-2-2014 by Indigent because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2014 by Indigent because: typos

Not surprising about the Sun and the Earth- I've ran into a few of those and the other part really isn't that surprising either although the part about not "KNOWING" that humans evolved from animals?

Should have worded that better, religion/faith/science aside. That's a bold claim to say they KNOW humans evolved from animals when Stephen Hawking changed black holes to grey holes and then yesterday I read on here about two stars supposedly older than the universe?

Really now.

Science is a Faith. MAYBE.

Still the whole article is unsurprising to me, there are a decent amount of smart and intelligent people but there are a LOT of idiots walking around. A WHOLE LOT!!.. OH LOOK AT MY FACEBOOK!!!! OMG IS THAT AMERICAN IDOL?!?! I LUV THAT SHOW!! I may even be one of them from time to time but people actually believe that the earth is stationary? How stupid are they?
edit on 15-2-2014 by WhoWhatWhenWhere2420 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:56 PM

Sorry, I did not make the point.
1. As is pretty clear from your examples we are measuring with some accuracy. Physics, chemistry, sociology even psychology have number of methods how to measure phenomena. Some of those methods are more accurate then others. None of them are exact. On level of quantum mechanic is situation bit different.
2. Navigational tables derived from geocentric viewpoint were at 18. century more accurate then those derived from heliocentric viewpoint - geocentric model was at the time giving better predictions at least for sailors.

Still, what is exact on physics or chemistry? It is model behind (math/geometry/logic) not measurement of objects. In this respect there is no difference between sociology and physics. Both are operating with theories on which they setup experiment. You can be stupid or fraudulent in both fields.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:57 PM

Klassified
Just curious. Is there anyone in this thread who has actually done the observation, and the math themselves to prove the earth indeed orbits the sun?

You can come to a conclusion which SUGGESTS this in the same way as they did many hundreds of years ago.

Example: Observing the movement of other planets which, ON OCCASION, seem to make a backwards-loop on the sky which would be in-explainable when the Earth would be the center and everything else revolves around it.

However, once you think about the Sun and the TWO orbits, say, Earth orbit and Mars orbit and how you see Mars from Earth....the "backwards motion" of Mars becomes possible because of perspective ...and based on that observation one could conclude that the Earth AND Mars, both must be in an orbit with the Sun (likely) the center.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 04:05 PM

Okay, I can work with that. Now don't let your mind wander off. I mentioned the barycenter as an example for a reference that is different from the sun as described in the Heliocentric model. Just because the barycenter happens to be inside the sun, doesn't mean it's the same. If the earth had more mass, or the sun less (ignoring any other implications that this change might bring), it might be farther away from the sun. I'm just saying this so you can see that it's different from viewing the sun as central point of reference.
That means that the movement of these two bodies can not only be observed in realation to each other, but also in relation to a third point in space. This observation alone concludes that the Heliocentric model as single valid answer is incorrect, it's wrong as singular model and incomplete if you accept the existence of other models. This was my original statement, and what I tried to explain in every single post so far. (Which was also supported - no, clearly stated - by the articles I linked, but I suspect you never even bothered to read them.)
This also concludes that the movement of both bodies (or any additional body) can be observed and described from any point outside of them. Which again, states that any point, be it the center of the earth, the sun, the barycenter between those bodies, any other point in our solar system or any other point in space can be taken as point of reference for describing motion of celestial bodies in relation to each other and the chosen point.

If you extremely simplify this line of thoughts, you can state that both are correct, the earth revolves around the sun and the sun revolves around the earth.

Does this finally make sense to you? If you can follow this line of thought, you're basically agreeing with everything I've said so far. If not, well, then I can't help you, or I have to assume that I fell for an elaborate trolling-attempt.
edit on 15-2-2014 by Marsupilami because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 04:08 PM

If you extremely simplify this line of thoughts, you can state that both are correct, the earth revolves around the sun and the sun revolves around the earth.
No. You can't. I pointed that out here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Does this finally make sense to you?
No. It doesn't.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 04:14 PM

What point of my last post didn't make sense to you then?

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 04:16 PM
>>
This observation alone concludes that the Heliocentric model as single valid answer is incorrect, it's wrong as singular model and incomplete if you accept the existence of other models.
>>

You can have a zillion various motions involved, from the motion of the galactic cluster, to the galaxy, the solar system or whatever spin around a black hole of our galaxy together with others......IT STILL doesn't change the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It simply doesn't. How you look at it and where you are located STILL has the Earth in the gravitational field of the Sun, orbiting it.

This becomes hardly "incorrect" even if the Earth together with the Sun would move in a spiral pattern towards Galaxy cluster XYZ whatever, Earth would STILL revolve around the Sun while doing so.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 04:17 PM

NoRulesAllowed

boncho

Question: 134
Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?
l> Earth goes around Sun
2> Sun goes around Earth

If it had been "orbit" it wouldn't be so ambiguous. Go around is still correct, but the term could imply the sun goes around Earth's sky (perspective). Orbit eliminates this interpretation.

Seriously, this is over-thinking.
It should be obvious what is meant...even by using a term like "goes around".
IMHO this is not a question which leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
The Sun does not "go around the Earth"...that is not correct UNLESS they would have used a word like "apparently".
But the "apparently" and then forming a (false) theory around it, we should have already set that issue to rest 6 centuries ago : )
It should also be (.... common sense) that a halfway (lol) scientific question will as the correct answer NOT have the subjective interpretation but instead the "actual fact"...and this is that the Earth "goes around the Sun", no matter how you bend this : )

It's not over thinking actually. I read a couple NSF documents earlier that highlighted the cause and effect of wording. And heres one from Austrailias NSS.

Language

Questions which employ complex or technical language or jargon can confuse or irritate respondents. In the case of interviewer based surveys, respondents who do not understand the question may be unwilling to appear ignorant by asking the interviewer to explain the questions. The respondent may then either refuse to answer or give an inaccurate response.

Technical language or jargon should only be used in cases where it is part of the normal language of the survey's target population. An example of this case would be a survey of information technology specialists: the survey would need to use language that is 'jargon' to the survey designer, but appropriate for the respondent.

A general principle to keep in mind is that the wording of questionnaire items should be specific, definitive, consistent, brief, simple and self-explanatory.

The NSF reported in their report changing, "did the universe start with a big bang" to "did the universe start with a big bang according to physicists" changed the positive responses by ~25-30 points.

Now, this is a heavily bias question. But the same could be said for wording, if they had said "orbit" instead of "go around", I hazard to guess there would be difference in answers. Remember that orbit is a term learned in school, one that people might draw on. In the effort to make it less technical, you are actually asking a question that is not as cogent.

It's not really about how you interpret the question, it's about how the participants will. If you interchange words and produce a different result, that tells me that, "When asking question worded xyz, _% of people will answer ____."

Another issue is that not all the questions were formatted the same.

Compare question 134 to 135:

Question: 134
Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?
l> Earth goes around Sun
2> Sun goes around Earth

How long does it take for the Earth to go around the Sun: one day, one month, or one year?
I> one day
2> one month
3> one year
4> other time period (CODE BUT DO NOT OFFER)

Survey questions.

And then you have ones like this…

Question: 64 Ask if Q63=1 or Q63=2
Please tell me, in your own words, what is the Internet? ENTER EXACT RESPONSE

Everyone knows its a series of tubes.

new topics

top topics

29