Does the Sun Revolve Around the Earth, or does the Earth Revolve Around the Sun?

One only needs to compare the works of Copernicus to those of the later Tyco Brahe. Copernicus' heliocentric theory simplified observational data of the age by orders of magnitude. Tyco Brahe, on the other hand, likely believed in Copernicus' heliocentric view, but sought to create a hybrid model wherein the only the sun and the moon were geocentric and the rest of the planets were heliocentric. This model fit better with the views of organized religion. When you compare the complexities of the two models, one thing becomes patently clear...

The complexities of Tyco Brahe's model (and numerous others before both him and Copernicus) were clearly efforts to build a solution around a preconceived answer. Copernicus cast off the chains of a preconceived end-state and sought to explain the observational data based on facts and unbiased mathematical equations. Copernicus was engaged in true "science" whereas others (both before and after him) were engaged, knowingly or unknowingly, in pseudo-science. The easier of the explanations (ala. Occam's Razor) applies well here.

History is a great teacher and has many examples of science being convoluted and even hijacked in the name of organized religion only to be proven wrong over and over again.

No, the Earth is heliocentric and the sun is at the center of our solar system. Our sun moves relative to other stars and solar systems, but our sun does NOT orbit the Earth. To suggest otherwise in this day and age is a fool's errand. Belief's such as these suggest a lack of understanding of not only science, but also history.

On a side note; notions such as these (i.e. the earth is geocentric in our solar system) is a classic example of why I have so many issues with organized religion as a whole. It's not that it (organized religion) is wrong in spirit, but in practice when it attempts to twist fact and science to support its foundations it diminishes the credibility of the movement as a whole. Then it becomes nothing more than a contrived fund-raising effort predicated on fear. 'Protection' from these fears is only granted through absolute devotion...and generous tithe, zakat or donation ($$$$).

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

No, the Earth is heliocentric and the sun is at the center of our solar system. Our sun moves relative to other stars and solar systems, but our sun does NOT orbit the Earth. To suggest otherwise in this day and age is a fool's errand. Belief's such as these suggest a lack of understanding of not only science, but also history.

So you are ignoring the fact that most advanced ancient cultures believed in a fixed world where the sun revolves around us?
These cultures are far superior to our own in terms of how they mapped the sky, their architecture, mathematics etc..
We cannot replicate or even begin to try to understand their methods because of knowledge suppression and lack of understanding, but we will eat up 'facts' presented to us from a corporation which steals from the people to produce cgi and perpetuate the world's greatest tv show that indoctrinates, that hasn't even been around for a few hundred years...sure, i'm a fool for questioning, but i'd be an even greater fool for accepting blindly the fallacies these corporations hold without questioning.

originally posted by: OmegaSynthesis
So you are ignoring the fact that most advanced ancient cultures believed in a fixed world where the sun revolves around us?
These cultures are far superior to our own in terms of how they mapped the sky,

citation needed. I don't mean to belittle ancient cultures because I'm very impressed with their achievements. However I'm even more impressed with modern achievements like the Sloan digital sky survey and I think even the ancients would be impressed that we can download a free astronomical prediction software like stellarium that shows what the sky will look like at an arbitrary date and time in the next century.

...sure, i'm a fool for questioning, but i'd be an even greater fool for accepting blindly the fallacies these corporations hold without questioning.

Asking questions doesn't make anybody a fool. Even coming up with a wrong answer on your own doesn't make you a fool, we are all capable of doing that. But persisting in holding on to a wrong answer after being presented with overwhelming evidence it's wrong does seem somewhat foolish.

It took the Catholic church 350 years to apologize to Galileo which seems like a long time, but if they can do that maybe there's hope for the other stragglers to come around and also realize that Galileo was right:

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves

October 31, 1992

ROME, Oct. 30— More than 350 years after the Roman Catholic Church condemned Galileo, Pope John Paul II is poised to rectify one of the Church's most infamous wrongs -- the persecution of the Italian astronomer and physicist for proving the Earth moves around the Sun.

350 years ago there was a conspiracy to suppress the truth, but it had nothing to do with the corporations of which you speak because they didn't even exist 350 years ago.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

originally posted by: ConnectDots
I ask because of this blog post: www.zengardner.com...

I think it's interesting that "Heliocentrism Is Dead - There Is No Stellar Parallax," (yes, a blog post written by a layman), asserts that Copernicus was a Sun worshipper, and the Tychonic system is simpler than the Copernican one.

I thought the moon rotates around the earth
But apparently they rotate around each other
Very weird.
Is it a rotation or are we spiriling. Are we getting closer to the sun

originally posted by: piney
I thought the moon rotates around the earth
But apparently they rotate around each other
Very weird.
Is it a rotation or are we spiriling. Are we getting closer to the sun

It's a wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey sort of dance. The Moon is close to the Earth and is about 1/80th of Earth's mass. So it does cause Earth to wobble just slightly (think of spinning around with your hands empty and then spinning around with a gallon milk jug in one hand. With the milk jug, you actually lean slightly when you move to adjust the center of gravity.)

