Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

If the chalkboard math is consistently applicable in reality, there’s no reason it shouldn’t be applicable to the sun. Plus, the chalkboard math is just basic division, so I wouldn’t call it “chalkboard math”.

As for the people that you encountered, they have either read the textbooks and rejected them, or not read them at all. And said textbooks are issued to first graders.

I haven’t found anything resembling appeals to authority in Elroch’s posts. If you would direct me to a precise argument, I’ll examine it.

noodles does draw attention to the key idea that you need the maths to correctly represent the real world.

That's really what the Scientific Method does. Every experiment is a check if a model of the real world is correct.

For example, I glibly say the celestial sphere is modelled almost perfectly by the mathematics of a geometric 2-sphere. It is well worth saying - and I have to give credit to noodles for motivating this - that in order to believe that you need a lot of empircial verification. The nature of that empirical verification is very elegant. It consists mainly of a single type of fact: when you take any two stars in the sky and measure the angle between them, this angle is almost perfectly constant, regardless of when and where you measure it.

Further, all those measured angles have geometric relationships that are those of the geometry of the 2-sphere. There are good reasons why this would be believed, but it is the empirical verification that matters to the science.

People have been making those measurements and confirming those facts (and a lot more) for thousands of years. Even in prehistory observatories that worked because the observed geometry were built.

So, it's not as noodles claims - that mathematics is used recklessly. It's that mathematics is extensively tested to work, and then used with confidence.

when i held my fingers up y-day to the very height of the sun (noonish) i got abt 3/8 of a inch at 3 feets from my eyeballs. so...doing the arithmetic ?

where x = diameter of the sun

0.375"/36" = x/93,000,000 miles

converting to miles ? → x = 968,890 miles ...they say its about 865,370 miles ...so not too far off ...abt 10% lol !

maybe i'll try the moon tonite. its mostly full. it sets at like 8:40a and rises like 8:05p. if im up @ 2a (which i wont be) i'll try another copernicus eyeball thingy .

Careful of your eyes, Ghostess. Looking directly at the Sun exposes your retina to harsh ultraviolet and should be avoided. UV-blocking glasses might help, but I am not sure I would trust them completely (even the strength of visible and heat radiation is probably dangerous too).

Optimissed -

according to heliocentricity the earth accelerates & decelerates while orbiting the sun -

True or False ?

yes, thank you elroch ...L

Elroch - how did they use "math" to reach their Conclusion that "Pluto's moon Charon" is Tidally Locked - from allegedly almost 4 Billion Miles Away ?

AG1 - I am referring to Heliocentrism in general -

go out and discover it for yourself - ask random people basic heliocentric questions and see what happens - you get more complex if you want and ask them to prove the earth is spinning or the moon is rotating in perfect sync with the earth so only one side is visible to everyone on earth no matter where they are located on the ball - ask them to prove Charon is tidally locked with Pluto - I think you'll discover that it is mandatory to "appeal to authority" i.e. "believe the experts" !

No, no, no.
The orbit is not circular, and is not quite aligned with the equator either, so the Moon oscillates. No-one could mistake this time lapse of photos for anything but a ball (with craters).

By first principles it's true. By small factors.

Very glad to be of help.

Indeed, from a Newtonian point of view, where gravity is a force, the Earth is always being accelerated towards the Sun.

From a general relativistic point of view, the Earth is in free fall in curved space-time and is not accelerating. Its path is the curved space-time equivalent of motion at a constant speed when there is no gravity.

This more complex viewpoint accords with the fact that we do not feel the acceleration of the Earth towards the Sun.

"Ask random people about a topic that requires research and expertise and watch as they don't know the answers so they just trust people who have done research and have expertise". At a certain point you just can't know everything. I can't sit here and explain how to prove the earth is round, I don't know how. What I do know is that the experts who truly have dug into the details are much (much much much) more reliable than some uneducated quack on YouTube or an online forum.

I'm an expert at music. Noodle explain to me how an Ab on a C chord functions. Oh you can't? Music theory is untrue then

Elroch - I prefer observations outside - are you working on that Pluto/Charon question ?

Optimissed - Thank you for proving heliocentrism can be simplified

OTEH18 - Thank you for proving "appeal to authority" - comparing music to heliocentrism is imaginative - Have you ever heard - The Planets by Gustav Holst?

I’m pointing out that in this case, the chalkboard math checks out, and is therefore applicable to the sun.

Also, I don’t think your average person knows why Charon is tidally locked with Pluto, because the people who figured it out had a good amount of specialisation, and your average person doesn’t find it relevant to their life. And believing the experts isn’t necessarily a bad thing. You’re supposed to rely on them for things in their fields. That’s why specialisation and division of labour occurs in the first place. If your average person was part doctor, part engineer and part artist, the world would just be full of mostly mediocre doctors, engineers and artists.

AG1 - that so-called "math" has been disputed - but don't expect that to make "Headline News"

I don't have a problem with scientists - I have a problem with pseudoscientists masquerading as scientists!

No, noodles, the arithmetic that says how big an object seems at a given distance has not been disputed by anyone who isn't completely clueless. It's the consequence of simple geometry.
Technically, the formula I gave:

angle subtended in radians = (perpendicular width) / distance

is an approximation, but accurate to a few decimal places for small angles, so good enough.

A precise formula for all examples is:

angle subtended in radians = 2 arctan (perpendicular width / (2*distance))

arctan (x) is almost exactly x when x is small, giving the approximation.

[I dread to think what noodles is thinking about the "blackboard math" that he should have learned when at school]

Another reason why experts (or at least people who know much more than you in the subject) should be trusted. I could reply to your post, but would it be necessary, or even appropriate, to state the same thing Elroch said with an incomplete explanation?