Would things be exactly the same if the Sun was orbiting the Earth and the Earth was in the center of the Solar System?

Would things be exactly the same if the Sun was orbiting the Earth and the Earth was in the center of the Solar System?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Would things be the same if the Sun was orbiting Earth and the Earth was in the center of the Solar System, or would there be any big difference?

It seems like why people before thought the Earth was the center of the Solar System since it didn't conflict with their experience.

It depends on what you mean by "in the center" or "switch places." If you physically moved the Earth to where the Sun is, and the Sun to where the Earth is, and gave each the speed that the other had while keeping the same reference frame, this would do tremendous violence to all the other planets in the solar system (though the Earth would continue to orbit more or less the same).

However, if what you are talking about is simply the language of what you call the center, then you are talking about changing to a different set of coordinates where the Earth is at the stationary center of your coordinate system. Doing that presents no problems, and nothing is different except the language you are using to talk about what is going on. One of the great things Einstein did was to reframe the laws of physics in a form that was independent of coordinates, allowing us to forever separate what the laws say is happening from the language we use to talk about what is happening (i.e., our chosen coordinates). So it all comes down to whether you think "being in the center" is a real thing, or just the language of some coordinate system. If the former, then no, things would not be at all the same, if the latter, then yes, they'd be exactly the same, if you are careful to use coordinate-independent laws like general relativity.

Let us suppose that "a wizard did it". The law of gravity no longer applies and the motion of the sun is entirely due to magic.

First off what about the other planets? If they continue to orbit about the centre of the solar system, they would not move across the sky in the looping orbits that they seem to take. Venus and Mercury would not remain near the sun.

If the planets were to move in exactly the same way across our sky, then their routes through space would have to be complex looping affairs. The wizard would be busy.

What about the stars? If the Earth is not orbiting the sun then they wouldn't have the yearly wobble in their position. The wobble is tiny but important in measuring the distance of the stars.

A wizard whold have to move the whole universe around in a 150million km circle each year for things to be exactly the same

Laws of gravity would require a massive rewrite, and Earth would likely in turn be orbiting Sputnik.

As @Ken G noted, it all depends on what you are asking. I think the question is, "What would happen all apparent motions of the heavenly bodies and all phenomena we see on Earth remained unchanged and yet the Earth was stationary and the Sun (and everything else, I guess) revolved around it?"

The answer is, nothing need change except that the laws of physics would get hugely more complicated -- unrecognizably more complicated -- or else they would turn out to be essentially arbitrary. It's perfectly possible to rewrite Newtonian (or Einsteinian) mechanics so that there's an arbitrary non-moving and non-accelerated body, but the force laws get very complicated and there are messy "extra" forces.

We have an inbuilt prejudice (which I should make clear I share) that, their effectiveness at describing nature being equal, the simpler the laws of physics are, the more likely they are to be true. The Earth going around the Sun yields simple laws of nature. Having the Sun going around the Earth requires contorted, ugly laws of nature, but theories can be constructed each why that yield the same result.

So, to answer your question let's go to 322 BCC where Earth was at the center and all stars and planets revolves around it. But planet used to show unusual behavior. They use to retrograde (

So, in retrogration, unlike stars, motion the planets seems to move forward then backward and again forward. To understand this go to link above.

Later to explain retrogration of planets let's go to 3rd century of BC where in the Hipparchian and Ptolemic Astronomy they used concept of epicycle to explain retrogration of planets.


So, in epicycle, there is one orbit where some invisible thing is revolving, now on this invisible thing, imagine another orbit. It is like orbit of moon in our present solar system, but we can't see earth, and in this model the orbit of moon is similar to orbit of planets. (See link for better explanation)

Now, with this we can explain retrogration motion of planets. But it lack precision. So what we can do is, introduce epicycle within an epicycle, and epicycle within it… And so on, and use FFT (Fast Fourier Transformation) to decide radius of orbits of various epicycles to match observation data.

