NationStates Jolt Archive

You may remember a thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518371) awhile back discussing a Texas congressman named Warren Chisum who was distributing pamphlets alleging that evolution was a Jewish hoax. Well, he managed to weasel his way out of that one by saying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Chisum#Controversy) he was ignorant (heh) of the pamphlet's contents, and was merely passing it out as a personal favor to a friend.

That friend? Georgia House representative Ben Bridges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bridges), who cannot escape the controversy so easily.

The flyer originated from the husband of Bridge's campaign manager, a man by the name of Marshall Hall. Hall owns a Timecube (http://www.timecube.com/)-esque website (http://www.fixedearth.com/) espousing an alternative worldview, from the notion that Big Bang theory is a kabbalist conspiracy to the declaration of a geocentric universe.

The best (or worst, depending on your disposition) part of this whole affair is Bridge's reaction to it. While Chisum tried to slink away, tail between his legs, Bridges practically advocated it. From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bridges):

In 2007, Bridges was criticized by the Anti-Defamation League and others for circulating a memo condeming evolution which said, in part "Indisputable evidence — long hidden but now available to everyone — demonstrates conclusively that so-called 'secular evolution science' is the Big-Bang 15-billion-year alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee Religion... This scenario is derived concept-for-concept from Rabbinic writings in the mystic 'holy book' Kabbala dating back at least two millenia." It also directed readers the website of the Fair Education Foundation Inc., which claims the Earth is not rotating or orbiting the Sun. Bridges says he had nothing to do with the memo, but the memo's author, Marshall Hall, says he had Bridges' approval. Hall is the husband of Bridges' campaign manager and president of the Fair Education Foundation. Bridges said he did not necessarily disagree with Hall's view; he is quoted as saying, "I agree with it more than I would the Big Bang Theory or the Darwin Theory".

Wow. Just... wow.

Myrmidonisia is from Georgia. Wonder if he's fortunate enough to be represented by this clown? :D

"Georgia" pretty much says it all...

What possible benefit, and I stretch the definition of benefit, can possibly come from thinking like this? I mean, you're just begging to be mocked.

American politics never cease to amaze..

Sofa King. We Todd Ed.

This concept of "anyone who wants to can run for office" needs some serious rethinking.

"Georgia" pretty much says it all...

Bah, we're not all bad. Although I'm pretty sure I just got called a babykiller (sort of by association) the other day for doing stem cell research.

"Georgia" pretty much says it all...

Oh, come on. I was born in Georgia and you don't see me being such an ignorant fool as this person.

...

Oh, screw it, I hated the place whenever I visited. It's too damned hot and humid all the time and full of my rednecked relatives. Screw Georgia.

"Georgia" pretty much says it all...

Don't tell me that there are no willfully ignorant, loudly vocal people in Sweden. Don't tell me that Europe doesn't have it's share of fools. Everytime a jackass raises his/her ugly head in the States, it's a field day for the European press and an occasion of snickering and finger-pointing for Europeans in general. Everytime a jackass appears in Europe, no one seems to notice. I do notice, though, that the more common a phenomenon is, the less it is noticed.

I beat you to this story by a week.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518371&highlight=evolution+Georgia+Jews

Myrmidonisia is from Georgia. Wonder if he's fortunate enough to be represented by this clown? :D

No. My state senator is a little less flamboyant. In fact, I really wonder what he does do.

I think Mr. Bridges is an embarrassment to most of the state. But not quite as bad as Jimmy Carter has been.

What possible benefit, and I stretch the definition of benefit, can possibly come from thinking like this? I mean, you're just begging to be mocked.

Who knows? But I do have relatives that would argue for him. Wife's side, of course :).

* Is a smiley at the end of a sentence sufficient punctuation? *

I got called babykiller a lot when I was in college. But maybe that's because I kept sticking my cock in women's mouths instead of their vaginas.

Sounds like the typical modus operandi of a baby killer.

Bah, we're not all bad. Although I'm pretty sure I just got called a babykiller (sort of by association) the other day for doing stem cell research.

I got called babykiller a lot when I was in college. But maybe that's because I kept sticking my cock in women's mouths instead of their vaginas.

I'm curious. Can anyone here show me why the geocentric model of the Solar System advocated by Brahe (an opponent of Galileo) is significantly worse in any objective sense than the heliocentric model advocated by Galileo? (Bad answers are "It makes the math easier" and "It's easier to explain" and "It just fits my intuitions better" because none of those things mean that the model is more likely to be true).

