If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   More than 100 years after Galileo presented evidence that the Earth circled the Sun (and not the other way around), people still insisted that schools teach both models. (Sound familiar?)   (io9.com) divider line 73
    More: Sad, Earth, schools, Catholic Church  
•       •       •

2903 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Sep 2013 at 2:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-12 01:44:04 PM
Obligatory
www.joeydevilla.com
 
2013-09-12 01:55:54 PM
If you want stupid shiat taught, then home school them and teach them yourself.
 
2013-09-12 02:19:49 PM

basemetal: If you want stupid shiat taught, then home school them and teach them yourself.


Hey, you *do* know home-schooled children grow up to get good looking girlfriends with big shiny teeth don't you?
 
2013-09-12 02:36:52 PM
We STILL have some morons asking we teach flat earth and geocentrism as the only truth.
 
2013-09-12 02:41:32 PM
Neither model is wrong.  It is just that the mathematics for one model is much simpler.
 
2013-09-12 02:48:54 PM
Hes just a poor boy...
 
2013-09-12 02:49:27 PM

minoridiot: Neither model is wrong.  It is just that the mathematics for one model is much simpler.


That's actually true. If we take the Earth as a fixed point of reference, we can make models that describe how everything moves about it. Naturally, just saying the Earth orbits the Sun in aellipse is farktons simpler.
 
2013-09-12 02:50:49 PM

basemetal: If you want stupid shiat taught, then home school them and teach them yourself.


No shiat. I want to burn the sad little villages of Derp these fools live in.
 
2013-09-12 02:51:31 PM

minoridiot: Neither model is wrong.  It is just that the mathematics for one model is much simpler.


It's trueish, and actually a good exercise to push your brain cells out of there usual pattern... look at things from a different perspective. I don't think we are going to get any a whole lot further into space until someone thinks outside the box a little...
lifeng.lamost.org
 
2013-09-12 02:53:34 PM
Old history rehashed. Nothing to see here. Move along.
 
2013-09-12 02:58:11 PM
When I was young...
I was taught both Big Bang and Steady State theories.
Didn't get that sorted out until the late 60s or early 70s, IIRC.
So, teaching both theories can sometimes be a real thing, in theory.
I'm not surprised it took a bit of time.
 
2013-09-12 03:07:33 PM

Markus5: When I was young...
I was taught both Big Bang and Steady State theories.


Great example.  Those two things are EXACTLY the same as heliocentrism and the batshiat crazy alternative.
 
2013-09-12 03:12:50 PM

phlegmmo: Obligatory
[www.joeydevilla.com image 600x408]


I just noticed that AETHER is an anagram of HEART...E

//When your powers combine, I am Captain Creationism!
 
2013-09-12 03:14:32 PM
Never underestimate armchair experts with gut feelings.
 
2013-09-12 03:17:34 PM
 
2013-09-12 03:23:02 PM

minoridiot: Neither model is wrong.  It is just that the mathematics for one model is much simpler.


You picks your coordinate system, you makes your choice.
imgs.xkcd.com
/hot
 
2013-09-12 03:27:43 PM

minoridiot: Neither model is wrong.  It is just that the mathematics for one model is much simpler.


No, the Earth centered model starts to fall apart when you start adding the correct sizes and distances of the sun and planets, then once you add in gravity it is hopeless. It only worked as a model when a lot of other variables weren't nailed down yet.
 
2013-09-12 03:29:16 PM
So our entire solar system could be just an Atom in the finger of a larger being....
 
2013-09-12 03:30:05 PM

Superjew: Markus5: When I was young...
I was taught both Big Bang and Steady State theories.

Great example.  Those two things are EXACTLY the same as heliocentrism and the batshiat crazy alternative.


So, 600 years ago, you would have known helio was OK and geo was batshiat?  You are super.
 
2013-09-12 03:37:31 PM

minoridiot: Neither model is wrong.  It is just that the mathematics for one model is much simpler.


Geocentrism.... pffft.  It is actually Saigacentrism. The earth, the sun, need I say it, the universe revolves around me.
 
2013-09-12 03:38:35 PM

minoridiot: Neither model is wrong. It is just that the mathematics for one model is much simpler.


Bullpucky.  The geocentric model entails violation of relativity, as well as other physical laws.  Alpha Centauri is about 4 light years away from Earth, yet goes around the Earth every 24 hours!  (Just like everything else does.)  That means it has to be travelling at a very high multiple of the speed of light.

