26% of Americans Believe The Sun Revolves Around the Earth (1 Viewer)

[NCCommish]

What is wrong with it?

The question is to see how many people know that science was re-written in the 16th Century to show that the earth actually orbits around the sun. Not the other way around, which you eloquently point out, is based on your point of view. The only point of view we had prior to the 1500s.

You fail to comprehend the term perspective.

So if the earth appears flat from our perspective on the ground, does that make it flat?

It does not appear flat.

Sure it does. I'm looking out my window right now. From my viewpoint, the Earth appears flat. Does that make it flat?

If it was flat, there would not be horizons.

If the sun orbited us the weight of objects wouldn't be constant, the oceans would be in constant high tide, and since the Earth is too small to hold everything in place the first time all the planets and the sun were aligned on one side of our planet we would go shooting off into space.

 

[NCCommish]

Which is flat out incorrect. Viewpoint does matter. Take a point on the earth surface and it appears from the perspective of that point, the sun is orbiting around us.

As Stephen Hawking pointed out in the above quote, it is not wrong to model it that way.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say if you ask Hawking this question he answers it the right way.

I think if you gave him option F, the question is ambiguous, he would chose that. If he had to pick one of the options given, he would say the earth revolves around the sun.

Perspective is meaningless in this question. It is simple science. There is only one right answer.

 

[bigbottom]

I'd like to see how many out of this 26% are against gays, believe in creationism, and vote republican.

Based on recent poll results regarding belief in evolution by political affiliation and how the right continues to deny the scientific consensus on climate change; it's almost certain that the majority of the 26% are Republican. The only real question is how much of that 26%. It's humorous that some are taking issue with the obvious.

I'm fairly certain that the 26% is made up of (1) people who never bothered to pay attention in elementary school, or retain even the most basic of scientific concepts; (2) people who answered the question that way on purpose to screw with the survey results; and (3) one dude who is trying to twist a straightforward question with a clear answer into some metaphysical exploration of perspective and how appearance can create multiple realities.

I seriously doubt there is an appreciable political affiliation disparity to the breakdown.

 

[tonydead]

This is kind of like the argument I got in about wind being finite. Wind in finite in every way (time, space, force), so it is technically finite. I may be being a bit anal about it and no one will agree because they lack the understanding of what it really means to be infinite (ie., nothing is truly infinite), but I am not going to win.

It's soo complicated only jon_mx understands it. That's a new angle.

Which is flat out incorrect. Viewpoint does matter. Take a point on the earth surface and it appears from the perspective of that point, the sun is orbiting around us.

As Stephen Hawking pointed out in the above quote, it is not wrong to model it that way.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say if you ask Hawking this question he answers it the right way.

I think if you gave him option F, the question is ambiguous, he would chose that. If he had to pick one of the options given, he would say the earth revolves around the sun.

And don't even pretend you understand what's going on in the mind of Hawkings.

 

[jon_mx]

I'd like to see how many out of this 26% are against gays, believe in creationism, and vote republican.

Says the self proclaimed "Independent".

Sure, buddy, you're "Independent".

I am. its not my fault that republicans these days make themselves the easiest targets.

But you have zero facts to back up any of your assertions. You come into thread after thread after thread and just assume it is all Republicans who get things wrong. I would guess the spread on many of these questions are pretty similar between parties. If you really think you are independent, you are more clueless than the people answering these questions wrong.

If you go back and read my original post in this thread, I was simply stating that I'd like to see the correlation between the results of this poll and whether or not they are republican. I made no assertions assuming they were republican or democrat or like me, independent.

From your body of work, it was clear what you were implying. And some results were posted and there was statistically no difference between Conservative Republican, Liberal Independent, and Liberal Democrat.

 

[RBM]

I'd like to see how many out of this 26% are against gays, believe in creationism, and vote republican.

Says the self proclaimed "Independent".

Sure, buddy, you're "Independent".

I am.

You're the biggest ####### Democrat hack on the board right now.

 

[squistion]

This is kind of like the argument I got in about wind being finite. Wind in finite in every way (time, space, force), so it is technically finite. I may be being a bit anal about it and no one will agree because they lack the understanding of what it really means to be infinite (ie., nothing is truly infinite), but I am not going to win.

It's soo complicated only jon_mx understands it. That's a new angle.

And people say Tim is condescending.

