Can the Sun Appear to Revolve Around the Earth from Certain Points in Space?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wvguy8258
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth Revolution Sun
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of reference frames in relation to the motion of celestial bodies, specifically whether there are points in space from which the Sun appears to revolve around the Earth. Participants explore the implications of different frames of reference, the nature of motion, and the philosophical aspects of defining what "revolves around" what.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Philosophical inquiry

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that there may be reference points in the universe where the Sun appears to revolve around the Earth, although this is contested.
  • Others argue that any claim of the Sun orbiting the Earth must consider the motion of other celestial bodies and the center of mass of the Earth-Sun system.
  • A participant mentions the concept of Lagrange points as a potential reference for observing such motion.
  • There is a discussion about the validity of different frames of reference, with some asserting that all frames are equally valid and questioning the existence of a truly fixed point in the universe.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the idea of a fixed reference frame, suggesting that it is a philosophical rather than a purely physical question.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of defining motion based on a rotating frame of reference, which would involve acceleration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus, with multiple competing views on the nature of reference frames and the motion of celestial bodies remaining unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in defining fixed reference points and the philosophical implications of such definitions, as well as the complexities involved in understanding motion in a multi-body system.

wvguy8258
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
I got into an argument with someone over Earth revolving around the sun vs sun revolving around the earth. He stated that there are reference points within the universe where the sun appears to revolve around the Earth that are NOT on the surface of the earth. I conceded that perhaps a point in geosynchronous orbit would appear to have the Earth revolving around it and the sun revolving around the earth. I then stated that you would be accelerating though in this orbit. He stated that there are 'fixed' points where you would not be accelerating and that the sun would be seen revolving around the earth. Is he correct?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Not entirely sure what you mean.
You could claim that the Sun orbits around the Earth but you would still have the other planets revolving around the sun.
You would also have to explain the apparent motion of everything else in the universe.
 
Your friend has a point in that neither "goes around" the other, exclusively.
Any two objects can be considered as being on orbit about their combined centre of mass. In the case of the Earth and Sun, the cm of the pair is as near dammit to the centre of the Sun. In the case of the Earth and Moon (more similar in size), the cm is at a point below the Earth's surface but a significant distance from its centre - hence the wobble, which causes the tides to have two bulges - one towards the Moon and the other one away from it.
 
mgb_phys said:
Not entirely sure what you mean.
You could claim that the Sun orbits around the Earth but you would still have the other planets revolving around the sun.
You would also have to explain the apparent motion of everything else in the universe.

One step at a time: can you specify a "fixed" frame of reference that is not on the Earth wherein the sun appears to revolve around the Earth?

The question, of course, is: fixed with reference to what? If you fix your FoR to Earth then sure, but I think the OP is referfing to fixed wrt some external FoR. This would need to be specified.
 
mgb_phys said:
Not entirely sure what you mean.
You could claim that the Sun orbits around the Earth but you would still have the other planets revolving around the sun.
You would also have to explain the apparent motion of everything else in the universe.

I know. He doesn't want to hear this though. He wants to believe that the heliocentric model is just our bias. I know that einstein said all reference frames are equally valid. I think he is trying to capitalize on this.
 
sophiecentaur said:
In the case of the Earth and Sun, the cm of the pair is as near dammit to the centre of the Sun.
Well, you sure are passionate about your celestial mechanics, aren't you? :wink:
 
sophiecentaur said:
Your friend has a point in that neither "goes around" the other, exclusively.
Any two objects can be considered as being on orbit about their combined centre of mass. In the case of the Earth and Sun, the cm of the pair is as near dammit to the centre of the Sun. In the case of the Earth and Moon (more similar in size), the cm is at a point below the Earth's surface but a significant distance from its centre - hence the wobble, which causes the tides to have two bulges - one towards the Moon and the other one away from it.

He didn't know this, I pointed it out. He is talking about full on the sun moving around the Earth in 24 hours, not moving around a common point.
 
wvguy8258 said:
He doesn't want to hear this though. He wants to believe that the heliocentric model is just our bias

In that case it's pretty obvious that the universe revolves around my wife
 
  • #10
DaveC426913 said:
One step at a time: can you specify a "fixed" frame of reference that is not on the Earth wherein the sun appears to revolve around the Earth?

The question, of course, is: fixed with reference to what? If you fix your FoR to Earth then sure, but I think the OP is referfing to fixed wrt some external FoR. This would need to be specified.

