Impossible to tell what is center of solar system?

[neophyte]

And what I mean by “center” is the spacial-inertial center, the economic center, the religious center, the military center, the socio-political center, the legal center, the philosophical center…all centering on my bellybutton.

Wrong. It can’t be your bellybutton, because from my bellybutton yours can easily seen to exhibit a complex aperiodic series of retrograde motions in three dimensions.

The center of the universe is obviously my bellybutton.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Wrong. It can’t be your bellybutton, because from my bellybutton yours can easily seen to exhibit a complex aperiodic series of retrograde motions in three dimensions.

The center of the universe is obviously my bellybutton.

Heretic!!! shaw: Like Galileo, I banish you to live in comfort in a villa in Florence, Italy.

 

[Timothy17]

Man is really, really, really special! Here we have cosmic meaning, a sublime narrative, and it’s all about us.

-TS

Man is special, yes ; otherwise, who are you to boast or flaunt of your rights or demand justice from anything or anyone ?

To give an analogy, what good is a splendid piece of art if no one can see it ? What value has it ? None. For not knowing of its existence, it cannot be assigned any value. Nature is unable to appreciate as man can appreciate it. None of the animals produce art. We see something artful in the things animals do, perhaps ; however, they cannot appreciate this as we can.

The only counter to this argument is an entirely fanciful and speculative one ; that is, the potential of other intelligent, human-like life ; however, intelligence does not necessarily mean a capacity to appreciate. It can mean simple cunning or craftiness, and still be altogether void of appreciation, even of its own self. Regardless, it is purely hypothetical.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[campeador]

What does the sun revolve around?

The center of the Milky Way galaxy. youtube.com/watch?v=0Rt7FevNiRc&feature=related

Peace.

 

[Touchstone]

Man is special, yes ; otherwise, who are you to boast or flaunt of your rights or demand justice from anything or anyone ?

Just an evolved animal with a will, some level of reasoning and cognitive capabilities. That’s sufficient. (And I note that it’s quite disturbing to need to argue this point… ostensibly, if you should decide God doesn’t exist, you have no basis for justice or compassion or fairness or love for you fellow man. Ouch! Please stay a Christian, if so, we’re all better of, even if you are badly mistaken!)

To give an analogy, what good is a splendid piece of art if no one can see it ?

Well, I’d say less than if others were to appreciate it. But we are here, beholding each other, even as we speak. Our art, for good or bad, is “seen”, and can’t help but be seen. The planet is filled with other humans! You can’t hardly go anywhere without running into 'em.

What value has it ? None. For not knowing of its existence, it cannot be assigned any value. Nature is unable to appreciate as man can appreciate it. None of the animals produce art. We see something artful in the things animals do, perhaps ; however, they cannot appreciate this as we can.

Well, OK then. We humans do the appreciating. We have minds that can and do appreciate things. So what’s the problem? Why do you need to rail against the overwhelming evidence of physics, if humans are all over, doing all this appreciating? It seems going all anti-science to try and maintain some kind of conceit about the pedestal we’ve been put on (even as the fallen, depraved creatures you suppose we are) just isn’t needed. We have the appreciating going on, right here.

The only counter to this argument is an entirely fanciful and speculative one ; that is, the potential of other intelligent, human-like life ; however, intelligence does not necessarily mean a capacity to appreciate. It can mean simple cunning or craftiness, and still be altogether void of appreciation, even of its own self. Regardless, it is purely hypothetical.

Pax Christi,
Tim

I don’t see that that’s needed at all. Life is appreciated by those that live it, and appreciate in others that live it with them, around them, in community. What good would aliens do, given that? Not that I have any beef with the idea of aliens, but it just doesn’t change anything, so far as I can see.

They wouldn’t like our art anyway. They’re aliens, and would likely have their own alien aesthetic (and ethics, etc.). All the stuff you project onto God is just you, just human aesthetics, getting delusions of grandeur. We like and appreciate our beautiful scenes and art because they are ours.

-TS

 

[John21652]

That isn’t the case. The barycenter – the center of mass – of the solar system moves around in large distances, well beyond the volume of the sun itself. See here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ter.svg/380px-Solar_system_barycenter.svg.png

Or here’s a decent video that shows the moving barycenter in relation to the sun:
youtube.com/watch?v=_IHXj8k2jqc

I don’t have the figures handy but IIRC, the center of mass will be inside the radius of the sun for just less than 40% of the time during this century.

-TS

Over a longer time period the barycenter weighted average would move back closer to the sun’s centre of mass. The Sun is still the centre of the solar system.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Hey folks, how about we do like what’s done in construction? While 2x4’s used actually to be 2x4’s, and now they are smaller for commercial reasons, we understand what someone says when the say “We’ll scab a 2x4 plate on to this.” We don’t get into an argument about the actual dimensions, though we use the actual dimensions in plan drawings and take-offs. We all understand we mean a nominal 2x4. So how’s about we understand that the Sun is the nominal center of the solar system (hence the name!) and get on with business unless some of you want to come over and use some solo tubes to build a rocket to the moon? Then we can play “The Day The Earth Stood Still” and crunch some numbers, have a bloody piece of dead cow and drink some fermented barley. How’s that sound?

 

[rossum]

Then we can play “The Day The Earth Stood Still” and crunch some numbers, have a bloody piece of dead cow and drink some fermented barley. How’s that sound?