Even if you allow the Earth to rotate but otherwise remain stationary, other bodies in the universe behave in physically unjustifiable ways--Alpha Centauri and every other star appears to move in a circle (ellipse, really) 1AU in radius, centered on nothing, once every year; what force is causing them to do this?
 
2013-09-12 03:42:05 PM

sno man: minoridiot: Neither model is wrong.  It is just that the mathematics for one model is much simpler.

It's trueish, and actually a good exercise to push your brain cells out of there usual pattern... look at things from a different perspective. I don't think we are going to get any a whole lot further into space until someone thinks outside the box a little...
[lifeng.lamost.org image 289x286]


I think you'll find this model simpler yet more accurate:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-09-12 03:42:34 PM
When did the church accept that the Earth moves around the sun?

1992.
 
2013-09-12 03:42:39 PM

Tom_Slick: So our entire solar system could be just an Atom in the finger of a larger being....


"Can I buy some pot from you?"
i5.photobucket.com

 
2013-09-12 03:44:30 PM

flondrix: Alpha Centauri and every other star appears to move in a circle (ellipse, really) 1AU in radius, centered on nothing, once every year; what force is causing them to do this?


It is caused by a fuzzy force caused by the unoptainium in my denture work.  It has a decay rate of one year and varies it force sinusoidaly over that time.
 
2013-09-12 03:44:48 PM

Mad_Radhu: minoridiot: Neither model is wrong.  It is just that the mathematics for one model is much simpler.

No, the Earth centered model starts to fall apart when you start adding the correct sizes and distances of the sun and planets, then once you add in gravity it is hopeless. It only worked as a model when a lot of other variables weren't nailed down yet.


This.

The sun's gravity causes the earth to spin around it, not the other way around.
 
2013-09-12 03:46:04 PM
Yes and when I learned chemistry we had to learn the Dalton, Rutherford, and Bohr models of the atom
 
2013-09-12 03:56:06 PM
I'm taking an Astronomy class right now so I'm getting a kick out of TFA and these replies.
 
2013-09-12 03:57:05 PM

Tom_Slick: So our entire solar system could be just an Atom in the finger of a larger being....


Yes, the middle finger actually.
 
2013-09-12 03:59:40 PM

fruitloop: When did the church accept that the Earth moves around the sun?

1992.


or 1822 CE, if you're Catholic.
 
2013-09-12 03:59:48 PM
The heliocentric model actually dates back over 2,000 years and one of the more interesting things is why it ended up not being adopted. One was that it didn't fit with what the Athenian philosophers said, and they were taken as being right by virtue of being Athenians. Also it didn't fit with the work of other philosophers who were seen as right simply because they were popular. That the model did away with all sorts of issues, like how come stuff in the sky is moving backwards, very elegantly didn't matter.
 
2013-09-12 04:03:48 PM

manimal2878: Mad_Radhu: minoridiot: Neither model is wrong.  It is just that the mathematics for one model is much simpler.

No, the Earth centered model starts to fall apart when you start adding the correct sizes and distances of the sun and planets, then once you add in gravity it is hopeless. It only worked as a model when a lot of other variables weren't nailed down yet.

This.

The sun's gravity causes the earth to spin around it, not the other way around.


Eh, technically the sun and the earth each affect the other, since gravity is bi-directional.  The sun does orbit around the earth, depending upon which set of coordinates you want to hold steady.  It's not the wisest interpretation, but mathematically correct.  The rest of the planets orbit the sun as it orbits earth.

And since the universe is infinite in all directions, a "center" is merely an arbitrary point in space.  Earth is the center of the universe.
 
2013-09-12 04:03:52 PM
a Helio centric system was first proposed by a Greek Astronomer around the time of Aristotle.  He pointed out that the math worked better.
Copernicious was trying to reconcile the movements of the stars and planets to reconcile the corrections that the Arabs had made to Ptolomy's Amalgast and the mess the Amalgast is.  He went with the Helio centric.  Tycho Brahe endevored to prove that Copernicious was wrong through precise observation and losing his nose in a fight.  Kepler took the observations of Tycho and tried to adapt them to Lutheran Theology.
 
2013-09-12 04:05:06 PM

Tom_Slick: So our entire solar system could be just an Atom in the finger of a larger being....


what if C-A-T actually spelled dog?
 
2013-09-12 04:06:28 PM
American fundamentalist Christians make the modern Catholic Church look like MIT.
 
2013-09-12 04:07:16 PM
Dose anybody have the passage in the Bible that state that the Earth is the center of solar system?
 
2013-09-12 04:10:52 PM

dennysgod: Dose anybody have the passage in the Bible that state that the Earth is the center of solar system?