 

[jon_mx]

This is kind of like the argument I got in about wind being finite. Wind in finite in every way (time, space, force), so it is technically finite. I may be being a bit anal about it and no one will agree because they lack the understanding of what it really means to be infinite (ie., nothing is truly infinite), but I am not going to win.

It's soo complicated only jon_mx understands it. That's a new angle.

Which is flat out incorrect. Viewpoint does matter. Take a point on the earth surface and it appears from the perspective of that point, the sun is orbiting around us.

As Stephen Hawking pointed out in the above quote, it is not wrong to model it that way.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say if you ask Hawking this question he answers it the right way.

I think if you gave him option F, the question is ambiguous, he would chose that. If he had to pick one of the options given, he would say the earth revolves around the sun.

And don't even pretend you understand what's going on in the mind of Hawkings.

More so than you.

 

[NCCommish]

This is kind of like the argument I got in about wind being finite. Wind in finite in every way (time, space, force), so it is technically finite. I may be being a bit anal about it and no one will agree because they lack the understanding of what it really means to be infinite (ie., nothing is truly infinite), but I am not going to win.

It's soo complicated only jon_mx understands it. That's a new angle.

Which is flat out incorrect. Viewpoint does matter. Take a point on the earth surface and it appears from the perspective of that point, the sun is orbiting around us.

As Stephen Hawking pointed out in the above quote, it is not wrong to model it that way.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say if you ask Hawking this question he answers it the right way.

I think if you gave him option F, the question is ambiguous, he would chose that. If he had to pick one of the options given, he would say the earth revolves around the sun.

And don't even pretend you understand what's going on in the mind of Hawkings.

More so than you.

Apparently you aren't quite in tune:

“As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces,” he said. “As scientists we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. -

 

[Apple Jack]

Holy ####!

 

[jon_mx]

Apparently you aren't quite in tune:

“As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces,” he said. “As scientists we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. -

I was not really debating Climate Change here, but at least Hawking acknowledges we are still learning and it may forever change. There is a lot of uncertainty of how much human CO2 production is the cause. He is being a bit of a drama queen with the nuclear analogy.

 

[Scoresman]

I'd like to see how many out of this 26% are against gays, believe in creationism, and vote republican.

Says the self proclaimed "Independent".

Sure, buddy, you're "Independent".

I am.

You're the biggest ####### Democrat hack on the board right now.

Look how wrong you are

 

[RCon]

I know most people are morons, but it's always depressing to hear it stated in factual terms.

Tim, shut the #### up already. Not every thread has to be about you and your obsessions.

Sounds like some people around here are getting touchy, which is quite understandable. Personally I'd be embarrasses to be skeptical of man made global warming.

He's right. Not every thread has to be about your obsessions. You're so blinded, obsessed, and close-minded on certain topics that you can't conceive of people that might have different opinions for legitimate reasons. Three topics spring immediately to mind: global warming, illegal immigration, and racism. You're obsessed with all three and think every other topic somehow revolves around those topics.

 

[LinusMarr]

Apparently you aren't quite in tune:

“As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces,” he said. “As scientists we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. -

I was not really debating Climate Change here, but at least Hawking acknowledges we are still learning and it may forever change. There is a lot of uncertainty of how much human CO2 production is the cause. He is being a bit of a drama queen with the nuclear analogy.

Isnt hawking that tard in the wheelchair who drools on himself? I really don't care what he thinks...

 

[Rove!]

Can FFToday PLEASE bring back the geek club

 

[NCCommish]

Apparently you aren't quite in tune:

“As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces,” he said. “As scientists we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. -

I was not really debating Climate Change here, but at least Hawking acknowledges we are still learning and it may forever change. There is a lot of uncertainty of how much human CO2 production is the cause. He is being a bit of a drama queen with the nuclear analogy.

No you were braying about the insight you have into a mind I doubt you can comprehend. Oh by the way here is something else Hawking had to say on Global Warming:

One of the most serious consequences of our actions is global warming brought about by rising levels of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.

Pretty sure Hawking is just another sheeple who actually sides with the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field.

 

[tonydead]

Apparently you aren't quite in tune:

“As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces,” he said. “As scientists we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. -

I was not really debating Climate Change here, but at least Hawking acknowledges we are still learning and it may forever change. There is a lot of uncertainty of how much human CO2 production is the cause. He is being a bit of a drama queen with the nuclear analogy.

