Earth revovling around sun?

[M.Saad]

Is it totally confirmed that earth revolves around the sun or after sometime scientists will change their theory as it usually happens in many fields of science.

Please post the links,reasons, and derivations proving the phenomena.And also the base upon which it has concluded that earth revolves around the sun.Thanks.

[ajb]

In essence, lots of carefully collected data confirm the simplest model of the solar system is based upon a fixed Sun at the centre and the planets revolving around it. (In reality, the Sun and the planets orbit round the centre of mass, which is near the centre of the Sun).

 

You can of course pick other coordinates and place lets say the Earth (or any other point) at the origin. This would give far more complicated dynamics, that would of course be identical to that of placing the Sun in the centre, but would look far more complicated.

 

The symmetries (the approximate rotational symmetry) of the system suggest that using the Sun as the origin is the simplest, the centre of mass is approximately the centre of the Sun.

[Sisyphus]

Technically, they revolve around one another. The Sun and the Earth each exert the same force on one another, but since the sun is so much more massive than the Earth, the Earth does most of the moving. That's why we usually just say the Earth revolves around the Sun.

 

Although people had suggested the idea for thousands of years, it was generally believed that the sun revolved around the Earth until Nicolaus Copernicus showed that celestial observations were more easily explained by the Earth revolving around the Sun. His book, On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres (published 1543), gives all his observations, calculations, and reasoning, and it's too much to share here.

 

Isaac Newton, in turn, through the theory of gravity, showed why the Earth revolves around the sun (or rather, why they revolve around one another).

 

And of course, in modern times, with spacecraft and such, obviously there's no doubt about it.

 

However, interestingly, with the theory of relativity, it no longer really matters. Copernicus, etc. weren't wrong, but what is at rest and what is moving is just a matter of perspective, and you can have a self-consistent system no matter what perspective you choose.

[swansont]

Is it totally confirmed that earth revolves around the sun or after sometime scientists will change their theory as it usually happens in many fields of science.

 

This is done in response to evidence. Scientists will change the theory if there is evidence that compels them to do so.

 

Please post the links,reasons, and derivations proving the phenomena.And also the base upon which it has concluded that earth revolves around the sun.Thanks.

 

As ajb and Sisyphus have mentioned, there is a lot of evidence — it has been compiled over the course of hundreds of years, so it is not reasonable to expect a listing of it here. If you are challenging the notion, the burden of proof is upon you to present counter-evidence.

[John Cuthber]

I think both move round their common centre of gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass

[matterdoc]

Sun is a moving body. No free body can orbit around another moving body in closed geometrical path. (Stable galaxy has no translational motion). By relative frame of reference, planets moving around a static sun is simplest assumption that can provide their relative positions, accurately. However, by doing so, shape of real orbital paths are never considered and thus we misunderstand many phenomena, which are results of wavy-shape of planetary orbital path about curved path of central body.

 

Sun has many planets and it has different center of mass while pairing with each of these planets. Which is the center of sun's orbital path?

 

see http://vixra.org/abs/1008.0010

[Janus]

 

 

Sun has many planets and it has different center of mass while pairing with each of these planets. Which is the center of sun's orbital path?

 

 

Every body, including the Sun orbits the Center of Mass of the combined Solar System. In other words, if you look at the whole of the Solar system as a closed system, then the center of Mass of this system is a fixed point around which everything orbits. Since the various bodies of the Solar system changed position with respect to each other, the paths the planet take around this fixed point vary.

[swansont]

Good summary of the evidence recently at S.W.A.B.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/geocentrism_was_galileo_wrong.php

[matterdoc]

Every body, including the Sun orbits the Center of Mass of the combined Solar System. In other words, if you look at the whole of the Solar syst[em as a closed system, then the center of Mass of this system is a fixed point around which everything orbits. Since the various bodies of the Solar system changed position with respect to each other, the paths the planet take around this fixed point vary.

 

Sun is moving in an orbital path around the galactic center, which is static in space. Unless it is for specific purposes, why should you take Solar system as a closed system? When you do so, it is an imaginary situation. Hence, it cannot show real orbital path of any of the bodies but it may show apparent orbital path, which may coincide with our observation.

Edited September 18, 2010 by swansont
fix quote tag

[Janus]

Every body, including the Sun orbits the Center of Mass of the combined Solar System. In other words, if you look at the whole of the Solar syst[em as a closed system, then the center of Mass of this system is a fixed point around which everything orbits. Since the various bodies of the Solar system changed position with respect to each other, the paths the planet take around this fixed point vary.