Earth's mass compared to the sun's mass is far smaller, so Earth doesn't affect the motion of the sun at all (think of spinning around holding a coffee cup in your hand.)

The moon is moving farther away from the sun at all times thanks to tidal forces . The Earth is not moving because of the huge difference in the masses.

originally posted by: Byrd


The moon is moving farther away from the sun at all times thanks to tidal forces . The Earth is not moving because of the huge difference in the masses.

Not sure if you meant to say this exactly as you wrote it, but the Moon cannot move further away from the Sun relatively speaking (other than locally as it completes its orbit around Earth) unless the Earth's orbit changes around the Sun. The Moon's orbit is around Earth, and only indirectly around the Sun by virtue of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

originally posted by: WP4YT

originally posted by: occrest
I am of the opinion that the answer to your query is neither does the Earth revolve around the Sun, Nor does the Sun revolve around the Earth. Rather, the Sun circles above the Plane of the Earth, along with the Moon and stars, encased in a firmament which covers the earth like a dome covers a snow globe.

Light and shadows also give me cause to disbelieve a heliocentric placement of the earth.

That idea of a flat earth is pretty retarded. Anyone that's flown in a plane can clearly see the curvature with their own eyes.

You can not see ANY curvature of Earth from an airplane. Zero, none, at all. What curvature you think you see is caused by the fact that airplane glass itself has curvature which causes a slight fish-eye effect.

I think the earth is a sphere but that doesn't change the fact that the horizon rises to the level of the observer in all instances of terrestrial flight which is admittedly odd because that shouldn't be the case on a sphere with a diameter of 25,000 miles. Nobody has seen Earth curve from a balloon, aircraft or even the red bull flight that used an EXTREME fish eye camera and when dissected, the Earth looks convex as much as it does concave and / or purely flat.

It is debatable weather curvature can be seen from 20 miles up and even further based on the images available. I know it's there, I just also know the Earth is too big for it to be seen at 37,000 feet although admittedly, I have seen some arguments about things being visible that shouldn't be because of curvature by hundreds of miles yet are and I find the explanation of why pretty weak. So far, that has not been able to dissuade my opinion of the Earth being a sphere.

a reply to: Helious

Really?????

I probably shouldn't even respond to this really. Arguing a point as silly as this makes about as much sense as trying to explain a trailer hitch to a cat, but I digress.

Ummm...the diameter of Earth is actually just under 8,000 miles (not 25,000). 25,000 miles is the approximate circumference of Earth, not the diameter. Just sayin'.

Secondly, while I categorically disagree with your assertion the curvature of the Earth cannot be observed (like from space for example...or did that not happen either???), but there are a 'couple' other things which might offer a clue to the fact the Earth is round...

First, if you observe the horizon from say a boat at sea you would quickly come to the conclusion that the horizon is equally distant from you in all directions (i.e. 360 degrees). This distance, it turns out, is just over 12 miles. It is as if one is sitting at the exact center of a large flat dinner plate. (Ah, see there, he just proved it's flat, right?). Well, even though the surface may appear flat, if you changed your position on the water to a point 20-30 miles away and made the same observation, then you would observe the exact same thing...the horizon is equi-distant at approximately 12+ miles. However, point A cannot be observed from point B. How could this be??? Let's forget the fact that on the boat in question the horizon appears to be a circle all around you. The only way this observation could be possible is if both points A and B are different points on a sphere which are over the 'horizon' from each other.

Second, space travel would likely not even be possible if the Earth was flat. The fact you even posted your post is likely proof the Earth is round. Chances are a satellite somewhere was involved in your post, and if the Earth was flat satellites would have nothing to orbit 'around'.

Lastly, here's a simple experiment to prove the Earth is round. Take a glass of water outside. Throw the water upwards out of the glass. Have a friend take a photo of the water as it falls back to the ground. When you look at the photos you will see the majority of the falling water has formed into hundreds of tiny spheres (droplets). Imagine the molten blob of primordial Earth floating through space much the same as the water floating through air. What shape did this blob form...a sphere.

The Earth is undoubted a sphere.

In any case, this thread is about the Earth orbiting the Sun (or not), not whether the Earth is flat or round.

That is all.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Not sure if you meant to say this exactly as you wrote it, but the Moon cannot move further away from the Sun relatively speaking (other than locally as it completes its orbit around Earth) unless the Earth's orbit changes around the Sun. The Moon's orbit is around Earth, and only indirectly around the Sun by virtue of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

I think Byrd's comment was a typo, but it was also inadvertently true. The logic goes like this:

1. Moon moves further from the Earth due to tidal forces between those two bodies (what I think Byrd meant to say)
2. Earth moves further from the Sun due to tidal forces between those two bodies
3. Moon orbits Earth, therefore,
4. Moon moves further from the Sun due to tidal forces, what Byrd actually said, which happens to be true though the above logic in 1-3.

Of course this means that your comment is also correct, Flyingclaydisk.

Ack. Bad typing on my part. Moon moving farther from Earth.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Excellent thread. I'm no astrophysicist, but I don't see how anyone can read this thread from beginning to this point, and still be a geocentrist. A few of Sagan's comments come to mind.

