From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I AM BY NO MEANS a geocentrist... But I like to listen to outrageous ideas and conspiracy theories... For the sake of the argument... can we talk about this... I have heard... that according to some poll, 20% of americans believed in a Geocentric model...

So for the sake of the argument... do you think it's possible...

The sun goes around its barycenter... And since it is the bigger body... it pulls the planets....

What if the earth is this barycenter?

Would you leave a 0.3% chance that we might be missing something... and heliocentrism not be accurate... Thanks--Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

All of the evidence supports heliocentrism, unless you provide a link to the survey I find it hard to believe that 20% of Americans believe otherwise. Even if 20% of Americans did think this it would be an argumentum ad populum to think this was evidence for anything. 0.3% seems rather PIDOOMA but if there was evidence for geocentrism I'd believe it. Christopher (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I mean more like... Is it still a possibility... Like, for example, flat earth... is not (unless there is some HUGE conspiracy, and we've been drugged to perceive spherical earth)... But like geocentric model used to be very popular... and predictions actually worked on that model... What I am saying... is... is there a chance that we are wrong... even a slight one?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I mean, of course there is always a slight chance. Naturally. BUT, it's not even a matter of what could be imagined to be going on. I mean, ANYTHING could be imagined as "the real" situation. What matters is — and is onlywhat do we have reason to believe? And thus, reasonableness begins... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
the common centre, the BarycentreWikipedia's W.svg, of Earth and the Sun is only about 300 miles from the Sun's centre, so effectively it makes no difference in regards to plain old heliocentrism. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 16:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
While true and interesting — that seems, to me, more of an argument against privilieged motion of any sort. Keep in mind that "Geocentrism" doesn't just mean "the Sun goes around the Earth". Geocentrism almost always entails another premise as well (perhaps even primarily); that "the Earth does not move" (as in, "is stationary" in some pre-Newtonian absolute sense). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
True, that. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 16:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I was watching a movie The Principle... So... I mean I am not a geocentrist... But is it a possibility... And yes... that includes the earth not moving. Robert Sungenis seems convinced that it would not be such a big blow to modern physics... The question is more like... is heliocentrism 100% proven.... The fact that the earth isn't flat is PROVEN... But has heliocentrism been proven 100% with 0 doubt?Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Let's say that it's "only" proven to 99.9% probability. Let's say that you agree that those are the odds; 99.9% chance of heliocentrism, 0.01% chance of geocentrism. Hell, it could be 99% to 1% for all I care.
In either case — assuming you accept the numbers given — tell me which hypothesis wins? I.e., do you realize that the most likely things are in fact the most likely things?
Or would you say that, on average, the less likely thing — even by your own estimate — should (for some reason) be treated preferentially (rather than rejected preferentially)?
I ask because I kinda get the impression that the moment there's a debate between the scientific consensus view and [INSERT UTTERLY UNLIKELY/INCOHERENT VIEW], you're there to prop up the underdog by default.
So what I'm asking is, in part — do you realise that 99% is bigger than 1%? No offense. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The question is about the status of heliocentrism... Is heliocentrism proven... That is what I am saying... Spherical earth is proven (we have pictures)... But is heliocentrism proven too... Or could it be that there is an overwhelming consensus, it is viable, but there is a chance we might be wrong!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
But what if the pictures were faked? You can never 100% prove anything. Christopher (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Though, if you can never 100% prove anything, then that means you can't 100% prove that you can't 100% prove anything! (I'm not just being annoying — this, by the way, is pretty much exactly what the Academic Skeptics tried explaining to the Pyrrhonian Skeptics back in ancient Greece Th hug.gif). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
You can take any object in the universe and work out the numbers-schmumbers and the calculus-schmalculus putting that object in the centre of a system or galaxy or whatever you desire. That is, there is no reason why you cannot work out the movements of the sun and planets and stars all relative to Earth though you'll spend a long time widdling through elaborate equasions. If we made an animation where the Earth stands still, the sun sort of goes around earth dragging the orbiting planets with it and the stars will shift around like a bunch of fireflies on speed. (it will look quite strange). However, enter the good old concept of "parsimmony".
Numbers-schmumbers for Earth as centre of system:
  • #~|#~813½{[#~]¬{[#~@½{]|[¬@#]½1845@[34659|[#~¬½]#@[~{½]|[#~½]|[@#½]@#[~{½]|[#~½]|[@#{½]@#[~¬]@[#~{½#[]~½{|}@[#½|}@[#½{}|#~]½|}@#~½{|}]@{#½|}@#]~|}@#[{½}#~]½|@}½|@~}½|}#]½{|}@#]~{|}@#[½¬|}#[~¬½}|]@#{~}|@]#½{|}#@[¬½}|@#{½}|@]#½{|}~@]½¬|}@#]~{|}#]{½#}[~½{]#@[~½|}@#]~|}@#~{|}@]#{~}#]{½~[½{[~¬#½@[#~½{}@#~]#¬|½}@[#¬½|}@]#{~|}@½¬@#}[~½|}[#~{%/)("·$/=%)!"$=·%)"·=$)&!=$·)%/!="·)$!(?")·(%"=·)$/%?!)/$%?!)"(·%?!)·$%?!·/$)%!/·$?%)!·=%)"·$?)!"·?)$%!·?$)/&?!$·/!$&)!$·&?!$·(?!$&/"$=/!"?%/!?"=$/%!?"($%=!"/$?&!/·$?=)/"·=$)&/!?"·%(!?·$"/&?!"/$?!%"(·%?!/"·?&/
Sun is centre of system:
  • !=·%"·)$%!=·$)%(!"=·)$!?
So you can choose which one you prefer. Do you want to make things horridly, bafflingly and unecesarily complicated? (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

And what about anthropocentrism?[edit]

Heliocentrism? The Sun is supposed to be the center of what, exactly? Since even the Sun is supposed to be revolving around the core of the Milky Way, and relativity doesn't allow fixed frameworks anyways, we may as well define the Earth as the center of the universe. Ptolemy got it right the first time. I am more attached to the Earth than to any of the other planets. And all my stuff is there. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Extending your line of reasoning, the only person I know to really exist is me, anyways. As such — much like my cat before me — I must safely conclude that I am God. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)