The Earth-Sun Relationship: A Matter of Perspective

[Dale]

ok but everyone in here argued that I was correct in this...am i cleary right or do i still not understand this? not sure if you are familiar with this thread. thanks for your time.

You took 5 months off. I have forgotten both your position and the arguments that you are referring to, but I am disinclined to re read it all when you cannot even be bothered to write a clear post. Please be specific in your question.

 

[jackoblacko]

You took 5 months off. I have forgotten both your position and the arguments that you are referring to, but I am disinclined to re read it all when you cannot even be bothered to write a clear post. Please be specific in your question.

Apologies, I can certainly be bothered however, I am not good with words. My question was simply doesn't the Earth orbit the sun equal to the sun orbiting the earth. In other words i was under the impression that its just a perspective we take for our general math that the sun is the center.

Again I am bad with words but it seems to me that the quote I posted cleary shows I am correct, yet I've been essentially laughed at on three forums now including this one for suggesting it

thx.

 

[1977ub]

Or sit in your bedroom, fire up some youtube lecture from top universities around the world lulz.

Thx, all I obv got to study up before I can ask such a question.

I wish I made a poll though in the meantime:

A) Earth orbits suns
B) Barycentric
C) Either Earth orbits sun, or Sun orbits Earth are fine.
D) Depends on which branch of physics
E) Questions is invalid because of lack of understand of the term 'orbit' etc.
F) Leave our forum.



to me this was a 4th perspective not sure how you all feel about this one if its correct or accepted or what ever.

It'll take me a month or two at least before I dig back into relativity and all that stuff. Maybe I'll bump this again when I do.

I think the best response integrates parts of B, C, D, and E.

 

[Dale]

Apologies, I can certainly be bothered however, I am not good with words. My question was simply doesn't the Earth orbit the sun equal to the sun orbiting the earth. In other words i was under the impression that its just a perspective we take for our general math that the sun is the center.

Again I am bad with words but it seems to me that the quote I posted cleary shows I am correct, yet I've been essentially laughed at on three forums now including this one for suggesting it

You can calculate all of the physical observables using any coordinate system you like, provided you do the math correctly. The math is simplest in what is called an inertial frame, but other coordinates are not wrong and can often be useful.

 

[jackoblacko]

You can calculate all of the physical observables using any coordinate system you like, provided you do the math correctly. The math is simplest in what is called an inertial frame, but other coordinates are not wrong and can often be useful.

Thank you I was sure that was the case, it seems to me that is C.

 

[jackoblacko]

I think the best response integrates parts of B, C, D, and E.

I'm curious how you left out A but included B. And E doesn't seem to fit here either.

 

[1977ub]

I'm curious how you left out A but included B. And E doesn't seem to fit here either.

C includes A. Better grasp of definitions might render question unnecessary... ? "E"

 

[jackoblacko]

C includes A.

ah right!

Better grasp of definitions might render question unnecessary... ? "E"

Thx!

 

[jackoblacko]

Does this mean in reality Earth orbits sun or sun orbits Earth are both correct?

 

[1977ub]

Does this mean in reality Earth orbits sun or sun orbits Earth are both correct?

You could make either argument. The sun-orbiting-earth argument would be more sophisticated, and has less practical application.

 

[jackoblacko]

You could make either argument. The sun-orbiting-earth argument would be more sophisticated, and has less practical application.

thank you.

 

[pervect]

Does this mean in reality Earth orbits sun or sun orbits Earth are both correct?

I would first say that I agree with the reference you cited that there isn't any observation that definitively settles the question - as far as I know. (I haven't attempted to check other references on the point, but the point seems valid to me.)

However, I would also say that I couldn't produce a theory in which the Sun orbits the Earth that's valid for all of space-time - at least not easily. The details and underlying issues are a bit technical, basically though locally there exists a fermi normal frame in which the Earth as it rest, but this frame is only valid locally, if you try to extend it to far it, one runs into mathematical difficulties.

So while it's true that GR allows one to determine a "local viewpoint" for any observer, in which they are at rest, you need to read the fine print about the view only being local. If you want your theory to cover all of space-time, it's harder.

I can't prove, at the moment, that it's utterly impossible to find a theory covering all of space-time with some "relaxed" notion of a viewpoint (i.e. perhaps a viewpoint is not NECESSARILY equal to a fermi-walker coordinate system), so I'll make a lesser claim. I don't think you'll find a _published theory_ that starts out assuming the Sun orbits the Earth.

