Is Mass the Absolute Frame of Reference in the Universe?

[bahamagreen]

Thanks DaleSpam, apologies for the clarifying diversion from the thread topic.

 

[RiddlerA]

Er... I still didnt get an answer for one of my questions..

Why do people still believe in heliocentric theory?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Er... I still didnt get an answer for one of my questions..

Why do people still believe in heliocentric theory?

Here's your original question:

If relativity is true, then geocentric theory of the universe is just as true as the heliocentric theory... So that makes galileo's observations wrong... why do they have to discover that the Sun is at the center of the solar system and all other planest revolve around it?
So the frame from which galileo, copernicus and many others imagined our solar system is from the god's frame(i.e. a frame out of the solar system)... I can say boldly that from Earth's rest frame, the whole universe revolves around it.. But it just doesn't seem right..

A geocentric frame is much more complicated than a heliocentric frame. That's the main reason the solar system is described from the point of view of the sun rather than the earth. But if you're going to include the whole universe, a heliocentric frame would be more complicated than a Milky Way galaxy frame and you really need a GR understanding rather than simply an SR one.

 

[bahamagreen]

Er... I still didnt get an answer for one of my questions..

Why do people still believe in heliocentric theory?

I'll try...

Relativity (SR) requires that frames of reference be inertial - not undergoing acceleration. This ensures the equivalence or interchangeability of the frames. Not all points of view will qualify as Relativistic frames of reference, and won't be "equivalent". GR surely has more to say about it... but I'm not sure Relativity even needs to be called up to address this question.

If you assign the galaxy at rest, you must conclude that the universe rotates about it.
If you assign the Sun at rest, you must conclude that the galaxy rotates about it, and the universe makes a compound rotation about the galaxy.
If you assign the Earth at rest, you must conclude the Solar system, then the galaxy, then the universe all make stacked complex compound rotations.
And if you assign an individual atom at rest, you must conclude an even more bizarre compound motion of the Earth, Solar system, galaxy, and universe about that.
If you assign an individual proton at rest... well, so you see where this goes.
At some point you have to ask where all the energy is coming from to maintain all these changing motions, and why all these moving things are not observed to suffer from the huge accelerations of curved motion, centrifugal force, conservation of angular momentum, etc.

Rotation is always quantifiable and detectable because of the measurable accelerations of curved motion, centrifugal force, conservation of angular momentum, etc. There is a state of no rotation in the absolute sense where these measures go to zero. From that frame of reference the universe is observed to be at rest and the galaxies, solar planetary systems, atoms, and so on are all complexly forming compound hierarchal stacked rotations in concert with the principles of curved accelerations, centrifugal effects, and angular momentum conservation. The energies required for the observed motions are all recognizable, the right amounts, and generally well accounted (as far as we understand so far...).

 

[SHISHKABOB]

The heliocentric model is held because it fits our scientific theories. And by scientific theories I mean everything from geometry to F = ma to general relativity. All of these things have been tested and affirmed and so they are held to be true.

Something like a geocentric model conflicts with a lot of our scientific models, and thus would oppose many of those things that we have tested and affirmed. So we'd be saying "even though we have weighed the rock to be 5 tons and has a density of 10 g/cm^3, we believe it will float if we drop it in some water"

 

[RiddlerA]

Rotation is always quantifiable and detectable because of the measurable accelerations of curved motion, centrifugal force, conservation of angular momentum, etc. There is a state of no rotation in the absolute sense where these measures go to zero. From that frame of reference the universe is observed to be at rest and the galaxies, solar planetary systems, atoms, and so on are all complexly forming compound hierarchal stacked rotations in concert with the principles of curved accelerations, centrifugal effects, and angular momentum conservation. The energies required for the observed motions are all recognizable, the right amounts, and generally well accounted (as far as we understand so far...).

The heliocentric model is held because it fits our scientific theories. And by scientific theories I mean everything from geometry to F = ma to general relativity. All of these things have been tested and affirmed and so they are held to be true.

Something like a geocentric model conflicts with a lot of our scientific models, and thus would oppose many of those things that we have tested and affirmed. So we'd be saying "even though we have weighed the rock to be 5 tons and has a density of 10 g/cm^3, we believe it will float if we drop it in some water"

Are you guys suggesting there is an absolute frame after all?

 

[SHISHKABOB]

No not really, I was just saying that, for example, the ridiculous system of epicycles did not properly predict the motions of the planets when compared to physical observations (made by an observer on the Earth). The heliocentric model suggested by Kepler and the one we use now, does a much better job of predicting the motions of the planets when compared to physical observations (made by an observer on the Earth).

This holds true for all other scientific theories. We make them, we test them, and if they work, then that's what we go with.

Geocentric was tested, did not work, we made another theory, tested it, and it worked (mostly, but we figured out Mercury later and now it works), thus we are going with the heliocentric model of the solar system.