How do we orbit the sun when you can set your origin anywhere....

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
22 replies · 3K views
houlahound
Messages
907
Reaction score
223
As I understand it a coordinate origin is just chosen for convenience. So how can we state the Earth revolves around the sun when you could make coordinate origin at any point in the universe??
 

Discussion

Physics news on Phys.org
In classical physics there is a distinction between inertial and the rest frame of reference. If you put the coordinate systems in the Earth you have to introduce several fictitious forces to describe the movement of the objects from the Earth point of view. As the sun being more close to an inertial system is more natural to say that the Earth revolves around the sun. There are many other good reasons, I'm sure other people can provide a list.However, the question is particularly interesting in general relativity. Some people think (with good reasons) that the question of heliocentrism is inconsequential
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...s-the-earth-move-around-the-sun/#.ViiMpX4vfIU
 
houlahound said:
As I understand it a coordinate origin is just chosen for convenience. So how can we state the Earth revolves around the sun when you could make coordinate origin at any point in the universe??
You CAN choose your coordinate system anywhere you like, and in that coordinate system, the Earth will revolve around the sun. Also, in that coordinate system, the Sun revolves around the center of the Milky Way. These things represent physical reality.
 
If I make my inertial frame Earth I am at rest relative to it and the sun is moving around me...is it not.

Same for any point?
 
You are not free to choose what frame is inertial.
 
But I am free to choose where I make the coordinate origin and have everything move relative to that point...I think.
 
houlahound said:
But I am free to choose where I make the coordinate origin and have everything move relative to that point...I think.

Yes, you are. Not least because you observe the movement of the sun, moon and stars from the Earth. So, whatever theory and calculations you use to explain that motion (e.g. the heliocentric view of the solar system), you then have to map that to an Earth-centric view in order to describe what you will observe from Earth.

Both coordinate systems are equally "valid". As is any other.
 
So then why we claim one way or the other if both are equally valid, precisely my original question??
 
houlahound said:
So then why we claim one way or the other if both are equally valid, precisely my original question??

The main reason for the heliocentric model is to explain the solar system. The simplest explanation is found by considering the sun at the centre and the planets moving in ellipses, under the force of the sun's gravity.

It's then tempting to say that this is a preferred or natural reference frame and that in reality the Earth orbits the sun. But, in fact, it's simply the reference frame in which the overall motion of the solar system is easiest to explain.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nidum
I believe there is a difference between arbitrarily choosing the origin of your coordinate system, and saying that Earth revolving around the Sun is as equally valid as saying the Sun revolves around the Earth. The former is easy. You just assign coordinates to all observable objects and events relative to your origin. The latter is questionable at best. As AndresB said in post #2, you would have to invent some complicated fictitious forces to explain how the Sun revolves around the Earth. The explanation that the Earth revolves around the Sun according to the laws of gravity is much, MUCH simpler and intuitive, and is therefore the explanation of choice for science.
 
Thanks I get that's the case ie the most commonsense approach.

I over interpreted the Ptolemy argument.

I guess the point is there is no "special" reference frame eg the Earth the centre of the universe, anywhere you would like the centre to be is the centre.I think I have improved my understanding.

Thank you all.

Moving reference frames always gave me a headache at college, Kepler is good enough for my math ability, don't want anything more.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Drakkith
houlahound said:
So then why we claim one way or the other if both are equally valid, precisely my original question??
Changing the coordinate system does not change the actual motion - it is just a different way to calculate the same thing. If you choose a coordinate system that doesn't fit well with the actual motion (ie, with the sun at the center), it makes the calculations harder.
 
The choice of your coordinate system won't change what is actually happening. It changes your point of view.

You could think of it as lining up a pool shot. Looking down the pool stick through the cue ball to the 8-ball you want to pocket, it could be pretty tough to figure out where you have to hit the 8-ball. But if you line yourself up with the 8-ball and the pocket, you can see exactly where you need to hit the 8-ball. Then you stay focused on that spot and change your point of view back to the looking down the pool stick, through the cue ball to spot on the 8-ball you want to hit.

Some things are just easier to figure out in one coordinate system than the other.
 
I just threw a heavy and light ball tied by a rope, one does orbit more than the other. Got nearly three ball "years" before my solar system crashed.
 
houlahound said:
I just threw a heavy and light ball tied by a rope, one does orbit more than the other. Got nearly three ball "years" before my solar system crashed.
You mean they both "orbited" their combined center of mass? And the combined center of mass was closer to the larger one? Because they should both "orbit" at the same rate, since its the system that's rotating.
 
BobG said:
You mean they both "orbited" their combined center of mass? And the combined center of mass was closer to the larger one? Because they should both "orbit" at the same rate, since its the system that's rotating.
Aaaah yep, that exactly what I meant :-)
 
houlahound said:
As I understand it a coordinate origin is just chosen for convenience. So how can we state the Earth revolves around the sun when you could make coordinate origin at any point in the universe??
Quite right. In fact, the Sun orbits the Earth, as the Ancients figured out a long, long time ago. Shame on Copernicus and Galileo for opposing Church doctrine! :mad:
 
The Earth is not an inertial reference frame. It is a constantly accelerating reference frame:

As the Earth orbits the sun it is constantly accelerated toward the sun by the centripetal pull of gravity by the sun, causing it to follow the path of its orbit.

In addition, any reference point on the surface of the Earth is also accelerated by the gravity of the Earth and the rotation of the earth.

Add to that, the motion of the sun in orbit around the galaxy center.

If you set a fixed point in space, the Earth would rapidly move away from it.

Actually, you can't set a fixed point in space because the universe is expanding.
 
The speed of the Earth around the sun is about 70000 km per hour. All planets follow the sun in her circumambulation around the centre of our galaxy with at a speed of about 800.000 km per hour. Keep in mind that our planets with moons and rings (like Saturns rings) and also the Kuiperbelt and Oort cloud with billions of objects are following our sun in her orbit through our galaxy in a helical motion. Look at this video about helical motion and add the Kuiperbelt etc in it. Really impressing.
 
What are those speeds relative to??
 
Each speed is relative to the center of the big mass: Earth orbiting the center of our solar system (the sun), sun orbiting the center of the galaxy. It's just measured by measuring the orbit and the time it takes for one orbit. In fact we take that center as the inertial system from witch we measure. In fact: each time another inertial position.