[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 88 KB, 327x312, 133842313564-avgn.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843020 No.4843020[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>watching Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader
>1st grade astronomy
>True or False?: In one year, the moon makes one complete circle around the sun
>idiot country music singer: That's true!
>idiot redneck comedian: You are absolutely right!
>mfw

>> No.4843031

Wait, are you implying it ISN'T true?

>> No.4843034

1/10

>> No.4843035 [DELETED] 
File: 22 KB, 337x360, RainbowDash4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843035

>>4843031

>> No.4843036
File: 43 KB, 1034x776, fuuckyou.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843036

it is true: earth goes round the sun in 1 year, the moon goes with it.

both orbit the sun in 1 year.

>> No.4843037

>>4843036
Put your trip back on, EK.

>> No.4843042

>>4843036
See:

>complete circle

>> No.4843043
File: 6 KB, 251x220, wutt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843043

>>4843037

>> No.4843044

>>4843036
EK, please come back to the tripfag general thread. You never responded to my question.

>> No.4843046

I suppose the Moon DOES go around the Sun in one year. But it's still a deceitful question.

>> No.4843047

>>4843042
meh, not taken literally.
no orbit is actually 'circular'

all are eliptical.

>> No.4843050
File: 577 KB, 150x136, th_avgn.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843050

AVGN thread

BUCKETS OF BLOODY DONKEY DIARRHEA

>> No.4843051

>implying that's not true

what is this i don't even

>> No.4843056
File: 254 KB, 398x360, 13645647.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843056

>>4843044
tsch, fine
which question?

>> No.4843057

>circle
no
Orbit?
Yes.

>> No.4843058

>>4843046
>But it's still a deceitful question.

How so?

>> No.4843066
File: 6 KB, 252x256, ShitPickle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843066

>>4843050
Shitpickle

>> No.4843062

>>4843056
see
>>4842629

>> No.4843063

>>4843057

It's very nearly a circle, aspie.

>> No.4843071

>>4843063

it's not even close to being a circle you fucking retard

>> No.4843072

>>4843063
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_orbit

No, not at all. Are eggs balls? No. You're retarded.

>> No.4843077

>>4843066
shitpickleshitpickleshitpickle

>> No.4843076
File: 7 KB, 488x382, moon_orbit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843076

>>4843062
ah. nope.

>>4843058
just because they say 'circle' when it should look like this?
<<<

>> No.4843079

>>4843062
Please respond.

>> No.4843084

>>4843072
earths orbit =/= moons orbit, and neither are 'circular' anyway, not even close.

>> No.4843085

>>4843072
>>4843071

Um, yes it is.

>> No.4843088

>>4843063
It orbits the earth orbiting the sun how the fuck can it even closely resemble a fucking circle dick nose.

>> No.4843090

Perhaps the irregularities of the moon's trajectory due to epicycles are smaller than the difference from a circle due to the elliptical shape of the Earth's orbit. But who gives a fuck.

>> No.4843091
File: 15 KB, 900x900, moon_s-shaped_orbit.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843091

1) The center of the Earth-Sun or Moon-Sun system isn't the Sun, so the Moon couldn't "circle the sun" to begin with.
2) The orbit of the Earth isn't circular
3) The period of the Moon around the Earth doesn't divide evenly into the period of the Earth, so the Moon isn't even in the same place after one year.
4) Because the Moon circles the earth while it's circling the Sun, it's orbit is all wavy. Pic related.

>> No.4843101

>>4843095
Your tulpa doesn't count as gf.

>> No.4843095

>>4843072
My gf says my balls are shaped like eggs.

>> No.4843099

>circle answer on test
>is ellipse
>get it wrong?

Hmmm....

>> No.4843102
File: 1 KB, 300x300, square.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843102

>> No.4843104

>>4843076
>when it should look like this?

But it doesn't look like that at all. It looks very slightly wavy circle.

>> No.4843106

>>4843076

this is also an extremely inaccurate depiction, even when taking into account that it's just a sketch made on the spot.