As a side note, I don't hold to either the geocentric or heliocentric models.

Physics makes my head hurt.

* Is a smiley at the end of a sentence sufficient punctuation? *Yes :)

Yes :)

Always has been for me. :)

I'm curious. Can anyone here show me why the geocentric model of the Solar System advocated by Brahe (an opponent of Galileo) is significantly worse in any objective sense than the heliocentric model advocated by Galileo? (Bad answers are "It makes the math easier" and "It's easier to explain" and "It just fits my intuitions better" because none of those things mean that the model is more likely to be true).

As a side note, I don't hold to either the geocentric or heliocentric models.

I'm somewhat confused, are you asking us to justify the current model of the solar system? Or its significance in terms of leadership? Or what?

Don't tell me that there are no willfully ignorant, loudly vocal people in Sweden. Don't tell me that Europe doesn't have it's share of fools. Everytime a jackass raises his/her ugly head in the States, it's a field day for the European press and an occasion of snickering and finger-pointing for Europeans in general. Everytime a jackass appears in Europe, no one seems to notice. I do notice, though, that the more common a phenomenon is, the less it is noticed.

Oh, put a sock in it, will ya. I would have said the same thing had it been someone from Poland or the Baltic states, as those are the Georgia/Alabama/Kansas/Utah of Europe.

I'm somewhat confused, are you asking us to justify the current model of the solar system?

Basically.

Or its significance in terms of leadership? Or what?

I'm not asking about its significance in terms of leadership. Primarily because I'm guessing that a fair number of people here are capable of understanding that if the heliocentric model is not really much better than the geocentric model, then it makes little sense to treat leaders who believe in geocentrism any worse than those who believe in heliocentrism on the basis of the astronomical model they use, and that they can arrive at that conclusion without my pointing it out.

And because it would probably be a waste of my time to point out that the Jewish conspiracy theory, anti-evolution, and Biblically literalist portions of the websites Bridges has been associated with are far more problematic than the geocentrism. I mean, that's patently obvious as well, no?

Basically.
Are you hinting towards the sun and earth and the 7 planets (and all the other stuff) in our solar system revolving around their common barycenter or what?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Interwebtubenet.gif
Because, if you're not, I'll stick with "physics makes my head hurt", too!

You may remember a thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518371) awhile back discussing a Texas congressman named Warren Chisum who was distributing pamphlets alleging that evolution was a Jewish hoax. Well, he managed to weasel his way out of that one by saying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Chisum#Controversy) he was ignorant (heh) of the pamphlet's contents, and was merely passing it out as a personal favor to a friend.

That friend? Georgia House representative Ben Bridges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bridges), who cannot escape the controversy so easily.

The flyer originated from the husband of Bridge's campaign manager, a man by the name of Marshall Hall. Hall owns a Timecube (http://www.timecube.com/)-esque website (http://www.fixedearth.com/) espousing an alternative worldview, from the notion that Big Bang theory is a kabbalist conspiracy to the declaration of a geocentric universe.

The best (or worst, depending on your disposition) part of this whole affair is Bridge's reaction to it. While Chisum tried to slink away, tail between his legs, Bridges practically advocated it. From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bridges):



Wow. Just... wow.

Ah, the inbred hicks strike again. Such is life in America.

I'm curious. Can anyone here show me why the geocentric model of the Solar System advocated by Brahe (an opponent of Galileo) is significantly worse in any objective sense than the heliocentric model advocated by Galileo? (Bad answers are "It makes the math easier" and "It's easier to explain" and "It just fits my intuitions better" because none of those things mean that the model is more likely to be true).

As a side note, I don't hold to either the geocentric or heliocentric models.
Otherwise Mars and Jupiters would have to travel backwards at times.

I'll let you find out what I mean;)

Ah, the inbred hicks strike again. Such is life in America.

Yay for ethnic slurs!

Oh dear. This, sadly is a very good representation of some of the creationist morons that get into high positions of power in the USA. I thought that the "greatest nation in the world" would have political safeguards in place to stop cretins like this becoming State Reps.

Yay for ethnic slurs!

In what Bizzarro universe is "inbred hick" an ethnic slur? To be an ethnic slur, there must be an ethnic group at the heart of it, and unless I really missed something important in biology, I don't think there's any reason that members of any ethnic group couldn't be inbred hicks.

