On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 7:18:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/14/2019 5:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:34:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/14/2019 4:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> Newton is considered superior, not just because his theory was more >>> accurate, but because it had a universal application. The greatest >>> importance of Newton was that he broke the idea that the heavens went by >>> different rules than the Earth. So "truth" per se is not the distinction. >>> As Bill can tell you astronomers have no problem with regarding the Earth >>> as stationary and the Sun going around it. But they use Newton's equations >>> to determine how it goes. It's convenience...not truth. >>> >> >> Bill's failing, as I recall, was the belief and insistence that he's >> always right. No astronomer of sound mind would regard the Earth as >> stationary and the Sun going around it. AG >> >> >> Not at all. They do it all the time, because when it comes to aiming >> your telescope you do it relative to the Earth, not the Sun. >> >> Brent >> > > I was thinking of calculating the orbit of a planet. For stars apparently > fixed on the celestial sphere, Earth centered calculations are convenient. > AG > > > Which is the point. There is no "true" center of the solar system, there > are just more and less convenient coordinate systems in which to calculate > things. So you need to ask yourself what do you mean when you say it is > more true that the Sun is the center of the solar system and the Earth > orbits the Sun than the other way around? If you're honest you will > conclude that you mean it is easier to make good estimates of the future in > that coordinate system. Why is Einstein's gravity "truer" than Newton's. > Why is the quantum atom better than the Bohr atom? Why is Darwinian theory > better than Lamarckian. The reason one scientific theory is better than > another is three dimensional: > > 1. It gives more accurate predictions where the theories overlap and no > emprically false ones. > 2. It has a wider domain of application. It applies in more places or > over a bigger range of parameters. > 3. It is consilient with our other best theories. So it reduces the > number of different things we must understand as independent. > > A theory that is better on all three dimensions, we regard as truer. Not > the other way around: It is not the case that we judge it better because > it's truer, because we don't, and can't, know where the truth is. > > Brent >
So when we see ~200 billion stars rotating around the galactic enter, it's equally true that each star can be regarded as the center, with everything rotating about itself. This is a form of relativity, let's call it the relativity of truth, that find obscures the value of evolving models in better describing the external world. AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b63e9383-3b79-49ee-baff-8db1f7baf3fd%40googlegroups.com.
