(August 9, 2018 at 6:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 4, 2018 at 10:28 pm)Jehanne Wrote: This is just nonsense; take the Lagrangian challenge:

Lagrange Point Challenge

Just because there is no absolute reference point in space does not mean that all models are "true".

I think you misunderstand me, as supporting geocentrism as a viable theory of cosmology.  I'm not.

But it depends what you mean by "center."  Unless an actual center for the Universe is known (it isn't), you can arbitrarily call any point in space the center.  It's not a theory-- it's just a choice.

But choosing the Earth as your center point is a particularly poor choice, because then you have to mathematically account for all the myriad "movements" of the stars, of the sun, and of the moon.  At some point, a guy gets tired of shooting himself in the foot.

Geocentric models work great when you want to run a planetarium show; other than that, they have been falsified. No Ands, Ifs, Buts about that!

(August 9, 2018 at 8:10 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(August 9, 2018 at 6:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I think you misunderstand me, as supporting geocentrism as a viable theory of cosmology.  I'm not.

But it depends what you mean by "center."  Unless an actual center for the Universe is known (it isn't), you can arbitrarily call any point in space the center.  It's not a theory-- it's just a choice.

But choosing the Earth as your center point is a particularly poor choice, because then you have to mathematically account for all the myriad "movements" of the stars, of the sun, and of the moon.  At some point, a guy gets tired of shooting himself in the foot.

Geocentric models work great when you want to run a planetarium show; other than that, they have been falsified.  No Ands, Ifs, Buts about that!

No, Sol-Centric models work great for planetarium shows. If someone wants to see a model of the solar system, one can look at an orrery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrery

Geocentrism works fine as an everyday convention, a sort of shorthand to simplify the maths. It's easier to talk of sunrise and sunset, for example, or to consider the stars as being attached to a sky dome, because on the scale at which we generally operate, orbital and celestial mechanics - while obviously more representative of reality - don't really affect things all that much.

(August 8, 2018 at 2:16 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: General relativity was an amazing discovery, Haipule. Do you know that GPS would not work unless the internal clocks in satellites were able to compensate for time dilation?

When things move at high speeds (like the satellites careening around our globe) their clocks tick fewer times than a "stationary" clock down here on Earth. Einstein figured that out, along with a whole host of other things. Without his discoveries, we would have had all kinds of complications in setting up our GPS systems.

But that's beside the point, really. You need to read this article that I found when I followed a link provided by Roadrunner the other day. We don't discover useful things by "trying to discover useful things." Much of the time, scientists are just trying to unravel nature's mysteries for no other reason than to satisfy their curiosity. That process of truth seeking has brought us more useful things than Edison or Tesla ever could. Read the article. I'd really like your opinion on it. It's from some kind of pro-Christian/pro-conservative site if that helps.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/s...-be-useful.

Usefulness is the key. I am afraid you confused me with someone who is really smart. That happens to me all the time. It is because I challenge thought. I do that because I can.

Nature is far more smart then people who claim to know it. Truly, nature is a hippy-chick that lives in Pa'ia, Maui, wearing rubber slippers with dirty feet.


Compared to Her: what the hell use is fucking "quantum physics"! Since nature will always be a hippy-chick, living in Pa'ia Maui, with hairy arm-pits and wearing slippers with dirty feet? Can "science" explain her--not? Nor, can they explain the fact that she exists in such a fashion. Is "science" embarrassed by her: the fact that she cannot do any thing else but be her in all her glory?

There are two things I love: Nature and God. There are two things I hate--unnatural, impossible science and theology, which is also FUCKING impossible!


I would rather be declared as stupid in nature and God: then to be declared as "smart" in science, or theology!


The only thing that truly matter is our life, yours and mine: NEVER be declared as useless! And that, by nature or, God!

(August 10, 2018 at 2:55 am)Haipule Wrote: I am afraid you confused me with someone who is really smart.

Don't be afraid. I don't think there's much danger of that happening.

(August 10, 2018 at 2:55 am)Haipule Wrote: That happens to me all the time. It is because I challenge thought.

You do give the impression of someone who finds thought challenging.

Not smart, but challenging? Sure that isn't "challenged"?

Heh, there was this other guy on another thread that said bombs violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so I am not surprised.

(August 9, 2018 at 9:55 pm)Fireball Wrote:

(August 9, 2018 at 8:10 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Geocentric models work great when you want to run a planetarium show; other than that, they have been falsified.  No Ands, Ifs, Buts about that!

