brennan
Argumentative Brit
Like a strange attractor perhaps?
Stile said:Random, without thinking, idiotic, pathetic, disrespectful, disingenuous, rude. Wow! For your next post I bet you'd need a thesaurus. You're definitely strung a little tight today.
I don't need credentials to post on this board, but I've done plenty of physics. I don't need to be a football player to comment that the Jets are going to suck this year, so I don't have to solve every problem to comment on this. I'm not trying to discredit scientists or scientific results.
Stile said:My point is motion is relative. Portraying the Bible as geocentrist is what I had a problem with, because it should be self-evident that someone standing in the holyland won't say "Wow, the earth has stopped rotating." Instead they'll comment that the sun has stopped in the sky, or moved backward if that was the case. And you don't need to know the sun is the center of the solar system and the Earth's tilt, rotation, and orbit, to carry about your normal stuff during the day or recognize seasons or years.
Stile said:Also, since scientists don't recognize a center to the universe, why not pick the Earth?
It would look exactly as it does look from earth. Heliocentrisity is a way of explaining the odd paths the planets take as they travel the sky.Pontiuth Pilate said:It would be interesting to see what the orbital path of, say, Mars, looks like on an Earth-centered coordinate system.
Probably not pretty
Well no, Dali did, that's why they are Dali's works. What's your point?ironduck said:Really? Well, I like to study Dalí's works, but god didn't do them, did he?
Since when does something have to be pretty to be right. I know, I know, Occam's Razor! However, that just means we've picked one model because it's more elegant and simpler, it doesn't invalidate the other model (geocentrism), it's just a model. Heliocentrism is the most elegant model because the sun is by far the most massive body in the solar system. If the Earth was the most massive then geocentrism would be the most elegant.Pontiuth Pilate said:It would be interesting to see what the orbital path of, say, Mars, looks like on an Earth-centered coordinate system.
Probably not pretty
Does special relativity not show us the importance of the position of the observer? As all observers (that we know about) are currently on the earth does that not make our location special?brennan said:The Earth is not at the centre of the Solar Sytstem, neither is the Solar System at the centre of the Galaxy. To assume that we can regard our location as special in any way (ie; the centre of the universe) is arrogance. to base this assumption on the words of a 2 thousand year old book is...
You can fall asleep on a cruising airplane (well I can't) because the air in the cabin is stationary. You couldn't fall asleep on the wing of a cruising airplane because you are moving relative to the air.nihilistic said:How do you feel 30km/s? I myself never ever felt 30km/s, though I may have seen .2 km/s. What you feel is not the speed, but the acceleration. That's why you can still fall asleep on a cruising airplane.
Markus6 said:You can fall asleep on a cruising airplane (well I can't) because the air in the cabin is stationary. You couldn't fall asleep on the wing of a cruising airplane because you are moving relative to the air.
Markus6 said:We're only moving at 30km/s relative to a stationary Sun (which obviously isn't actually stationary). We're not moving through anything (like air) which is why we can't feel it. If we still believed in the ether maybe we would feel it.
Markus6 said:Does special relativity not show us the importance of the position of the observer? As all observers (that we know about) are currently on the earth does that not make our location special?
Markus6 said:Since when does something have to be pretty to be right. I know, I know, Occam's Razor! However, that just means we've picked one model because it's more elegant and simpler, it doesn't invalidate the other model (geocentrism), it's just a model. Heliocentrism is the most elegant model because the sun is by far the most massive body in the solar system. If the Earth was the most massive then geocentrism would be the most elegant.
However, heliocentricism is the primary paradigm of modern astronomy-- why? Firstly, as you, Markus, have pointed out, it is elegant. No more messy epicycles! No need to calculate equants or eccentrics! Thanks to Kepler thumbsup, we have three simple laws which govern the journeys of the wanderers through the empyrean:The geocentric (Ptolemaic) model of the solar system is still of interest to planetarium makers, as, for technical reasons, a Ptolemaic-type motion for the planet light apparatus has some advantages over a Copernican-type motion. The celestial sphere, used for teaching purposes and sometimes for navigation, is also still based on a geocentric system.
Markus6 said:Well no, Dali did, that's why they are Dali's works. What's your point?
Markus6 said:If we still believed in the ether maybe we would feel it.
The thread has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The creature in question is clearly a canine of some sort.Phlegmak said:
...flapping it's wings like an über-bird. Or was it a pterosaur?The Last Conformist said:Methinks a joke flew above someone's head ...
Markus6 said:Does special relativity not show us the importance of the position of the observer? As all observers (that we know about) are currently on the earth does that not make our location special?
betazed said:Now there might be a really screwy planetary problem for which a geocentric co-ordinate system might be ideal - but what that problem might be currently eludes me.
The Last Conformist said:FWIW, I don't think it was clear at all.
Markus6 said:We can only measure speeds relative to something else. As there is nothing 'stationary' (like the ether) we can't measure the speed of the earth. As all the observers are on it we might as well say it is stationary.