Now you have a system where Earth is at center, stars move around it. So, do the Sun. And planets moves in FFT epicycles.

Would things be the same if the Sun was orbiting Earth and the Earth was in the center of the Solar System, or would there be any big difference?

Such a model is impossible when combined with visual observations, much as the Earth could not be flat and coincide with the effects of gravity and the observations made when traveling.

The geocentric model of the universe was first proposed in the 6th century BC by Anaximander. In the 2nd century AD the Ptolemaic model was developed to explain the observed motion of the moon and planets using an equant (a sort of barycenter).

By the 10th century AD scholars started to doubt the Ptolemaic model and from the late 16th century onward, it was gradually superseded by the Heliocentric model of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler.

In 1783 the observations of William Herschel, Friedrich Bessel, and other astronomers showed that the sun, while near the barycenter of the solar system, was not at the center of the universe.

There is a video called "Ptolemaic Planetary model" by YouTube user rufjunk which demonstrates how the geocentric and heliocentric models would appear.

Could Red Shift prove that the Earth, the solar system, and the Milky Way galaxy are indeed at the center of the universe?

From every coordinate on Earth North pole, South pole, East, and West, you will see red shift if you look deep into space.

This proves that galaxys are moving away from the Earth in every direction.

This seems to suggest that our galaxy is in the center of the universe.

I can't figure out any other way to interpret this?

FYI. The BB cosmology has no center for the expanding universe thus no object exists at or near the center. The Copernican principle is assumed in cosmology. I do see older reports where in cosmology, some took the position that the Earth could still be at the center of the expanding universe. Example, The Red Shift Hypothesis for Quasars: Is the Earth the Center of the Universe?, 3V/abstract, August 1976, "It is shown that the cosmological interpretation of the red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Consequences of this result are examined." Also a follow up report here, The Red-Shift Hypothesis for Quasars: Is the Earth the Center of the Universe? II,, September 1977.

Placing the Earth or Milky Way at the center of expanding universe contradicts the Copernican principle in cosmology. If the Earth or Milky Way were at or near the center and *proven*, this raises serious questions about how such a configuration came about in origins science, thus many/most today go with the Copernican principle in cosmology.

Are there any other planets in the solar system which, when viewed from their surface, their moons appear to be exactly the same size as the sun?

I watched the eclipse with my friends last summer, and it occurred to me, "Hey, the moon is just exactly the right diameter, and distance from the Earth, that when you look at it from the Earth, it appears to be exactly the same size as the sun." Is this just a coincidence, or is there a good reason for this?

Are there other planets in the solar system where their moon(s) appear to be the same size as the sun? That is, you could watch an eclipse from the planet, and it would look like it does on Earth, where you can see the halo, or corona, of the sun, around the moon?

--- TLDR BELOW ---

In order to get perfect eclipses, the distance to the host star in proportion to its size must equal to the distance to the moon in question in proportion to its own size. Basically, the ratio of size and distance must be the same for both Sun and a moon. The formula for that will look this - Sun Dist. / Sun Diam. = Moon Dist. / Moon Diam.

Now, we just check every moon in the Solar System, do the math, and see if anything fits. And I'm finally done with it. It's 4AM, but this question is just too interesting. Here are my findings:

Mars, the only other rocky planet with moons. Doesn't fit. Mars' moons are too small and too far away. The moons are really just captured asteroids - they're not even round. At best the Mars' closest moon, Phobos, appears in the sky about 3 times smaller than the Sun.

Next, the round moons of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, of which there are 4, 6, 5, and 1 respectively, are too large. Actually, the Sun is too small at this point. It appears about 5, 10, 20, and 30 times smaller in the sky, again, respectively, so all round moons of gas giants cover the Sun completely. The closest one is Mimas of Saturn - it appears only 7.5% larger than the Sun at its best. Even the smallest one appears twice as large as the Sun.


