Wait, so there actually isn't 100% proof that heliocentrism is correct?

By 100% evidence, I mean like... there's 100%, indisputable evidence that gravity exists, if you get what I mean.

I was reading an article on Occam's Razor--that is, "a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects."

Then, the example of Occam's Razor aka Lex parsimoniae given, was geocentrism vs heliocentrism.

Geocentrism is the belief that the sun, and other planets in our solar system actually orbit the Earth. Heliocentrism, is the belief that Earth and other planets, orbit the sun.

Now, I was always under the impression that the Earth/Planets orbiting the Sun was an indisputable fact. Like, meaning there wasn't even the slightest possibility that our solar system was geocentric. So, this is actually news to me.

Thoughts? Apparently, 1 in 5 Americans and British people believe in Geocentrism. Please, keep this discussion civil, and without insulting anyone's beliefs.

1 in 5 americans? british i understand but americans? never would have thought that about them.surrealnumber5

Um i am pretty sure that All the proof needed has been done. This is how they have been able to use gravity assists and the likes to get probes to the outer and inner planets. They do this by math and the effect gravity has on the spacecraft. Knowing the exact location of the planet by tracking its orbit as it moves around the SUN... This has also been directly observed recently with exo planets around other stars.

Those 1 in 5 Americans and British, do they really believe in geocentrism or do they not know what it means?

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]1 in 5 americans? british i understand but americans? never would have thought that about them.th3warr1or

This isn't so much a geocentric vs heliocentric discussion, as it is a "Wait a minute, geocentrism is possible?!?" thread.

I honestly didn't know that geocentrism is even possible. I thought it was like saying gravity doesn't exist; basically disproven. Apparently not though.

This isn't so much a geocentric vs heliocentric discussion, as it is a "Wait a minute, geocentrism is possible?!?" thread. th3warr1or

Neither are correct. Huzwogcentrism is the dominant orbital theory in modern astronomy.

That 1-in-5 survey is incorrect, a sizeable amount of the individuals that got interviewed for the survey did not understand the question that was given them, because the interviewers conducting the research assumed everyone would know what heliocentricism/geocentricism means. Not everyone did, so as to not display their ignorance on seemingly normative knowledge (given the initial lack of explanation from the interviewers, the normative nature was assumed), they simply answered intuitively.

What is your source for this info?spazzx625

"Scientists use a guiding principle called Occam's Razor to choose between two or more models that accurately explain the observations. This principle, named after the English philosopher, William of Occam, who stated this principle in the mid-1300's, says: the best model is the simplest one---the one requiring the fewest assumptions and modifications in order to fit the observations. Guided by Occam's Razor some scientists began to have serious doubts about Ptolemy's geocentric model in the early days of the Renaissance."

A bit more googling, seems to have a few more blogs/websites/articles reflecting this train of thought. They seem to be in support of heliocentrism, so I don't see why they would lie about the reasoning.

That 1-in-5 survey is incorrect, a sizeable amount of the individuals that got interviewed for the survey did not understand the question that was given them, because the interviewers conducting the research assumed everyone would know what heliocentricism/geocentricism means. Not everyone did, so as to not display their ignorance on seemingly normative knowledge (given the initial lack of explanation from the interviewers, the normative nature was assumed), they simply answered intuitively.

BiancaDK

Fair point. I did not know this.

If it was 100% proof, it would be a mathematical rule. Theories, by nature, are as the name implies. It's just considered to be the best explanation of things until proven otherwise IMO.BranKetra

how else would we explain seasons though?

how else would we explain seasons though?

firefluff3

how else would we explain seasons though?

firefluff3

[QUOTE="firefluff3"]

how else would we explain seasons though?

th3warr1or

[QUOTE="firefluff3"]

how else would we explain seasons though?

th3warr1or

wouldn't things like sending probes to other planets, stuff we've already done, have not worked if we were assuming a heliocentric system but it turned out to be a geocentric one? if the planets don't move the way we predict them too then it would making sending probes to them impossible.comp_atkins

I'm still not understanding how the OP (or any other post) suggest that geocentricism is actually possible.

By 100% evidence, I mean like... there's 100%, indisputable evidence that gravity exists, if you get what I mean.

I was reading an article on Occam's Razor--that is, "a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects."

Then, the example of Occam's Razor aka Lex parsimoniae given, was geocentrism vs heliocentrism.

Geocentrism is the belief that the sun, and other planets in our solar system actually orbit the Earth. Heliocentrism, is the belief that Earth and other planets, orbit the sun.

Now, I was always under the impression that the Earth/Planets orbiting the Sun was an indisputable fact. Like, meaning there wasn't even the slightest possibility that our solar system was geocentric. So, this is actually news to me.

Thoughts? Apparently, 1 in 5 Americans and British people believe in Geocentrism. Please, keep this discussion civil, and without insulting anyone's beliefs.

th3warr1or

Occam's Razor is often invoked incorrectly. It's not really an empirically proven principle, it's actually a very mystic one. Occam believed that the universe was actually a singular entity, and that distinctions like man and animal were simply ways that the human consciousness ordered things, and therefore simplicity is always preferrable. Its use today is to debunk conspiracy theories; for example, what is more likely, that Oswald was a patriotic citizen who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, that the U.S. government hired mobsters to assassinate Kennedy because of some sinister plot to undermine his policies, which then necessitates elaborate explanations as to the motives of the conspirators, or was Kennedy really shot by Oswald? Occam's Razor says the latter is true, it's really a way of saying that if you have to come up with elaborate explanations and plots to explain something, that you're probably reaching for proof that isn't there. Of course, it is in no way a hard and fast rule, there are plenty of cases where the more complex explanation is the correct one.

Was there any other reason you thought heliocentrism could be incorrect, or was it simply the razor?