>> No.4843110

>>4843091
>The period of the Moon around the Earth doesn't divide evenly into the period of the Earth, so the Moon isn't even in the same place after one year.

pretty close though
13 lunar months, = 13*28 = 364 days

only 1 day out (2 on a leap year)

>> No.4843113

>>4843104
i guess it depends on which plane the moon orbits the earth, relative to the plane in which the earth orbits the sun.

it's apparently out by about 5 degrees.

>> No.4843121

>>4843110
Circle doesn't necessarily mean an object with all points an equal distance from the center.

You can circle something without ending in the same spot, or without being perfectly circular.

Making a circle can mean circling something.

>> No.4843127
File: 90 KB, 598x450, absolutely autistic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843127

>>4843020

If you're not autistic, you should understand what they're asking in this question.

Also,
>watching are you smarter than a 5th grader

time to kill yourself, OP.

>> No.4843129

>>4843121
different words
as a noun: 'circle' it specifically means a 2d regular shape wit ha constant radius.

as a verb: 'circling', yes, it just means to go around something.

>circling the block a few times
etc

>> No.4843130

>>4843121

euclidean geometry not liberal arts please

>> No.4843132

>>4843088
>It orbits the earth orbiting the sun how the fuck can it even closely resemble a fucking circle dick nose.

Because the radius of the moon's orbit around the Earth is about 1/400th of the radius of the Earth's orbit around the sun and thus when added together the net movement is barely distinguishable from a circle.

>> No.4843134
File: 1.00 MB, 480x360, b0044043_47bba197ea534.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843134

>>4843121
>Circle doesn't necessarily mean an object with all points an equal distance from the center.

No, that's pretty much exactly what "circle" means.

>> No.4843135

>>4843121
Also, given the difference in distance between where it was one year ago, and now, is statistically nothing when our radius on our ellipse is roughly 93 million miles. I think it can practically be called making a circle.

>> No.4843142

>>4843129
A circle is not 2d.

>> No.4843143

>>4843134
As a noun, yes, but to a 1st grader?

So, when you play ring around the rosie, you aren't circling a center point? Hula-hoops aren't circular if they are out by .00001%?

>> No.4843139

To the extent that you can call the Earth's orbit a "circle", you can say the same about the moon's path over the course of a year.

>> No.4843144

>>4843113
>i guess it depends on which plane the moon orbits the earth

No it doesn't. That drawing is extremely wrong no matter what.

>> No.4843145

This is a stupid argument. The answer is obviously supposed to be that it does circle the sun, even though it isn't a "perfect circle". They are clearly trying to trick people into saying "Of course not, it circles the earth!" rather than trying to see how autistic they are about orbits not being perfectly circular.

>> No.4843151

>>4843091

And yet, despite all of those things, it is still very very close to a circle.

That drawing is extremely exaggerated, btw. The moon's orbital radius is only about 1/400th of the Earth's. In that drawing it's like 1/10th.

>> No.4843148
File: 127 KB, 401x354, 1310039258589.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843148

>>4843142

>> No.4843149

>>4843134
I mean, technically, the earth isn't a sphere, but it's more spherical than a cue ball used in billiards.

>> No.4843154

>>4843149
is that a new cue ball or an old one that's been banged around

>> No.4843161

>>4843149
is it?
even with lumpy bits like mount everest and the grand canyon, scaled down, earth is still smoother?
you sure? billiard balls are pretty smooth, and isnt the earth a lot fatter round the middle, rather than spherical, so like a fat squashed orange?

>> No.4843167

>>4843161

Yes.

>> No.4843162
File: 22 KB, 400x400, but that's wrong.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843162

>>4843149
>more spherical than a cue ball used in billiards.

Methinks you should've paid more than five bucks for your set of billiard balls

>> No.4843163

>>4843148
It's true. You're just gonna embarrass yourself again.

>> No.4843174

>>4843162
Oh really?
See:>>4843170

>> No.4843170

>>4843154
http://possiblywrong.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/is-the-earth-like-a-billiard-ball-or-not/

>> No.4843175

>>4843163
A circle can't be embedded in 1d real space, so learn to adapt to english instead of being anal whenever people don't use proper mathematical terms in a non-mathematical argument.

>> No.4843177

>>4843163
orly?
what is it then
1D?
3D?