However, not all hope is lost. One smaller moon of Jupiter, Janus, comes very close, 99.6% match! The catch is that it is not round. The thinnest side of Junas appears pretty much the same size as the Sun, but the widest part is larger than the sun by 30%. The total solar eclipse caused by Janus, seen from the "surface" of Jupiter might look even more fascinating than on Earth due to the uneven shape of the moon!

There's also Perdita, a tiny

30 km rock orbiting Uranus. Unfortunately, we don't know much about its exact size and shape, but the approximations we have give it a small chance to also create perfect eclipses.

Scientists Spot A Planet That Looks Like 'Earth's Cousin'

Scientists who have been hunting for another Earth beyond our solar system have come across a planet that's remarkably similar to our world.

It's almost the same size as Earth, and it orbits in its star's "Goldilocks zone" — where temperatures are not too hot, not too cold, and maybe just right for life.

But a lot about this planet is going to remain a mystery, because it's 500 light-years away.

Researchers detected the planet while poring over data collected by NASA's Kepler Space Telescope. The telescope spent years staring at 150,000 stars, watching for telltale dips in brightness that might mean a planet was circling around a star.

One small star in the direction of the constellation Cygnus showed signs of five planets. Four of them are tucked in close to the star, so they're probably too hot for life.

But the fifth planet looked special.

"This planet orbits its star every 130 days," says Elisa Quintana of the SETI Institute and NASA's Ames Research Center. It's called Kepler-186f, and it's just 10 percent bigger than Earth.

The Two-Way

In Search For Habitable Planets, Why Stop At 'Earth-Like'?

At least in our solar system, Earth-sized planets are made of rock and iron and gas, says Quintana, "so we can guess that Kepler-186f, being so close in size to Earth, has a high probability of being rocky also and composed of those sorts of materials."

The Two-Way

'Planet Bonanza' Indeed: NASA Unveils 715 New Worlds

Conditions on the surface would depend on what kind of atmosphere it had, if any. If it was like Earth, temperatures wouldn't be balmy, Quintana says.

"Being on this planet would probably be like being in San Francisco on a cool day," she says. "It would be a much colder place to live."

It would be warm enough, however, for one thing that's thought to be essential for life. "If this planet had the right atmospheric conditions, and if there were water on the surface, it would be likely in liquid form," says Quintana.

But if it has oceans, they would look different.

"It's not going to have a deep rich blue ocean, such as we have, because there's less blue light coming from the star," says Tom Barclay of NASA's Ames Research Center, another member of the team that describes the planet in the journal Science. "So the ocean would probably be a duller, grayer blue."

And because this planet orbits a dim, red dwarf star, he notes that midday on this planet wouldn't be bright — it would look more like an hour before sunset on Earth.

"It's very romantic to imagine there'd be places out there that look like Earth, and that's what we're trying to find — places that remind us of Earth," Barclay says.

Although Kepler-186f shares characteristics with Earth, "it's not an Earth twin," he notes. "It isn't around the same type of star. It's perhaps more of an Earth cousin."

Still, it's the first time anyone has found an Earth-size planet in the habitable zone of a distant star, Barclay adds. "This is a really profound discovery. It's a major milestone."

Other experts on planets beyond our solar system agree that this discovery is a big deal.

"This planet really is the same size as the Earth and the same temperature," says David Charbonneau of Harvard University. "Up until this point, planets satisfied one of those two, but we really didn't have one that was both those things together."

Both those things are key to life on Earth, Charbonneau says, but we'll probably never know if this new planet has life. "And the reason," he explains, "is that this star system is just too far away from us."

Even though this planet is too distant for follow-up work with other telescopes, it suggests similar worlds might be out there orbiting other red dwarf stars, which are very common.

If scientists could find another planet like this around a nearby star, he says, "we could really study the atmosphere and really figure out something about whether it truly is Earth-like and maybe whether it actually has life on the surface."

That's why Charbonneau and other scientists will keep searching for other Earth-like planets closer to home.