Top of my head, some OT reference to the sun stopping, I think.
 
2013-09-12 04:13:47 PM

dennysgod: Dose anybody have the passage in the Bible that state that the Earth is the center of solar system?


It's the one right after the one that says abortion is bad and life starts at conception.  And right before the verse about gay marriage being evil.
 
2013-09-12 04:17:01 PM

palelizard: manimal2878: Mad_Radhu: minoridiot: Neither model is wrong.  It is just that the mathematics for one model is much simpler.

No, the Earth centered model starts to fall apart when you start adding the correct sizes and distances of the sun and planets, then once you add in gravity it is hopeless. It only worked as a model when a lot of other variables weren't nailed down yet.

This.

The sun's gravity causes the earth to spin around it, not the other way around.

Eh, technically the sun and the earth each affect the other, since gravity is bi-directional.  The sun does orbit around the earth, depending upon which set of coordinates you want to hold steady.  It's not the wisest interpretation, but mathematically correct.  The rest of the planets orbit the sun as it orbits earth.

And since the universe is infinite in all directions, a "center" is merely an arbitrary point in space.  Earth is the center of the universe.


It's not a simple matter of just swapping out co-ordinate systems. To replicate what we see, you have to reconfigure the solar system by swapping the order of the bodes in it while also modify their relative sizes and distances.

www.redorbit.com

And this doesn't even begin to address things like epicycles and what to do with the stars and galaxies out there. Again, it was a model that could kind of be made to fit when we didn't know a lot about the properties of the heavens. Now that we have a LOT more data points on how big things are and how far away they are, there is absolutely no way to design a working geocentric model incorporating modern scientific knowledge. Too many things in the model break down right away, like the prior example of the motion of the stars.
 
2013-09-12 04:18:59 PM

Begoggle: American fundamentalist Christians make the modern Catholic Church look like MIT.


Considering how many top level science departments are found at Catholic run universities and the Vatican observatory does some damn good astronomy work, the Catholic Church hardly needs the help.
 
2013-09-12 04:22:51 PM

Mad_Radhu: palelizard: manimal2878: Mad_Radhu: minoridiot: Neither model is wrong.  It is just that the mathematics for one model is much simpler.

No, the Earth centered model starts to fall apart when you start adding the correct sizes and distances of the sun and planets, then once you add in gravity it is hopeless. It only worked as a model when a lot of other variables weren't nailed down yet.

This.

The sun's gravity causes the earth to spin around it, not the other way around.

Eh, technically the sun and the earth each affect the other, since gravity is bi-directional.  The sun does orbit around the earth, depending upon which set of coordinates you want to hold steady.  It's not the wisest interpretation, but mathematically correct.  The rest of the planets orbit the sun as it orbits earth.

And since the universe is infinite in all directions, a "center" is merely an arbitrary point in space.  Earth is the center of the universe.

It's not a simple matter of just swapping out co-ordinate systems. To replicate what we see, you have to reconfigure the solar system by swapping the order of the bodes in it while also modify their relative sizes and distances.

[www.redorbit.com image 600x450]

And this doesn't even begin to address things like epicycles and what to do with the stars and galaxies out there. Again, it was a model that could kind of be made to fit when we didn't know a lot about the properties of the heavens. Now that we have a LOT more data points on how big things are and how far away they are, there is absolutely no way to design a working geocentric model incorporating modern scientific knowledge. Too many things in the model break down right away, like the prior example of the motion of the stars.


Your picture isn't what I described.  The sun orbits the Earth.  All the other planets still orbit the sun.
 
2013-09-12 04:44:09 PM

UberDave: basemetal: If you want stupid shiat taught, then home school them and teach them yourself.

Hey, you *do* know home-schooled children grow up to get good looking girlfriends with big shiny teeth don't you?


Am I the only one who thinks home-schooled girl is actually pretty hot?
 
2013-09-12 04:46:19 PM

palelizard: manimal2878: Mad_Radhu: minoridiot: Neither model is wrong.  It is just that the mathematics for one model is much simpler.

No, the Earth centered model starts to fall apart when you start adding the correct sizes and distances of the sun and planets, then once you add in gravity it is hopeless. It only worked as a model when a lot of other variables weren't nailed down yet.

This.

The sun's gravity causes the earth to spin around it, not the other way around.

Eh, technically the sun and the earth each affect the other, since gravity is bi-directional.  The sun does orbit around the earth, depending upon which set of coordinates you want to hold steady.  It's not the wisest interpretation, but mathematically correct.  The rest of the planets orbit the sun as it orbits earth.

