If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Do we revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around us?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
in General Chat
Hi guys.
Although it sounds like theres an obvious answer, I was thinking the other day, even the sun isn't fixed, its moving incredibly fast around the milkyway, and the milkyway is probably moving fast compared to other galaxies... and I understand from a logic point of view why scientists choose the sun to be the centre of our solar system as it makes it simple (everything else revolves around the sun, afterall) - but when any two bodies are moving in relation to each other it depends which one you decide to fix in position as apposed to an absolute scientific fact which one is revolving round the other.
Bit of a weird question
but I have too much time on my hands and nothing to do so I guess I've turned to philosophy :.
I could equally argue that if I wish to define myself as the centre of the universe that is perfectly valid and every other body and object in the universe moves relative to me (even if I am moving, the centre of the universe moves with me, so in absolute terms I remain stationary all the time). Does that make sense?
Since there are no absolute terms in space - there is no 0,0,0 coordinate, for example - everything is just relative. So it depends what you decide to keep stationary in your model when saying what really orbits what.
Although it sounds like theres an obvious answer, I was thinking the other day, even the sun isn't fixed, its moving incredibly fast around the milkyway, and the milkyway is probably moving fast compared to other galaxies... and I understand from a logic point of view why scientists choose the sun to be the centre of our solar system as it makes it simple (everything else revolves around the sun, afterall) - but when any two bodies are moving in relation to each other it depends which one you decide to fix in position as apposed to an absolute scientific fact which one is revolving round the other.
Bit of a weird question
but I have too much time on my hands and nothing to do so I guess I've turned to philosophy :.I could equally argue that if I wish to define myself as the centre of the universe that is perfectly valid and every other body and object in the universe moves relative to me (even if I am moving, the centre of the universe moves with me, so in absolute terms I remain stationary all the time). Does that make sense?
Since there are no absolute terms in space - there is no 0,0,0 coordinate, for example - everything is just relative. So it depends what you decide to keep stationary in your model when saying what really orbits what.
0
Comments
:grump:
If we started travelling across it when the first pyramids were being built ...at the speed of light ...we wouldn't have gotten very far.
The milkyway is a blob with two huge arms sticking out.
We are pretyy near the end of one of those arms.
If we were just a little further up the arm
we wouldn't be able to see much of the universe.
The ammount of stars and light would be like a huge smog blocking our view.
Our understanding of where we are would be
very limited indeed.
You could say#
that the earth
is a room with a view.
You should watch this rolly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw
I know what you're saying, but my point goes deeper than that. It doesn't really matter about gravitational pull, we can kind of disregard that. If we depend on basic observation only, we remain 'stationary' and objects move around in relation to us.
Everything in reality is moving, its perfectly possible the entire milky way is moving at 50x the speed of light around some amazing mass somewhere in the univere. But from where we are, if we so decide that we are fixed in a relational sense, then its everything else that is revolving around us. I.e. we say a car is moving at 40mph, but thats only in relation to the earth (because thats obviously bigger, we deem it 'fixed'). But in relation to another car travelling in the same direction at the same speed, it could be argued it's not moving at all.
And since there is no absolute values in space (it is infinite and so has no start or end point) the only way to decide what point is fixed and what is moving is to choose a starting point. On earth, we use the earth, in the solar system, we use the sun, in the galaxy, we use the centre of the galaxy and so on... but all of these are just chosen because they are convenient (just as it is convenient to use the earth as a stationary point when measuring car speed, because otherwise it would be confusing).
So when it is presented as an absolute scientific fact that the earth orbits the sun it is not necessarily correct, because it depends on what the measurer decides is the 0,0,0 value.
It's like my question, whats the value of 0 / 0
However, I don't think it's logical or purposeful to disregard that matter, as this has been proven through calculations and also by direct observation of other planetary objects orbiting the sun, which serves as the proof that earth too orbits the sun.
Yes, again I agree that we can think that we're fixed. I just don't understand why we should, as scientists can argue that we indeed are not static based on stellar drift.
Well, I find these scientific facts as good evidence, as they're built on numerous on-earth and off world observations. And you don't need to decide upon a final static x,y,z position for neither earth or the sun or any other object you want to use as the origo. It suffices to i.e. measure the travel time of light by using precise tools, which is slightly longer in the summer as the earth converges against and ultimately reaches aphel. Scientists can also infer the same fact from other planets in our solar systems, and now even observe exoplanets orbiting stars lightyears away having the same orbital behaviour.