3 ms·

I find it amusing seeing so many otherwise intelligent people so upset about a fact that contradicts their intuition. It's like when you tell people that if you

by ttfkam 3y ago

I find it amusing seeing so many otherwise intelligent people so upset about a fact that contradicts their intuition. It's like when you tell people that if you throw a baseball from the International Space Station toward the Earth, the ball will end up in front of you and behind you at various points in the orbit. Reminds me of the quote: The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.

macspoofing 3y ago
>I find it amusing seeing so many otherwise intelligent people so upset about a fact that contradicts their intuition. It's not quite that. It's a semantic issue. Colloquially, people think of "the closest planet" as a planet having an orbit closest to that of earth's, whereas the article proposes a different definition of 'average distance' between the planetary bodies. Both definitions are correct, but I argue that the former definition is actually better as it conveys more information about the structure of the solar system, and is more intuitive.
- ttfkam 3y ago
  As I said, amusing.
  - George83728 3y ago
    Since you invoked the "universe making sense", I'll explain this using an example created by man: "The Space Shuttle Orbiter reentered the atmosphere at approximately Mach 25, making it the fastest aircraft ever flown." The Mach 25 reentry is an empirically verifiable fact. But reasonable people can object to the above assertion on grounds that have nothing to do with that verifiable fact; what exactly constitutes an aircraft and what is the proper way to compare the speeds of aircraft? A reasonable person can assert that speed comparisons between aircraft must be made in level flight, making the shuttle orbiter ineligible for such a record. Some may also object to the characterization of the shuttle orbiter as an aircraft, or the implicit exclusion of other reentry vehicles which were even faster. The universe does not have any objectively correct definition of aircraft, or any objectively correct way to compare aircraft speeds. These are wholly subjective. It has nothing to do with people "wanting the universe to make sense." Similarly, the universe does not hand us any objectively correct meaning of a planet's "neighbor". Nobody in this thread has disputed any objective empirical facts. The disagreement is solely around the subjective meaning of the ill defined term "neighbor". The disagreement is over pure semantics, not science.
ryandrake 3y ago
> I find it amusing seeing so many otherwise intelligent people so upset about a fact that contradicts their intuition. Find a smart person who's never heard of the Monty Hall Problem[1] and tell them the answer without an explanation. They'll want to fist fight you over it. Even after you prove it with math, some won't believe you. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
renewiltord 3y ago
It's like how people don't realize that the sum of 1 and 1 is 0. Many smart people will disagree but it is nonetheless a fact.
- macspoofing 3y ago
  >It's like how people don't realize that the sum of 1 and 1 is 0. Many smart people will disagree but it is nonetheless a fact. No, it isn't a fact. This assertion is a common internet troll trick that relies on misusing the "product property of square roots" [i.e. sqrt(xy) = sqrt(x)sqrt(y)], with the "trick" being that the "product property" is only applicable for x,y >= 0 and x,y ∈ ℝ, and therefore cannot be used to "prove" 1+1=0. Why purposely mislead people who may take you at your word?
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    Oh, I'm working in Z_2 with addition defined naturally. Sort of just a joke, eh? Your definitions can place you in a different place for a different answer. And everyone really does know that. Time-averaged Euclidean vs. Euclidean closest approach vs. rank on the total order definable by orbits' parameters vs. energy needed to reach. So it's a bit pointless to go on about how "the universe doesn't need to make sense" like GGP and be dramatic about it.
arp242 3y ago
That Mercury is closer than Venus on average is very intuitive: it just never gets very far away from us due to its orbit being so close to the sun. Makes perfect intuitive sense to me. But this is not a math or intuition problem, it's about ambiguity on what exactly is meant with "closer" – you can have multiple definitions of that: "closest at this particular point in time", "closest at any point in time", "closest on average". None of these are more correct than any other.

by ttfkam 3y ago

macspoofing 3y ago

>I find it amusing seeing so many otherwise intelligent people so upset about a fact that contradicts their intuition. It's not quite that. It's a semantic issue. Colloquially, people think of "the closest planet" as a planet having an orbit closest to that of earth's, whereas the article proposes a different definition of 'average distance' between the planetary bodies. Both definitions are correct, but I argue that the former definition is actually better as it conveys more information about the structure of the solar system, and is more intuitive.

ttfkam 3y ago
As I said, amusing.
- George83728 3y ago
  Since you invoked the "universe making sense", I'll explain this using an example created by man: "The Space Shuttle Orbiter reentered the atmosphere at approximately Mach 25, making it the fastest aircraft ever flown." The Mach 25 reentry is an empirically verifiable fact. But reasonable people can object to the above assertion on grounds that have nothing to do with that verifiable fact; what exactly constitutes an aircraft and what is the proper way to compare the speeds of aircraft? A reasonable person can assert that speed comparisons between aircraft must be made in level flight, making the shuttle orbiter ineligible for such a record. Some may also object to the characterization of the shuttle orbiter as an aircraft, or the implicit exclusion of other reentry vehicles which were even faster. The universe does not have any objectively correct definition of aircraft, or any objectively correct way to compare aircraft speeds. These are wholly subjective. It has nothing to do with people "wanting the universe to make sense." Similarly, the universe does not hand us any objectively correct meaning of a planet's "neighbor". Nobody in this thread has disputed any objective empirical facts. The disagreement is solely around the subjective meaning of the ill defined term "neighbor". The disagreement is over pure semantics, not science.

ryandrake 3y ago

> I find it amusing seeing so many otherwise intelligent people so upset about a fact that contradicts their intuition. Find a smart person who's never heard of the Monty Hall Problem[1] and tell them the answer without an explanation. They'll want to fist fight you over it. Even after you prove it with math, some won't believe you. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

renewiltord 3y ago

It's like how people don't realize that the sum of 1 and 1 is 0. Many smart people will disagree but it is nonetheless a fact.

macspoofing 3y ago
>It's like how people don't realize that the sum of 1 and 1 is 0. Many smart people will disagree but it is nonetheless a fact. No, it isn't a fact. This assertion is a common internet troll trick that relies on misusing the "product property of square roots" [i.e. sqrt(xy) = sqrt(x)sqrt(y)], with the "trick" being that the "product property" is only applicable for x,y >= 0 and x,y ∈ ℝ, and therefore cannot be used to "prove" 1+1=0. Why purposely mislead people who may take you at your word?
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Oh, I'm working in Z_2 with addition defined naturally. Sort of just a joke, eh? Your definitions can place you in a different place for a different answer. And everyone really does know that. Time-averaged Euclidean vs. Euclidean closest approach vs. rank on the total order definable by orbits' parameters vs. energy needed to reach. So it's a bit pointless to go on about how "the universe doesn't need to make sense" like GGP and be dramatic about it.

arp242 3y ago

That Mercury is closer than Venus on average is very intuitive: it just never gets very far away from us due to its orbit being so close to the sun. Makes perfect intuitive sense to me. But this is not a math or intuition problem, it's about ambiguity on what exactly is meant with "closer" – you can have multiple definitions of that: "closest at this particular point in time", "closest at any point in time", "closest on average". None of these are more correct than any other.