And since the universe is infinite in all directions, a "center" is merely an arbitrary point in space.  Earth is the center of the universe.


You can only swap coordinates in terms of relative motion.  You can't do the same when it comes to a matter of the forces at work.  You can center your spacial coordinates on a basketball and bounce it, and model it as the earth bouncing 6 feet away from the ball.  But there is no way to re-configure a free-body diagram to show that the force of the ball striking the earth caused the earth to move 6 feet.

Also, just because gravity is bi-directional does not mean that force is equal in both directions.  You're thinking of tensile force.
 
2013-09-12 04:47:52 PM

madgordy: a Helio centric system was first proposed by a Greek Astronomer around the time of Aristotle.


You may want to Google "
 
2013-09-12 05:01:18 PM

palelizard: manimal2878: Mad_Radhu: minoridiot: Neither model is wrong.  It is just that the mathematics for one model is much simpler.

No, the Earth centered model starts to fall apart when you start adding the correct sizes and distances of the sun and planets, then once you add in gravity it is hopeless. It only worked as a model when a lot of other variables weren't nailed down yet.

This.

The sun's gravity causes the earth to spin around it, not the other way around.

Eh, technically the sun and the earth each affect the other, since gravity is bi-directional.  The sun does orbit around the earth, depending upon which set of coordinates you want to hold steady.  It's not the wisest interpretation, but mathematically correct.  The rest of the planets orbit the sun as it orbits earth.

And since the universe is infinite in all directions, a "center" is merely an arbitrary point in space.  Earth is the center of the universe.


Technically they both orbit around a point that sits the same relative distance from each one as the inverse ratio of their masses.

This point is about six inches off the surface of the sun though.
 
2013-09-12 05:19:35 PM
Here's an orbit simulation tool you can use to see how the whole "motion is relative, force is not" thing plays out: http://phet.colorado.edu/sims/my-solar-system/my-solar-system_en.html

First, run the default simulation, with the smaller body given an initial velocity and the larger body stationary.  When the simulation runs, you can see that the smaller body orbits the larger body in a stable ellipse, while the larger body wobbles in a small circle about the center of mass of the system.

"Aha!", you say, "But you specifically told the smaller body to move!"

Okay, then, let's invert it.  Swap the masses of the two bodies (body1 = 10, body2 = 200), and leave everything else the same.  Now the larger body is given an initial velocity and the smaller body is given an initial stationary state.  The distance and relative initial velocities are otherwise identical to the first system, and represent nothing more than the heliocentric/geocentric coordinate-swap.

Run the simulation, though, and watch what happens.  :3
 
2013-09-12 05:22:08 PM

palelizard: Your picture isn't what I described. The sun orbits the Earth. All the other planets still orbit the sun.


Wasn't that Ole Röhmer's geocentric system? Totally screwed up....
 
2013-09-12 05:24:43 PM

Fast Moon: Here's an orbit simulation tool you can use to see how the whole "motion is relative, force is not" thing plays out: http://phet.colorado.edu/sims/my-solar-system/my-solar-system_en.html

First, run the default simulation, with the smaller body given an initial velocity and the larger body stationary.  When the simulation runs, you can see that the smaller body orbits the larger body in a stable ellipse, while the larger body wobbles in a small circle about the center of mass of the system.

"Aha!", you say, "But you specifically told the smaller body to move!"

Okay, then, let's invert it.  Swap the masses of the two bodies (body1 = 10, body2 = 200), and leave everything else the same.  Now the larger body is given an initial velocity and the smaller body is given an initial stationary state.  The distance and relative initial velocities are otherwise identical to the first system, and represent nothing more than the heliocentric/geocentric coordinate-swap.

Run the simulation, though, and watch what happens.  :3


That was fascinating. I'm not sure why I expected something else to happen but it made sense as soon as I ran it.
 
2013-09-12 05:27:20 PM

Pharque-it: palelizard: Your picture isn't what I described. The sun orbits the Earth. All the other planets still orbit the sun.

Wasn't that Ole Röhmer's geocentric system? Totally screwed up....


Sorry, it was Tycho Brahe's, another Danish astronomer....
 
2013-09-12 05:43:44 PM

Well I use Mac/Linux...: UberDave: basemetal: If you want stupid shiat taught, then home school them and teach them yourself.

Hey, you *do* know home-schooled children grow up to get good looking girlfriends with big shiny teeth don't you?

Am I the only one who thinks home-schooled girl is actually pretty hot?


That was the bizarre thing about that becoming a meme; she's actually attractive, just like the poster had claimed. It humbles me to realize I could be one post away from being a punchline.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report