Oh dear. This, sadly is a very good representation of some of the creationist morons that get into high positions of power in the USA. I thought that the "greatest nation in the world" would have political safeguards in place to stop cretins like this becoming State Reps.

Shall we decide who gets to run for office and vote based on their belief system? That sounds very democratic.

Otherwise Mars and Jupiters would have to travel backwards at times.

I'll let you find out what I mean;)
Gah! Now that I've read HotRodia's quoted post again in your post, I actually understood what he was trying to say.
I think, I do...

Physics makes my head hurt.

Gah! Now that I've read HotRodia's quoted post again in your post, I actually understood what he was trying to say.
I think, I do...

Physics makes my head hurt.
I got it right away:p

@Hottie...Hotrod...Modguy: Shall I tell the answer?:D

I'm curious. Can anyone here show me why the geocentric model of the Solar System advocated by Brahe (an opponent of Galileo) is significantly worse in any objective sense than the heliocentric model advocated by Galileo? (Bad answers are "It makes the math easier" and "It's easier to explain" and "It just fits my intuitions better" because none of those things mean that the model is more likely to be true).

As a side note, I don't hold to either the geocentric or heliocentric models.

Geocentrism, according to modern science, simply doesn't make sense.

Here's an easy way to justify it. We know (from observation) that the Sun is bigger than the Earth. We also know a satellite will orbit the bigger Earth when launched and not vice versa (from observation). So, we have smaller things orbiting bigger ones. Why would that not hold true for the Sun and Earth?

A similar method was used by Native Americans to reason that the Earth was round.

Are you hinting towards the sun and earth and the 7 planets (and all the other stuff) in our solar system revolving around their common barycenter or what?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Interwebtubenet.gif
Because, if you're not, I'll stick with "physics makes my head hurt", too!

I'm not hinting at any third view. I just wanted to make it clear that I don't hold to either of the two views in conflict here.

Otherwise Mars and Jupiters would have to travel backwards at times.

I'll let you find out what I mean;)

No need. What you mean falls under at least one of the responses I already said was a bad answer. You know, the whole "one type of motion is easier to explain than two types of motion" bit.

I'm curious. Can anyone here show me why the geocentric model of the Solar System advocated by Brahe (an opponent of Galileo) is significantly worse in any objective sense than the heliocentric model advocated by Galileo? (Bad answers are "It makes the math easier" and "It's easier to explain" and "It just fits my intuitions better" because none of those things mean that the model is more likely to be true).

As a side note, I don't hold to either the geocentric or heliocentric models.

Our understanding of gravity is that two objects in a system will rotate around a center of mass somewhere in the region between them. This center of mass is located based on the masses of the given objects: two objects of similar mass will have a tendency to rotate around a central point roughly halfway between them, where as an object of significantly larger mass will tend to keep the center of mass very close to itself.

Based on the scientific data we have on the mass of the sun, and what we know about the mass of the earth and other objects in the solar system, the center of mass of the solar system is almost totally at the sun. It's not exactly at the center of the sun, so there is some wobble (incidentally this wobble is what we use to detect extrasolar planets) but as a result of this, based on our understanding of gravity, the sun MUST be the center of the solar system. In order for the earth to be the center of the universe, the laws of physics as we know them would have to be incorrect, or our measurements of the mass of the sun and other objects in the solar system have to be significantly off from their present values.

Oh dear. This, sadly is a very good representation of some of the creationist morons that get into high positions of power in the USA. I thought that the "greatest nation in the world" would have political safeguards in place to stop cretins like this becoming State Reps.
Am I the only one that watches C-SPAN? Probably, but the point still stands: if it weren't for cretins, the US wouldn't have a House of Representatives.

No need. What you mean falls under at least one of the responses I already said was a bad answer. You know, the whole "one type of motion is easier to explain than two types of motion" bit.
I'm afraid that's the wrong answer;) Explanation will follow when I've found a link.

That's what I said in two words: common barycenter.

Apparently, it's not what HotRodia was looking for... Come on, man - do tell!

Sorry, I sort of knee-jerked his initial post without bothering to look for other responses.

Our understanding of gravity is that two objects in a system will rotate around a center of mass somewhere in the region between them. This center of mass is located based on the masses of the given objects: two objects of similar mass will have a tendency to rotate around a central point roughly halfway between them, where as an object of significantly larger mass will tend to keep the center of mass very close to itself.

