/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5396786]

> guy mentions Geocentrism
> punch it into google to make sure I was thinking of the right thing before I make an ass of myself
> I was

. . .
> find a bunch of websites supporting it as a standing theory in modern times
http://geocentrism.com/

[Anonymous No.5396802]

Google Time Cube

[Anonymous No.5396809]

http://www.timecube com/

what
the
fuck

[Anonymous No.5396828]

>>5396786
with enough epicycles the universe revolves around anything.

[Anonymous No.5396947]

Galileo must be spinning in his grave.

[Anonymous No.5396960]

This is what happens when dumb people get the basic idea of thinking for themselves without properly understanding critical thinking.

[Anonymous No.5396962]

>>5396960
Not timecube, that's just what happens when schizophrenic people make websites

[Anonymous No.5396969]

Well, according to Einstein, all moving coordinates are equal, but Earth is spinning.

[Anonymous No.5397026]

>>5396786
That website has white text with transparent backing against a complex image, theory disproven. Anyone that actually allowed that abomination of a website online is obviously wrong about everything ever.

>>5396947
Naa he is actually stationary while the entire universe spins around him.

[Anonymous No.5397122]

>>5396786
One of the most important findings in physics is that there is no special reference frame. Physicists do that all the time: Switch reference frames to make calculations easier. In fact we do not say that the "earth revolves around the sun": It's just something humans do because we like to order things according to their sizes.

If you like to calculate everything with the earth as a fixed reference frame, go ahead, it will just get a shitton more difficult, confusing and you will not find any new scientific (or even philisophical) insights from doing so.

[Anonymous No.5397161]

>>5396809
http://www.timecube.com/timecube2.html
I bestow upon myself the "Doctorate of
Cubicism", for educators are ignorant of
Nature's Harmonic Time Cube Principle
and cannot bestow the prestigious honor
of wisdom upon the wisest human ever.
Dr. Gene Ray

[Anonymous No.5397166]

>>5397122
To expand on that i might suggest the hollow world theory:

The idea that the world we know is actually the inside of a sphere, with the surface of the earth being the inner surface of the sphere. Space gets infintely dense in the middle of the sphere, and expands infinitely towards the outside. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth#Concave_hollow_Earths
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innenweltkosmos

The thing is, it does physically work, but it's just a useless complication that doesn't prudce any interesting results.

[Anonymous No.5397170]

>>5397166
>it does physically work
There's a coordinate singularity at r=0

[Anonymous No.5397177]

>>5397170

[Anonymous No.5397201]

>>5397170
>implying coordinate singularities are physically meaningful
>implying the singularity can't be removed with diffeomorphisms

[Anonymous No.5397217]

>>5397122
>If you like to calculate everything with the earth as a fixed reference frame, go ahead, it will just get a shitton more difficult, confusing and you will not find any new scientific (or even philisophical) insights from doing so.

Completely not true. Essentially all the work done with space travel and rocket science is based on a fixed-earth reference frame (at most it'll be rotating).

[Anonymous No.5397227]

>>5397217
So? I said
>"calculate everything"
sure there are some applications where it is smart to do so, but not for _everything_. Just as it isn't smart to use the sun as a fixed reference frame for _everything_.

[Anonymous No.5397236]

>>5397217
>compares an applied science which NEEDS A coordinate chart to theoretical work in physics
>implies rocket sciences even use GR
comedy gold!!!

[Anonymous No.5397239]

>>5397170
Many perfectly acceptable and widely used coordinate systems have singularities.

[Anonymous No.5397247]

>>5397227
You also said
>it will just get a shitton more difficult, confusing and you will not find any new scientific etc


>>5397236
>compares an applied science which NEEDS A coordinate chart to theoretical work in physics
>implies rocket sciences even use GR

Reference frames aren't only used in relativistic work, theoretical work doesn't use non-arbitrary frames so the question isn't applicable in non-applied sciences.

[Anonymous No.5397257]

>>5397236
It's time to stop posting.

[Anonymous No.5397255]

>>5397236
>Thinks that reference frames don't matter if you're not using general relativity
>Thinks that Galilean reference frames aren't important to rocket science
>is in highschool

God this fucking board sometimes.

[Anonymous No.5397262]

>>5397247
>Reference frames aren't only used in relativistic work
That's obvious, but you don't necessarily have general covariance in non-relativistic work, that's the point I believe the poster was trying to make.

[Anonymous No.5397265]

>>5397255
I miss the old days. It was never perfect, but we used to be able to have legitimate conversations without constantly fending off shitposts from highschoolers who OMG CAUGHT THE TEACHER IN A TOTAL MISTAKE!!!!

But the popularity of reddity science and that "Fuck yeah science!" facebook page and the big bang theory ruined all of that. Ah well.

[Anonymous No.5397272]

>>5397255
Galilean invariance doesn't guarantee general covariance, LOL

You can't always write M/Diff(E) where M has the galilean group as the isometry group

[Anonymous No.5397277]

>>5397262
How on earth do you think that's a sensible interpretation of what he says? Aside from it not being what he meant, if he HAD actually said that then...
yeah. I agree. What's the point? It's just a specious comment, it's pointing out something barely related and obvious.

>>5397265
Definitely. Losing the putnam sticky was also a giant mistake.

[Anonymous No.5397280]

>>5397272
...okay? What's your point?
Not the guy you're responding to btw

[Anonymous No.5397283]

>>5397272
To elaborate: you do not a priori have such a requirement in non-relativistic physics (or even SR, as it was originally formulated by Einstein). You can always add classical fields which break the symmetry. Ex some vector field with potential <span class="math">(V_\alpha V^\alpha - v^2)^2[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.5397292]

>>5397280
Well, from my understanding, the poster here: >>5397122 >>5397166 was claiming a special feature of general relativity and field theories with a GR solution satisfied: general covariance. As the poster remarked, all reference frames (infinitely many) are isomorphic. The real important quantities are the Lorentz scalars. You don't get this explicitly in any non-relativistic physics.

[Anonymous No.5397296]

>>5397292
>with a GR solution satisfied
should be
>with a GR solution satisfied as the background

[Anonymous No.5397355]

>yfw the flat earth society still exists

[Anonymous No.5397377]

>>5397277
>How on earth do you think that's a sensible interpretation of what he says?
Because standard non-relativistic physics has absolute time? That's a preferred frame. lol. In SR you can explicitly add fields and get a preferred frame too. But if you derive all of your assumptions from the critical points of the action of the Poincare group x some Lie groups, (GR and QFT), you're guaranteed to get general covariance (coordinate-independence)