Talk:Modern geocentrism/Archive 2

message: <<(rv -- what part of dispute resolution does 138 not understand?) >>
:it is extremely unjust to require that your version stay on the main page, and that his be relegated to the "other."  Why not change the "other version" to "your version" to end this dispute?  But no.  you must have your version on the main page, and continually edit war.  Ungtss 15:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You set it up to be that way. I'm only following your lead. Joshuaschroeder 17:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided, in light of this, to put up a request for page protection. Joshuaschroeder 17:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not simply allow your version to be the "other version?"  Ungtss 17:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not ask him? Joshuaschroeder 17:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: After all, the tag says: "Please do not revert to the other disputed version unless it is decided on the discussion page that this should be done." Joshuaschroeder 17:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I set the twoversions up on your version.  he's obviously not content with that.  He wants to have the position you claim, and he certainly has as much right to it as you do.  it takes two to edit war.  perhaps you'd be willing to assume the position you're requiring of him, to end the edit-warring you so abhor? Ungtss 17:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you claiming neutrality in this dispute, Ungtss? I don't see you trying to get him to stop his edits even though it is explicitly against the policy in the tag you added. I think page-protection will do just nicely. Joshuaschroeder 17:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not supporting his editing in spite of the tags.  but i'm suggesting that you could resolve this conflict by simply assuming the subordinate position you're requiring of him.  Ungtss 17:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion, Ungtss. It was duly noted. Joshuaschroeder 17:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Schroeder is clearly unwilling to have even a compromise that gave equal space to both sides.203.213.77.138 07:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Schroeder is clearly unwilling to allow articles that do anything but what he wants them to do.  Ungtss 13:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit warring. 

message: would someone with some reason please explain to mr. schroeder what a reference frame is, along with the fact that reference frames can be used and described without the use of any transform?  thanks.  Ungtss 22:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference frames II 

message: The astronomy doesn't use a geocentric coordinate system. But either a heliocentric one or one based on the center of our home galaxy. --Pjacobi 22:33, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
:i'm afraid that's simply untrue.  Ungtss 22:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, Ungtss, did you actually look at the cite you made? The coordinates talked about are for telescope positions on planet Earth and have nothing to do with celestial coordinates. Joshuaschroeder 22:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Telescope positions, schroeder, are used in astronomy.  perhaps this link would also be useful.  Ungtss 23:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The coordinate system mentioned, Ungtss, is similar to the longitude-laditude coordinate system. As such, it is a coordinate system that is confined to the 2-sphere of the Earth's surface. Everything not on the surface of the Earth is not in this coordinate system. All I'm saying is you picked a very poor example to bolster your claim. Pjacobi is talking about coordinate systems relating to the positions of celestial objects. You are talking about coordinate systems for describing positions on the Earth. Joshuaschroeder 23:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dana Romero's contribution to wolfram's page on geocentric coordinates is pretty good. His definition of geocentric coordinates are that they are any set of coordinates which assumes the observer is not moving. I suppose that's a fine definition, but, again, it's not quite what Pjacobi is talking about. He's talking about a universal coordinate system that assumes the entire Earth is not moving which actually places weird constraints on the rest of the universe. In actuality, an observational coordinate system only contains half the universe at any given time because the other half is below the horizon. Joshuaschroeder 23:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  perhaps i could have selected a more telling link, as i did in my second post.  but the fact remains the geocentric coordinate systems are used in science, and there is therefore nothing inherently "unscientific" about them.  that's the only point i'm after.  Ungtss 23:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: you still use them.  and it's not unscientific to use them.  that's the only point of this sentence.  Ungtss 00:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Pjacobi makes an excellent point here. Though the cdt system is tied to the Earth's celestial sphere, it is in actuality not tied to Earth's reference frame. It assumes a spinning Earth! Joshuaschroeder 23:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: and NOW schroeder brings in the reference frames.  having spent days telling us that wasn't permitted, and we could only talk about coordinate systems, suddenly they're used to his advantage.  anyways.  as you wish, gentlemen.  until we meet again.  Ungtss 23:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate systems 

message: i've noticed, schroeder, that you have a habit of saying, "it's been settled on the talkpage" when in fact you've said nothing of substance whatsoever.  in this case you said "As per discussed in the talkpage, a "geocentric coordinate system" is ill-posed with respect to the article. The observational vs. absolute cdt systems are unneccessary anyway)"  this "ill-posed" argument does not appear on the talkpage.  in fact, you don't give the slightest explanation of what you mean.  similarly, your argument that things are "unneccessary anyway" is not here.  please actually discuss things before claiming to have settled them.  failing to do so gives the impression that "because schroeder has spoken, it is so."  while in your reference frame that is certainly the case, fortunately for the rest of us, we live in a world of relativity.  thank you.  Ungtss 00:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was discussed. When you mentioned the EWTN text, I explained why talking about a reference frame with the Earth at the center is ill-posed. Joshuaschroeder 00:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you didn't talk about reference frames there, schroeder.  in fact you said we weren't permitted to talk about reference frames at all, because it is "too technical."  so you decided to talk about horizontal reference frames, and then decided that didn't apply either.  none of those arguments explain why anything is "ill-posed."  they don't even explain what ill-posed means.  reality please.  thank you.  Ungtss 13:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ungtss, I don't think it worthwhile to waste my time trying to educate you on the finer points of coordinate systems, frames of reference, and transformations involving these. When you're ready to listen, let me know. Joshuaschroeder 18:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: clearly you don't, despite the validity of my arguments.  it's been that way for months.  so when you're ready to listen to something besides your own voice, let me know.  Ungtss 18:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: <<despite the validity of my arguments.>> --> Your arguments are based on misconceptions, misinterpretations, and at times deliberate denial of fact. Take for example the bit above about the Cosmological Principle being unfalsifiable. Even after both Art Carlson and I clearly stated why you were wrong, you persisted as though you had some understanding of the Cosmological Principle that was eluding us, despite the fact that you know far less cosmology as demonstrated by the few attempts you have made to argue in the subject. Now you are at it with reference frames and coordinate systems, which it seems you still have a hard time wrapping your mind around because you balked at the suggestion that someone could use a reference frame to describe a coordinate system (or at least, claimed that I said we weren't "permitted" to talk about reference frames). If you want to remain in a state of argumentative ignorance, be my guest, but don't go accusing me thenb of being closeminded. Joshuaschroeder 18:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What you considered a "clear demonstration," i considered, "nonsense."  you did not demonstrate the falsifiability of the idea.  you tried to redefine falsifiability to suit your ends.  similarly, having said that a discussion of reference frames was inappropriate, you are now using them to argue against the geocentric nature of coordinate systems.  it's cute how you think when you say things and people disagree, they're ignorant.  Ungtss 18:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: on your first point, i want that section to talk about reference frames (as it should), but you won't allow it -- you're requiring something less relevent, like coordinate systems, and then critiquing the inferior coordinate system explanation on the basis of the superior reference frame explanation.  on your second point, i'm not in the business of consensus science.  i believe that most people are wrong most of the time, so i have no interest in basing my opinions on the opinions of others.  i'll leave that means of attaining ignorance to you.  Ungtss 19:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a request