The Sun revolves the Earth!

[Ouroboros]

What about education is credible?



The enumerable amount of harmful technologies we use to fulfil our desires whilst we create a barren Earth for our children to inherit?


The list of discoveries which educators egotistically proclaim to be because of their taught-intelligences?


The educated who refer to academia to stalemate debates and destroy discussions; who're are ignorant of the arguments and contradictions of others, based not on their own science, but on the science of prior men and women in educational fields?

You? (lol)



Education is leading children to a barren Earth and self-extinction. The educated don't know, or have educated-faith in a barren Earth, with the usual chants of “I don't care” or “It's going to die anyway”- education leads to unintelligent behaviour.


That which is in the list of discoveries of the educated could be discovered by ancient Egyptians, had they been through an industrial and modern era. Human intelligence has not evolved, it has de-evolved to an egotistical stupor. An stupor where people believe that they are made intelligent by education, rather than nature- the ancient Egyptians were smarter than the top scientists of Today.


I haven't heard one argument against the Sun and Earth revolving each other, only hypothetical 'loud sighs', so I'm assured I'm being ignored, and references to academic-law or prior discovery, which I've claimed to be logically unsound- education is falsity.


Look at yourselves! Or not... Or just continue losing yourselves in the variant encores of one another; laughing, farting, clapping- I don't care, education neither makes people intelligent, nor is worthy of credibility. It's a hoax, and since no-one has contradicted the original post, or the arguments I've made in this thread, I'm- without being like the educated- making this proclamation loud and clear.

If education would lose its credibility, we'd be more intelligent; but people wouldn't get jobs, or respect the law; cowards wouldn't have power delegated to them by a communication method, academic-law and the law. Nature would take it's course without the consistent whining from the weak, with natural selection in full control- we'd evolve- and children would not suffer because of our educated-slumber.

Let me guess?

A joke?

Ignorance??

A reference to academia???

Educated-intelligence is nil. The opposed argument is my proof.

So I was right. Bad trip on shrooms.

 

[s13ep]

So I was right. Bad trip on shrooms.

A fart, a clap and a giggle. Well done *ticks comment*.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

No one has contradicted the original argument.

Education should lose it's credibility.

The Sun and Earth revolve each other.

End of the story so far...

Yes they have. And if you aren't satisfied with what people have said so far, okay, I'll respond to each or your original points in your OP. Not in your second post in this thread, because that one is unadulterated nonsense.

So, You said:

Contrary to popular and academic belief, the Sun revolves the Earth, as well as, the Earth revolving the Sun.

The Sun is percieved in the day revolving the Earth; this Earthly sight is as significant as, the spatial sight of the Earth revolving the Sun.

It can be compared to a dream-state where the state of mind is perceived. Contrary to popular and academic belief that the dream is chemical reactions, alone.

It cannot be proven via word communication, but can be agreed upon via wise sense.

This would also mean that all academia is false.

1) It is not contrary to academic belief that the sun and earth revolve in a system around a central point: the sun travels in a small ellipse, the earth in a much larger ellipse that is always millions of miles away from the sun.

2)The perception of the sun appearing to cross the sky, going "around" the earth is an illusion. It is significant only in that we can't see the entire system at one time. It was therefore natural that humans would think the sun moved across a stationary earth, until the measurements of the system were made in great enough detail to show that sun orbits very close to the center of the solar system, while the earth orbits much farther out than the sun. The earth's path forms an ellipse around the sun with an average distance of about 92 million miles.

3) The comparison of the sensory perception of a natural phenomenon (the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun, with the resultant apparent movement of the sun "across" the sky and "around" the earth) to the perception of a dream-state is erroneous.

The fact that we can detect electrical, chemical and other physiological activity in the body that corresponds in time to dreams does not say anything at all about the experience of a dream-state. Some hypothesize that dreams--and in fact all of our experiences--are simply electrical and chemical changes in our brains; others disagree. But the detection of dreams through these methods does not have anything to do with the perception and measurement of the earth, moon, sun and other planets.

4) Of course you can't prove it via "word communication," because what you're asserting is nonsense. You have asserted some standard of evidence that you have termed "wise sense" that has no meaning to anyone else here.

5) Your conclusion that all academia is false does not follow from the propositions you have asserted above.

 

[Riverwolf]

...but can be agreed upon via wise sense.

What do you mean by "wise sense"?

 

[s13ep]

Yes they have. And if you aren't satisfied with what people have said so far, okay, I'll respond to each or your original points in your OP. Not in your second post in this thread, because that one is unadulterated nonsense.

So, You said:

1) It is not contrary to academic belief that the sun and earth revolve in a system around a central point: the sun travels in a small ellipse, the earth in a much larger ellipse that is always millions of miles away from the sun.

2)The perception of the sun appearing to cross the sky, going "around" the earth is an illusion. It is significant only in that we can't see the entire system at one time. It was therefore natural that humans would think the sun moved across a stationary earth, until the measurements of the system were made in great enough detail to show that sun orbits very close to the center of the solar system, while the earth orbits much farther out than the sun. The earth's path forms an ellipse around the sun with an average distance of about 92 million miles.

3) The comparison of the sensory perception of a natural phenomenon (the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun, with the resultant apparent movement of the sun "across" the sky and "around" the earth) to the perception of a dream-state is erroneous.

The fact that we can detect electrical, chemical and other physiological activity in the body that corresponds in time to dreams does not say anything at all about the experience of a dream-state. Some hypothesize that dreams--and in fact all of our experiences--are simply electrical and chemical changes in our brains; others disagree. But the detection of dreams through these methods does not have anything to do with the perception and measurement of the earth, moon, sun and other planets.

