Astronomy in a Simple Solar System

[PeterDonis]

It is always that way from my viewpoint.

I was describing a "global" viewpoint using a frame centered on the barycenter of the solar system. In my exchanges with @DrStupid I have been giving reasons why that frame is the right one for describing orbits, at least if we want to include the Sun as well as the Earth and Moon in our description.

Of course "right" here is ultimately a matter of preference; nothing forces you to use such a frame. And if you insist on using a different frame, yes, the trajectories of objects will look different (but that assumes that the frame covers a given object's trajectory; note my remarks about the Sun not being covered by Fermi normal coordinates centered on the Earth). But the reasons I am giving for why the frame I suggest is the "right" one are not arbitrary; they are based on physical facts about the particular situation being described.

Imagine you are in a craft, orbiting the Moon. How would you describe things - assuming you knew nothing about modern astronomy?

Nothing requires you to use a frame in which you, or the particular object you are orbiting (or think you are orbiting), is at rest. So in the case you describe, you could use the frame I have been suggesting, centered on the barycenter of the solar system, just fine.

 

[DrStupid]

You could set up Fermi normal coordinates centered on the Earth's worldline, and those would cover the Earth now and a month from now (or indeed as far into the future as you like); however, those would not extend far enough in space to cover the Sun, so it is impossible to describe an "orbit" for the Sun in such a frame.

I'm not talking about the Sun but about Moon orbiting Earth. it seems I can't prevent you from claiming it doesn't, but don't wonder if you are quite alone with your opinion.

 

[PeterDonis]

I'm not talking about the Sun but about Moon orbiting Earth.

No, you're talking about the Moon not orbiting the Sun--about its path being concave towards the Earth, not the Sun. That is the claim you are making in opposition to my claim that the Moon's path is always concave towards the Sun. In order to even assess that, you must be using a frame that covers the Sun as well as the Moon and the Earth.

 

[CallMeDirac]

Summary:: Is there a simple way of proving that the Earth moves around the Sun and not vice versa?

It seems to me that Galileo and his successors benefitted from there being other bodies in the solar system other than the Earth and the Sun to prove that the Earth (and other bodies) orbited the Sun, and not the other way round.

In an imagined solar system where the Earth has no moon, and there are no other planets, asteroids, comets, etc, is there a (relatively) simple way of proving that the Earth orbits the Sun, and not the other way round?

best regards ... Stef

If you use gravity. (specifically quantum because sub-atomic gravity and gravitons are far too confusing) you can point out that either the entirety of physics is a lie or the suns gravity pulls the Earth into orbit and not vice versa.

(the sun does get moved slightly by other celestial objects in solar systems but for this it will work)

 

[sophiecentaur]

Of course "right" here is ultimately a matter of preference;

I'm not talking about the Sun but about Moon orbiting Earth.

Your are both on a hiding to nothing here. I think we all 'know what you both mean' because you are talking about different reference frames. We all assume that the Moon orbits the Earth except when the apparent paradox of the shape of the Moon's solar orbit is brought into the discussion. Is there more to it than that?
My comment about a possible lunar satellite also applies. In this case we could actually see that paradoxical behaviour in a back garden telescope. Now that would be an interesting point of discussion - when it arises.

PS Perhaps someone may point out that the situation could be unlikely or even impossible, with the two masses being so nearly equal(?).

 

[andrew s 1905]

I suspect we are conflating the technical and everyday definitions of orbit. When I observe the Galilean moons of Jupiter I am with Galileo in that they appear to orbit it.
Regards Andrew

 

[PeterDonis]

We all assume that the Moon orbits the Earth except when the apparent paradox of the shape of the Moon's solar orbit is brought into the discussion.

I would phrase it differently. I would say we all assume that the Moon orbits the Earth if the Earth and the Moon are the only bodies we are considering. We assume that because the Earth is the larger body. (Note that even here a more precise description would say the Earth and Moon both orbit the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system.)

My point is that if we include the Sun as a third body, we can no longer just assume that the Moon orbits the Earth; we have to decide what "orbits" means and what criterion to apply to decide whether the Moon is "orbiting" the Earth or the Sun. And I have been arguing for a criterion that arises from the physics of the scenario which, when applied, says that the Moon is actually orbiting the Sun (with the Earth supplying a perturbation to that orbit).

When I observe the Galilean moons of Jupiter I am with Galileo in that they appear to orbit it.

And in this particular case, the criterion I have described agrees: it says that the Galilean moons of Jupiter do indeed orbit Jupiter, even when we include the Sun in our considerations.