“Gort. Klaatu barada nicto!”

But not the 2008 remake please.

rossum

 

[You]

Over a longer time period the barycenter weighted average would move back closer to the sun’s centre of mass. The Sun is still the centre of the solar system.

Since the solar system consists of individual planets, therefore, when seen from any planet a spectator is on the center of the solar system is seen to be the point around which the sun and that planet orbit. As the spectator can only ever occupy one planet at any one time then the center of the solar system is always the point around which the sun and that planet orbit. The sun is merely the counterweight of the system not the center.

 

[You]

The universe must have a centre, though. This requires some thought.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Since the solar system consists of individual planets, therefore, when seen from any planet a spectator is on the center of the solar system is seen to be the point around which the sun and that planet orbit. As the spectator can only ever occupy one planet at any one time then the center of the solar system is always the point around which the sun and that planet orbit. The sun is merely the counterweight of the system not the center.

@Rossum: That’s for sure!

@“You”: I guess you thought that bore repeating. But in true primitivist style, you have conflated appearance with abstraction. Any body can seem to the observer to be the center, or be nominally the center for ballistics calculations. That is why we, knowing otherwise, yet say “the Sun rises.” We also use “up” where “out” would be a much more accurate descriptor. The kind of abstraction required to see the Solar system as heliocentric is the same sort that allows the process of maturation to go away from ego centric.That exercise has, sadly, not been done with great success by many, as is evident.

 

[John21652]

Since the solar system consists of individual planets, therefore, when seen from any planet a spectator is on the center of the solar system is seen to be the point around which the sun and that planet orbit. As the spectator can only ever occupy one planet at any one time then the center of the solar system is always the point around which the sun and that planet orbit. The sun is merely the counterweight of the system not the center.

Well, how cool is that.

I’m the centre of the solar system.

 

[rossum]

The universe must have a centre, though. This requires some thought.

Consider the surface of the Earth. I am in the UK and the surface of the Earth stretches equally all around me. There is exactly the same amount of surface in each direction from where I am. Does that mean that I am at the centre of the surface of the Earth? No, exactly the same thing can be said for any point on the surface. There is always exactly the same amount of surface in each direction from any point on the surface.

The same is true of the universe; there is exactly the same amount of universe in all directions from every point in the universe. “Nature is an infinite sphere whose centre is everywhere and whose centre is nowhere.”

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Consider the surface of the Earth. I am in the UK and the surface of the Earth stretches equally all around me. There is exactly the same amount of surface in each direction from where I am. Does that mean that I am at the centre of the surface of the Earth? No, exactly the same thing can be said for any point on the surface. There is always exactly the same amount of surface in each direction from any point on the surface.

The same is true of the universe; there is exactly the same amount of universe in all directions from every point in the universe. “Nature is an infinite sphere whose centre is everywhere and whose centre is nowhere.”

rossum

The underlying assumption is surface. If one looks at the sphere the center is somewhere is deep inside.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

The underlying assumption is surface. If one looks at the sphere the center is somewhere is deep inside.

Isn’t the Universe considered flat and infinite? How would that have a center?

 

[You]

Consider the surface of the Earth. I am in the UK and the surface of the Earth stretches equally all around me. There is exactly the same amount of surface in each direction from where I am. Does that mean that I am at the centre of the surface of the Earth? No, exactly the same thing can be said for any point on the surface. There is always exactly the same amount of surface in each direction from any point on the surface.

The same is true of the universe; there is exactly the same amount of universe in all directions from every point in the universe. “Nature is an infinite sphere whose centre is everywhere and whose centre is nowhere.”

rossum

This cannot be so, rossum. If anything in space has a direction of travel then it also has a point of origin in time. Stuff cannot travel through space and time in 2 dimensions only. Unless space disappears behind the stuff as it travels along, but then space would not be infinite, I suspect.

 

[buffalo]

Isn’t the Universe considered flat and infinite? How would that have a center?

There is no way to know if it is infinite.

The earth looks flat to us locally until we look at it from a distance and then we see it is a sphere.

 

[neophyte]

Heretic!!! shaw: Like Galileo, I banish you to live in comfort in a villa in Florence, Italy.

Oh, THANK YOU! ANYTHING would be better than being sent to live in Breckenridge or Salt Lake City… PLEASE don’d send me there!!!

(neo runs off to pack his ski boots…)

 

[neophyte]

…So how’s about we understand that the Sun is the nominal center of the solar system (hence the name!) and get on with business unless some of you want to come over and use some solo tubes to build a rocket to the moon? Then we can play “The Day The Earth Stood Still” and crunch some numbers, have a bloody piece of dead cow and drink some fermented barley. How’s that sound?

Can we make it a double-feature with the original cheap British production of “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”? I’ll bring the kerosene if someone can scam the LOX. Or else we can divvy up the cost of the tar, powdered aluminum and ammonium nitrate.

 

[rossum]

The underlying assumption is surface. If one looks at the sphere the center is somewhere is deep inside.

I was talking purely about the surface. There is no centre actually on the surface and no place lying on the surface can be defined as the centre. The centre is elsewhere.

Similarly with the universe. There is no place in the universe that is the centre. If it has a centre then the centre is elsewhere. Earth is in the universe so it cannot be the centre.

rossum