"May" becomes a lot more significant when it's put in front of "forever", but, your understanding of the English language isn't much better than your understanding of astrophysics.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

A greater number of people think 5 Guys offers good value.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Is MX really arguing the Earth is flat?

 

[jonessed]

Is MX really arguing the Earth is flat?

They are arguing semantics .

 

[McGarnicle]

I think survey fatigue could be coloring the data. Hardly a day goes by where I'm not solicited to take part in some survey or another. This is on top of all the other data collection that takes place via social media and various "club" cards. I wonder if it's possible for a survey to get near 100% agreement on any fact based question.

If there were a lot if questions and people were just trying to get it over with as quick as possible, there could be a decent amount that misread the question. It's pretty common for students in class to mix up this they know because they were in a hurry, misread or just had a brainfart.

Or they could be correct and the question is poor. From the perspective of someone on earth, the sun is revolving around us. From the perspective of other locations in our solar system, it would appear the sun is relatively stationary and the earth spins and orbits around the sun.

This really explains a lot.

What is wrong with it? If your center of your coordinate system is tied to a point on the earth, it would appear sun revolves around us. If you center your coordinate system in the center of the solar system it would clearly be the earth revolving around the sun. But if you move out further in our galaxy or even further into the universe into the system of galaxies, the movement becomes much more complex than simply the earth revolving around the sun. Unless the perspective is define, there is potentially some ambiguity to the answer.

 

[RBM]

Apparently you aren't quite in tune:

“As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces,” he said. “As scientists we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. -

I was not really debating Climate Change here, but at least Hawking acknowledges we are still learning and it may forever change. There is a lot of uncertainty of how much human CO2 production is the cause. He is being a bit of a drama queen with the nuclear analogy.

Isnt hawking that tard in the wheelchair who drools on himself? I really don't care what he thinks...

awesome

 

[jon_mx]

Is MX really arguing the Earth is flat?

I was saying it does not look flat because of horizons.

 

[LinusMarr]

Apparently you aren't quite in tune:

“As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces,” he said. “As scientists we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. -

I was not really debating Climate Change here, but at least Hawking acknowledges we are still learning and it may forever change. There is a lot of uncertainty of how much human CO2 production is the cause. He is being a bit of a drama queen with the nuclear analogy.

Isnt hawking that tard in the wheelchair who drools on himself? I really don't care what he thinks...

awesome

Not one of my most "politically correct" moments....

 

[spreagle]

We know from the poll that 26% didn't know the Earth rotates around the Sun, and those 26% made a guess, and incorrectly guessed that the sun rotates around the earth. Since guessing on this question is a 50/50 proposition, we can reasonably assume there was another group of about 26% who guessed correctly, but didn't know either.

26% + ~26% or ~52% guessed on this question. 100%-52% or 48% knew the answer stone cold.

The headline is misleading, it's not "26% believe the sun rotates around the earth" it's worse than we thought, it should be "52% don't know the earth rotates around the sun". MORE PEOPLE (52%) DONT KNOW THE EARTH ROTATES AROUND THE SUN THAN THOSE (48%) WHO DO KNOW THE EARTH ROTATES AROUND THE SUN!!!!!

 

[Henry Ford]

It's incredible that 1 in 4 Americans believes this. No wonder why politicians figure the general public will never figure out what they are up to and doing. Technology moving at such a fast pace, a pace set by highly intelligent people but in the process leaving a wider gap between the intelligent and ignorant folks. As that gap widens so has the income disparity and eventually these people are gonna feel pinched to the point they start picking up bricks.

It's just a question and quick story that some folks will laugh at but honestly it also is a sad indictment of society and the world I'm afraid. Good thread but I doubt many folks raise too big of an eyebrow. We have 75% of this country that says openly they are Christian and believe in the bible to some degree. If you doubt most of the bible or think it might be a work of fiction, then this story is pretty believable.

As a shaper of young minds, I blame you.

 

[bigbottom]

Is MX really arguing the Earth is flat?

I was saying it does not look flat because of horizons

A person standing on a flat earth could see a horizon.

 

[jomar]

I just put a level on the floor of my office and it clearly shows the earth is flat.

ETA: if you don't believe me, try it for yourselves. its flat, people

 

[bigbottom]

Is MX really arguing the Earth is flat?

I was saying it does not look flat because of horizons

A person standing on a flat earth could see a horizon.