A point not on Earth that is not accelerating. The only way I can see the sun appearing to revolve around the Earth (if not on the earth) is if this point somewhere (outside our solar system let's say) is accelerating around in order to make this be observed. He is trying to say that he could 'take me to alpah centauri' or something and show me that the sun revolves around the earth. I think he is full of it.
 
  • #11
wvguy8258 said:
A point not on Earth that is not accelerating. The only way I can see the sun appearing to revolve around the Earth (if not on the earth) is if this point somewhere (outside our solar system let's say) is accelerating around in order to make this be observed. He is trying to say that he could 'take me to alpah centauri' or something and show me that the sun revolves around the earth. I think he is full of it.

What if it were merely turning about its own axis? :smile:

If you centred a scope on Earth, the sun could be seen to revolve around it...

I don't think your friend really understands that a rotating FoR is an accelerating FoR.
 
  • #12
wvguy8258 said:
I got into an argument with someone over Earth revolving around the sun vs sun revolving around the earth. He stated that there are reference points within the universe where the sun appears to revolve around the Earth that are NOT on the surface of the earth. I conceded that perhaps a point in geosynchronous orbit would appear to have the Earth revolving around it and the sun revolving around the earth. I then stated that you would be accelerating though in this orbit. He stated that there are 'fixed' points where you would not be accelerating and that the sun would be seen revolving around the earth. Is he correct?

Look. This whole question is philosophical not physics. The question of what "revolves around" what requires that one know for certain that one of the items in question is in a truly fixed reference frame. If one item is fixed then the other one is clearly revolving around it. Your friend claims that there are some "fixed" points in the universe. So how exactly does he know this? Presumably he is claiming to know where the "fixed point" (stationary frame) of the universe is located. He can't know this. To know where the fixed point of the universe is one would have to be God and have knowledge of what is OUTSIDE the universe that it can be referenced to. This is all nonsense. Therefore in physics all frames are considered of equal validity. One can fix a frame to the Earth and claim that all things revolve around it, (as was done for so many years in the past) but how would one know if the Earth itself (and that attached frame) is hurtling through "all that is" or not? One can't. So it's a test of faith. OK?
 
  • #13
DaveC426913 said:
Well, you sure are passionate about your celestial mechanics, aren't you? :wink:
I try to be precise! (Near enough for Jazz)
 
  • #14
sophiecentaur said:
I try to be precise! (Near enough for Jazz)

I was poking fun at your cussing.
 
  • #15
bjacoby said:
Look. This whole question is philosophical not physics. The question of what "revolves around" what requires that one know for certain that one of the items in question is in a truly fixed reference frame. If one item is fixed then the other one is clearly revolving around it. Your friend claims that there are some "fixed" points in the universe. So how exactly does he know this? Presumably he is claiming to know where the "fixed point" (stationary frame) of the universe is located. He can't know this. To know where the fixed point of the universe is one would have to be God and have knowledge of what is OUTSIDE the universe that it can be referenced to. This is all nonsense. Therefore in physics all frames are considered of equal validity. One can fix a frame to the Earth and claim that all things revolve around it, (as was done for so many years in the past) but how would one know if the Earth itself (and that attached frame) is hurtling through "all that is" or not? One can't. So it's a test of faith. OK?

I don't really think that's what this is about.
 
  • #16
No, I think this is what this is about, in a sense. Okay, so if in only one reference frame (earth-centered) it can be said that the sun revolves around the Earth and every other reference frame off the planet disagrees, then both claims are equally correct?
 
  • #17
wvguy8258 said:
No, I think this is what this is about, in a sense. Okay, so if in only one reference frame (earth-centered) it can be said that the sun revolves around the Earth and every other reference frame off the planet disagrees, then both claims are equally correct?

You could take it one step further and say that the Earth doesn't even rotate but the whole Universe goes around us. After all, we are the most important thing in 'Creation', so why should we expect to be moving?

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
 
  • #18
i think mb it might appear as iff the sun is revolving around the Earth if u were standing on the sun, like as if a mach truck speeds by u at a constant speed it seems like your vehicle is going backwards
 
  • #19
I understand from the other posters that general relativity would permit the assumption that the Earth is stationary (not rotating or revolving, nothing) and the puzzle pieces would still fit. However, wouldn't this require very distant objects (stars, etc) to revolve around the Earth at a velocity exceeding that of light? How can everything then fit together?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 193 ·
7
Replies
193
Views
16K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 142 ·
5
Replies
142
Views
140K