Based on the scientific data we have on the mass of the sun, and what we know about the mass of the earth and other objects in the solar system, the center of mass of the solar system is almost totally at the sun. It's not exactly at the center of the sun, so there is some wobble (incidentally this wobble is what we use to detect extrasolar planets) but as a result of this, based on our understanding of gravity, the sun MUST be the center of the solar system. In order for the earth to be the center of the universe, the laws of physics as we know them would have to be incorrect, or our measurements of the mass of the sun and other objects in the solar system have to be significantly off from their present values.
That's what I said in two words: common barycenter.

Apparently, it's not what HotRodia was looking for... Come on, man - do tell!

The sooner you all come to grips with the fact that the world is really supported on the back of a giant turtle, the better off we'll all be.

The sooner you all come to grips with the fact that the world is really supported on the back of a giant turtle, the better off we'll all be.

Is this with or without the four elephants?

Well okay:

In a geocentric view all planets and the sun orbit the Earth. This means that when viewed from the Earth they follow a nice arc through the sky, all going with a constant speed from east to west. All the stars however are fixed in place, for example, the Pole Star is always in the north.
Now it's observed that Mars and Jupiter at times appear to move backwards against the background (the fixed stars). So unless they are randomly moving, this isn't possible.
Now, if you take the heliocentric view this motion can be explained: The Earth moves around the Sun like the other planets, some of which are farther away from the Sun then the Earth. This means that the Earth moves in a smaller orbit around the Sun and will pass those planets at times. This will make them (Mars and Jupiter) appear to move backwards against the fixed background of stars, but when viewed from even further away they will travel at a constant speed.

This was reasonable?

I'm curious. Can anyone here show me why the geocentric model of the Solar System advocated by Brahe (an opponent of Galileo) is significantly worse in any objective sense than the heliocentric model advocated by Galileo? (Bad answers are "It makes the math easier" and "It's easier to explain" and "It just fits my intuitions better" because none of those things mean that the model is more likely to be true).


Define "objective sense". Certainly when it comes to observations and such it makes sense to pick the frame of reference that makes calculations easier, and for calculating the positions of the planets relative to a point on the Earth, the geocentric model is easier and still in use.

That doesn't mean the Earth is actually fixed in space and that the Universe revolves around it, however, but since there are actually no centers and no fixed positions in the Universe you can pick whatever frame of reference you want.

Geocentrism, according to modern science, simply doesn't make sense.

Here's an easy way to justify it. We know (from observation) that the Sun is bigger than the Earth. We also know a satellite will orbit the bigger Earth when launched and not vice versa (from observation). So, we have smaller things orbiting bigger ones. Why would that not hold true for the Sun and Earth?

A similar method was used by Native Americans to reason that the Earth was round.

What observational data leads you to conclude that a satellite (or a series of them) orbits the earth rather than the Earth orbiting around it/them?

Our understanding of gravity is that two objects in a system will rotate around a center of mass somewhere in the region between them. This center of mass is located based on the masses of the given objects: two objects of similar mass will have a tendency to rotate around a central point roughly halfway between them, where as an object of significantly larger mass will tend to keep the center of mass very close to itself.

Based on the scientific data we have on the mass of the sun, and what we know about the mass of the earth and other objects in the solar system, the center of mass of the solar system is almost totally at the sun. It's not exactly at the center of the sun, so there is some wobble (incidentally this wobble is what we use to detect extrasolar planets) but as a result of this, based on our understanding of gravity, the sun MUST be the center of the solar system. In order for the earth to be the center of the universe, the laws of physics as we know them would have to be incorrect, or our measurements of the mass of the sun and other objects in the solar system have to be significantly off from their present values.

While that's a nice explanation of why what GN suggested could be construed as supporting heliocentrism (while it actually just supports what GN suggested), it doesn't provide any significant advantage to heliocentrism over geocentrism. It just implies that heliocentrism, while being quite wrong, is slightly less wrong than geocentrism. And that heliocentrism is easier to explain in terms of modern physics than geocentrism, which is not surprising, considering that physics has been infected with heliocentric ideas for quite some time.

The sooner you all come to grips with the fact that the world is really supported on the back of a giant turtle, the better off we'll all be.

See the turtle of enormous girth
On his shell he holds the earth
His thought is slow but always kind
He holds us all within his mind
Upon his back all vows are made
He knows the truth but may not aid
He loves the land and loves the sea
And even loves a child like me

Clearly you're right. We live on the back of a giant turtle.

