Earth at the Center of the Universe

Canopus Lim · Post by **Canopus Lim** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:15 pm

If people did not have telescopes in the past or went to outer space, we would all thought that the earth is the centre of the solar system and the universe! It is easy to see why people think like that in the past as the stars and planets seem to revolve around us, and not the other way.

Everything is relative...

Post by **Airconvent** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:15 pm

what is impressive is an ancient greek first suggested that the sun was at the centre of the solar system because of the retrograde motion but this idea was never fully explored again until copernicus came along centuries later. Without benefit of scopes and yet they were able to make such deductions. One even attempted to calculate the size of the earth based on the eclipse timings. Although he was out by alot (due to accuracy error in measurements), nonetheless they can make such conclusions when poor me is struggling to understand my kid's primary school homework!

ChaosKnight · Post by **ChaosKnight** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:18 pm

acc wrote:ChaosKnight, perhaps I was too subtle/cryptic in my previous post. To make it clear: I just want to ensure that nobody is even vaguely left with the impression that earth could, in reality, really be at the centre of the universe as a result of your post.

As to whether your simulation is right or wrong, you can have an academic debate with someone else over a cup of coffee, but thanks for your invitation anyway.

i'm disappointed. Come on......first you declared the simulation is wrong, now you're saying you can't state why it is wrong.

And now you are trying to protect the newbies from confusion? Confusion from..............what?? The big bad truth that your comfortable worldview is not the only correct one? This isn't protecting. This is depriving them of knowledge.

Post by **Airconvent** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:24 pm

Hi Guys.
As I have pointed out, I think this is just a case of misunderstood humour. On one side is one who thought how interesting it was to plot a simulation of the planet's motion from earth's view point and on the other side, a group that mistook this for something else altogether.

I think its prudent now to let this go and focus on the scientific and mathematical aspects of the effort.

For starters, can you describe this simulation, eg. how you created it and since it does not appear to be to scale (I could be wrong), what compromise you made to make it more presentable.

cheers

ChaosKnight · Post by **ChaosKnight** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:04 am

Clifford60 wrote: Anyway, ChaosKnight, thanks for the simulation and don't feel bad over the comment, well it is again looking thing at different perspective.

I don't feel bad about anything. Rather i'm amused at the type of replies showing up. Something i didn't expect.

It's interesting to note that the stuff shown here is same as an earlier thread: http://www.singastro.org/viewtopic.php? ... 87e922089e

Both data sets are exactly the same, except the present one has smaller time stepping and has some coordinate transformation applied to it.

When data is presented conventionally, it is readily accepted as general astronomy. When a small transformation is applied to the same data, it gets junked to coffee corner.

I hate to say this, but it seems folks here seem too quick and too eager to apply their own prejudices to things they don't like to see. Some assume i'm headed in a particular direction only they know, others think i'm some kinda religious nut with hidden agenda.

In the past the church was overzealous in protecting its "established" view of the universe. Nothing must be questioned. Anything contrary must be wrong. Unfortunately it seems this is what things have come to here, except the established view is what is in textbooks and the internet.

Don't trivialize what is beyond your ability to understand.

Post by **weixing** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:42 am

Hi,

I hate to say this, but it seems folks here seem too quick and too eager to apply their own prejudices to things they don't like to see.

Yes, I may be too quick to pass judgement on what you post, but I can't see what you are trying to show by:
1) Putting a title: "Earth at the Center of the Universe"
2) Showing a simulation of "Earth on the center of the solar system", which had nothing to do with the title.
3) Also no clear explanation.

Anyway, don't need to get so work up la...

May be you can explain more clearly what your simulation is all about and what you trying to tell us clearly... Not everyone here can understand what you trying to do... I'm one of them. :oops: :oops:

Have a nice day.

river · Post by **river** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:23 am

Nice simulation! I am ok with the "Earth at the Center of Universe" model, just like "Sun is the center of solar system". Just pick one for a specific purpose.

A model is used to describe things base on some factor and view point, some model is easier to study and some are not. With advance computing power, we can now remodel the solar system to have earth at the center and anything else move around. For fun, for research or for school work, it is indeed a meaningful work.

In some cases it is desire to make a moving object as center of a model and the environment "move" around it", e.g. jet fighter navigation and weapon system...

Switch your perspective and open your mind for new idea or at least let some new idea to grow.

Post by **acc** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:40 pm

ChaosKnight, your post has a very misleading subject heading and Weixing has stated clearly why we took an issue with your post.

I reiterate that your simulation is wrong as it does not represent the solar system as it actually behaves. In the context of relative motion with respect to earth, I can also say that it is not strictly correct in the sense that it does not take into account the behaviour and gravitational impact of the outer planets. (No model can represent anything perfectly, which is why I quoted "All models are wrong". Nonetheless, "Some models are useful". http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_E._P._Box).

Had you made it clear from the start what you intend to illustrate with your simulation, than things would have turned out differently, but unfortunately you did not put out any disclaimer or explanation. Yes we should be free to explore alternative ideas and thoughts, but we should exercise this freedom in a responsible manner.

Your simulation is nonetheless interesting and amusing. Having it moved to 'Coffee Corner' does not mean it is "junk" (these get deleted). You may like to be reminded that this forum is moderated for content and language; so don't take offense that your post was questioned and moved.

ChaosKnight · Post by **ChaosKnight** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:11 pm

acc wrote:...I can also say that it is not strictly correct in the sense that it does not take into account the behaviour and gravitational impact of the outer planets.

I told you before, don't assume. Read 2nd post page 2.

Nobody will dispute computational models are approximations, but from what you posted above, i can see you are dismissing the model as "wrong" without understanding what is wrong about it.

In any case, i've got better simulations to play with now than to continue with you.

Post by **acc** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:29 pm

ChaosKnight wrote: Nobody will dispute computational models are approximations, but from what you posted above, i can see you are dismissing the model as "wrong" without understanding what is wrong about it.

In any case, i've got better simulations to play with now than to continue with you.

Precisely, all models are approximations.

Next time you post a simulation, don't get so worked up if you don't explain things clearly in the beginning and are questioned.