If the universe is spinning it can “wobble”, like a top (precession). The sun follows the ecliptic path. There a few other possible explanations for this besides precession.
The Corliolis effect can be due to the rotating universe (per GR or Mach’s principle). It could also be a manifestation of aether flow.
This doesn’t address the fact of changing seasons. If the Earth was fixed there wouldn’t be any changing seasons.
If the Earth did not rotate, wouldn’t it have been viewed and reported from space by now??
If the sun is moving along ecliptic, it is changing elevations with the equator at different times of the year, creating the seasons. THink of it as relative motion between the sun and earth.
You really should read Galileo Was Wrong. It explains all these issue andmany more. Chapter 4 deals with common objections (like these).
A viewer in space would not easily be able to tell what is rotating and what is stationary- basic relativity. I.e., if space is rotating then the viewer is roating around the earth. If space is stationary, then the earth rotates in the stationary space. In both cases all the other objects either roate with space or are stationary. All relations are the same kinematically in both cases. Per GR and per Mach’s principle, the dynamic relations are also the same.
It would have to be changing elevations twice per day in order to give one hemisphere its summer, while giving the other hemisphere its winter.
You are making this much too complicated. There is a daily cycle and a yearly cycle. All relative relations between the heliocentric and the modern Tychonic are exactly the same. It is simply a geometric inversion.
How much are you offering?
The heliocentric, is the uncomplicated viewpoint. It is also the only logical view. The Earth orbits the Sun because of the Sun’s gravitational pull. The comparitively tiny Earth has no gravitational pull on the Sun. That is why the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way round.
This diagram is hopelessly wrong and in no way explains the changing seasons.The path of the sun on a daily and yearly basis looks like this:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y236/markjwyatt/Buow_spiral_sun_earth.jpg
How much are you offering?
I am sorry, it is not that simple. No one is saying the sun “orbits” the earth because of earth’s gravitational pull. Read the book.
If you will look at it, it does expalin the solar illumination patterns required for the seasons. It is basiclly a geometric inversion of the heliocentric, or to put it another way it is equivalent to the heliocentric with the coordinate system transformed from the sun to the earth.
R…Just wanted to say you’ve the best signature on the whole forum.
I appreciate that.R…Just wanted to say you’ve the best signature on the whole forum.
Oh but it is really that simple.
Gravity is the reason that lesser mass objects in space, orbit greater mass objects.
If the diagram is suggesting that the Sun has a screw-thread type orbit in order to explain the seasons, then the author has even less of an understanding than I thought humanly possible. The Earth does not have a screw-thread type orbital path. It has an ordinary orbit (slightly eliptical I believe) with a tilt in its axis. For half of its orbit, the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun. The southern hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun for the other half of its orbit.
It doesn’t work in any example because it is so utterly inaccurate.
Did they teach you waht causes gravity in school? No, because science has no idea. Do not be so smug. If you tell me it is an attraction between matter, then I will reply this is magic, because there is no known reason for matter to attract matter over great distances. If you tell me it is a warpage of space-time, I will ask, ‘how does space-time warp’. You will not have an answer, unless you invoke aether theories.
The diagram accounts for both daily and yearly motion, i.e., continuous motion. Even in the helocentric case, the earth rotates on its axis. If I am looking at the sun continuously from on spot on the earth, I will see the cork screw path in the field of sky that exposes the sun as the earth turns. The shape this pattern makes over a year from a fixed position on earth is known as an analema.
It works, and is simple. Kinematically, the heliocentric and geocentric pictures are exact geometric inversions.
Actually they did, I was taught that mass causes gravity. Who told you science has no idea?
No smugness here.
It doesn’t matter how it is caused, the fact remains that there is gravity and it is this gravitational pull that is responsible for our orbit around the Sun.
The diagram is so wide of the mark. The corkscrew path is an illusion due to the coriolis effect. There is no corkscrew path when the Sun is directly above the Equator.
It is not a true representation of either heliocentric or geocentric.
I have thought quite considerably about this, and the geocentric arguments just don’t hold water at all.
It is a well known fact. That mass causes gravity is just a guess.
And gravity would have an effect in a rotating universe.
What? So now the sun/earth moves because of the Corliolis effect? I thought it was gravity.
Look at the diagram again. The sun moves from below the equator to above it.
A rotating, precessing universe is one possibility.
Actually, there are forces. The forces that hold the universe together. In the case of a geocentric universe you could think of gravitational, centrifigal, and others. The precession causes the universe to move up and down this path.
I think the Michealson/Morley experiment can be interpreted to indicate the earth is not moving. This is truer today than when Einstein develop the theory of relativity to explain what they observed in the experiment. Einstein’s theory does not consider the interaction of sub atomic particles in space and time with light. Scientists’ need to reconsider how we interpret the results of the Michaelson/Morley experiment and one interpretation may very well be that the earth is not moving.
I think you’ll find that it’s quite a bit more that a guess.
Of course.
Re-read my post, I said the Coriolis effect creates an illusion of the Sun’s curved path, I never once said it causes movement.
That site also talks about the Earth’s orbit around the Sun (heliocentrism).
No it doesn’t, the Earth being tilted and orbiting around the Sun creates the illusion that the Sun is moving from below the equator to above it.
I very much doubt it.
The Earth does not and can not create the gravity sufficient to hold the universe together. If it did, gravity would be too great and humans would be too heavy. Life on Earth as we know it would not be possible.
There is a lot of interesting stuff in aether science. If we had been studying it or the las hundred years rather than presuming it does not exist, who knows what we would have developed by now.
I understand you support heliocentrism. Can yo not at least have a discusison about possibilities, and try and see the another viewpoint? You appear even more locked into paradigms than Alec:
I have looked at both scenarios. Heliocentrism is a simple, better explanation and makes far more sense.