Posted on 03/29/2011 8:58:33 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
Wow, the sun is really tiny! And so close to earth! Or maybe the earth is suffering from inflation in post #29.
These are the kind of diagrams that drive science teachers crazy.
Actually a very telling survey ...
although one simply needed to review that latest MSM report on radiation, to view some of the very worst scientific reporting ever presented.
The report distinctly demonstrates the lack of critical thinking training and the rigors of the scientific discipline. Those pursuing arts verses those who pursue the sciences often diverge in the arena of critical thinking and appropriate empathy.
Again this is a failure of the educational system, the result of the destruction of the family, and the loss of Godly virtues in the lives of our people.
So do conservatives have trouble with the atomic theory, quantum theory, the theory of relativity, the theory of gravitation, cell theory?
Most people think "theory" is a weak word. In science, it is a strong word. Hypothesis is the weak word.
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
Wonderful thread - glad they didn’t ask if the earth is round like a beach ball.
(Because as all good conservatives know, it’s actually an oblate spheroid).
Not a spherical oblatoid? Or just “oblatoid”?
I would argue that the north pole is below a sheet of ice.
The idea that a political party, especially the Stupid Party, "understands" science is absurd.
As a scientist, I could no more dismiss the theory of evolution than I could discount atomic or gravitational theory. Understanding it is pretty basic and intrinsic to my ability to function as a scientist.
For the proper definition of "theory", look to post #43, where Right Wing Assault provides an accurate definition of what "theory" means to a scientist.
The only thing I can call scientific "fact" would be the raw uninterpreted data from an experiment.
Depends on which planet you're talking about.
My senator is a reincarnated snake. I believe that 100%.
No, the little ball called Earth does not rotate all the way around the big ball called the Sun 365 times a year, it spins around its own axis 365 times as it completes ONE SINGLE ROTATION around the Sun.
0.5 kilometers/second is how fast the Earth is spinning around on its own axis. This is immaterial to the fact that it is ALSO spinning in orbit around the Sun. In 24 hours it completes a rotation of the Earth's circumference - some 40,000 kilometers.
The Earth orbits around the Sun at 30 kilometers/second, and in 365 days it travels 942,000,000 kilometers to complete its yearly orbit.
The Earth is not traveling fast enough to travel that 942,000,000 kilometers in just 24 hours.
Yes, that is why I posted the next picture with the actual proportional size.
I just cannot believe someone thinks we make a rotation around the Sun every 24 hours!
>> [The Earth] completes ONE SINGLE ROTATION around the Sun.
One and only one rotation around the Sun?
>> But the little ball doesn’t go around the big ball every 24 hours, it just spins.
Are you saying “go” and “rotate” are geometrically equivalent?
If I was in the center of a 1 mile track shining a big light on you as your ran around the track. You, standing where you are and going from facing the light, to facing away from the light, back to facing the light - is not in any way shape or form you making a rotation around ME! You did not just complete a one mile rotation around me by turning in a circle where you stand.
Because you seem to be having trouble with this simple concept, I will illustrate another way.
If you were floating on the path of the orbit of Venus directly facing the Earth with the Sun at your back, and you were looking directly at Florida on Earth - in 24 hours you would observe the Earth moving a little out of your direct field as it completed 1/364th of its orbit around the Sun, meanwhile within that 24 hours you would see Florida moving behind the Earth where you couldn't see it back to facing directly at the Sun.
The Earth would NOT, within 24 hours, move completely out of your filed of view, sweep around the other side of the Sun, and then come back to where you could see it.
The Earth is not traveling nearly that fast.
I agree.
I'm not doing a commentary on the "theory of evolution." What I am pointing out is merely that when people say, "Evolution is ONLY a theory," they are implying that "theory" is a hunch, speculation, educated guess, hypothesis, etc. To them, theory is a "weak" or "inferior" word.
If a person said something like, "Relativity is ONLY a theory," they would be trivializing and/or dismissing some very well-documented, repeatable relativity experiments. In fact, Einstein himself told other scientists how to use an eclipse of the sun to verify his relativity prediction that gravitational fields can bend light beams. When they tried it, it agreed nicely with what Einstein predicted.
As my earlier post implied, most people do not know what "scientific theory" means or, at least, they are not always careful to use it correctly. That is my only reason for posting it.
Is the Earth’s movement around the Sun still a rotation if the path is elliptical?
It’s more concise, in my opinion, to say the Earth orbits the Sun, and makes one full rotation about its axis every 24 hours, approximately 365 times a year (while “going” around the Sun).
You could make the argument the Earth rotates around the Sun where the center of rotation is located in the center of the Sun, but you need to take into account the radius is non-constant. For this reason alone, I wouldn’t consider the path to be a rotation although the movement has properties similar to rotation with displaced center — in others words, an orbit.
We wouldn’t be having this discussion if the question in question used the term “revolve” instead of “rotate” where “revolve” has broader, less geometrically specific meaning in my opinion.
Someone did not, by spinning like a top, make a rotation around the complete distance of the track and thus make a rotation around me, by spinning where they stand.
That is like me standing in front of the Empire State Building, spinning around ten times - and saying I completed a rotation around the Empire State Building ten times.
I didn't go around the Empire State even ONCE in that time - I just spun where I was standing.
If the Earth was not rotating around its axis AT ALL, with one side always facing the Sun and one side always facing away - it would still take some 365 twenty four hour periods to complete an orbit around the Sun.
How long it takes the Earth to orbit the Sun (365 days) is going to be the same no matter how fast or slow the Earth completes a rotation around its own axis.
How long the Earth takes to complete an orbit around the Sun is a function of how long the elliptical pathway is and how fast it is traveling around the Sun.
How long the Earth takes to complete a rotation around its own axis is a function of the circumference of the Earth and how fast the Earth is spinning.
They are two independent quantities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.