The Heliocentric Universe

From what I am reading on wikipedia Einstein has discovered that the
idea of a point of reference in astronomy is a necessarily trivial
thing. When making a model of the universe we can say that the stars,
the planets, and the earth all revolve around the sun, in a
Heliocentric model. We could also convert this model to any other
model with another point of reference, although it would be far more
complex to say everything revolved around the earth. Is anyone
familiar with the math involved in these calculations, and might point
me to a book?

I believe that there is other life out there, on other planets. My
theory is that the sun is the only star, and the other stars are just
bright and distant planets with life on them, the same as earth. I
think life can burn up and turn to light, and when it travels off of
one planet the photosenthetic life on another planet will catch it and
trap it on the new planet. But this is crazy, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

The realization that the heliocentric view was also not true in a
strict sense was achieved in steps. That the Sun was not the center of
the universe, but one of innumerable stars, was strongly advocated by
the mystic Giordano Bruno; Galileo made the same point, but said very
little on the matter, perhaps not wishing to incur the church's wrath.
Over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries, the status of the Sun
as merely one star among many became increasingly obvious. By the 20th
century, even before the discovery that there are many galaxies, it
was no longer an issue.

Even if the discussion is limited to the solar system, the sun is not
at the geometric center of any planet's orbit, but rather at one focus
of the elliptical orbit. Furthermore, to the extent that a planet's
mass cannot be neglected in comparison to the Sun's mass, the center
of gravity of the solar system is displaced slightly away from the
center of the Sun. (The masses of the planets, mostly Jupiter, amount
to 0.14% of that of the Sun.) Therefore a hypothetical astronomer on
an extrasolar planet would observe a "wobble".

Giving up the whole concept of being "at rest" is related to the
principle of relativity. While, assuming an unbounded universe, it was
clear there is no privileged position in space, until postulation of
the special theory of relativity by Albert Einstein, at least the
existence of a privileged class of inertial systems absolutely at rest
was assumed, in particular in the form of the hypothesis of the
luminiferous aether. Some forms of Mach's principle consider the frame
at rest with respect to the masses in the universe to have special
properties.

Modern use of geocentric and heliocentric

In modern calculations, the origin and orientation of a coordinate
system often have to be selected. For practical reasons, systems with
their origin in the mass, solar mass or in the center of mass of solar
system are frequently selected. The adjectives may be used in this
context. However, such selection of coordinates has no philosophical
or physical implications.

Fred Hoyle wrote:

The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and
heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it
is the main tenet of the Einstein's theory that any two ways of
looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate
transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.
(Hoyle, 1973, p. 78)

On Mar 9, 9:47 am, "CoreyWhite" wrote:
From what I am reading on wikipedia Einstein has discovered that the

idea of a point of reference in astronomy is a necessarily trivial
thing. When making a model of the universe we can say that the stars,
the planets, and the earth all revolve around the sun, in a
Heliocentric model. We could also convert this model to any other
model with another point of reference, although it would be far more
complex to say everything revolved around the earth. Is anyone
familiar with the math involved in these calculations, and might point
me to a book?

I believe that there is other life out there, on other planets. My
theory is that the sun is the only star, and the other stars are just
bright and distant planets with life on them, the same as earth. I
think life can burn up and turn to light, and when it travels off of
one planet the photosenthetic life on another planet will catch it and
trap it on the new planet.

But this is crazy, yes?

Yes!!!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

The realization that the heliocentric view was also not true in a
strict sense was achieved in steps. That the Sun was not the center of
the universe, but one of innumerable stars, was strongly advocated by
the mystic Giordano Bruno; Galileo made the same point, but said very
little on the matter, perhaps not wishing to incur the church's wrath.
Over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries, the status of the Sun
as merely one star among many became increasingly obvious. By the 20th
century, even before the discovery that there are many galaxies, it
was no longer an issue.

Even if the discussion is limited to the solar system, the sun is not
at the geometric center of any planet's orbit, but rather at one focus
of the elliptical orbit. Furthermore, to the extent that a planet's
mass cannot be neglected in comparison to the Sun's mass, the center
of gravity of the solar system is displaced slightly away from the
center of the Sun. (The masses of the planets, mostly Jupiter, amount
to 0.14% of that of the Sun.) Therefore a hypothetical astronomer on
an extrasolar planet would observe a "wobble".

Giving up the whole concept of being "at rest" is related to the
principle of relativity. While, assuming an unbounded universe, it was
clear there is no privileged position in space, until postulation of
the special theory of relativity by Albert Einstein, at least the
existence of a privileged class of inertial systems absolutely at rest
was assumed, in particular in the form of the hypothesis of the
luminiferous aether. Some forms of Mach's principle consider the frame
at rest with respect to the masses in the universe to have special
properties.

Modern use of geocentric and heliocentric

In modern calculations, the origin and orientation of a coordinate
system often have to be selected. For practical reasons, systems with
their origin in the mass, solar mass or in the center of mass of solar
system are frequently selected. The adjectives may be used in this
context. However, such selection of coordinates has no philosophical
or physical implications.

Fred Hoyle wrote:

The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and
heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it
is the main tenet of the Einstein's theory that any two ways of
looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate
transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.
(Hoyle, 1973, p. 78)

In article . com,
"John Zinni" wrote:

I believe that there is other life out there, on other planets. My
theory is that the sun is the only star, and the other stars are just
bright and distant planets with life on them, the same as earth. I
think life can burn up and turn to light, and when it travels off of
one planet the photosenthetic life on another planet will catch it and
trap it on the new planet.

But this is crazy, yes?

Yes!!!


Corey has a track record of stupid posts to spam newsgroups with.

--

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish." Painius