Posted on 03/29/2011 8:58:33 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
| Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar · | ||
Actually, it does rotate around the sun; it rotates as it orbits the sun.
I don't, actually. Any physicist knows that this depends upon your frame of reference, and you can take the earth as the fixed point in your coordinate system and describe the sun as revolving around the earth. Indeed, as another poster pointed out, if you take a rotating point on the earth's surface, the sun rotates around that every 24hrs.
But yeah, since I doubt that the 20% are schooled in the theory of relativity, one does have to wonder.
Not unless the Empire State Building was either 1) within you, or 2) within your arc of motion. If you rotated in place, you did not complete your motion around the Empire State Building, and your ten rotations would be merely a partial count of your rotations around the building...in this case, possibly never completed.
Applying the first interpretation to the original question would yield a "hollow Earth" answer. Applying the second interpretation, would yield the 24 hour answer. Applying your interpretation would require changing the question.
Your example is flawed. If it one side was always facing the sun, then it would revolve once per orbit.
One side of the Earth is not always facing the Sun.
The orbit of the Earth around the Sun is an independent quantity from the rotational spin of the Earth.
By spinning every 24 hours, the Earth does not rotate AROUND the Sun, it rotates part of itself into and then out of the Sun LIGHT.
It looks to me like the Discovery article tried to misrepresent the situation. The chart you posted from the original blog post showed a mean average for dims, independents, and pubbys of 70.87%, 70.06%, and 74.80%, respectively. Thus, the pubbies outstrip the dims by 3.93 percentage points, and the independents by 4.74 percentage points.
Excluding the question on evolution, which seems extremely simplistic and biased to me, the pubbies beat the dims by 5.04 percentage points, and the independents by 5.51 percentage points.
Now, I’m not about to do an analysis of variance at this time of night—or at this time of life—but I’m betting those numbers are statistically significant.
“For your reference a theory is developed from repeated observations”
Where has evolution been observed? We look at these fossils and those fossils, and take a SWAG that they are linked by evolution.
“testing”
Where has evolution been tested?
“applied laws”
What are the applied laws of the theory of evolution?
“accurate predictions and tested hypotheses”
A scientist looking at a fossil of an eohippus and a modern horse might predict intermediate stages. Fossils that appear to lie between the two might be found, but does that really demonstrate that the one evolved from the other? How is that hypothesis to be tested? Even if we accept that the fossil record shows change over time, where is the evidence that this change was caused by successful—and accidental—mutations?
Evolution is one explanation for what we see in the fossil record, but an assertion that it is accidental and random is nothing more scientific than a convenient assumption.
*****
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.
*****
That said, I would add, 'theory' doesn't mean 'infallible.' In fact, the cover of the April 2011 Scientific American says, "Quantum Gaps in Big Bang Theory. Why our best explanation of how the universe evolved must be fixed - or replaced." The story inside leads, "The Inflation Debate. Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology flawed?"
I have just received the magazine and have not yet read the article. I am assuming this article in not a sophisticated April Fool's joke.
-——To them, theory is a ‘weak’ or ‘inferior’ word. -——
They not only don’t understand science or the concept of theory, they shun education and the possibility of enlightenment. The concept of enlightenment is frightening because it requires thought. Thought requires effort. ,
For some real fun and learning, let’s add Moon facts into this now!
Yeah, then they would REALLY be confused!!!
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.
