If I say the Sun goes around the Earth, and I have math equations, path evidence, and experiential evidence and logic that supports that statement, does that make it true? Such a statement, when originally made by Aristotle had good evidence, and good investigation that showed the Sun going around the Earth. Later evidence and data suggest that theory was not true.
We don't call Aristotle a liar because he put forth the original non-truth. Who knows how much scientific damage that non-truth caused, keeping us from gaining a deeper understanding of physics for two millennia. Harm was obviously done by a non-truth, but we don't call Aristotle a liar because we can't prove intent to mislead.
Saying something that is not true is not a lie if you believe it. You tell a lie if you say a non-truth and you know it.
You can also tell a lie by telling "nothing but the truth", but leaving out important context.
A lie is an intent to mislead. It really has nothing to do with the veracity of the statement itself.
This is a really funny comment, but the original comment wasn't wrong. With the knowledge at the time, believing the sun went around the earth was the reasonable take as you could see the sun rise and settle across the sky and the earth didn't feel like it was moving.
Aristotle was not trying to mislead anyone the way you do when you lie. He was just ignorabt of the information we have now or he would have supported the heliocentric theory given the tools and data we have now.
So aristotle did not lie, he spoke the truth as he was able to exoress it with what was known at the time.
Granted truth is unuversal, a lie requires knowing the truth or some element of it and intentionally speaking otherwise to deceive.
Not the best analogy with Aristotle because technically the Sun and Earth revolve around each other. His theory is not wrong, its just not the whole picture.
Then again, maybe they did have it right back then and that history was rewritten to remove critical pieces of information to hold humanity back.
The Sun does not revolve around the Earth. Within the scope of the E-S two body system, the Earth and the Sun revolve around their collective center of mass.
That CoM is ever changing because of the influence of the multibody system that is our collection of planets, the rest of the stars and mass in our galaxy, the supercluster of galaxies that the Milky Way belongs to, the larger mass of all galaxies in the visible universe, the dark matter that may or may not exist along with those galaxies, and the dark energy that may or may not exist and influence the center of mass of the twobody Earth-Sun system as it drives the expansion of the universe.
And that's just from the theory of General Relativity that is almost certainly incomplete if not completely wrong (in some of its axioms).
But since the Sun is a million times more massive than the Earth, and that center of mass of the two body system is inside of the Sun, it is within the order of magnitude given by both Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity correct to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
But since the Sun is a million times more massive than the Earth, and that center of mass of the two body system is inside of the Sun, it is within the order of magnitude given by both Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity correct to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
That's pretty much what I was trying to say.
Technically one does not revolve around the other - they revolve around a mutual center of mass which due to the difference in size may as well be the sun. Anyways, I think we agree.
Not the best analogy with Aristotle because technically the Sun and Earth revolve around each other. His theory is not wrong, its just not the whole picture.
His theory was completely wrong on all counts. In no way does the Sun revolve around the Earth. In every way measurable or discernable the Earth revolves around the sun, since the CoM of the E-S system is deep inside the Sun, barely a smidge away from the center of the sun.
To describe the orbit properly you need to take into account the CoM and put that as one of the foci of the elliptical orbit that will be calculated when you do that. But even that is not correct. That's Newton's theory.
In GR the mass density of the sun creates a shape of spacetime that the earth follows (a geodesic aka shortest possible path. In Euclidian (flat) space a geodesic is a straight line). That path, like Newton's model, is approximately an ellipse with one of the foci at the center of the CoM of the two body system. This foci almost coincides with the center of the sun. There are also other effects which alter that geodesic, such as the deformations of spacetime due to the other planets, and all the other effects I listed in my previous post. That doesn't even touch on the earths pulling on the aether ("spacetime" in GR parlance) which causes frame dragging which further effects the shape of the geodesic in time.
