53
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 184:
Line 184: + +
→Both Theories Correct?
: So what are you saying, that geocentric theory does not qualify as a scientific theory under someone's definition of scientific theory? That calculations of a rocket trajectory are not based on theory? If there is some misunderstanding, then please explain it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:37, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
: So what are you saying, that geocentric theory does not qualify as a scientific theory under someone's definition of scientific theory? That calculations of a rocket trajectory are not based on theory? If there is some misunderstanding, then please explain it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:37, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
: Now you're just being willfully obtuse and can't seem to admit when you are wrong. Of course geocentric theory is a scientific theory. It is also a thoroughly disproven scientific theory. It is not the theory behind calculating rocket trajectories or anything else. The theory is not used for anything. Assuming an alternate frame of reference from a mathematical point of view does not equate to subscribing to the geocentric theory. Why you choose to ignore the difference is mind boggling. I don't know what reference I could give you that would satisfy your verbal gymnastics... Perhaps just looking up the phrase "Geocentric Theory" in any credible encyclopedia? And perhaps opening your mind enough to accept that there is a difference between "Geocentric Theory" and the word geocentric itself. One can make geocentric assumptions, calculations, and coordinate reference frames without believing in Geocentric Theory. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)