In fact, I think the only way there wouldn't be a horizon is if (1) the earth was infinite; AND (2) the atmosphere did not dissipate light, but rather allowed one to see infinite distances.

 

[jon_mx]

Is MX really arguing the Earth is flat?

I was saying it does not look flat because of horizons

A person standing on a flat earth could see a horizon.

But it would be different. A car driving away from you in Kansas would not disappear from you in the horizon. Or a ship that sails away from you. You can see the slight curvature out over the ocean.

 

[Apple Jack]

Is MX really arguing the Earth is flat?

I was saying it does not look flat because of horizons

A person standing on a flat earth could see a horizon.

Triangles are fiction.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Have we come up with an answer to what revolves around what yet? I want to make sure I have the right answer before I finish this phone survey.

 

[bigbottom]

If it was flat, there would not be horizons.

Yes, there would.

I think what you mean to say is that horizons would appear differently to a person in motion. But again, I'm stationary and looking out the window. Just because the earth looks flat doesn't make it so. Perception is not reality.

 

[bigbottom]

Is MX really arguing the Earth is flat?

I was saying it does not look flat because of horizons

A person standing on a flat earth could see a horizon.

But it would be different. A car driving away from you in Kansas would not disappear from you in the horizon. Or a ship that sails away from you. You can see the slight curvature out over the ocean.

You stated that a flat earth has no horizons. Are you changing your assertion?

 

[jon_mx]

Is MX really arguing the Earth is flat?

I was saying it does not look flat because of horizons

A person standing on a flat earth could see a horizon.

But it would be different. A car driving away from you in Kansas would not disappear from you in the horizon. Or a ship that sails away from you. You can see the slight curvature out over the ocean.

You stated that a flat earth has no horizons. Are you changing your assertion?

That was not a precise statement. Horizons as we see them do not support a flat earth,

 

[tonydead]

We know from the poll that 26% didn't know the Earth rotates around the Sun, and those 26% made a guess, and incorrectly guessed that the sun rotates around the earth. Since guessing on this question is a 50/50 proposition, we can reasonably assume there was another group of about 26% who guessed correctly, but didn't know either.

26% + ~26% or ~52% guessed on this question. 100%-52% or 48% knew the answer stone cold.

The headline is misleading, it's not "26% believe the sun rotates around the earth" it's worse than we thought, it should be "52% don't know the earth rotates around the sun". MORE PEOPLE (52%) DONT KNOW THE EARTH ROTATES AROUND THE SUN THAN THOSE (48%) WHO DO KNOW THE EARTH ROTATES AROUND THE SUN!!!!!

Is this Shick? Bad assumptions and jon_mx level statistics?

 

[jon_mx]

We know from the poll that 26% didn't know the Earth rotates around the Sun, and those 26% made a guess, and incorrectly guessed that the sun rotates around the earth. Since guessing on this question is a 50/50 proposition, we can reasonably assume there was another group of about 26% who guessed correctly, but didn't know either.

26% + ~26% or ~52% guessed on this question. 100%-52% or 48% knew the answer stone cold.

The headline is misleading, it's not "26% believe the sun rotates around the earth" it's worse than we thought, it should be "52% don't know the earth rotates around the sun". MORE PEOPLE (52%) DONT KNOW THE EARTH ROTATES AROUND THE SUN THAN THOSE (48%) WHO DO KNOW THE EARTH ROTATES AROUND THE SUN!!!!!

Is this Shick? Bad assumptions and jon_mx level statistics?

I would challenge you on any level of understanding of statistics.

 

[bigbottom]

Is MX really arguing the Earth is flat?

I was saying it does not look flat because of horizons

A person standing on a flat earth could see a horizon.

But it would be different. A car driving away from you in Kansas would not disappear from you in the horizon. Or a ship that sails away from you. You can see the slight curvature out over the ocean.

You stated that a flat earth has no horizons. Are you changing your assertion?

That was not a precise statement. Horizons as we see them do not support a flat earth,

The horizon that I'm looking at right now supports a flat earth. So, again, I ask you, because the perception of my viewpoint is of a flat earth, does that make the earth flat? Because that is the logic you are using to assert that, from our perspective on earth, it is not incorrect to state that the sun revolves around the earth.

And on that note, it's probably worth pointing out that the scientific discovery that the earth revolves around the sun, was made not from a perspective off earth, but from a viewpoint right here on earth, hundreds of years before man left the atmosphere, utilizing the powers of human observation. How is that different from your moving horizon example?

