do as we tell you

[chesters1]

i side stepped from a ladder onto a scaffold board that wasn't there once

[corydoras]

Fair enough - he really rather likes the visual imagery though !

That's just a bit of fun to go with the geekery of the podcast. Have a look on YouTube, you'll find loads of little snippets from his talks there.

[Andrew]

What exactly am I meant to be sidestepping, because what ever it is I'll address it.

 

Wether you like sprouts man, and if they make you fart.

[corydoras]

Then you really shouldn't make statements like

 

 

 

Because the Ptolemic Model is not "wrong" - it is merely a clumsy way of depicting the observed solar system - and as I have already said, the Copernican view is not 100% spot on either.

 

 

 

Well yes, that merely reiterates the concept I mentioned (re Sun and Earth) using a second example.

Your gonna have to explain that to me a bit more Dave? How can the Ptolemic Model not be wrong? We know that the sun and not the Earth is the centre of the solar system. We know that the orbits of the planets don't need the complexities of epicycles to explain their apparent retrogade paths through the heavens. How is the Ptolemic Model any less wrong than "turtles all the way down"?

 

PS The common centre of gravity that Pluto and Charon orbit around is external to both bodies

[corydoras]

Wether you like sprouts man, and if they make you fart.

That's a hard one. I like sprouts when I cook them. I hate the smell of them when they are cooking. The smell of pissy nappies. Usually when I eat them I eat them with other things that make you fart. Anyway what's wrong with a good healthy fart, as long as there are no lumps in it.

[Vagabond]

How can the Ptolemic Model not be wrong?

 

Because it explains the relative movements of the sun, moon and planets in a mathematically correct way. You could produce any number of different mathematical models, each based on taking the centre of the Solar system on a different planet or moon - all complex and difficult to get your head round, but all mathematically correct.

 

Yes, the mathematics of the planets' orbits are simpler if you take Sol as your reference point.

 

However, if setting off for outer space from Earth, you may wish to ascertain where the other planets are with respect to Earth if you wish to avoid colliding with them. Ptolemy and Copernicus would each come up with the same answer! Shooting for outer space on the other side of the Solar system (ie across the system, not straight out) from a point on the Earth's orbit - you would find that retrograde loop of an outer planet's orbit is real enough.

 

We know that the sun and not the Earth is the centre of the solar system.

 

No, it is merely assumed that way for the sake of convention.

We don't "know" it any more than we "know" North should be at the top of our maps and model globes - its only a convention. Try telling Bobj he is walking about upside down

 

Reword that phrase in italics to "The Solar system is much easier to understand if we take the Sun as a fixed point around which the planets orbit" and I would agree.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Vagabond

[Phone]

All,

 

Well, I guess that does it. The original question for debate, made as a statement, was """"Germany is putting it's foot down with [G]greece to try and prevent a referendum""""

 

Hummm? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Yes

 

Phone

[corydoras]

Because it explains the relative movements of the sun, moon and planets in a mathematically correct way. You could produce any number of different mathematical models, each based on taking the centre of the Solar system on a different planet or moon - all complex and difficult to get your head round, but all mathematically correct.

 

Yes, the mathematics of the planets' orbits are simpler if you take Sol as your reference point.

 

However, if setting off for outer space from Earth, you may wish to ascertain where the other planets are with respect to Earth if you wish to avoid colliding with them. Ptolemy and Copernicus would each come up with the same answer! Shooting for outer space on the other side of the Solar system (ie across the system, not straight out) from a point on the Earth's orbit - you would find that retrograde loop of an outer planet's orbit is real enough.

 

 

 

No, it is merely assumed that way for the sake of convention.

We don't "know" it any more than we "know" North should be at the top of our maps and model globes - its only a convention. Try telling Bobj he is walking about upside down

 

Reword that phrase in italics to "The Solar system is much easier to understand if we take the Sun as a fixed point around which the planets orbit" and I would agree.

That sounds more like philosophy than science. If I were God and I could pluck the Earth out of the Solar system, all the planets and other bodies orbiting the sun with the exception of our moon would trundle on with only minor adjustments to there orbital paths. Take the Sun out of the picture and there would be no solar system, there would be nothing for the planets to orbit around.

 

PS It doesn't really matter if Bobj is "upside down". He's an astronomer, we get used to seeing the universe upside down.

Edited November 7, 2011 by corydoras

[corydoras]

All,

 

Well, I guess that does it. The original question for debate, made as a statement, was """"Germany is putting it's foot down with [G]greece to try and prevent a referendum""""

 

Hummm? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Yes

 

Phone

That's AN Phone. NOT having topic police is a GOOD thing. We'll probably drift back on topic sometime or other.

[Phone]

Cory,

 

It might matter to bobj if he's upside down. Where do you come from - speaking in behalf of bobj?

 

How much faster are you going round and round at the north pole vs going round and round at the equator (in mph)?

 

Phone

Edited November 7, 2011 by Phone