Well okay:

In a geocentric view all planets and the sun orbit the Earth. This means that when viewed from the Earth they follow a nice arc through the sky, all going with a constant speed from east to west. All the stars however are fixed in place, for example, the Pole Star is always in the north.
Now it's observed that Mars and Jupiter at times appear to move backwards against the background (the fixed stars). So unless they are randomly moving, this isn't possible.
Now, if you take the heliocentric view this motion can be explained: The Earth moves around the Sun like the other planets, some of which are farther away from the Sun then the Earth. This means that the Earth moves in a smaller orbit around the Sun and will pass those planets at times. This will make them (Mars and Jupiter) appear to move backwards against the fixed background of stars, but when viewed from even further away they will travel at a constant speed.

This was reasonable?

Sorry, HC. This argument still comes down to the "easier to explain" line, as you can see from the part of your post I bolded.

Define "objective sense". Certainly when it comes to observations and such it makes sense to pick the frame of reference that makes calculations easier, and for calculating the positions of the planets relative to a point on the Earth, the geocentric model is easier and still in use.

That doesn't mean the Earth is actually fixed in space and that the Universe revolves around it, however, but since there are actually no centers and no fixed positions in the Universe you can pick whatever frame of reference you want.

Alright. I'll definitely agree with this. But all it implies is that sometimes a geocentric model is more useful (ie. for calculations) and sometimes the heliocentric model would be more useful in that way. It isn't establishing that heliocentrism is better in the objective sense (ie. that it is a more accurate reflection of reality), just that it, like geocentrism, can be a handy tool.

Sorry, HC. This argument still comes down to the "easier to explain" line, as you can see from the part of your post I bolded.
And often the best explanation is the simplest one.;)

And often the best explanation is the simplest one.;)

Not if by best you mean "most accurate". I could explain everything in existence by saying very simply "a very powerful being made it that way", but that simplicity does not confer upon it genuine accuracy.

How so many people can look at a complex world and think that more simple explanations are going to describe it more accurately, I do not know. Of course, people have often looked at our complex world and come up with a very simple explanation, that their God of choice made it/caused that phenomenon, so maybe the tendency towards simplicity rather than an open-minded search for accuracy isn't all that surprising.

Alright. I'll definitely agree with this. But all it implies is that sometimes a geocentric model is more useful (ie. for calculations) and sometimes the heliocentric model would be more useful in that way. It isn't establishing that heliocentrism is better in the objective sense (ie. that it is a more accurate reflection of reality), just that it, like geocentrism, can be a handy tool.

Yes. And that's actually pretty much all we can aspire to before getting into more philosophical questions like "what is reality? is it knowable? and how do we know it?"

All we can do is say "we observe such thing and the best way to explain it is if this and that". Much more than that we are totally powerless to determine. This 4-dimensional universe could be unfolding on the top of a 5-dimensional turtle and we wouldn't even be able to realize it.

Not if by best you mean "most accurate". I could explain everything in existence by saying very simply "a very powerful being made it that way", but that simplicity does not confer upon it genuine accuracy.

How so many people can look at a complex world and think that more simple explanations are going to describe it more accurately, I do not know. Of course, people have often looked at our complex world and come up with a very simple explanation, that their God of choice made it/caused that phenomenon, so maybe the tendency towards simplicity rather than an open-minded search for accuracy isn't all that surprising.
You're right.

I beat you to this story by a week.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518371&highlight=evolution+Georgia+Jews
I know... which is why I linked to it in the OP. ;)

This wasn't just a repost, though. I had found the story about Bridges and then misread/misremembered your post, thinking it was about Chisum, instead. So I figured what I found was a related story about a politician even closer to the source of this nonsense.

Plus the whole geocentrism thing was pretty funny.

(NOTE: I'm not making a judgement on whether heliocentrism or geocentrism is more accurate. But it's pretty obvious that Bridges supports the latter mainly because "The Bible says so" and "humanity is the most important thing ever, so everything literally has to revolve around us", plus a healthy dose of Antisemitism. He doesn't seem like the sort of fellow that could easily grasp concepts such as relativity and multiple frames of reference.)

This guy has "president" written all over him.

What observational data leads you to conclude that a satellite (or a series of them) orbits the earth rather than the Earth orbiting around it/them?


Because, if the Earth were orbiting its satellite, the distance between it and the Sun would vary by 768,800 km between any two points in time approximately 13.5 days apart. It doesn't. Ergo, the Earth does not orbit the moon.