Im surprised as many as 1 in 5 believe that. Id have thought a lot less would believe in geocentrism.Big_Bad_Sad

Is it any crazier than believing in immaculate conception, transsubstantiation, a young earth, or countless other religious stories?

For geocentricity to be possible, the earth would have greater mass than the entire mass of the universe to hold it in orbit. That theory contains way too many assumptions for it to be true.

for example, what is more likely, that Kennedy's shooter (forgot his name), was a patriotic citizen who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, that the U.S. government hired mobsters to assassinate Kennedy because of some sinister plot to undermine his policies, which then necessitates elaborate explanations as to the motives of the conspirators, or was Kennedy really shot by the man who was convicted?theone86

None of them are true, since Oswald was assassinated before he could be tried and convicted :P

I'm still not understanding how the OP (or any other post) suggest that geocentricism is actually possible.

worlock77

[QUOTE="theone86"]for example, what is more likely, that Kennedy's shooter (forgot his name), was a patriotic citizen who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, that the U.S. government hired mobsters to assassinate Kennedy because of some sinister plot to undermine his policies, which then necessitates elaborate explanations as to the motives of the conspirators, or was Kennedy really shot by the man who was convicted?m0zart

None of them are true, since Oswald was assassinated before he could be tried and convicted :P

Fixed it.

and 99% of people believe the entire universe revolves around them.

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="firefluff3"]

how else would we explain seasons though?

Ontain

But, could it just be possible that the formula for a geocentric model is different? E.g.; You can't use an English thesaurus to write a German essay, nor a US History book to decipher hieroglyphcis.

Like, does that *possibility* even exist?

By 100% evidence, I mean like... there's 100%, indisputable evidence that gravity exists, if you get what I mean.

I was reading an article on Occam's Razor--that is, "a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects."

Then, the example of Occam's Razor aka Lex parsimoniae given, was geocentrism vs heliocentrism.

Geocentrism is the belief that the sun, and other planets in our solar system actually orbit the Earth. Heliocentrism, is the belief that Earth and other planets, orbit the sun.

Now, I was always under the impression that the Earth/Planets orbiting the Sun was an indisputable fact. Like, meaning there wasn't even the slightest possibility that our solar system was geocentric. So, this is actually news to me.

Thoughts? Apparently, 1 in 5 Americans and British people believe in Geocentrism. Please, keep this discussion civil, and without insulting anyone's beliefs.

th3warr1or

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

By 100% evidence, I mean like... there's 100%, indisputable evidence that gravity exists, if you get what I mean.

I was reading an article on Occam's Razor--that is, "a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects."

Then, the example of Occam's Razor aka Lex parsimoniae given, was geocentrism vs heliocentrism.

Geocentrism is the belief that the sun, and other planets in our solar system actually orbit the Earth. Heliocentrism, is the belief that Earth and other planets, orbit the sun.

Now, I was always under the impression that the Earth/Planets orbiting the Sun was an indisputable fact. Like, meaning there wasn't even the slightest possibility that our solar system was geocentric. So, this is actually news to me.

Thoughts? Apparently, 1 in 5 Americans and British people believe in Geocentrism. Please, keep this discussion civil, and without insulting anyone's beliefs.

theone86

Occam's Razor is often invoked incorrectly. It's not really an empirically proven principle, it's actually a very mystic one. Occam believed that the universe was actually a singular entity, and that distinctions like man and animal were simply ways that the human consciousness ordered things, and therefore simplicity is always preferrable. Its use today is to debunk conspiracy theories; for example, what is more likely, that Oswald was a patriotic citizen who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, that the U.S. government hired mobsters to assassinate Kennedy because of some sinister plot to undermine his policies, which then necessitates elaborate explanations as to the motives of the conspirators, or was Kennedy really shot by Oswald? Occam's Razor says the latter is true, it's really a way of saying that if you have to come up with elaborate explanations and plots to explain something, that you're probably reaching for proof that isn't there. Of course, it is in no way a hard and fast rule, there are plenty of cases where the more complex explanation is the correct one.

Was there any other reason you thought heliocentrism could be incorrect, or was it simply the razor?

Occam's Razor tends to be misunderstood. It's not saying by any means that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is necessarily correct. What it's saying is that there is no logical reason to accept any other explanation if that explanation is sufficiently explanatory. If new evidence comes to light that makes that explanation insufficient, then and only then should it be rejected.

[QUOTE="Ontain"][QUOTE="th3warr1or"] I don't know. It seems that heliocentrism seems to be accepted because it simply "makes more sense" and "leaves less questions unanswered" than geocentrism. th3warr1or

But, could it just be possible that the formula for a geocentric model is different? E.g.; You can't use an English thesaurus to write a German essay, nor a US History book to decipher hieroglyphcis.

Like, does that *possibility* even exist?

No, not really, at least not to any greater extent than that anything is technically "possible". It's possible that we're all just brains in a jar and that nothing we experience is actually real. That that is a possibility implies nothing about what one should accept as true.

In related news, 1 in 5 people could not locate Earth on a globe.

Ok.

I may be dumb but how is Occam's Razor relevant?

Ok.

I may be dumb but how is Occam's Razor relevant?

Teenaged

In related news, 1 in 5 people could not locate Earth on a globe.

cyanidebakesale

Based on what ignorant people say just to give an answer?

Yeah, okay.

Meh I saw Occam's Razor and figured I had to post a song with the same title, don't like this song but the band is greathttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8bgZNCV_O0.

But on topic it seems astounding that folks do not have an understanding of something that was proven in I want to say the Rennaisane (but could easily be wrong.) Nonetheless perhaps it shows more about the two countires education systems and falling standards, I mean perhaps I'am in the wrong here but the latin roots geo and helio don't seem hard to figure out.