The Earth revolving around the sun

So /sci/ is it true that basically the Earth revolving around the sun is not "really" true and its all in your perspective and the context?

>>1
The earth doesn't revolve around shit.  Don't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise.

the earth is a comet.

It depends on your point of reference, if you are speaking in relative terms.

It would be a fallacy to affirmatively state "The earth revolves around the sun", simply because the sun is more massive than the earth. Both the earth and the sun are affected by each other's mass. As well both are affected by the masses of all other objects in the universe (albeit to a much lesser extent).

IT IS ALL RELATIVE. /thread

>>4

The reason we say "The earth revolves around the sun" is because the center of mass in their combined system is inside the sun. So basically the sun wobbles a bit and earth goes around it.

The center of mass is always inside the sun. It is not issue of perspective. Thats why it is correct to say that earth revolves around sun.

Acceleration is not relative.

>>6
yes it is.

>>7
No. If you try to switch perspectives, you get fictitious forces.

>>8

Fictitious forces are real in some frames of reference.

>>9
Except not, because they don't come from the fundamental interactions.

Well I'm glad some people in this thread know what theyre saying

>>11
From which frame of reference?

>>12
Either one, coz I dont get what either side is saying.

O - R - B - I - T

But oddly enough I was pondering this exact same question just a few days ago.

>>14
So wait, if you say orbit then there's no despute that the earth orbits the sun?

No I'm just saying that 'obrit' is a far more accurate word than 'revolves around'.  I actually wasn't contributing to the thread in any productive manner so I'll try to now.

I think the argument that the earth orbits the sun is merely a matter or perspective is that in math you can take a coordinate system and map it into a completely different coordinate system in order to make the math easier to do (i.e polar, spherical or rectangular coordinates).  In the case of the sun/earth system you can map the equations into a coordinate system where the earth is the center of the sun's movement through space.  You'd still be able to use this system to accurately describe the physical universe, determine where a rocket will end up with a certain initial velocity, etc.  but the math would be a hundred times simpler in the traditional coordinate system.  Although I haven't the foggiest memory of how to do any of this or I'd try coming up with a simple system as an example.

matter of perspective*

You would have to adjust your frame of reference for acceleration.

Too complicated. Earth orbits the sun.

Its too complicated so we can't consider that model valid? Physics is usually v. complicated.

the earth is flat and therefore cannot revolve

>>16
That's the basic idea, though as the others pointed out, accelerating reference frames require ficticious forces.  A lot of this also depends on how big of a system we're interested in.

For earth moon system, we neglect the sun and other planets because they're so far away.  By the equivalence principle, it could be said that the earth moon system is in a local inertial reference frame relative to the other entities.  For a more accurate description, we could include tidal forces.  For a similar reason, when considering the sun earth system, we ignore the effects of the andromeda galaxy on us.

In the end, the only true spot that doesn't "move" is the center of mass (of the system in question).

The word pirahna, is all I can think of that rhymes with marijuana

Marijuana MUST be legalized.