Get notifications of new blog posts

If you want to get alerts every time I do one of these posts, join my Robert Walker - Science20 Blog Alerts facebook page.

To get a red facebook alert every time I post a new science20 article, or post an idea for a new article, then select "all on" in the page's Liked drop menu above.

For email alerts about once every month or so, subscribe to Robert Walker's Science 20 blog Monthly Alerts on Google Groups.

This article was originally posted as my answer to Would we be in a stable orbit if Nibiru were just behind the Sun? on quora.

I'm Robert Walker, inventor & programmer. I have had a long term special interest in astronomy, and space science since the 1970s, and most of.

2 Answers 2

Let's assume some area in space contained your "islands" - planetoids orbiting your sun. And somehow there was an atmosphere around them (we will get to that later). Atmosphere would have to orbit sun exactly same speed as your planetoids, otherwise they will experience drag, lose orbital speed, and fall to the sun. OK so far so good.

Any other space body passing area of your planetoids would slam into such atmosphere. Comets, meteors, you have it. Gravity from other big planets orbiting your sun (if any).

You would have hard time to keep such atmosphere where you want it - gravity of a planet keeps it around a planet in a "standard" case, but your "islands" do not have enough gravity to keep gases from dispersing in space.

So unless you use some complicated unstable construct like Niven, is "standard" universe answer would be: NO. Not without using a lot of magic or handwavium.

5 Answers 5

Approximately, yes. The gross gravitational effects on the trajectories of the spacecraft and the other object will be the same.

The force of gravity between two objects is proportional to the product of their masses by $F = m a$ , the acceleration of each object cancels out its own mass ( $a = frac $ ) and so depends on the mass of the other object.

Since the bolt is in a very slightly different location relative to the earth and moon during the trip, however, the influence of gravity on it will be very slightly different in amount and direction, so it won’t follow an exactly parallel trajectory. It will be extremely close, however, and in practice I believe the difference in gravitational influence will be tiny compared with the difficulty of releasing the object with exactly zero initial velocity relative to the spacecraft. There would also be other confounding factors: solar pressure on the two bodies would push them off course by different amounts, the spacecraft will be venting various things that will push it around, etc.

The acceleration due to gravity will be identical regardless of mass, assuming the mass of your spacecraft is negligible compared to mass of the object you're orbiting. For example the Earths moon is large enough to effect the motion of the earth so it doesn't orbit the centre of the earth, but instead it orbits the shared centre of mass of the Earth and moon (barycenter). Strictly this is true for any orbiting body, but for small objects it is realistic to assume the barycenter is the centre of the earth.

However gravity is not the only force acting on the spacecraft, although it will be strongest up until entry into the earths atmosphere. Drag from the Earths upper atmosphere would probably be noticeable below 2000 km altitude and will accelerate the two objects at different rates causing them to diverge. Also solar radiation pressure will accelerate them at different rates, but this force is so small it would take longer than a single orbit for it to be noticed.

So the two objects would stay at approximately the same distance until the effects of drag in the upper atmosphere start to become measurable.

What the other answers fail to mention is that the mass of your orbiting object actually cancels out. It does not matter. See these two equations:

(1) $F_1 = F_2 = G m_1 m_2 / r^2$

Where F is force, G is the universal gravitational constant, m is mass, and r is distance between centers of mass of the orbiting and orbited bodies in question. The 1 and 2 represent the object in question, for example $m_1$ is the mass of object 1 and $F_1$ is the force exerted on object 1.

i.e., the mass of the orbiting object does not influence its acceleration in any way.

edit: added an index of 1 to a.

This is a late answer a closely related question was recently closed as a duplicate of this.

Does trajectory of an object orbiting a planet depend on the object's mass?

Several of the answers correctly invoke the principle of the universality of free fall, which dictates that the acceleration from the perspective of an inertial frame of reference of an object toward the Earth is independent of the object's mass. What these answers miss is that the universality of free fall also dictates that the Earth must be accelerating toward the orbiting object, and this acceleration is directly proportional to the object's mass.