Furthermore, saying that you do sounds a bit - odd. So I'd avoid saying it.

If you consider Newtonian theory, it will tell you that the Earth and Sun orbit a common barycenter.

If you consider general relativity, it will not single out such a point directly. Instead it will say something along the lines of ""Mass tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells mass how to move."" (a quote from Wheeler, http://astronomyandspace.blogspot.com/2010/06/quote-john-wheeler.html).

In GR, the idea of an orbit is an approximation anyway. It's a pretty good approximation, but you'll see things like "orbits decaying" that don't have any Newtonian counterpart. And if you try to take your thesis really seriously, you'd have to settle issues like "what is the center of a decaying orbit".

So, I suppose, my best answer is that the basis of GR is not really built around orbits, orbits come about as a good approximation but aren't a fundamental part of the theory - orbits come about when the system exhibits repetitive, or nearly-repetitive, motion.

 

[1977ub]

Actually it is only in very casual conversation is one body said to "orbit around" another. It is simplest to say that the two bodies orbit the barycenter. I believe that is the closest thing to an inertial frame and that the GR metric is simplest... Thus, Earth and Moon "orbit around" their barycenter, which rests inside the surface of the Earth. The Earth/Moon and the Sun orbit a barycenter which is inside the surface of the Sun. And the Sun of course is "orbiting around" a galactic barycenter near the galactic core. Then there is a supragalactic core and other structures. Pluto and Charon "orbit around" a center of mass in space between them. "Jupiter's mass is 2.5 times that of all the other planets in the Solar System combined—this is so massive that its barycenter with the Sun lies above the Sun's surface at 1.068 solar radii from the Sun's center. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_(astronomy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

 

[Dale]

Does this mean in reality Earth orbits sun or sun orbits Earth are both correct?

I have a fundamental aversion to questions about "reality". Every time someone asks that I ask them to define "reality" or to describe an experiment to test the "reality" of something. Very few people even attempt to answer.

 

[Chronos]

Science makes no attempt to define reality, it is content with modeling things in a way that is consistent with observational evidence.

 

[jackoblacko]

I would first say that I agree with the reference you cited that there isn't any observation that definitively settles the question - as far as I know. (I haven't attempted to check other references on the point, but the point seems valid to me.)

However, I would also say that I couldn't produce a theory in which the Sun orbits the Earth that's valid for all of space-time - at least not easily. The details and underlying issues are a bit technical, basically though locally there exists a fermi normal frame in which the Earth as it rest, but this frame is only valid locally, if you try to extend it to far it, one runs into mathematical difficulties.

So while it's true that GR allows one to determine a "local viewpoint" for any observer, in which they are at rest, you need to read the fine print about the view only being local. If you want your theory to cover all of space-time, it's harder.

I can't prove, at the moment, that it's utterly impossible to find a theory covering all of space-time with some "relaxed" notion of a viewpoint (i.e. perhaps a viewpoint is not NECESSARILY equal to a fermi-walker coordinate system), so I'll make a lesser claim. I don't think you'll find a _published theory_ that starts out assuming the Sun orbits the Earth.

Furthermore, saying that you do sounds a bit - odd. So I'd avoid saying it.

If you consider Newtonian theory, it will tell you that the Earth and Sun orbit a common barycenter.

If you consider general relativity, it will not single out such a point directly. Instead it will say something along the lines of ""Mass tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells mass how to move."" (a quote from Wheeler, http://astronomyandspace.blogspot.com/2010/06/quote-john-wheeler.html).

In GR, the idea of an orbit is an approximation anyway. It's a pretty good approximation, but you'll see things like "orbits decaying" that don't have any Newtonian counterpart. And if you try to take your thesis really seriously, you'd have to settle issues like "what is the center of a decaying orbit".

So, I suppose, my best answer is that the basis of GR is not really built around orbits, orbits come about as a good approximation but aren't a fundamental part of the theory - orbits come about when the system exhibits repetitive, or nearly-repetitive, motion.

obviously I can't fully understand this but I really appreciate the tone.