 

Sun is moving in an orbital path around the galactic center, which is static in space.

Static in space according to what? the Milky way in turns orbits the center of mass of the local group, which in turn is being drawn towards the Great Attractor. And it is the barycenter of the Solar system that orbits the galactic center.

 

 

Unless it is for specific purposes, why should you take Solar system as a closed system? When you do so, it is an imaginary situation. Hence, it cannot show real orbital path of any of the bodies but it may show apparent orbital path, which may coincide with our observation.

 

There is no such thing as a "real" orbital path. There is no absolute reference frame from which to judge such a path. You can only deal with paths relative to some reference point, and the center of mass of the Solar system is just such a reference point and is just as "real" as any other. It also is the reference point that is the least complicated to work from when dealing with the relative motions of the elements of the Solar system. The subsequent movement of Solar systems CoG with respect to the Galactic center is of no consequence in this respect.

[vuquta]

We know the earth is rotating because of the GPS rotational sagnac.

 

Any circular path is subject to sagnac.

 

The earth's orbital path is circular and thus subject to sagnac.

 

However, the orbital sagnac does not exist as proven by GPS.

 

Oddly, this would appear that the earth is not revolving around the sun unless our theory of light is totally confused.

Edited September 18, 2010 by vuquta

[insane_alien]

or more likely, everything is fine but vuquta is confused about relativity.

[matterdoc]

Static in space according to what? the Milky way in turns orbits the center of mass of the local group, which in turn is being drawn towards the Great Attractor. And it is the barycenter of the Solar system that orbits the galactic center.

 

There is no such thing as a "real" orbital path. There is no absolute reference frame from which to judge such a path. You can only deal with paths relative to some reference point, and the center of mass of the Solar system is just such a reference point and is just as "real" as any other. It also is the reference point that is the least complicated to work from when dealing with the relative motions of the elements of the Solar system. The subsequent movement of Solar systems CoG with respect to the Galactic center is of no consequence in this respect.

 

 

Matter is inert. It has no ability to move or act itself. In order for an action to be possible about a matter body, there has to be an external agency that makes such action possible. External 'force' has to be applied on the body and there has to be a logical mechanism of action. 'Action at a distance through empty space' is not a convincing proposition. An entity that makes such action possible is an all-encompassing universal medium. This medium is constituted by matter and it fills the entire space. It has definite structure and causes all actions on matter bodies by definite mechanism of action. As this entity is static, homogeneous and isotropic, it can provide an absolute reference.

 

If you can feel comfortable about form-less space and time doing mysterious expansion, contraction, wrapping, etc. without logical cause or mechanism, considering a well structured universal medium with logical mechanism of actions should not be difficult. If interested, kindly refer to http://www.matterdoc.info

 

If you shift reference point from center of solar system to galactic center, you can view the real orbital paths of all planets and sun. They are wavy in shape and do not contradict mechanical laws.

 

Same physical laws should govern same physical actions in all circumstances. Earth has wavy (real) orbital path about galactic center and elliptical (apparent) orbital path about center of solar system. Naturally same set of physical laws cannot be applied in both cases. Physical laws about which of these conditions describe real actions in nature?

Edited September 19, 2010 by matterdoc

[swansont]

External 'force' has to be applied on the body and there has to be a logical mechanism of action. 'Action at a distance through empty space' is not a convincing proposition. An entity that makes such action possible is an all-encompassing universal medium.

 

!

Moderator Note

This is off-topic for this thread and also not mainstream physics. If you wish to discuss it, start a thread in the speculations forum

[vuquta]

or more likely, everything is fine but vuquta is confused about relativity.

 

Yes, the lab sagnac is consistent with SR, the earth's rotational sagnac is consistent with SR and the lack of the orbital sagnac is consistent with SR.

Also, MMX is consistent with SR.

 

Can you expalin why MMX does not pick up the earth's rotational sagnac?

 

Also, the null result of MMX proves SR and the earth's rotational sagnac proven by GPS proves SR and yet the two are inconsistent.

 

Can you help me with this also?

Edited September 19, 2010 by vuquta

[swansont]

Yes, the lab sagnac is consistent with SR, the earth's rotational sagnac is consistent with SR and the lack of the orbital sagnac is consistent with SR.

Also, MMX is consistent with SR.

 

Can you expalin why MMX does not pick up the earth's rotational sagnac?

 

Also, the null result of MMX proves SR and the earth's rotational sagnac proven by GPS proves SR and yet the two are inconsistent.

 

Can you help me with this also?

!

Moderator Note

This is also off-topic for this thread