>> No.4843183

>>4843175
>>4843177
Quit feeding the trolls.

>> No.4843188

The crux of OP's argument is that 'making a circle' is a verb, not a noun.

Yes, it makes a circle because it circles.

As someone else pointed out, circling the block is the same as making a circle around the block, as it parses the same. The meaning is then a connotation, not a denotation.

>> No.4843192

>>4843177
A circle is a one dimensional manifold.

>>4843183
If you think I'm trolling, then you haven't taken a university math course yet.

>> No.4843199

>>4843188

That's true, but it's also very close to being a geometric circle. I'm pretty sure OP thinks it looks like this: >>4843076

>> No.4843202

>>4843192
<span class="math">S^1[/spoiler] is a one dimensional manifold. <span class="math">D^2[/spoiler] is a two dimensional manifold. Both are referred to as a circle in English. Again, learn to adapt when not actually speaking about math instead of going full autist.

>> No.4843203

>>4843192
well, a circle has no depth, so its not 3D, but it DOES have length and width; you'd have to draw it as a 2D shape, on paper, or on a tv/computer screen.

and i get that its really just a line, and a line is 1D, and its a 'one dimensional manifold.' or w/e

but w/e, for all intensive purposes its probably 2d.

>> No.4843204

>>4843175
It can locally be embedded in 1d space. Can't you into manifolds, retard?

>> No.4843213

>>4843202
D^2 is called "disc" and not "circle". Learn your language, moron.

>>4843203
Do you know what a manifold is and how to determine its dimension? If you don't know, then stop arguing about things you don't understand. You're gonna embarrass yourself like when you displayed your ignorance regarding limits.

>> No.4843214

>>4843209
might have been trolling though....

>> No.4843209

I love it when people post angry stories about how stupid other people are, when it turns out the other people were actually right.

>> No.4843210

>>4843204
>locally
Yes, it can be *locally* embedded, but it cannot be embedded. Now stop embarrassing yourself.

>> No.4843211

>>4843192

that was an underwhelming and disappointing attempt at being clever.

>> No.4843216

>>4843210
How retarded are you? A manifold only needs to be LOCALLY isomorphic to euclidean space.

>> No.4843217

>>4843213
>Both are referred to as a circle in English.
>in English
not
>in mathematics

>> No.4843221
File: 11 KB, 406x352, 56783393.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843221

>>4843213
heheh, AGAIN with the fucking limits...
and no, i dont know what a 'manifold' is, but i aint arguing with ya, hun. i'll take your word for it, a circle is 1 dimensional. fine.

[sarcasm] this changes my life so much! this information is vital! [/sarcasm]

>> No.4843226

>>4843209
Me too.

How does that relate to this thread?

>> No.4843224

>>4843217
Not even in English. You're dumb if you use these words as synonyms. Because they are not.

>> No.4843225

>>4843216
I don't think you even know what this argument is about.

>> No.4843228

>>4843221
Good. Now stop spouting garbage. If you're neither educated nor interested in mathematics, don't post about.

>> No.4843231

>>4843225
I do know. It's you who doesn't understand it. Fucking summerfags.

>> No.4843234

>>4843228
Bring up the Mathematics section of the stickied link.
Click on Mathreference.
Search 'Circles'
Learn that you don't know fucking high-school math.
Deal with it

>> No.4843238

>>4843224
Go do a survey. Draw a filled in circle, and ask your non-mathematician friends what shape it is. The results may surprise you.

>/sci/ - people who have taken a few classes in their major arguing about pointless things because they want to show off.

Seriously, you're an embarrassment to mathematicians. Try being less autistic and more like a normal person sometimes.

>> No.4843240

>>4843228
ahahah, dont be so fucking anal, this thread had barely anything to do with mathematics until people started to get so aspie about what 'circle' meant

OP said it was on 'are you smarter than a 5th grader' or something like that, so obviously they aint gonna get so technical on shit like this.

and actually, i AM interested in mathematics, i just dont study it officially.
just as a hobby.

>> No.4843246

>>4843234
I'm sorry to hear that highschool math is your highest level of education.

>>4843240
Then you should start by learning limits.