When one plots the path of the earth relative to the path of the sun in a 4D spacetime diagram using GR one sees the sun go on an almost perfectly straight line (in this E-S system) and the Earth go in a 4D spiral with the sun almost exactly at the center.
There is no discernable movement of the sun in such a system to a very high degree of measurement accuracy.
My argument is in the wording of your correction. The Earth absolutely revolves around the sun. They do not in any way revolve around each other. Thus using Aristotle as analogy was accurate to an extremely high order of magnitude.
Nothing is ever exact in any measurement or model we humans have ever created. Within the scope of what is measurable or discernible it was a perfect analogy. More importantly, your "correction" was substantially less accurate.
I apologize for being a dick about this, but you corrected me inaccurately, and I am trying to set the record straight.
Now you're just being stubborn. I say things that are untrue all the time. I don't know that they are untrue, but they are untrue nonetheless. That doesn't make them lies. I am not intending to be misleading. I'm just not smart enough to know the truth of some (many/all) things.
A lie is an intent to mislead. It is not an untruth. It does not even need to be false. I don't even need to do anything at all to lie.
I can lie by omission. I can lie by truth leaving out important context (still completely true though) and I can lie by telling an untruth.
In each case I must be willfully and intentionally misleading in order to be lying.
Your "perjury" example a lie by untruth. I can however, in a court of law, lie by omission (sometimes) or by context (often) without penalty. Perjury is defined as follows:
perjury: The crime of willfully and knowingly making a false statement about a material fact while under oath.
Notice the explicit statement of "willfully and knowingly" aka intent.
You must intend to mislead in order to lie. You cannot lie if you do not intend to mislead.
Its very simple. Intent is required and explicitly stated within every legal definition of the term, and every court case judgement that decides it. Intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict (in a criminal case). The act of telling an untruth is irrelevant.
If I say the Sun goes around the Earth, and I have math equations, path evidence, and experiential evidence and logic that supports that statement, does that make it true? Such a statement, when originally made by Aristotle had good evidence, and good investigation that showed the Sun going around the Earth. Later evidence and data suggest that theory was not true.
We don't call Aristotle a liar because he put forth the original non-truth. Who knows how much scientific damage that non-truth caused, keeping us from gaining a deeper understanding of physics for two millennia. Harm was obviously done by a non-truth, but we don't call Aristotle a liar because we can't prove intent to mislead.
Saying something that is not true is not a lie if you believe it. You tell a lie if you say a non-truth and you know it.
You can also tell a lie by telling "nothing but the truth", but leaving out important context.
A lie is an intent to mislead. It really has nothing to do with the veracity of the statement itself.
Intent is everything.
Must be an attorney.
This is a really funny comment, but the original comment wasn't wrong. With the knowledge at the time, believing the sun went around the earth was the reasonable take as you could see the sun rise and settle across the sky and the earth didn't feel like it was moving.
Aristotle was not trying to mislead anyone the way you do when you lie. He was just ignorabt of the information we have now or he would have supported the heliocentric theory given the tools and data we have now.
So aristotle did not lie, he spoke the truth as he was able to exoress it with what was known at the time.
Granted truth is unuversal, a lie requires knowing the truth or some element of it and intentionally speaking otherwise to deceive.
Not disputing it what so ever, I agree.
Just sayin, if "Sliver" is not an attorney, they should be!
Hahaha ahhh gotcha!
I'm a scientist. I've been studying the laws of nature and arguing our interpretation of them for a long time.
So kinda like a lawyer, only I have less money and more integrity (I like to think).
Not the best analogy with Aristotle because technically the Sun and Earth revolve around each other. His theory is not wrong, its just not the whole picture.
Then again, maybe they did have it right back then and that history was rewritten to remove critical pieces of information to hold humanity back.
The Sun does not revolve around the Earth. Within the scope of the E-S two body system, the Earth and the Sun revolve around their collective center of mass.