My point is that the same is not true for the Moon.

 

[andrew s 1905]

I am not disputing your technical definition but given the baricenter of the Earth Moon system is inside the Earth a Galileo observing from Mars might conclude the moon orbits the Earth at least informally. Regards Andrew

 

[PeterDonis]

a Galileo observing from Mars might conclude the moon orbits the earth

Sure, if he's only looking at the Earth and the Moon. Once he includes the Sun in his model he might see things differently.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I would phrase it differently. I would say we all assume that the Moon orbits the Earth if the Earth and the Moon are the only bodies we are considering.

I think that's just being controversial - you'd have to absolutely bend over backwards to hold that view genuinely.

There are some Horseshoe orbits that could possibly be interpreted that way. But have any of those actually been seen, apart from on computer sims.

 

[PeterDonis]

I think that's just being controversial

Not at all. Have you read and considered the arguments I have made in this thread? If not, please do so. If you have, do you have any counter arguments that address the substance of what I said?

 

[PeterDonis]

There are some Horseshoe orbits that could possibly be interpreted that way.

The orbit of the Moon in the frame I have been describing is not a "horseshoe orbit". It is always concave towards the Sun, as I have said.

 

[DrStupid]

No, you're talking about the Moon not orbiting the Sun

I never claimed something like that. The discussion will lead to nothing. I'm out.

 

[PeterDonis]

I never claimed something like that.

You said:

In the rest frame of Earth it is not always concave towards the Sun, but is always concave towards the Earth.

(Emphasis mine.)

This is equivalent to saying that, in the rest frame of the Earth, the Moon orbits the Earth and not the Sun, by the definition of "orbit" that I was using (and which you accepted for this discussion). And such a claim cannot even be made unless you can construct an inertial "rest frame of Earth" that covers the Sun for the required time period. Which, as I have explained, you can't.

 

[sophiecentaur]

by the definition of "orbit" that I was using

etc.

This is the point of my issue with what you have written. The flow of your logic is quite OK but your initial definition of Orbit is so far from normal experience that it's not surprising that your linear argument leads you to something that is not part of our experience. As far as Earth people are concerned, the Orbit of the Moon around the Earth would not change substantially, were the Sun to disappear. You and I know that the Moon is sometimes nearer and sometimes further away from the Sun but that it always 'goes the same way' around the Earth. The geometry of its path through space can be interpreted in many different ways - as with all astronomical objects.
You have a model that is, perhaps, self consistent but that doesn't make it anything other than an interesting ('controversial') sideline. It looks like some sort of paradoxical behaviour but that's all.
As @DrStupid says, this conversation is not going anywhere. I think I'm out too. You are neither right nor wrong.

 

[PeterDonis]

your initial definition of Orbit is so far from normal experience

No, it isn't. I am using the same definition you are using: the "shape" of the orbit in space is its shape in whatever frame has been chosen. The problem is that the frame you are implicitly using does not even exist; it can't be constructed. See further comments below.

You and I know that the Moon is sometimes nearer and sometimes further away from the Sun but that it always 'goes the same way' around the Earth.

No, we do not "know" that; that is my point. What you are doing here is taking a claim which is perfectly valid if we only consider the Earth and the Moon, and assuming that you can just stick the Sun into your analysis without changing anything except adding an orbit for the Sun. But you can't. To do that, you would have to be able to take the Earth-centered inertial frame that you are implicitly using to describe the Moon's orbit about the Earth, and extend it over a large enough region of spacetime to include the Sun for a long enough time period (at least one month). And you cannot do that; no such frame can be constructed. That is what I have been saying, and neither you nor anyone else has refuted it.

As far as Earth people are concerned, the Orbit of the Moon around the Earth would not change substantially, were the Sun to disappear.

This is another claim that you cannot make without having a frame that can cover a large enough region of spacetime to make the comparison you are making. And no such frame exists.

The geometry of its path through space can be interpreted in many different ways

It is true that the geometry of any object's spatial trajectory is frame-dependent. But that still requires that whatever frame you are using must exist and must include all of the objects you are using in your analysis. And the frame you are implicitly using to make your claims does not exist, because no frame can be constructed that includes the Earth, Moon, and Sun and has the properties you are assuming.

You have a model that is, perhaps, self consistent

And you don't. That's my point. You think you do, but you are wrong, because you are just waving your hands instead of actually doing the math.

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.

 

[berkeman]

After a Mentor discussion, the thread will remain closed. Thank you everybody for your contributions.