This means that the orbital period of an object orbiting the Earth is $T = 2pisqrt>$ where $a$ is the orbit's semi-major axis length, $G$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant, $M$ is the mass of the Earth, and $m$ is the mass of the orbiting object. This is the Newtonian version of Kepler's third law.

In a theoretical universe in which our Moon was replaced with an Earth-sized object orbiting at 385000 km, that Earth-sized object and the Earth would orbit one another in 19.3 days instead of 27.3 days, the length of a sidereal month. In yet another theoretical universe in which our Moon was replaced with a tiny rock orbiting at 385000 km, the tiny rock would orbit the Earth in 27.5 days instead of 27.3 days.

48 thoughts on &ldquo Star Trails Prove Earth is the Center of the Universe &rdquo

Interesting. By the way, why can’t we see Polaris from the Southern hemisphere? I guess it’s because it’s very close to the horizon? But then, how is it possible to see nice circular star trails in the sky in the Southern hemisphere too (example: Oh, and did you notice how the star trails filmed in the North hemisphere rotate counter-clockwise, while star trails filmed in the South hemisphere rotate clockwise? I’m confused, shouldn’t the stars rotate in the same direction no matter were you are on the flat Earth?

Interesting is right. I’ve just begun to look into the whole Southern stars theory(s). How can stars rotate in different directions on a flat earth model? The cannot, yet could be due to the perspective viewpoints. One thing for sure is that the round spinning ball theory cannot be. If we travel halfway around the Sun, in 6 months our perspective of how we view the stars would be completely different since we are now some 216.5 million miles away looking at the Sun.

according to Eric Dubay, the reason we see it appear to circle is due to where we are viewing. Also similar to perspective about us seeing the Sun go down in the West, yet it is really just continuing on its circular path above us just a few thousand miles above.

“Which direction is the camera facing exactly? And what do the star trails to the North look like from there? I would like to see some independent astrophotographers in the Southern hemi-flat film star trails simultaneously North and South (and East and West too, if possible). I would also like to know the inclination of the camera. How high in the sky is the center of this rotation? Does it get higher and higher the further South you travel? And at the fake South Pole, is fake Sigma Octantis exactly overhead as it should be? Do ALL the visible stars in the sky there rotate around this central point as they do around Polaris? All of these must happen to fit the ball model. The burden of proof is completely on the ballers. ”

This also explains why we cannot see all stars in the sky. They are too close and when we go south we see those stars but not northern. If things are closer to Earth we would not see them all. The fact that telescopes never have to move at night except for ‘drift’ is another argument for FE. If we are spinning at 1,000 mph, going around the Sun at 1,000 mpSECOND, then going around the Milky Way at some 500,000mph all the while still accelerating a the speed of light from the Big Bang…and the no adjustment of your telescope is needed…WTF?

Interestingly, the whole 23.5 degree tilt of the Earth was created because down at the Tropic of Cancer, (which just happens to be 23.5 degree) they reported being able to see the North pole star. If on a globe, you should not of been able to see the North star past the Equator, so they just tilted the Earth and made up “processional axis rotation”.

Also, according to current legend, the South pole star is not visible by the naked eye, or even with a store bought telescope, so once again we have to take the scientists, err storytellers word for it.

Note that the southern tropic is Capricorn, not Cancer.

But the answer to this conundrum, whereby star trails in the north travel ACW, but those in the south appear to travel CW, lies in the determination of the centre of rotation.
Clearly, in the north, the COR is Polaris.
But in the south, the COR is not defined.
We are told that it is sigma octantis but this star and its associated Southern Cross, rise and set in the same way as other star groups ie they are peripheral stars in a great wheel, and do not define a COR.
Thus, we cannot define a directionality without knowing a COR for example, if the COR is above the line of stars tracking L-R in the sky, then these stars are rotating ACW, which fits the FE hypothesis.
However, if the COR is below the line of stars, then these stars are rotating CW, which we are told is the case but illogically, for the reasons given.