 

[jackoblacko]

Actually it is only in very casual conversation is one body said to "orbit around" another. It is simplest to say that the two bodies orbit the barycenter. I believe that is the closest thing to an inertial frame and that the GR metric is simplest... Thus, Earth and Moon "orbit around" their barycenter, which rests inside the surface of the Earth. The Earth/Moon and the Sun orbit a barycenter which is inside the surface of the Sun. And the Sun of course is "orbiting around" a galactic barycenter near the galactic core. Then there is a supragalactic core and other structures. Pluto and Charon "orbit around" a center of mass in space between them. "Jupiter's mass is 2.5 times that of all the other planets in the Solar System combined—this is so massive that its barycenter with the Sun lies above the Sun's surface at 1.068 solar radii from the Sun's center. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_(astronomy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

so Earth and the sun orbit each other around a point inside the sun, but Jupiter and the sun orbit each other around a point above the suns surface. Doesn't this describe two different patterns of the sun? That the sun is orbiting around a spot inside itself and outside itself?

 

[jackoblacko]

I have a fundamental aversion to questions about "reality". Every time someone asks that I ask them to define "reality" or to describe an experiment to test the "reality" of something. Very few people even attempt to answer.

Agreed this is what I was under the impression of which was why its just perspective to say one certain way

 

[jackoblacko]

Science makes no attempt to define reality, it is content with modeling things in a way that is consistent with observational evidence.

I could see this too, haven't hear it said this way. The observation I think of is watching the sun go across the sky, and we are unable to tell if it is the sun moving or the earth. Of course there are other 'observations' than visual but some of the people with physics degrees told me to look outside

 

[1977ub]

so Earth and the sun orbit each other around a point inside the sun, but Jupiter and the sun orbit each other around a point above the suns surface. Doesn't this describe two different patterns of the sun? That the sun is orbiting around a spot inside itself and outside itself?

An orbit is a relationship between two bodies. Any pair of bodies has it's own relationship.

As some person in their infinite wisdom has typed into wikipedia: "In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space, for example the orbit of a planet around the center of a star system, such as the Solar System.[1][2] Orbits of planets are typically elliptical."

 

[BobG]

Is this not legit:

Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p. 212 (248 in 1938 ed)):

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." Major figures in cosmology, physics, and astronomy (Albert Einstein, Max Born, Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Fred Hoyle, among others) are in agreement that there is no scientific way to prove either model over the other, nor any non-philosophical/theological justification for doing so, SPECIFICALLY in the context of General Relativity.

You can make the bookkeeping work out in any reference frame you want, so I'd say it's impossible to prove mathematically which model is correct. And the laws of physics apply regardless of the reference frame you're in.

I don't think that should be confused with what's actually happening.

Instead, that's a reason you need some actual observations of what's happening instead of 'proving' a model solely with mathematics (although the laws of physics and mathematics could certainly prove a model can't possibly be true).

And calculations in the Copernicus model was no easier than the Ptolemaic model, since a solar system filled with circular orbits required just as many epicenters and deferents as the Ptolemaic model. You didn't get an easier model to work with until the Keplerian model with elliptical orbits.

But it is a perfect example of being unable to prove the reality of either model solely by the math, since the laws of physics worked in both. It takes some other observations such as "can you detect any change in the angles between stars as you orbit the Sun?" to prove which is correct, except if don't know how far away the stars are and have no way to measure their difference, in fact, don't even have the capability to measure really small changes in their angles (it wasn't until Galileo that telescopes even started being used for observations) you don't know if the answer to that question really proves your point or not.

Not only did people not know how far away the stars were, they didn't even know how far away the Sun was (hence the long tradition of measuring planetary distances in "astronomical units" instead of a unit of known length, such as meters). In fact, the world's first international science project was an attempt to use the transit of Venus in the 1770's to finally, once and for all, detrmine just how far away the Sun was from the Earth.

That doesn't mean both models can accurately describe reality. It just means there's no way to determine which model describes reality.

 

[jackoblacko]

That doesn't mean both models can accurately describe reality. It just means there's no way to determine which model describes reality.

Much appreciated from all. I think I might understand, and although your explanation is good I'm afraid I wouldn't without Feynmans lecture series here

By our understanding of models or representations or whatever (I don't want to be to specific in the wording) things could work any of these ways I described. The sciences basically admit that.

But that's not to say they are equal, or that one is not more useful or even plausible than the other.

The best example I just thought of would be that the model of the solar system can function backwards, but we would be hard pressed to show that it does.

Science or physics isn't interested in exploring those thoughts, but rather seeks to explain the things that help our understanding of the tangible application to reality?