SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 626:
Line 626: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Geocentric theory (view source)
Revision as of 06:11, December 23, 2016
, 06:11, December 23, 2016→Relative Velocities: Please stop getting bogged down in nonsense.
Also I am not so much saying heliocentric theory is correct, rather that your objection is wrong. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 14:41, 22 December 2016 (EST)
Also I am not so much saying heliocentric theory is correct, rather that your objection is wrong. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 14:41, 22 December 2016 (EST)
==Please stop the nonsense. You two know better==
Hey guys, please stop bickering over these trivialities. I've been watching this discussion unfold. (I watch CP a lot; I rarely have time or inclination to post.) You are both smart and educated people, which many CP contributors are not. Why two smart people would argue over details of the Moon's motion around the Earth and the Earth's motion around the Sun is beyond me. With all the details about acceleration, speed vs. velocity, circular motion, addition of speeds, relative motion with respect to this or that frame of reference, how the Moon's phases affect the equations, how the not-exactly-circular nature of the orbits might confound things, and so on and on and on. '''Everyone who has graduated from elementary school knows how this stuff works in general. Everyone who has taken high school physics knows how this stuff works in a good deal of detail.'''
I've seen a lot of really stupid arguments here at Conservapedia about the fact that you can take the Earth as the origin of the Universe. You two are too smart to get drawn into that nonsense. Yes, you can set your coordinate system / frame of reference any way you like. You could set the origin of the Universe to be the 5th car of the Tilt-a-Whirl at Six Flags New Jersey. One could work out the motions of the Sun and all the planets in that system, and one could easily see that it wouldn't be satisfactory in its handling of centrifugal force / Coriolis force / etc. You two know all about this. You can easily work out that, at some level of precision (fastening your seatbelt) a coordinate system fixed on you car is satisfactory. At some higher level of precision (driving your car) a coordinate system fixed on the Earth is satisfactory. At some higher level of precision (guiding a spacecraft to the Moon) a coordinate system fixed on the Earth's position, but not rotating with it, is satisfactory. At some higher level of precision (guiding a spacecraft to another planet) a coordinate system fixed on the Sun's position is satisfactory. You two know all about this. You don't need to get bogged down in arguments about the details.
Every even slightly informed and scientifically literate person knows how all this (specifically, it's Galilean / Newtonian mechanics) works. Now there are interesting things for an article on Heliocentrism / Geocentrism to say. That's the history of the various theories. The ancients did not know how what is now junior high school physics worked. So they made theories that are ridiculous by today's standards. To them, it must have seemed obvious that the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars rotated around the Earth; they had no conception of how relative motion worked. That history is what the article should be about.
There is way too much seriously defective writing here at Conservapedia—more that I can deal with, which is why I despair of fixing things and have been rather inactive the last few months. Your time would be better spent looking at serious things, like all of [[User:JimJast]]'s writing, and all of [[User:Amorrow]]'s writing. In the former case, I have for years been trying to insert some sense into the articles about relativity and gravity, and he came along and wrote incredibly nonsensical stuff. (By the way, I looked around on the web. He's a true crackpot.) In the latter case, [[User:Amorrow/Calculus_I]] is utter sonsense, though it is admittedly in his user space. We have some articles about calculus, and people should work on those, rather than writing nonsense. His [[Systematic English]] article is in mainspace and is utter garbage.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:11, 23 December 2016 (EST)
==References==
==References==