If Earth has an elliptical orbit, why can't we feel its acceleration?

In an elliptical orbit, the orbiting body is much faster as it is nearer to its sun(What's the generic term for the center body?). Why don't the people on the leading side of the earth get pushed downward when the planet speeds up?

I find that (while it isn't 100% accurate) its helpful to think of us as orbiting the sun. It isn't just the earth that's in orbit, we are too.

Same things happen with astronauts in satellites around Earth. Some of those are on elliptic orbits, yet the astronauts don't experience acceleration relative to the vehicle at all.

So if we built a freeway along the equator and took a lambo on the on ramp and at some point went from 35 mph to 180 mph over the period of seconds. Are you saying the passenger wouldn't "feel" the acceleration? Because the car and the contents of the car are accelerating at the same amount?

Even in an elliptical orbit, you are still in freefall at your apogee, perigee, and everywhere inbetween. The best way to get an intuitive idea of how orbital mechanics work is to play Kerbal Space Program for a few hours.

That might be taken in jest by those unfamiliar with it, but I agree that KSP is a great way to teach orbital mechanics. The game achieves a very good balance between physical realism and pure gaming fun - in other words, it remains fun even though the simulations are realistic.

It should be noted that the game is 'realistic' but the parameters of the planets (density, radius) are a changed a bit to make it easier to get stuff off the ground and into space, otherwise it would not be fun at all (it is extremely hard to achieve orbit on Earth in this universe). But the laws of motion remain the same and the simulation is accurate given the initial conditions.


I believe Earth is spherical and motionless in the center of the universe (not orbiting anything, and not spinning). This is my model, and my main proof for Earth not moving is the 1887 Michelson & Morley experiment.

To describe the experiment in the simplest way possible, they shot two light beams in different directions. One lightbeam was towards the direction they thought Earth was moving. The other lightbeam was perpendicular to this one, but for argument's sake I'll pretend it was directly opposite the first light beam.

If Earth was moving, the first lightbeam wouldn't be measured as fast as the second, because they'd be 'catching up' to that beam as they rode on the moving Earth.

Since the second beam went the other way, and they'd be on Earth zooming away from it, it would seem to travel faster. Specifically, it'd seem to travel at the speed of light plus the speed of Earth.

In reality, they measured practically no difference in the speed of the lightbeams. This proves Earth isn't moving.

"Indeed, these were the results of the Michelson-Morley expirement. But you forget one thing light is an electromagnetic wave, and electromagnetic waves travel at the constant speed of 300.000klm/sec. According to this, the results were pretty logical."

I didn't forget that the speed of light is constant. I simply don't believe it. It doesn't make sense. If a light wave is coming towards me while I'm walking, the speed of light will seem to be faster because we are both approaching either other. Specifically, it will be the speed of light plus my walking speed.

And if I'm walking away from it, it will be slower. The speed of light minus my walking speed.

This is just like two cars approaching either other in head-on collision. If each car is moving at 50 mph as measured by their speedometers (which measures speed relative to the ground), it will seem to the drivers of both cars that the other car is approaching at 100 mph.

Using this analogy one can see it's impossible for light to always be measured as going the same speed, since if you're moving with the lightbeam it'll seem to be going slower, and if you're going against it, it'll seem to be going faster. Just like in the car analogy.

"The expirement in that way also debunked the hypothesis of the ether as a medium through which electromagnetic waves travel."

It did not debunk the aether hypothesis. It just proved the aether wasn't moving relative to Earth.

"I would like you to explain the cosmological hypothesis or theory you believe in."

I believe what the Book of Genesis in the Bible says. The Earth was created about 6,000 years ago and the sun and moon and stars were created after the Earth. The universe is a sphere with Earth in the exact center, and the universe spins around Earth every 24 hours.

