> -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 3:20 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Smithsonian for sale? > > However, even this can be taken further out. If you were to place the > stationary point at what the scientific center of the universe is, and you > were to look at the sun and the earth, you would see two bodies orbiting > each other.
No scientist would argue that the Earth and the Sun are "two bodies orbiting each other". Just at the Sun exerts a gravitational pull on the Earth so does the Earth pull the sun. However the center of gravity in the system is fall below the surface of the Sun. In fact the center of gravity of the Earth-Sun system lies less than 500km from the center of the Sun. Since the Sun's radius is something like 650,000km you can reasonably that the Earth orbits the Sun. Were you to see this from far away you would most likely be unable to detect any "wobble" to the Sun. Even with much, much better instruments it's hard to see how you could determine with certainty that the Earth existed since the center of gravity is so close and the Sun's surface so violent. (This all assumes of course that only the Earth and the Sun exist. You may very well see a wobble in the Sun from the gravitational effects of Jupiter and the other giant planets). Many observations only make sense if you consider the Earth revolving around the Sun. For example we can detect a small "wave" in the orbital motion of the Earth due to the Moon (although the center of gravity in the Earth-Moon system is under the Earth's surface the Moon is large enough to cause Earth to "wiggle in its walk"). The looping, whirling orbital patterns required to defend a heliocentric view can be made to make sense - but not for long. Extend them back or forward in time long enough (a billion years or three) and you'll see collisions and other inconsistencies that make our current state under this system all but impossible to explain. These kinds of secondary observations are just don't fit into a geostationary explanation but are elegantly simple parts of a heliocentric view. However the main point is something different. The very concept that these two bodies orbit each other is already a great sophistication on the concept. That in either viewpoint the Earth is NOT the immobile center around which all things focus is clearly an intellectual leap over the immobile Earth posited in the simple geocentric theory. What amazes me is the battle going on between Intelligent Design proponents and Biblical Literalists. The former generally accept known science as "fact" but seek to "prove" that it's too well constructed to have been an accident. The latter want to show that all science not supportable directly by biblical interpretation is bunk. Counting all those in between that, for example, consider both Heliocentrism and the biblical young Earth account correct and you've got a generally screwed up segment of the population. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:159487 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