4) Of course you can't prove it via "word communication," because what you're asserting is nonsense. You have asserted some standard of evidence that you have termed "wise sense" that has no meaning to anyone else here.

5) Your conclusion that all academia is false does not follow from the propositions you have asserted above.

That's not a contradiction of "it's as significant as the Earth's revolution".

You say the perceived is an illusion- I say it's the perceived- and it's as significant. Where is your contradiction?

The rest of your beliefs are academic-nonsense.

Try again, maybe without the hum of academic-love this time...

 

[s13ep]

What do you mean by "wise sense"?

Sense that comes through knowledge, experience and having good judgement of what you have acknowledged and experienced, as well as good judgement in general.

I'm referring to wordless knowledge, not statements.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Getting benefit of how the solar system works has nothing to do with reality, /QUOTE]
Sorry, I don't think I understand what you're trying to say here. It sounds like you're saying that to be real, something has to materially benefit humans?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

That's not a contradiction of "it's as significant as the Earth's revolution".

You say the perceived is an illusion- I say it's the perceived- and it's as significant. Where is your contradiction?

The rest of your beliefs are academic-nonsense.

Try again, maybe without the hum of academic-love this time...

That the perception is not significant. You seem to be arguing that the human perception of the sun moving around the earth is AS SIGNIFICANT as the fact that in reality, earth moves around the sun; that's how I understand what you've said so far. If that is the case, I disagree with you: our perception is NOT AS SIGNIFICANT as the real situation.

And I hold that YOUR beliefs are nonsense. Maybe you should try again, and try connecting to reality this time.

 

[s13ep]

This is not a contradiction. NEXT!!!

That the perception is not significant. You seem to be arguing that the human perception of the sun moving around the earth is AS SIGNIFICANT as the fact that in reality, earth moves around the sun; that's how I understand what you've said so far. If that is the case, I disagree with you: our perception is NOT AS SIGNIFICANT as the real situation.

And I hold that YOUR beliefs are nonsense. Maybe you should try again, and try connecting to reality this time.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

This is not a contradiction. NEXT!!!

If that is the case, and I'm just curious here: off in your little world of "wise sense," what exactly is a contradiction?

 

[s13ep]

If that is the case, and I'm just curious here: off in your little world of "wise sense," what exactly is a contradiction?

Something credible through a wise person's senses.

Not moaning from an academician.

 

[Riverwolf]

Sense that comes through knowledge, experience and having good judgement of what you have acknowledged and experienced, as well as good judgement in general.

Do you mean sense as in "common sense", or as in "sense of smell"?

I'm referring to wordless knowledge, not statements.

That's a reference that means nothing to me.

 

[s13ep]

What is wisdom?

I refer, unfortunately, to the academic-definition.

Had I not been affected by academia at a very young age, I would have had Earth-defined wisdom.

Wisdom in the case of understanding the Sun's revolution as a negative to the Earth's positive revolution, comes about through sensing the Sun on multiple occasions, in multiple locations in the sky, whilst doing things on Earth.

The old saying "Wisdom comes with age" applies here.

Example:
I gain knowledge of the Sun, and am experienced with it's revolution; I then judge whether it's valid knowledge (this seems to be a process of wisdom in the face of word-adversity), whether there's more to the story- whether it will be there tomorrow or what it's form and process will be tomorrow, etc.

When I've acknowledged, through more experience, other things affected by the Sun, then I become wise of the Sun.

/////

Wisdom is not simply explained; it's not word-relative, but human-relative. Human and environment relations, generate wisdom (by the academic definition of wisdom). It's simple really.

 

[Skwim]

No.

Technically, what is going on is that the Earth, Sun and all the planets are orbiting around the center of mass of the solar system. This is actually how planets orbiting other stars are often detected, by searching for the motion of the stars they orbit that is caused by the fact that the star is orbiting the center of mass of the system, causing it to wobble on the sky.

The center of mass of our solar system very close to the Sun itself, but not exactly at the Sun's center (it is actually a little bit outside the radius of the Sun). However, since almost all of the mass within the solar system is contained in the Sun, its motion is only a slight wobble in comparison to the motion of the planets. Therefore, assuming that the Sun is stationary and the planets revolve around its center is a good enough approximation for most purposes.

/thread

Nice reply.

"Solar System Center of Mass (CM) is the center of mass of our Solar System. Due to the fact that the planets constantly rotate around the Sun, the center of mass constantly changes its position. The most interesting fact is that this point makes its dance around the Sun's disk. See how CM moves in years 2006 - 2033:"

source

 

[s13ep]

Do you mean sense as in "common sense", or as in "sense of smell"?



That's a reference that means nothing to me.

This is because you expect it all on a plate set out nicely in front of you, to eat in one setting, when in fact it's going to take multiple plates, multiple settings and you'll probably be in multiple places when you eat it.

 

[Riverwolf]

This is because you expect

How could you know what I expect?

 

[s13ep]

Good judgement, experience and knowledge.

How could you know what I expect?

 

[s13ep]

To come to a close for tonight...

No one has contradicted the original post.

A few have shown signs of intelligence and agreed or at least tried to scrutinise my claim " the Sun and Earth revolve each other. "

The rest have ignored, joked or other childish behaviours.

 

[Jumi]

Let's talk when you can build a working model of the solar system that corroborates your theory.

 

[s13ep]

Let's talk when you can build a working model of the solar system that corroborates your theory.

You've obviously ignored half the content of this thread.