"I believe that the universe has no center, being homogenic and isotropic, and that the earth is a small planet orbiting the star known as "sun" and spinning."

If the universe has no center then the Earth is moving around the sun relative to what? And the Earth is spinning relative to what? All motion is relative, but not all motion is absolute. The concept of motion doesn't make sense without an implied frame of reference.

"the big bang . is supported by evidence that include the redshift effect and the cosmic microwave background radiation"

Everything being redshifted means everything is moving away from Earth. Everything moving away from Earth proves Earth is the center of everything. That proves my theory right!

The cosmic microwave background radiation actually proves the big bang is wrong, not right. The Big Bang predicts the arrangement of stars and galaxies in the sky to be completely random, but this 30 second video shows the opposite:

"Proof of the rotation of the earth is the Coriolis effect"

Actually in General Relativity the Coriolis effect will be there even if Earth isn't spinning. I thought my opponent believed in General Relativity?

"1. Once, I visited a well known observatory close to the area I live (Athens, Greece), and, since it was night, I was allowed to look through the telescope, which offered a great view of Saturn. But how was that able to happen, since, during the night, the Sun as well as the planets orbiting it, including Saturn, should not be visible?"

My image didn't have Saturn in it. Sorry. Here is a better version:

"2. The scientific society clearly states that the correct model is the heliocentric. Why would they lie about that?"

My opponent earlier said he believes the universe has no center, in other words, it's acentric. So how can he believe in both heliocentrism and acentrism when they contradict each other? Anyway to get to the point, modern science believes in acentrism so I simply don't believe the Scientific Society has said heliocentrism is true. Can my opponent provide a link? And exactly what scientific society is he talking about?

"3. In the picture you sent me, the Sun looks really smaller than the one pictured by the scientific society. But, judging by its size, nuclear fusion should not be able to happen, especially for a time as long as we know the Sun to exist. It also would not be able to produce radiation so intense as seen in cases like the Aurora borealis, for example. Any explanations about that?"

My image is not drawn to scale. I forgot to point that out.

"4. The geocentric model used to be considered true, but it was gradually proven to be more and more inaccurate, forcing astronomers to add epicycles and epicycles on the previous ones on the planets' orbits, in order to make it better."

"The problem was solved by Kepler's modifications on the heliocentric model, while the geocentric model still lacked in accuracy. What makes you think it is true?"

Kepler's modifications of orbit shapes work in the geocentric model just as well as in the heliocentric. Besides, the geocentrist Cassini said the orbits are not ellipses like Kepler claimed, but are actually Cassinian ovals. Today, hundreds of years later, there is still no proof which person was right. (1)

I believe the geocentric model is true because of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

First of all, your concept of the speed of light is totally wrong. Electromagnetic waves travel at the constant speed of 300.000klm/sec. As mentioned in the comments, though, it can be observed to be different by an observer who is under different gravitational circumstances, due to general relativity. And, one more thing: Science does not care if you believe it or not. We say it is that way, because it has been tested. What you are doing wrong is to present motion ruled by quantum physics to happen in the same way as motion in the Newtonian physics, being used to it because of your everyday experiences. Therefore, your analogy is irrelevant.

You believe that the earth was created by God 6.000 years before? I'm sorry, but there are even trees and forests older than that. (tree)
I hope you can also explain the fossils that were discovered and prove the existence of dinosaurs and the fact that petroleum needs a few million years to be created.
Anyway, the reason I asked you that is to know, in case you deny the big bang, how did the universe result in being geocentric. But, seeing that you ascribe the existence of earth to God, I guess that the answer is the same.

The earth is moving around the sun, or the sun around the earth, you can pick the frame of reference you like more. When saying that the earth revolves around the sun and spins, I apparently describe its motion relative to the sun.

