SO writes:
But in your view, the universe does not look like that, thus has no center.
I am not referring to the entire dimension of spacetime of the Universe. I am referring to just the scope of just the Solar System. So in the frame of reference of the Solar System it does have a center of mass/gravity very near to the center of the Sun.
SO writes:
I am correct in saying that the center of solar system is relative if relativity is true.
It depends on how you are defining the word relative and in what context.
BTW, just because the Sun moves around this center of mass/gravity does not make it 'relative' ('relative to what?) or mean that there is no center of mass/gravity for the Solar System.
SO writes:
You are the one who said the Sun is the center, which is obviously false.
It is not false, by all intensive purposes this is true. There is no other celestial body planet or otherwise that is closer to this center of gravity for the Solar System than the Sun. Additionally, the vast majority of the time the center of gravity for the Solar Sytem lies within the radius of the Sun. It is just a simplification to say the Sun is the center of the Solar System. Trying to explain barycenters and centers of mass and centers of gravity to elementary and middle school students would be overkill and they would not be able to comprehend much of the math behind it until later in there schooling. Therefore, this more in-depth focus of astrophysics is taught in high school and college after they learn fundamentals of algebra, geometry and trigonometry.
SO writes:
Yes it can shift more or less, but the point is, the Sun itself is not the center. The maximum distance the center ever comes from the Sun is 500,000 km, but yes, it can be closer.
You just contradicted yourself again. I thought you said the Earth was the center of the Solar System/Universe?
So how ever you look at it, you were wrong in saying that the Sun is teh center of solar system.
So you agree that the Earth is not the center of the solar system then huh?
BTW it was me who originally brought up the point that the Sun revolves around its barycenter along with the planets. The barycenter for the Earth and the Sun is very close to the center of mass of the Sun (approx 449 km from the center of mass of the Sun). Due to Jupiters much greater mass, the barycenter between the planet Jupiter and the Sun is just 46,000 km outside the surface (or more accurately the photosphere) of the Sun (which is 696,000 km in radius). This barycenter between the Sun and Jupiter is still within the atmosphere (corona) of the Sun and therefore it would still be correct to say that Jupiter orbits the Sun (though it does cause the Sun to wabble around this center of gravity just outside its photosphere).
Like I said earlier the 500,000 km above the surface of the Sun, center of mass/gravity of the Solar System is only if all the planets lined up on one side of the Solar System. This is an astronomical impossibility though. The probability of this happening is once every 8.6 x 10
46 (86 billion-trillion-trillion-trillion) years.
Planetary Alignments: Fact or Fiction?.
SO writes:
No I didn't, I was only explaining how things would work if relativity was true.
So you are trying to prove that the Universe revolves around the Earth by pointing out that the Sun wobbles around a center of gravity within its own atmosphere?
You are the King of Obfuscation!!
SO writes:
Myself writes:
By all intensive purposes it is if you are just looking at the frame of reference of the Solar System by itself. Saying the sun is the center of the solar system is a rough generalization of the model of the solar system since no other celestial body is closer to this center of mass/gravity than the Sun and everything in the solar system revolves around this center of mass.
Including the Sun. The Sun also revolves around that center of mass. So saying that Sun is the center is wrong.
I just said that. Again I am the one that first brought the point up about the Sun wobbling around its barycenter. Now you are just being deliberately confrontational and stupidly obstinant.
SO writes:
No, again, I do not accept this view. I'm just explainig it to you. I'm explainig how it would work if relativity was true.
You can't even explain your own view and model of the Universe/Solar System. How do you expect to explain mine? Can you predict the next solar eclipse with your discombobulated model of the solar system? Please I would love to see the mathematical calculations and orbital mechanics for this prediction.
SO writes:
Myself writes:
Show me a professional scientist who works in the field of astronomy for the last 100 years that does not agree that the Earth rotates and revolves around the Sun.
Every single one. They are either relativists.
WTF?!? What is a 'relativist'? Scientists don't use this term. It is like saying a scientist is a gravitist or a electromagnetismist or an evolutionist.
SO writes:
that believe that boh the Earth and the Sun orbit the center of mass of our solar system,
So now you are going to battle semantics. As I explained previously ad nauseum the Earth and the rest of the planets do revolve around the Sun, the center of gravity for the Solar System lies for the vast majority of the time WITHIN the radius of the Sun.
or are geocentrists but are not outspoken[/qs]
They are so not outspoken that nobody has ever heard of them. If they presented a valid, rational case for egocentricity you would actually see it in a scientific setting i.e. a peer-review journal, conferences, scientific discoveries, etc. What do we hear in the scientific community about egocentricity. Nada.
SO writes:
Becasue that means that earth is revolving around the common center of mass in the solar system together with the Sun. And Sun not being the center, but very close to it.
Which is what I actually originally brought up here:
Message 178 Myself writes:
The theories of relativity say nothing about things not having centers of gravity. The solar systems center of gravity is the Sun. Though the Sun itself ever slightly wobbles around centers of gravity/mass aka barycenters, which are inside the Sun itself. This is in fact one method we can determine extrasolar planets revolving around other Stars.
BTW, what is your point here? How is this helping your argument about geocentrism?
SO writes:
myself writes:
If we use the frame of reference of just the solar system than we can indeed state that the planets are orbiting the Sun (or near it enough to generalize it as such).
Than just say that it's near the Sun, and not the Sun itself that everything in our solar system is orbiting.
Actually the planets are orbiting the Sun in their orbit around the Solar System's center of gravity whether it is within the photosphere of the Sun or just outside of it in its corona. Either way saying that "the planets orbit the Sun" is a correct statement because in order to orbit the Solar Systems center of gravity they have to orbit the Sun as well.
Besides this is all a red herring in order to draw attention away from your previously stated geocentric model of the universe.
SO writes:
Everything we have today was built on those foundations.
Obviously not everything since you believe the Earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it. Science does not support this model.
SO writes:
By saying that we should listen to the majority of scientists you assume they are always right. It's a logical necessity. If you are not assuming that, than there is no logical necessity to listen to them blindly
Now you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. I said we should consider that majority of scientists and what they say. I did not say that we should uncategorically and blindly assume they are right no matter what.
SO writes:
What success?
Oh, I don't know. Accurate maritime navigation, astronomical predictions and so forth.
SO writes:
The only reason it was advanced over the geocentric one is because it explained the phases of Venus.
Copernicus' heliocentric model along with Keppler's revision of orbital mechanics made predictions which in the long run geocentrism could not never achieve.
SO writes:
Which geocentric model also describes
No it doesn't.
SO writes:
Standard candle is what redshift is calibrated on. It's the luminosity of an object.
True. I stand corrected. However there are various ways of determining standard candle.
SO writes:
There are lot's of explanations for redshift. One of them is that light from stars is coliding with H2 and thus slowing down.
H2 would not cause the light to "slow down" it would absorb than retransmit this light. If this were true we would tale-tale H2 absorption lines in the spectrometry signature of the redshifted light and determine this to be the cause. Obviously this is not what is occurring otherwise the astrophysicists would have figured this out long ago. BTW individual photons due not slow down in non-vacuumous material, they always travel at c, the speed of light. It is actually the absorption and retransmission of photons which is causing the 'light to slow down'. Also redshifting is not caused by the 'slowing down of light' but rather the shifting in frequency of light towards the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Again if gas or any other material were causing redshifting we would see its absorption lines.
You keep quoting from the same 1 or 2 'scientists' as if they are the only credible sources and who oppose the work of hundreds of thousands of professional astronomers and astrophysicists world wide.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
™ Version 4.2