 

[Apple Jack]

Donnie says triangles.

 

[RBM]

Apparently you aren't quite in tune:

“As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces,” he said. “As scientists we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. -

I was not really debating Climate Change here, but at least Hawking acknowledges we are still learning and it may forever change. There is a lot of uncertainty of how much human CO2 production is the cause. He is being a bit of a drama queen with the nuclear analogy.

Isnt hawking that tard in the wheelchair who drools on himself? I really don't care what he thinks...

awesome

Not one of my most "politically correct" moments....

You need some sensitivity training

 

[tonydead]

We know from the poll that 26% didn't know the Earth rotates around the Sun, and those 26% made a guess, and incorrectly guessed that the sun rotates around the earth. Since guessing on this question is a 50/50 proposition, we can reasonably assume there was another group of about 26% who guessed correctly, but didn't know either.

26% + ~26% or ~52% guessed on this question. 100%-52% or 48% knew the answer stone cold.

The headline is misleading, it's not "26% believe the sun rotates around the earth" it's worse than we thought, it should be "52% don't know the earth rotates around the sun". MORE PEOPLE (52%) DONT KNOW THE EARTH ROTATES AROUND THE SUN THAN THOSE (48%) WHO DO KNOW THE EARTH ROTATES AROUND THE SUN!!!!!

Is this Shick? Bad assumptions and jon_mx level statistics?

I would challenge you on any level of understanding of statistics.

I know you're striving to have the most posts of all time, but, I wasn't talking to you.

 

[bigbottom]

Oh great, Maurile is responding. Now we're all going to be exposed as doofuses.

 

[LinusMarr]

Apparently you aren't quite in tune:

“As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces,” he said. “As scientists we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastation effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. -

I was not really debating Climate Change here, but at least Hawking acknowledges we are still learning and it may forever change. There is a lot of uncertainty of how much human CO2 production is the cause. He is being a bit of a drama queen with the nuclear analogy.

Isnt hawking that tard in the wheelchair who drools on himself? I really don't care what he thinks...

awesome

Not one of my most "politically correct" moments....

You need some sensitivity training

Yes you and I can be at the head of the class. We can have scoresman teach the class...

 

[Henry Ford]

It obviously revolves around Miley Cyrus.

 

[Christo]

I think survey fatigue could be coloring the data. Hardly a day goes by where I'm not solicited to take part in some survey or another. This is on top of all the other data collection that takes place via social media and various "club" cards. I wonder if it's possible for a survey to get near 100% agreement on any fact based question.

If there were a lot if questions and people were just trying to get it over with as quick as possible, there could be a decent amount that misread the question. It's pretty common for students in class to mix up this they know because they were in a hurry, misread or just had a brainfart.

Or they could be correct and the question is poor. From the perspective of someone on earth, the sun is revolving around us. From the perspective of other locations in our solar system, it would appear the sun is relatively stationary and the earth spins and orbits around the sun.

This really explains a lot.

What is wrong with it? If your center of your coordinate system is tied to a point on the earth, it would appear sun revolves around us. If you center your coordinate system in the center of the solar system it would clearly be the earth revolving around the sun. But if you move out further in our galaxy or even further into the universe into the system of galaxies, the movement becomes much more complex than simply the earth revolving around the sun. Unless the perspective is define, there is potentially some ambiguity to the answer.

But even taking into account our galaxy, or system of galaxies in the larger universe, doesn't the earth still orbit the sun? After all, an object can orbit another object that is in motion, just like the moon orbits earth. Of course, I'm not a science guy, so perhaps I'm way off here.

Yes it does, regardless of viewpoint,

Which is flat out incorrect. Viewpoint does matter. Take a point on the earth surface and it appears from the perspective of that point, the sun is orbiting around us.

So what?

 

[tonydead]

We know from the poll that 26% didn't know the Earth rotates around the Sun, and those 26% made a guess, and incorrectly guessed that the sun rotates around the earth. Since guessing on this question is a 50/50 proposition, we can reasonably assume there was another group of about 26% who guessed correctly, but didn't know either.

26% + ~26% or ~52% guessed on this question. 100%-52% or 48% knew the answer stone cold.