Because, if the Earth were orbiting its satellite, the distance between it and the Sun would vary by 768,800 km between any two points in time approximately 13.5 days apart. It doesn't. Ergo, the Earth does not orbit the moon.

You just used heliocentric calculations to show that geocentrism is wrong. That doesn't work any more than using geocentric calculations to show that heliocentrism is wrong. You're just begging the question.

You just used heliocentric calculations to show that geocentrism is wrong. That doesn't work any more than using geocentric calculations to show that heliocentrism is wrong. You're just begging the question.

I'm not using heliocentric calculations. The distance between the sun and the Earth is the same in either one. And this wasn't about geocentricism. This was about how we know that the Earth is not orbiting its satellite.

What observational data leads you to conclude that a satellite (or a series of them) orbits the earth rather than the Earth orbiting around it/them?

Some neutral point of reference (i.e., a satellite in space can record the Moon disappearing behind the Earth for about 13 days as it leaves Earth's gravitational field).

Well, we have established through astronomical calculations and observation that the other planets orbit the Sun. Now, if you want to say that the other planets orbit the Sun and the Sun orbits the Earth... well, relativity allows you to get away with that.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers (ala democracy).

HotRodia's technically right, you know. It all depends on your frame of reference. If you look at the Sol System with your view centered on the Moon so that it's stationary, all the other bodies will appear to orbit around it according to an alternative -- albeit more complicated -- set of gravitational laws.

It's like Einstein's thought experiment with the two astronauts floating toward eachother. Absent any other landmark, such as a planet or spaceship, there are multiple and equally valid ways to explain what's going on, depending on your frame of reference. One astronaut is still and the other is moving toward him, vice versa, or they're both moving toward eaechother at any number of possible speeds.

Same thing with celestial bodies. There are many ways to describe their orbits, but we find that the heliocentric model is most accurate given the scales we're dealing with. Kinda like how it's possible, but far less convenient, to measure the distances between stars with feet instead of lightyears.

I'm not using heliocentric calculations. The distance between the sun and the Earth is the same in either one. And this wasn't about geocentricism. This was about how we know that the Earth is not orbiting its satellite.

It certainly wasn't the distance that made me think you were using heliocentric calculations. It was your use of the Sun as a reference point.

In any case, you are correct that it would only prove that the Earth is not orbiting its satellite, which is hardly a problem for geocentrists, since they contend that the Earth doesn't orbit its satellite.

In any case, you are correct that it would only prove that the Earth is not orbiting its satellite, which is hardly a problem for geocentrists, since they contend that the Earth doesn't orbit its satellite.

I was demonstrating how Earth could not orbit its own satellite. Geocentricism wasn't being discussed in the post of yours I responded to. I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Edit: Oh, and I used the Sun as a reference point because it's the only object I can think of that remains a relatively constant distance away from the Earth besides the Moon.

*snip*

So...You just like confounding people with this whole astronomy bit, don't you? What is it you were asking for...how heliocentrism is better in an objective sense. Isn't that a bit silly? Better is a subjective judgement.

It's like Einstein's thought experiment with the two astronauts floating toward each other. Absent any other landmark, such as a planet or spaceship, there are multiple and equally valid ways to explain what's going on, depending on your frame of reference. One astronaut is still and the other is moving toward him, vice versa, or they're both moving toward each other at any number of possible speeds.



But only one is actually happening.

Some neutral point of reference (i.e., a satellite in space can record the Moon disappearing behind the Earth for about 13 days as it leaves Earth's gravitational field).

Ok. Let's say that we know from satellite data that whether heliocentrism or geocentrism is correct, the Earth is not orbiting the moon. So how do we get from there to your suggested claim, which is that smaller bodies orbit larger ones? And if the rule is that smaller bodies orbit larger ones, shouldn't we just say that smaller bodies orbit larger ones, instead of that the Sun is the center of the solar system? The former would be the accurate scientific rule, whereas saying that the Sun is the center of the Solar system just provides us with a handy reference point from which to work.

I was demonstrating how Earth could not orbit its own satellite. Geocentricism wasn't being discussed in the post of yours I responded to. I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Edit: Oh, and I used the Sun as a reference point because it's the only object I can think of that remains a relatively constant distance away from the Earth besides the Moon.