That CoM is ever changing because of the influence of the multibody system that is our collection of planets, the rest of the stars and mass in our galaxy, the supercluster of galaxies that the Milky Way belongs to, the larger mass of all galaxies in the visible universe, the dark matter that may or may not exist along with those galaxies, and the dark energy that may or may not exist and influence the center of mass of the twobody Earth-Sun system as it drives the expansion of the universe.
And that's just from the theory of General Relativity that is almost certainly incomplete if not completely wrong (in some of its axioms).
But since the Sun is a million times more massive than the Earth, and that center of mass of the two body system is inside of the Sun, it is within the order of magnitude given by both Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity correct to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
That's pretty much what I was trying to say.
Technically one does not revolve around the other - they revolve around a mutual center of mass which due to the difference in size may as well be the sun. Anyways, I think we agree.
His theory was completely wrong on all counts. In no way does the Sun revolve around the Earth. In every way measurable or discernable the Earth revolves around the sun, since the CoM of the E-S system is deep inside the Sun, barely a smidge away from the center of the sun.
To describe the orbit properly you need to take into account the CoM and put that as one of the foci of the elliptical orbit that will be calculated when you do that. But even that is not correct. That's Newton's theory.
In GR the mass density of the sun creates a shape of spacetime that the earth follows (a geodesic aka shortest possible path. In Euclidian (flat) space a geodesic is a straight line). That path, like Newton's model, is approximately an ellipse with one of the foci at the center of the CoM of the two body system. This foci almost coincides with the center of the sun. There are also other effects which alter that geodesic, such as the deformations of spacetime due to the other planets, and all the other effects I listed in my previous post. That doesn't even touch on the earths pulling on the aether ("spacetime" in GR parlance) which causes frame dragging which further effects the shape of the geodesic in time.
When one plots the path of the earth relative to the path of the sun in a 4D spacetime diagram using GR one sees the sun go on an almost perfectly straight line (in this E-S system) and the Earth go in a 4D spiral with the sun almost exactly at the center.
There is no discernable movement of the sun in such a system to a very high degree of measurement accuracy.
My argument is in the wording of your correction. The Earth absolutely revolves around the sun. They do not in any way revolve around each other. Thus using Aristotle as analogy was accurate to an extremely high order of magnitude.
Nothing is ever exact in any measurement or model we humans have ever created. Within the scope of what is measurable or discernible it was a perfect analogy. More importantly, your "correction" was substantially less accurate.
I apologize for being a dick about this, but you corrected me inaccurately, and I am trying to set the record straight.
Lying by omission is still lying, and they are experts at it too.
I agree that such an action (or inaction as the case may be) is a lie.
No matter how it happens, if someone is misleading, and they are doing it intentionally, then they are lying.
Contrarily if someone is misleading, and they do not intend to be, they are not lying.
Intent is everything.
A lie is a lie. Try testifying to something you don't know the truth of, and see if you don't get charged for perjury when it turns out to be a lie.
Lying is the 2nd most broken of the Ten Commandments.
Now you're just being stubborn. I say things that are untrue all the time. I don't know that they are untrue, but they are untrue nonetheless. That doesn't make them lies. I am not intending to be misleading. I'm just not smart enough to know the truth of some (many/all) things.
A lie is an intent to mislead. It is not an untruth. It does not even need to be false. I don't even need to do anything at all to lie.
I can lie by omission. I can lie by truth leaving out important context (still completely true though) and I can lie by telling an untruth.
In each case I must be willfully and intentionally misleading in order to be lying.
Your "perjury" example a lie by untruth. I can however, in a court of law, lie by omission (sometimes) or by context (often) without penalty. Perjury is defined as follows:
Notice the explicit statement of "willfully and knowingly" aka intent.
You must intend to mislead in order to lie. You cannot lie if you do not intend to mislead.
Its very simple. Intent is required and explicitly stated within every legal definition of the term, and every court case judgement that decides it. Intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict (in a criminal case). The act of telling an untruth is irrelevant.