-Demosthenes- Posted January 24, 2005 Posted January 24, 2005 Isn't it possible to view everything in the universe as relative to the earth? Like the sun going around the earth? I'm pretty sure there is a fatal flaw to my idea, but I just can't find it... I guess it does make more sense the way it is, but i wonder...
Ophiolite Posted January 24, 2005 Posted January 24, 2005 Isn't it possible to view everything in the universe as relative to the earth? Like the sun going around the earth? .. Certainly. And judging by your name you may be ideally suited. You will have to start speaking ancient Greek, wear a toga, never sully yourself with experimental data (so a future career in string theory is possible), own a couple of slaves and think the amphora merchant's wagon boy is rather pretty. Good luck.
-Demosthenes- Posted January 25, 2005 Author Posted January 25, 2005 Think about it. The sun moves in relation to the earth right?
Ophiolite Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 No. The sun, the planets and the moon and stars, and the Earth, all move relative to me. I'm fairly certain I am at the centre of the Universe. Any time I wake from sleep there I am. It's uncanny.
Tetrahedrite Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Think about it. The sun moves in relation to the earth right? which is more likely: the earth moves through the universe, or, the whole universe moves around the earth?? I know which one I'm picking.
ecoli Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 No. The sun, the planets and the moon and stars, and the Earth, all move relative[/u'] to me. I'm fairly certain I am at the centre of the Universe. [/img] It's Ok, Demosthenes, not everyone on this site is this rude. Jeez guys it's just a theory, don't discount so easily...hear the guy out. Copernicous was a hated man in his day, but know where all kissing his ass, and wishing we could have been the ones to come up with his theories. So just relax a little.
Ophiolite Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 ecoli. Read with your brain on this one, between the lines. In my first post I've pointed out that an Earth centred Universe is exactly what the Greeks envisaged. If I I make that openly, as a point to a poster calling themselves Demosthenes, that would be rude, so I reminded him of it with some weak humour. In my second post I am pointing out that movment is relative. But also by making such a bizarre inflated claim that the Universe revolves around me I am agreeing with Demosthenes, and disagreeing:it is all relative! If all else had failed the smiley at the end says.. "Friend, this is a light hearted reply".. It doesn't say 'there is a serious message there too, if you want to take it.' I leave that last to each reader to figure out for themselves. Demosthenes - how were you reading my responses?
ecoli Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Well...it was a serious question, that deserved a serious answer. And a smilie doesn't doesn't mean your kidding around. Where's is that written in the SFN rules?
Ophiolite Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 ecoli. I'll say it again. My responses were very serious answers formulated in comedic form. You may feel free to tell me my comedy stinks and my points are invalid, but please don't tell me I did not give a serious response. It is regrettable if the structure of my response was misinterpreted by you, but I am not going to abandon a range of styles that limit what I am trying to express because sometimes I miss the target. The use of the smiley to convey lighthearteness I have deduced from observed usage on this forum..
JaKiri Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Isn't it possible to view everything in the universe as relative to the earth? Like the sun going around the earth? I'm pretty sure there is a fatal flaw to my idea, but I just can't find it... The earth is accelerating. The sun is not (in this little system anyway).
us.2u Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 I really fail to see Ophiolite was being rude just a bit of light hearted banter between us astronomers & sciencetists & saying welcome Demosthenes. Well ecoli & Ophiolite you both offer a great deal & make great learning. Nice to hear from you Demosthenes I believe everything in this solar system doe's move with each other in a relative fashion, & we all have a relative interest in astronomy. I haven't heard of you before Demosthenes but I see you've made a lot of posts I'm looking forward to your next one & yes you are right everything in our system has a relativity......
ecoli Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 I really fail to see Ophiolite was being rude just a bit of light hearted banter between us astronomers & sciencetists & saying welcome Demosthenes. Why would say welcome? By the looks of things...he has over 850 posts and been here for a year already!
Ophiolite Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Why would say welcome? By the looks of things...he has over 850 posts and been here for a year already! But he had been silent since August till he began reposting on 11th January, so he was new to us.2u and I. Jakiri, a hypothetical question. If we had advanced technologically to where we are today, but had retained our Ptolemaic, earth centred view, would we have been able to have conducted the feats of space navigation that we have? I am presuming that without Copernicus shifting the centre to the sun we would not have had Kepler's insights and Newton would have failed to develop a theory of gravity. Could we still have established a mechanical description of orbital paths, replete with epicycles upon epicycles?
ecoli Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Yes...but not one that we would recognize by our own standards. Incorrect theories don't stop people from basing further information off of it.
Mart Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 a hypothetical question. If we had advanced technologically to where we are today' date=' but had retained our Ptolemaic, earth centred view, would we have been able to have conducted the feats of space navigation that we have? I am presuming that without Copernicus shifting the centre to the sun we would not have had Kepler's insights and Newton would have failed to develop a theory of gravity. Could we still have established a mechanical description of orbital paths, replete with epicycles upon epicycles?[/quote'] Well epicycles worked. They gave good enough predictions for their users. Galileo introduced the idea that theories were true (in the ultimate sense) descriptions of reality - still it moves - (actually a very enigmatic phrase which is echoed in Newton's First Law). Making predictions about events was, prior to Galileo, simply a matter of constructing a useful hypothesis (not in the modern sense) to get the results. These hypotheses were neither true or false merely useful. QM seems to have travelled down this path much to Einstein's chagrin.
5614 Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 The earth is accelerating that depends on which point of the orbit it is in! as the earth moves away from the sun it will slow down, until gravity over-rides velocity (or momentum?) and the eath is pulled back towards the sun again for yet another year gone by! (well, almost, the eath would have to complete the orbit for the year, you know what i mean... i hope!)
ecoli Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 that depends on which point of the orbit it is in! as the earth moves away from the sun it will slow down' date=' until gravity over-rides velocity (or momentum?) and the eath is pulled back towards the sun again for yet another year gone by! [i'](well, almost, the eath would have to complete the orbit for the year, you know what i mean... i hope!)[/i] It's still accelerating...just in the negative direction.
Ophiolite Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Well epicycles worked. .I meant would some variant of epicycles have worked well enough for us to navigate spacecraft around the system. If 'yes', then Demosthenes original question can be answered as 'yes, we can still, for practical purposes imagine the sun goes round the Earth'. Or would the attempt at inter-planetary navigation finally have shown the fallacies in the Earth-centred view?
JaKiri Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 and the eath is pulled back towards the sun again for yet another year gone by That's an acceleration, is it not?
JaKiri Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 yes...in the negative direction Only if you define the positive direction as being 'Away from the sun', which seems silly. The earth's speed, ignoring tidal effects, friction and other such minor interactions, will remain fairly consistent throughout the year, or at least have a consistent cycle.
ecoli Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 No...I just called it that because it's accelerating in the opposite direction once the earth reaches the "other side" of the sun. Once it starts "coming back" to it's "starting" position. After it moves the furthest away before coming back.
JaKiri Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 Quite true if you want to talk about the orbit as a simple harmonic motion!
Dhawal Posted January 26, 2005 Posted January 26, 2005 Orbital Motion isnt SHM its Periodic Motion ! Huge difference between Periodic motion and SHM !
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now