|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The relativity of celestial motion
As a non-astronomer, I have a simple question.
Since motion is relative and it is sometimes difficult to perceive which object is really moving and which (if any) is stationary (example being when you are the passenger in a train and and you see the train next to you "move away", you don't know whether your train is in motion or the train being observed until you can view a stationary object for reference). With the above in mind, how do we really know that the Earth revolves around the sun, verses the sun rotating around the Earth? Is it primarily because of Occam's Razor? In other words, do we accept this primarily because the mathematics around the physicis are much simpler if we accept that the earth is revolving the sun vs the sun revolving around it? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The relativity of celestial motion
"Ludwig77" wrote in message
om... As a non-astronomer, I have a simple question. Since motion is relative and it is sometimes difficult to perceive which object is really moving and which (if any) is stationary (example being when you are the passenger in a train and and you see the train next to you "move away", you don't know whether your train is in motion or the train being observed until you can view a stationary object for reference). With the above in mind, how do we really know that the Earth revolves around the sun, verses the sun rotating around the Earth? Is it primarily because of Occam's Razor? In other words, do we accept this primarily because the mathematics around the physicis are much simpler if we accept that the earth is revolving the sun vs the sun revolving around it? If it were just us and the sun, I think this would be argue-able (is that a word?) But since we have other planets, and we can observe their behavior we can determine who is revolving around whom. BV. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The relativity of celestial motion
(Steven Gray) wrote in message ...
(Ludwig77) wrote in om: As a non-astronomer, I have a simple question. Since motion is relative and it is sometimes difficult to perceive which object is really moving and which (if any) is stationary (example being when you are the passenger in a train and and you see the train next to you "move away", you don't know whether your train is in motion or the train being observed until you can view a stationary object for reference). With the above in mind, how do we really know that the Earth revolves around the sun, verses the sun rotating around the Earth? Actually, the sun and the earth both rotate around their mutual center of gravity. But to address your question more directly, you are correct that for two objects in uniform relative motion we can't distinguish and say that one is stationary and the other is moving. We can, however, detect acceleration. If one object is rotating around the other, this can be measured unambiguously. Likewise, in your example of two trains that are initially stationary with respect to one another, it can be determined which changes speed and starts to move with respect to the other. I'm not disputing your point, just trying to understand more clearly. If I were in one of the trains, and one of them was just starting to move (accelarating), how could I as an observer determine which train was moving without looking at a stationary object or the train's wheels? Secondly, have we been able to observe the acceleration of the planets in order to determine that they are orbiting around the sun as opposed to the alternative? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The relativity of celestial motion
"Ludwig77" wrote in message
om... I'm not disputing your point, just trying to understand more clearly. If I were in one of the trains, and one of them was just starting to move (accelarating), how could I as an observer determine which train was moving without looking at a stationary object or the train's wheels? An accelerometer would detect it. An oversimplified example would be a massive plumb-bob suspended from the ceiling of the trains. In the train that accelerates, the plumb-bob would show an angle with respect to the vertical. Secondly, have we been able to observe the acceleration of the planets in order to determine that they are orbiting around the sun as opposed to the alternative? Stellar aberration measured from the surface of the Earth shows that the Earth is in motion around the Sun (yearly cycle). The rest can be easily inferred from the observed geometry of the planets as they move. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The relativity of celestial motion
An accelerometer would detect it. An oversimplified example would be a massive plumb-bob suspended from the ceiling of the trains. In the train that accelerates, the plumb-bob would show an angle with respect to the vertical. Makes sense to me but is the earth in acceleration or is it now in uniform motion? Secondly, have we been able to observe the acceleration of the planets in order to determine that they are orbiting around the sun as opposed to the alternative? Stellar aberration measured from the surface of the Earth shows that the Earth is in motion around the Sun (yearly cycle). The rest can be easily inferred from the observed geometry of the planets as they move. What is steller aberration? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The relativity of celestial motion
"Ludwig77" wrote in message
om... An accelerometer would detect it. An oversimplified example would be a massive plumb-bob suspended from the ceiling of the trains. In the train that accelerates, the plumb-bob would show an angle with respect to the vertical. Makes sense to me but is the earth in acceleration or is it now in uniform motion? For the thought experiment we're conducting, the Earth is taken to be in uniform inertial motion. Secondly, have we been able to observe the acceleration of the planets in order to determine that they are orbiting around the sun as opposed to the alternative? Stellar aberration measured from the surface of the Earth shows that the Earth is in motion around the Sun (yearly cycle). The rest can be easily inferred from the observed geometry of the planets as they move. What is steller aberration? The motion of the Earth around its orbit causes small shifts in position of the "fixed" stars. This is due to telescopes having to tilt slightly to allow for the addition of the Earth's velocity vector to that of the light's. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...berration.html http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebe...berration.html .... etc. A google search will bag loads of links. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The relativity of celestial motion
"Greg Neill" wrote in
: Makes sense to me but is the earth in acceleration or is it now in uniform motion? For the thought experiment we're conducting, the Earth is taken to be in uniform inertial motion. Lest there be some misunderstanding on the part of the OP, when we're talking about the Earth rotating around the sun, the Earth is seen to be (and is) constantly accelerating. When we're talking about the train example, the acceleration of the Earth is small enough to be neglected. -- Steve Gray |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The relativity of celestial motion
"Ludwig77" wrote in message...
om... . . . What is steller aberration? Think of yourself holding an umbrella while it's raining. You are standing still, and the rain is dropping vertically, no wind. As you begin to walk and go faster and faster, you may note that the rain hits you at more and more of an angle. You might even have to tilt your umbrella a bit to keep from getting your face wet. This effect might be called "raindrop aberration." Now think of the light from the stars (stellar) as being like the rain. The same angle effect (aberration) is caused by Earth's motion through space. Back in the 18th century scientists were trying to prove that the Earth moved. One theory dealt with the "parallax" of stars. If you view a star from one side of the Sun, then 6mos later view it again, then there ought to be a displacement due to parallax. But their telescopes were too small to measure the parallax of even the nearest stars. One of those who tried was British astronomer James Bradley (1693-1762). Using a telescope 212 feet long, Bradley tried to measure the small displacement of stars in the course of the year and actually detected such a displacement. What he found, however, could not be parallax, because the displacement did not coincide with what would be expected if it were the result of Earth's changing position in its orbit. So Bradley looked for an alternate explanation and one occurred to him in 1728: The displacement arose because the telescope had to be tipped slightly to catch the light as the Earth moved (this is called adjusting to the aberration of light), just as an umbrella must be tipped when you're walking briskly through a rain in which the drops are falling vertically. The amount by which the telescope must be tipped depends on the ratio of the speed of the Earth in its orbit to the speed of light. This meant that although Bradley had not detected parallax, he had discovered a new way of calculating the speed of light, since the speed of the Earth in its orbit was known and the amount of the tipping of the telescope was known, too. This was the first determination of the speed of light since Roemer's a half-century before (1675) and it was a more accurate measurement. Bradley's figure was 176,000 miles per second, only 5 percent less than the true value. What's more, the existence of light aberration was just as strong a proof that the Earth was moving as the existence of stellar parallax would have been. hth happy days and... starry starry nights! -- a Secret of the Universe... so please don't breathe a word of this-- the Moon above will smile perverse whene'er it sees two lovers kiss; (breathe not a single word of this!) Paine Ellsworth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Foundations of General Relativity, Torsion & Zero Point Energy | Jack Sarfatti | Astronomy Misc | 2 | July 7th 04 04:32 AM |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |
Mercury Odd Orbital Behavior? | Brian Tung | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | August 24th 03 06:36 AM |