Everything moving away from the earth does not prove your hypothesis right, because the earth being in the center of the universe is your assumption. I will quote Hubble to explain this:
. if we see the nebulae all receding from our position in space, then every other observer, no matter where he may be located, will see the nebulae all receding from his position. However, the assumption is adopted. There must be no favoured location in the Universe, no centre, no boundary all must see the Universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist, postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity, which is his way of stating that the Universe must be pretty much alike everywhere and in all directions."

I really did not see how the video proves the big bang wrong. Explain yourself, please.

General relativity has absolutely nothing to do with the Coriolis effect. I do believe in it, but I disagree with your claim. How would the Coriolis effect still occur without the earth's rotation?

1. Thank you for the clarification.

2. Heliocentrism describes our solar system (I do not think a link is really needed here, but here you go: ) and acentrism our universe. Hence, they do not contradict each other.
Furthermore, by "scientific society" I refer to all approved scientific organisations, such as NASA or CERN.

3. Alright, then. That makes things better.

4. Never did I say that Copernicus' model did not have epicycles. I said that the Geocentric too needed epicycles in order to be more accurate.
Truth is, I have inadequate knowledge of Cassini ovals, therefore I cannot elaborate on which one is right. Despite that, though, I looked it up and found out that the matter is, as you mentioned, debatable. I also saw how it would apply to the Geocentric model. Now that I have a good idea of the geocentric model you presented, I want to ask one more thing Why do you believe the earth is in the center of the universe? Can you prove that belief?

"Electromagnetic waves travel at the constant speed of 300.000klm/sec."

That's Einstein's interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and it's called Special Relativity. If Special Relativity is wrong then there's no reason to think light-speed never changes.

"We say it is that way, because it has been tested."

In this experiment, two light beams are measured to be moving at different speeds even though the observer doing the measuring is in an inertial frame. Here is an animation illustrating it:

"What you are doing wrong is to present motion ruled by quantum physics to happen in the same way as motion in the Newtonian physics, being used to it because of your everyday experiences. Therefore, your analogy is irrelevant."

My analogy applies until you can show specifically why it doesn't.

"You believe that the earth was created by God 6.000 years before?"

That question and the like are for an Evolution debate.

"The earth is moving around the sun, or the sun around the earth, you can pick the frame of reference you like more. When saying that the earth revolves around the sun and spins, I apparently describe its motion relative to the sun."

Yes, you can describe the universe from either perspective, but only one description can represent the true reality.

"Everything moving away from the earth does not prove your hypothesis right, because the earth being in the center of the universe is your assumption. I will quote Hubble to explain this:"

I've got a better quote from Hubble:

  • Redshifts "would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth . This hypothesis cannot be disproved" (1)

You see, Hubble himself said redshifts can't disprove Geocentrism.

"I really did not see how the video proves the big bang wrong. Explain yourself, please."

The Big Bang says the cosmic microwave background radiation should be evenly distributed in the sky, but the video shows a 3D temperature map of the radiation. This map shows the radiation has a pattern in it, giant blobs of temperature differences arranged opposite each other. But the Big Bang says this shouldn't exist the Big Bang says the temperature differences should be evenly distributed across the sky, like random noise.

"General relativity has absolutely nothing to do with the Coriolis effect."

Yes it does it says the Coriolis effect, while being a fictitious force in a rotating frame, is a real gravitational force when that same frame is considered non-rotating. To be more precise, General Relativity says that if Earth isn't rotating than it is the rotation of the universe (stars, galaxies, etc.) around Earth that causes the Coriolis force.

"Never did I say that Copernicus' model did not have epicycles. I said that the Geocentric too needed epicycles in order to be more accurate."

But the Geocentric model needed less.

"Why do you believe the earth is in the center of the universe?"

Because of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

"Can you prove that belief?"

Yes, with the Michelson-Morley experiment that showed Earth isn't orbiting the sun.


  1. Marlan

    I confirm. So happens. Let's discuss this question.

  2. Netilar

    cool!!! I've been waiting for him for a long time ...

Write a message