Minaris was trying to substantiate heliocentrism as better than geocentrism via the argument that if the satellites we shoot into space orbit the Earth, we should generalize from that one case of smaller objects orbiting a larger one and say that bigger objects always orbit smaller ones. I asked him to substantiate the claim that the Earth does not orbit the moon. That's where you came in. Does that explain where the geocentrism is coming from?

So...You just like confounding people with this whole astronomy bit, don't you? What is it you were asking for...how heliocentrism is better in an objective sense. Isn't that a bit silly? Better is a subjective judgement.

No, I'm really not trying to confound people. I just dislike that a heliocentric view is commonly considered to be far and away more accurate than a geocentric view despite the fact that a good geocentric model can work just as well as a good heliocentric model on a practical level depending on what you need and how simple of an explanation you want, and they're both quite wrong according to our best understanding of physics. There's not much difference between them, but the one is seen as the good standard and the other is seen as backward and stupid.

And let's not hijack the topic into a discussion about whether or not there can be genuine objectivity. ;)

No, I'm really not trying to confound people. I just dislike that a heliocentric view is commonly considered to be far and away more accurate than a geocentric view despite the fact that a good geocentric model can work just as well as a good heliocentric model on a practical level depending on what you need and how simple of an explanation you want, and they're both quite wrong according to our best understanding of physics. There's not much difference between them, but the one is seen as the good standard and the other is seen as backward and stupid.

And let's not hijack the topic into a discussion about whether or not there can be genuine objectivity. ;)

Well, I dunno, we could try a barycentric model?

But only one is actually happening.
Not really -- there's no way to tell for sure. It all depends on your frame of reference.

Not really -- there's no way to tell for sure. It all depends on your frame of reference.

Is there a frame of reference where they aren't getting closer together?

Is there a frame of reference where they aren't getting closer together?
I don't think so...

I don't think so...

Well, it's obviously not all about frame of reference. :p

I'm lost...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Astronaut.gif

...in outer space.

(And no, I don't have a point of reference!)

Well, it's obviously not all about frame of reference. :p
Well, I didn't say it was. I just meant that when two or more objects are moving through space, there are many valid ways to describe that movement. On the scale of the universe, say, heliocentrism is foolish, and it becomes more convenient to say that each star system orbits the center of the galaxy. Nothing's changed but the FOR.

"It's all relative." :p

Well, I didn't say it was. I just meant that when two or more objects are moving through space, there are many valid ways to describe that movement. On the scale of the universe, say, heliocentrism is foolish, and it becomes more convenient to say that each star system orbits the center of the galaxy. Nothing's changed but the FOR.

"It's all relative." :p

Well, can't the planets orbit the sun while they all orbit the center of galaxy?

Well, I dunno, we could try a barycentric model?

I'd certainly prefer that as the standard over either of the models in which a particular body is proposed as a center.

Is there a frame of reference where they aren't getting closer together?

If you look at them from an infinite distance away, you won't be able to detect the motion. Or if you have a non-temporal frame of reference, that could do it, depending on how you looked at it.

If you look at them from an infinite distance away, you won't be able to detect the motion. Or if you have a non-temporal frame of reference, that could do it.

I like this guy, he thinks outside the box. Or outside the universe, which is, in a sense, where you'd have to be for these frames. :p

I like this guy, he thinks outside the box. Or outside the universe, which is, in a sense, where you'd have to be for these frames. :p

Heh, well said.

Well, can't the planets orbit the sun while they all orbit the center of galaxy?
Well, not simultaneously. That is, IIRC, you can either look at it as the planets orbiting the stationary sun, with the rest of the universe sort of in the background moving around very slowly, or the planets and the sun orbiting the galactic center. In each case, the precise movements of the non-FOR objects aren't really considered; the heliocentric Solar System model doesn't really account for the movements of distant stars, while the... "galactocentric" model doesn't pay attention to the movements of individual planets. What FOR you use is a matter of scale and practicality.

(I'm by no means at expert at this, btw... I'm just going off of what I remember learning in high school physics.)

No, I'm really not trying to confound people. I just dislike that a heliocentric view is commonly considered to be far and away more accurate than a geocentric view despite the fact that a good geocentric model can work just as well as a good heliocentric model on a practical level depending on what you need and how simple of an explanation you want, and they're both quite wrong according to our best understanding of physics. There's not much difference between them, but the one is seen as the good standard and the other is seen as backward and stupid.
And let's not hijack the topic into a discussion about whether or not there can be genuine objectivity. ;)
Do you mean something like the following: If you start a spaceship and want to return to Earth - it might be a good idea to use a geocentric model for your calculations; if you want to measure how long a year really is, you might want to use the heliocentric model?
Well, I dunno, we could try a barycentric model?
I'd certainly prefer that as the standard over either of the models in which a particular body is proposed as a center.