No, Sol-Centric models work great for planetarium shows. If someone wants to see a model of the solar system, one can look at an orrery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrery

From Wikipedia:

Quote:In 1905 Oskar von Miller (1855–1934) of the Deutsches Museum in Munich commissioned updated versions of a geared orrery and planetarium from M Sendtner, and later worked with Franz Meyer, chief engineer at the Carl Zeiss optical works in Jena, on the largest mechanical planetarium ever constructed, capable of displaying both heliocentric and geocentric motion. This was displayed at the Deutsches Museum in 1924, construction work having been interrupted by the war. The planets travelled along overhead rails, powered by electric motors: the orbit of Saturn was 11.25 m in diameter. 180 stars were projected onto the wall by electric bulbs.

Wikipedia -- Planetarium

(August 10, 2018 at 9:54 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(August 9, 2018 at 9:55 pm)Fireball Wrote: No, Sol-Centric models work great for planetarium shows. If someone wants to see a model of the solar system, one can look at an orrery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrery

From Wikipedia:

Quote:In 1905 Oskar von Miller (1855–1934) of the Deutsches Museum in Munich commissioned updated versions of a geared orrery and planetarium from M Sendtner, and later worked with Franz Meyer, chief engineer at the Carl Zeiss optical works in Jena, on the largest mechanical planetarium ever constructed, capable of displaying both heliocentric and geocentric motion. This was displayed at the Deutsches Museum in 1924, construction work having been interrupted by the war. The planets travelled along overhead rails, powered by electric motors: the orbit of Saturn was 11.25 m in diameter. 180 stars were projected onto the wall by electric bulbs.

Wikipedia -- Planetarium

Cool, but a geocentric model is still neither astronomically or anatomically correct.

(August 10, 2018 at 2:55 am)Haipule Wrote: [quote='vulcanlogician' pid='1797318' dateline='1533708985']
General relativity was an amazing discovery, Haipule. Do you know that GPS would not work unless the internal clocks in satellites were able to compensate for time dilation?

When things move at high speeds (like the satellites careening around our globe) their clocks tick fewer times than a "stationary" clock down here on Earth. Einstein figured that out, along with a whole host of other things. Without his discoveries, we would have had all kinds of complications in setting up our GPS systems.

But that's beside the point, really. You need to read this article that I found when I followed a link provided by Roadrunner the other day. We don't discover useful things by "trying to discover useful things." Much of the time, scientists are just trying to unravel nature's mysteries for no other reason than to satisfy their curiosity. That process of truth seeking has brought us more useful things than Edison or Tesla ever could. Read the article. I'd really like your opinion on it. It's from some kind of pro-Christian/pro-conservative site if that helps.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/s...-be-useful.

(August 10, 2018 at 2:55 am)Haipule Wrote: Usefulness is the key. I am afraid you confused me with someone who is really smart. That happens to me all the time.

Does it though!

(August 10, 2018 at 2:55 am)Haipule Wrote: It is because I challenge thought. I do that because I can.

Nature is far more smart then people who claim to know it. Truly, nature is a hippy-chick that lives in Pa'ia, Maui, wearing rubber slippers with dirty feet.

Nature obeys rules we can observe and use those observations to predict. Non-geocentrism matches the observatons and predictions.

(August 10, 2018 at 2:55 am)Haipule Wrote: Compared to Her: what the hell use is fucking "quantum physics"! Since nature will always be a hippy-chick, living in Pa'ia Maui, with hairy arm-pits and wearing slippers with dirty feet? Can "science" explain her--not? Nor, can they explain the fact that she exists in such a fashion. Is "science" embarrassed by her: the fact that she cannot do any thing else but be her in all her glory?

Quantum physics is the most revolutionary and amazing field of phsics.

(August 10, 2018 at 2:55 am)Haipule Wrote: There are two things I love: Nature and God. There are two things I hate--unnatural, impossible science and theology, which is also FUCKING impossible!

Among impossible things is god or gods.

(August 10, 2018 at 2:55 am)Haipule Wrote: I would rather be declared as stupid in nature and God: then to be declared as "smart" in science, or theology!

Ok.

(August 10, 2018 at 2:55 am)Haipule Wrote: The only thing that truly matter is our life, yours and mine: NEVER be declared as useless! And that, by nature or, God!

You had me till the last word there.