The headline is misleading, it's not "26% believe the sun rotates around the earth" it's worse than we thought, it should be "52% don't know the earth rotates around the sun". MORE PEOPLE (52%) DONT KNOW THE EARTH ROTATES AROUND THE SUN THAN THOSE (48%) WHO DO KNOW THE EARTH ROTATES AROUND THE SUN!!!!!

Is this Shick? Bad assumptions and jon_mx level statistics?

I would challenge you on any level of understanding of statistics.

I know you're striving to have the most posts of all time, but, I wasn't talking to you.

Do you remember the thread about the probability of winning two super bowl squares?

 

[Rove!]

It obviously revolves around Miley Cyrus.

from her perspective

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Or they could be correct and the question is poor. From the perspective of someone on earth, the sun is revolving around us. From the perspective of other locations in our solar system, it would appear the sun is relatively stationary and the earth spins and orbits around the sun.

This doesn't work.

Under Einsteinian relativity, velocity is relative, but acceleration is not. Revolution means acceleration -- so we can't say that what revolves around what is all just a matter of perspective. It is true that the sun accelerates a tiny bit due to the earth's gravitational pull, but that is rather insignificant compared to how much the earth accelerates -- revolves -- due to the sun's gravitational pull.

Saying that the sun revolves around the earth if we use the earth as our point of reference is not really valid, because we're not supposed to use a point of reference that is being acted on by a force (as the earth is). From any neutral, non-accelerating point of reference, the earth revolves around the sun.

Hawking's statement is true: both Ptolemy's and Copernicus's models are consistent with our observations of planetary motion. But that doesn't mean that they're equally valid (even aside from considerations of Occam's Razor). Copernicus's model has the advantage of also being consistent with the theory of gravity, which must be considered a pretty solid theory at this point, at least in its basics. Ptolemy's model diverges quite sharply from our current theory of gravity, which is a major strike against it.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Or they could be correct and the question is poor. From the perspective of someone on earth, the sun is revolving around us. From the perspective of other locations in our solar system, it would appear the sun is relatively stationary and the earth spins and orbits around the sun.

This doesn't work.

Under Einsteinian relativity, velocity is relative, but acceleration is not. Revolution means acceleration -- so we can't say that what revolves around what is all just a matter of perspective. It is true that the sun accelerates a tiny bit due to the earth's gravitational pull, but that is rather insignificant compared to how much the earth accelerates -- revolves -- due to the sun's gravitational pull.

Saying that the sun revolves around the earth if we use the earth as our point of reference is not really valid, because we're not supposed to use a point of reference that is being acted on by a force (as the earth is). From any neutral, non-accelerating point of reference, the earth revolves around the sun.

Hawking's statement is true: both Ptolemy's and Copernicus's models are consistent with our observations of planetary motion. But that doesn't mean that they're equally valid (even aside from considerations of Occam's Razor). Copernicus's model has the advantage of also being consistent with the theory of gravity, which must be considered a pretty solid theory at this point, at least in its basics. Ptolemy's model diverges quite sharply from our current theory of gravity, which is a major strike against it.

I was just about to say the same thing. Word for word. It's weird how smart we are.

 

[jon_mx]

Is MX really arguing the Earth is flat?

I was saying it does not look flat because of horizons

A person standing on a flat earth could see a horizon.

But it would be different. A car driving away from you in Kansas would not disappear from you in the horizon. Or a ship that sails away from you. You can see the slight curvature out over the ocean.

You stated that a flat earth has no horizons. Are you changing your assertion?

That was not a precise statement. Horizons as we see them do not support a flat earth,

The horizon that I'm looking at right now supports a flat earth. So, again, I ask you, because the perception of my viewpoint is of a flat earth, does that make the earth flat? Because that is the logic you are using to assert that, from our perspective on earth, it is not incorrect to state that the sun revolves around the earth.

And on that note, it's probably worth pointing out that the scientific discovery that the earth revolves around the sun, was made not from a perspective off earth, but from a viewpoint right here on earth, hundreds of years before man left the atmosphere, utilizing the powers of human observation. How is that different from your moving horizon example?

The difference is, I can model the universe so that the earth is the center point and the sun would rotate around it. The earth is no more or less the center of the universe than the sun is, we are both moving through space. Your model of the flat earth falls apart if you go to a relativly flat spot on earth where horizons are not defined by taller objects surround you. You can not model the earth as flat unless you limit your distance to a few miles, then for the purpose of what you are doing the earth could be assume as flat. But that model falls apart at longer distances.