[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:57:39 +0200
Thanks for recognizing a violation of my rule #1. A few points, though:
- Your "geometry definition" of axiom is an example - not a definition.
- Who is "he" in your last paragraph.
- The three internal angles of a triangle only total 180° in flat
(Euclidean) space. You can draw a triangle on a beach-ball and see
it for yourself.
- In the hard sciences (math/physics/astronomy/chemistry)
definition 1 applies. If a proof (in math) or observational
verification can be devised (in phys/astr/chem), it is no longer
an axiom.
Please tell me the axioms applied in physics/astronomy.
Regards,
Regner Trampedach
Quoting philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> "unverifiable assumptions [that] are used as a priori" are called axioms.
> Could you tell me what the axioms of science are?
>
> Regards,
>
> Regner Trampedach
>
> This is going back a long time, but from my geometry, an axiom was a "self
> evident truth." An axiom did not have to be proven. eg a straight line is
> the shortest distance between two points.
>
> Whereas that the three internal angles of a triangle totaled 180 degrees had
> to proven by geometry, and was not an axiom.
>
> Your "axioms are ....unverifiable assumptions " is a new one to me.. I
> would have expected science to stick to the geometry definition period.
>
> But in the light of this 1913 revelation to me today, my whole world of faith
> in scientific honesty is in ruins.
>
> >From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
>
> Axiom, n.-- L. axioma, Gr.; that which is thought
> worthy, that which is assumed, a basis of demonstration, a
> principle, fr.; to think worthy, fr.; worthy, weighing as
> much as; cf.; to lead, drive, also to weigh so much: cf F.
> axiome. See Agent.
> 1. (Logic and Math.) A self-evident and necessary truth, or a
> proposition whose truth is so evident as first sight that
> no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer; a
> proposition which it is necessary to take for granted; as,
> ``The whole is greater than a part;'' ``A thing can not,
> at the same time, be and not be.''
>
> 2. An established principle in some art or science, which,
> though not a necessary truth, is universally received; as,
> the axioms of political economy.
> This is again dishonest, as it makes what is universally received and
> accepted as being the truth. Truth is not based upon a vote.. Democracy gone
> mad. I have to agree with the next line of the above.
>
> "These definitions are the root of much Evil in the worlds of philosophy,
> religion, and political discourse."
> http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node27.html
>
> These first of these two definitions is almost universally taught (generally
> in Euclidean Geometry, which is the only serious whole-brain math course that
> nearly all citizens in at least the United States are required to take to
> graduate from high school and which is therefore not infrequently the only
> math outside of a few courses in symbolic or predicate logic and maybe a
> course in algebra that a humanities-loving philosophy major is typically
> exposed to). A relatively few students may move on and hear the term used in
> the second, ``wishful'' sense (wishful in that by calling an established
> principle an ``axiom'' one is generally trying to convince the listener that
> it is indeed a ``self-evident and necessary truth'').
>
> I like that, but this was a long page......I might go back and finish it
> before I sing its praises. His dishonesty showed in the succeeding paragraph
> by his attempt to neutralise truth with non-Euclidean geometry, for no other
> reason than to destroy a true definition and force people to accept lies as
> assumptions, and hence truth.... WOW!
>
> Philip.
>
>
>
Other related posts:
