a conversation abotu this article:http://abcnews.go.com/US/quarter-americans-convinced-sun-revolves-earth-survey-finds/story?id=22542847
Andrew Jones I looked into this when i first came out. I don't believe it for several reasons. (1) Its funded by the NSF who are motivated to prove a lack of science to secure funding. (2) the questions they asked were really appalling and leading (e.g. Human beings as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals (True/False) (3) it is perfectly valid to say the sun/the moon/the universe revolve around the earth, its all a matter of where you fix you relative point. The question was leading to make the respondent fix the point as being the earth. I am not surprised they got confused. This is just lazy reporting to grab headlines (and it work)
April 8 at 8:41am · Like
Philip Leclerc Shifting the origin of your system of coordinates doesn't magically make physical observations (of planetary revolution) consistent with an Earth-centered system. What are you talking about?
Andrew Jones Of course it does, relative to object you elect to be the center. Take a sheet of paper, put a dot for the earth and draw the location of sun everyday for a year, see what you get. If I drew an orbital plot of the rotation of the sun (or the earth or anything really) relative to my finger it would show the sun orbiting my finger. Now in physical space the realty may be different but provided that (as in the question) we only refer to two orbiting objects it's impossible to really say what's going around what (hence why the ptolemy model existed for most of human existence). I'm not trying to argue against Copernicus here, just saying that it's wrong to assume all these Americans were ignorant of the heliocentric model based on the answer to the question.
about an hour ago · Like
Philip Leclerc I don't disagree that you can convolute calculations such that observed orbits are converted to a system consistent with any given center point, but interpreting that as motivation for saying that, of any two co-oribtal objects, neither is privileged as 'center', seems quite silly. I mean: ultimately, I agree that the earth and sun orbit one another in some trivial pre-geometric sense, but: A) the earth's impact on the sun is small, while the sun's impact on the earth is dramatic, and B) as a result, choosing the sun as your origin point in computations about the local solar system will simplify things, while choosing earth will make things a complicated, nonsensical mess. As a result, it is definitionally natural to say 'the earth orbits the sun,' and not conversely.
52 minutes ago · Like
Joe Comer An object in orbit is a non-inertial reference frame--you can't just say "this is still and everything else is in motion" because it's accelerating constantly. You'd have to throw out universal gravitation and do some serious mental gymnastics to get a sensible (used loosely) model in which the sun revolves around the earth.
51 minutes ago · Like
Andrew Jones You missing the point. And I'm not going to be draw into a argument on something we all know to be true. Ultimately we all agree on what orbits what. But that's because we have a fixed idea of what we mean by orbit. Throw out gravity throw out any semb...See More
42 minutes ago · Like
Andrew Jones Excuse typos (iphone + lazy proof read)
41 minutes ago · Like
Mark Slack Those dastardly scientists, asking questions that could potentially be convoluted to meaninglessness by a significant enough portion of the population to make them seem ignorant just so they can get more funding!! *shakes fist at orbiting clouds*