If you look at them from an infinite distance away, you won't be able to detect the motion. Or if you have a non-temporal frame of reference, that could do it, depending on how you looked at it.
Hey, I used that word, too. How come you didn't pick it up? :confused: (<- and not just a little!)

Do you mean something like the following: If you start a spaceship and want to return to Earth - it might be a good idea to use a geocentric model for your calculations; if you want to measure how long a year really is, you might want to use the heliocentric model?

Something like that, yeah.

Hey, I used that word, too. How come you didn't pick it up? :confused: (<- and not just a little!)

I was focusing on the helio/geo distinction at the time, and didn't want to bring alternative approaches in at the time. Sorry for any confusion that caused.

Something like that, yeah.
Wow. That's amazing: I actually understood some physical concept there! *lipsmacking sound* Who'd have thought that?!?
I was focusing on the helio/geo distinction at the time, and didn't want to bring alternative approaches in at the time. Sorry for any confusion that caused.
Ah, that's okay. It's not like I'll ever get the Nobel Prize for physics. :p

Thanks for clearing it up, though. :D Appreciate it!

Well, not simultaneously. That is, IIRC, you can either look at it as the planets orbiting the stationary sun, with the rest of the universe sort of in the background moving around very slowly, or the planets and the sun orbiting the galactic center. In each case, the precise movements of the non-FOR objects aren't really considered; the heliocentric Solar System model doesn't really account for the movements of distant stars, while the... "galactocentric" model doesn't pay attention to the movements of individual planets. What FOR you use is a matter of scale and practicality.

(I'm by no means at expert at this, btw... I'm just going off of what I remember learning in high school physics.)

That doesn't make any sense. It's like saying that we can't look at the moon orbiting the Earth if we look at the Earth orbiting the Sun. It's ludicrous.

I'm curious. Can anyone here show me why the geocentric model of the Solar System advocated by Brahe (an opponent of Galileo) is significantly worse in any objective sense than the heliocentric model advocated by Galileo? (Bad answers are "It makes the math easier" and "It's easier to explain" and "It just fits my intuitions better" because none of those things mean that the model is more likely to be true).

As a side note, I don't hold to either the geocentric or heliocentric models.

If the Earth was stationary, a geostationary satellite should fall straight to earth. They don't do that, and we don't want them to.

This argument still comes down to the "easier to explain" line

So does every argument ever - all the ones that tell us anything meaningful, anyway.

I'm curious. Can anyone here show me why the geocentric model of the Solar System advocated by Brahe (an opponent of Galileo) is significantly worse in any objective sense than the heliocentric model advocated by Galileo? (Bad answers are "It makes the math easier" and "It's easier to explain" and "It just fits my intuitions better" because none of those things mean that the model is more likely to be true).
Easy. The orbits of the planets have to make sense by our theory of gravity. And if they were going around the earth, that'd mean they would keep altering their acceleration in a way that gravity couldn't do.

As a side note, I don't hold to either the geocentric or heliocentric models.
Well, the universe has no centre, if that's what you mean. Also, small objects don't orbit big ones, they both orbit their common centre of gravity. It's just that the common centre of gravity is often inside the big object.

You may remember a thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518371) awhile back discussing a Texas congressman named Warren Chisum who was distributing pamphlets alleging that evolution was a Jewish hoax. Well, he managed to weasel his way out of that one by saying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Chisum#Controversy) he was ignorant (heh) of the pamphlet's contents, and was merely passing it out as a personal favor to a friend.

That friend? Georgia House representative Ben Bridges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bridges), who cannot escape the controversy so easily.

The flyer originated from the husband of Bridge's campaign manager, a man by the name of Marshall Hall. Hall owns a Timecube (http://www.timecube.com/)-esque website (http://www.fixedearth.com/) espousing an alternative worldview, from the notion that Big Bang theory is a kabbalist conspiracy to the declaration of a geocentric universe.

The best (or worst, depending on your disposition) part of this whole affair is Bridge's reaction to it. While Chisum tried to slink away, tail between his legs, Bridges practically advocated it. From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bridges):



Wow. Just... wow.

*Looks*

*Shakes head*

Anybody can be elected these days, can't they?