>> No.4843250
File: 78 KB, 600x900, 1338892423616.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843250

>moon goes around earth
>earth goes around sun
>moon goes around sun therefore

>> No.4843251

>>4843238
Well faggot, /sci/ isn't the colloquial language board, it's the science and math board. So we use mathematical terms here, especially when talking about math.

>> No.4843253

>>4843251
>orbits
>are math
No. Orbits are explained by math.

>>4843246
No, but it is apparently higher than yours.

>> No.4843254

>>4843246
>Then you should start by learning limits.
heheheh.
i will at some point, im still quite busy though.

>> No.4843258
File: 103 KB, 572x570, 1271049218338.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843258

>>4843254
our face when anon doesn't know his limit.

>> No.4843262

>>4843246
Also, what does first-grade physics have to do with college level math?

>> No.4843263

>>4843251
I'm glad you finally realized what we were arguing about the whole time, but now I'm too bored to continue at this point.

>> No.4843259

>>4843253
Then why don't you know what a circle is?

>> No.4843269

>>4843259
Because, as you clearly can't tell, it's not about circles, it's about circling. You are using the wrong definition of the word.

For a college-level math student, you sure don't know how to use a dictionary, or to use definitions.

>> No.4843270

>>4843240
>this thread had barely anything to do with mathematics until people started to get so aspie about what 'circle' meant

That was the entire point of this thread...

>> No.4843271

>>4843262
If you had anything that remotely resembles reading comprehension, you would have noticed that I'm not talking about OP's problem and that the only reason I joined the thread was to correct an idiot who said circles were 2d.

>> No.4843275

>>4843271
Circles are two-dimensional. A one-dimensional circle is a line, I guess, since it doesn't exist. So, the radius is along the line, and where's the circle? If the circle is our orbit, it exists in our space, our Euclidian space.

>> No.4843278

>>4843269
Are you retarded? Your petty semantics of colloquial language don't belong here. It doesn't make you look clever and it has nothing to do with science or math.

>> No.4843281

>>4843278
>circles
>circling
>is colloquial

Please, tell me what's colloquial about it?

>> No.4843282

>>4843275
Holy shit, you really know neither what a manifold nor what a dimension is. Please stop posting and take a math course.

>> No.4843287

>>4843282
So, the earth's orbit is a manifold? Please continue, I really wanna archive this answer.

>> No.4843290

>>4843281
Oh wow, now you don't even know what "colloquial" means. It's getting better and better.

>> No.4843294

>>4843287
We're not talking about the earth's orbit. Your reading comprehension is sub-par.

>> No.4843296

>>4843290
You were the one claiming it means something out of ordinary speech, something technical, not just meaning 'to go around.' It was colloquial in OP's post, and you said to quit arguing about it.

You're right, better and better.

>> No.4843299

>>4843296
OH GOD MY SIDES

Your retardation is unlimited.

>> No.4843303

>>4843299
Then I look forward to your explanation of the earth's orbit as a manifold. Please, enlighten me.

>> No.4843311

>>4843303
It's amazing. You outperform EK in stupidity.

>> No.4843313
File: 39 KB, 1329x651, orbit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4843313

>> No.4843318

>>4843311
Is that an 'I give up' or an 'I'm about to post the thing that explains what I am talking about' reply?

Or maybe, just maybe, you can't post it because you are wrong. I await the proper explanation, since you understand it so clearly. As Feynman said, to understand something is to be able to explain it simply.

Still waiting...

>> No.4843324

Hey guise, how's the manifold treating you today?

>> No.4843330

>dozens of people talking about manifolds as if they were in any way necessary or relevant to this conversation

Congrats everyone, you've made yourself look smart on the internet by using big words. You're still losers, though.

>> No.4843332

2

>> No.4843335

4

>> No.4843343

BRB, gonna ride the orbital manifold.

1

>> No.4843339

3

>> No.4843340

>>4843318
>>4843324
Thanks for the good laughs, kid. Looking at you failing to comprehend simple undergrad math is way more amusing than explaining it to you. Anyways I gotta do better things to do now. Enjoy your mental deficiencies.

>> No.4843346

>>4843340
Ahh, must be an engineer.

Thinks 1st grade physics is undergrad math.