ThisInternet related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately.SeeRationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Poe?[edit]

I'm sorry I'm not yet a member of Rational wiki, I'm wondering if this website is a poe? I've heard of it and started to wonder when I saw them say Freud (founder of psychology) was evil.^{— Unsigned, by:74.198.165.90 /talk /contribs}

Given that it is linked fromthe evil atheist conspiracy I would say it is satire. - 06:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverse logic[edit]

Given the nature of the universe #every# point in it can be seen as its centre.

Orbits[edit]

"The Sun and every planet can orbit the Earth, and the whole universe can rotate about the Earth, it makes no difference to the maths after Einstein."

Is that right? Surely the earth and the sun orbit around their mutual centre of gravity rather than the earth orbiting the sun. Therefore the notion that the sun could be rotating around the earth and that it's mathematically equivalent is nonsensical, isn't it?Ajkgordon (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the real problem with this sentence is that under relativity, allinertial frames of reference are equivalent. A rotating frame is never inertial. So the frame of reference associated with the Earth isnot equivalent to the one associated with the Sun or the center of the Milky Way. --Tweenk (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. What he said.Ajkgordon (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this argument before. I think with special relativity you can't take an apparently rotating object like the Earth and treat it as if it wasn't moving. But, with general relativity you can. You just spin the whole rest of the universe and everything works out fine. Even frame-dragging is fine. Other observers think they're observing frame dragging by the massive object, but your point of view there is frame dragging everywhereelse and not near the unmoving object, because it is (with this change in perspective) motionless, while the universe is rotating. Of course this fails Occam's razor "Yeah, so God span the whole universe to make it look like the Earth is rotating, see?" but that doesn't mean we've proved itwrong. If someone can find a decent explanation of why I'm wrong about this, I'd like to read it of course.82.69.171.94 (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Except the earth doesn't have enough mass to keep the rest of the universe in orbit around it - mutual centre of gravity thing again. Besides, even it was in orbit around earth, objects further away would hardly move in the sky whereas those close in would. It doesn't make any sense to this science simpleton.Ajkgordon (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone fairly prominent in physics did say something silly like "you cannot construct a version of relativity where the Earth at the centre of the universe is different to any other model". This was then jumped on by some geocentrists as "proof" that the Earthwas at the centre of the universe, it may also have been (mis)used in Jason Lisle's anisotropy argument. I'm not convinced by this whole frame-of-reference argument, though, not least because it isn't in line with the reality that thereisn't a "centre" to the universe. 12:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

George Ellis: "For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations." He claims that you can only dismiss this on philosophical grounds, personally, I think that's bollocks. 12:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

but the mass of the earth is surely irrelevant because its not free to move. *God* has nailed it firmly in place.Hamster (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That would keep the Earth fixed, fair enough, but it wouldn't be enough hold hold the planets, sun and stars in place. They would go off on their own, and likely something would crash into the planet, which wouldn't be able to "get out of the way" by moving in an orbit. Should the Earth be heavy enough to pull off this feat... well, reality would look just a little different, wouldn't it? 17:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

FrontPage[edit]

As soon as I opened the page, I immediately thought "this shit was made in Microsoft FrontPage" and, sure enough:<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0">. Hence why it both looks like total garbage and has all kinds of crazy formatting. Any formatting is just a few clicks away! No need to mess with anything like CSS or other fancy-shmancy stuff that might make things look less like scrawlings of a madman.Cow...Hammer^time! 21:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the 90s. 10:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Gone?[edit]

Is anyone else getting a 404 for the main page if they go there?147.147.183.154 (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Talk pages for unrated articles