Prove that the earth goes around the sun

In summary, the sun goes around the Earth. Many previous people believed this to be true, but it has been proven through mathematical means.
  • #36
how can you say that the Earth doesn't go around the sun?
the sun is as we have mathematically proven much much larger than the earth, and has a far greater mass. so if you believe gravity is directly a result of the presence of mass, and larger massed objects have greater gravitational pulls, then you could assume that the Earth more or less goes around the sun.

In fact it isn't that the Earth goes perfectly round the sun while the sun sits perfectly centered, the Earth and the sun both rotate around their centre of gravity. But since the sun is so much bigger than Earth it is easiest to say that the Earth goes around.

for example think of two Earth's orbiting each other, each would view the other as going "around". It is all relative but there are ways to make the information more usefull. in this case, the Earth is farther from the centre of the mass and so would be seen as the one orbiting. also the fact that there are other planets orbiting the sun makes it easier to say it is at the center of things, because the planets balance each other out, in a way so that the sun is more or less always in the middle.

So if you had a planet the size of earth, and put it in orbit around another planet that is twice as big, you would see both orbiting around a center of gravity, where the momentum of the mass on either side of the axis is equal, you could not say that the smaller planet is the one orbiting, because they both move around the same way. only the smaller one moves more, so it seems to be the one orbiting.

one distinction that can be made to clarify which one is orbiting, would be to trace the paths of the two objects aound there axis of motion. the one with the larger circle traced by its motion could then be labelled as orbiting around the other. I would have to assume that this is the case with the earth, although i don't have any proof, only logical reasoning.

If you want proof, i can give you proof but that requires you to assume that the sun is far more massive than the earth. for my proof i would tell you to do a simulation, take a basket-ball, make a wire come out from the ball and place a marble on the end. spin the ball and throw it in the air so it spins freely, then observe that the basket-ball does not spin around the marble. that's your proof.
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #37
revesz said:
If you want proof, i can give you proof but that requires you to assume that the sun is far more massive than the earth. for my proof i would tell you to do a simulation, take a basket-ball, make a wire come out from the ball and place a marble on the end. spin the ball and throw it in the air so it spins freely, then observe that the basket-ball does not spin around the marble. that's your proof.

Ok, but all movement is relative isn't it? Although it might not be helpful or useful to do so, why can I not just take the marble as my static reference point and say that the basket ball is going round it and that myself, the Earth and the entire universe are moving in a very inelegant and unnecessarily complex way relative to the marble?

Why can't I throw a one of those super bouncy balls around inside a hard walled room and say that the ball is still and the entire universe has this erratic bouncing in addition to its other natural movements until the ball (or universe) settles down?

Movement is relative isn't it? why can't one pick any item or point in the universe at random and call it "still"?
 
  • #38
BAsically the thery ofrelativityproves gravity tobe true. GRavity casues ustorevolvearound the sun because the spacetime curvatureof thesunidgreater thanours and pullsusin intothesunsorbit
 
  • #39
Brunny said:
Ok, but all movement is relative isn't it? Although it might not be helpful or useful to do so, why can I not just take the marble as my static reference point and say that the basket ball is going round it and that myself, the Earth and the entire universe are moving in a very inelegant and unnecessarily complex way relative to the marble?

Why can't I throw a one of those super bouncy balls around inside a hard walled room and say that the ball is still and the entire universe has this erratic bouncing in addition to its other natural movements until the ball (or universe) settles down?

Movement is relative isn't it? why can't one pick any item or point in the universe at random and call it "still"?
Motion is relative, acceleration is not. In order for the universe to bounce around a raquetball, an enormous force would need to be applied to it.
 
  • #40
revesz said:
how can you say that the Earth doesn't go around the sun?
the sun is as we have mathematically proven much much larger than the earth, and has a far greater mass. so if you believe gravity is directly a result of the presence of mass, and larger massed objects have greater gravitational pulls, then you could assume that the Earth more or less goes around the sun.

In fact it isn't that the Earth goes perfectly round the sun while the sun sits perfectly centered, the Earth and the sun both rotate around their centre of gravity. But since the sun is so much bigger than Earth it is easiest to say that the Earth goes around.

for example think of two Earth's orbiting each other, each would view the other as going "around". It is all relative but there are ways to make the information more usefull. in this case, the Earth is farther from the centre of the mass and so would be seen as the one orbiting. also the fact that there are other planets orbiting the sun makes it easier to say it is at the center of things, because the planets balance each other out, in a way so that the sun is more or less always in the middle.

So if you had a planet the size of earth, and put it in orbit around another planet that is twice as big, you would see both orbiting around a center of gravity, where the momentum of the mass on either side of the axis is equal, you could not say that the smaller planet is the one orbiting, because they both move around the same way. only the smaller one moves more, so it seems to be the one orbiting.

one distinction that can be made to clarify which one is orbiting, would be to trace the paths of the two objects aound there axis of motion. the one with the larger circle traced by its motion could then be labelled as orbiting around the other. I would have to assume that this is the case with the earth, although i don't have any proof, only logical reasoning.

If you want proof, i can give you proof but that requires you to assume that the sun is far more massive than the earth. for my proof i would tell you to do a simulation, take a basket-ball, make a wire come out from the ball and place a marble on the end. spin the ball and throw it in the air so it spins freely, then observe that the basket-ball does not spin around the marble. that's your proof.
That's not proof. That's an analogy - and a weak one.

The OP is asking if there is empirical evidence that shows the Earth goes around the sun and not vice versa. He acknowledges that there are all sorts of inductive arguments that pile up why this is surely the case, but that's not observation. You cannot observe that the Sun IS hugely more massive than the Earth AND THAT the Earth must, logically orbit it. That is an interpretation.

You're asking a mathematician to accept that "but it just makes so much sense it's got to be true!" - a mathematician.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
The OP and revesz will probably never read your comment, Dave. This thread is 4 years old, and neither have posted in over 3 years.

It fooled me too. I was getting ready to reply before I realized it.
 
  • #42
Ha aaaaa haaaaa haa ha haaaaaaa... That was so funny the thread is 4 years old & they haven't posted here for last 3 years either...
I only saw that to now... Haaa ha haa haaa that was so funny...thanks!..
 
  • #43
Locking tp prevent any further resurrection.
 
Back
Top