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology."

"We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."

Not that I'm innocent of questioning long established science, mind you. S&F.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I meant circumference, not diameter. The horizen points you mentioned have all been conclusively debunked. Nothing disappears over the horizen and every test ever done to prove curvature on the surface has shown absolutely zero curvature at all.

This is all readily available to you with a little research. I refuse to dredge it all up here but I have done the homework.

You may think its silly to argue certain points about this but you may find yourself feeling a little sillier if and when you researched this a little more to find the majority of your points wrong.

That said, I wont be the flat Earth champion of the thread because as I have already stated, I believe the Earth is a sphere.

a reply to: Helious

Nothing disappears over the horizen.

I live near the ocean. I see things disappear over the horizon quite regularly. You know; sailboats, ships...

originally posted by: Helious
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I meant circumference, not diameter. The horizen points you mentioned have all been conclusively debunked. Nothing disappears over the horizen and every test ever done to prove curvature on the surface has shown absolutely zero curvature at all.

This is all readily available to you with a little research. I refuse to dredge it all up here but I have done the homework.

You may think its silly to argue certain points about this but you may find yourself feeling a little sillier if and when you researched this a little more to find the majority of your points wrong.

That said, I wont be the flat Earth champion of the thread because as I have already stated, I believe the Earth is a sphere.

Speaking as someone who goes to the sea quite often I have to say that the above is total and complete round objects. Ships do it all the time. All you need is some binoculars and a little patience.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Helious

Nothing disappears over the horizen.

I live near the ocean. I see things disappear over the horizon quite regularly. You know; sailboats, ships...

Ah, but they don't. Next time you see something "disappear" over the horizon, take out a pair of binoculars, take a look and then realize it has "re-appeared". Magic you say? No and also not the curvature of the Earth, if it were curvature, a telescope or binoculars would not help you to see it after it "disappeared".

You lose sight of the object because of the laws of perspective, not curvature. Using spherical geometry and also assuming what we have been told is true and that the Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference have there ever been ANY experiments done that easily prove curvature of the Earth? I know there have been some done that show there is not curvature and I also know that there are many things that can be seen that we shouldn't be able to see because math tells us they would be hundreds of miles below the horizon.

I would love to know because I fight the flat Earthers on this one all the time and lose.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

originally posted by: ConnectDots
I ask because of this blog post: www.zengardner.com...

I think it's interesting that "Heliocentrism Is Dead - There Is No Stellar Parallax," (yes, a blog post written by a layman), asserts that Copernicus was a Sun worshipper, and the Tychonic system is simpler than the Copernican one.

Wondering why the currency guy Anthony Migchels wrote a blogpost about heliocentrism, I've been searching for more information about where he's coming from and more specifics about his thesis.

I found another blog, this one his own, where another post about Copernicus, "Copernicus and His Kabbalistic Methods," appears:

As we can see, Copernicus had some interesting opinions on the scientific method.

Reality is not important. Just lay down a nice hypothesis and say: ‘you can’t prove yours and I can’t prove mine, therefore both are equally valid’.

. . . Wrote Copernicus:

“In the middle of all sits Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe….”

As we can see, it’s rather one sided to blame Catholics, Protestants and ‘Bible Believers’ for a religious agenda behind Geocentrism.

migchels.wordpress.com...

I’m glad I’ve discovered this other blog, because on this one Anthony Migchels responds to comments, and I have to say I agree with this one:

migchels.wordpress.com...

originally posted by: Helious
have there ever been ANY experiments done that easily prove curvature of the Earth? ...
I would love to know because I fight the flat Earthers on this one all the time and lose.

2265 years ago

a reply to: ConnectDots
You can never prove anything true with 100% certainty in science. By definition of the US supreme court scientific claims must be falsifiable to be considered science, but this is a good thing. It means you can't be stuck in dogma, and have to consider new evidence, as happened in 1998 when new evidence turned our cosmic view around.

On the other hand you can prove claims to be false with evidence. The LaGrangian points at which satellites operate won't work under any geocentric model I've ever seen, thus falsifying all the geocentric models, though if someone thinks they can show otherwise, the challenge from the opening post is still open.

Regarding the reliability of claims in physics, I'd say it varies. There's really no significant doubt in the scientific community about the heliocentric model, though some ideas posit something like we're living in something like the movie "The Matrix" portrayed, so yes if everything was a holographic projection that just made it LOOK LIKE the heliocentric model was true I suppose a case could be made the model wasn't really true, but there's evidence contradicting those holographic assertions also.

If you read scientific papers they're full of ifs, ands, or buts, and qualifiers that make it clear that we're not 100% certain about some things, and that's ok. As Richard Feyman said, I'd rather have some doubts, than to be certain and wrong. But the amount of doubt we have is science can vary greatly with the topic and we certainly have more doubts about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics than we do heliocentrism.

a reply to: Helious

Next time you see something "disappear" over the horizon, take out a pair of binoculars, take a look and then realize it has "re-appeared".

Living near the ocean, I own a nice set of glasses. I use them often.
They do not cause things to re-appear but they provide a better view of things as they move beyond and fall below the horizon.