Not the best analogy with Aristotle because technically the Sun and Earth revolve around each other. His theory is not wrong, its just not the whole picture.
Then again, maybe they did have it right back then and that history was rewritten to remove critical pieces of information to hold humanity back.
The Sun does not revolve around the Earth. Within the scope of the E-S two body system, the Earth and the Sun revolve around their collective center of mass.
That CoM is ever changing because of the influence of the multibody system that is our collection of planets, the rest of the stars and mass in our galaxy, the supercluster of galaxies that the Milky Way belongs to, the larger mass of all galaxies in the visible universe, the dark matter that may or may not exist along with those galaxies, and the dark energy that may or may not exist and influence the center of mass of the twobody Earth-Sun system as it drives the expansion of the universe.
And that's just from the theory of General Relativity that is almost certainly incomplete if not completely wrong (in some of its axioms).
But since the Sun is a million times more massive than the Earth, and that center of mass of the two body system is inside of the Sun, it is within the order of magnitude given by both Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity correct to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
But since the Sun is a million times more massive than the Earth, and that center of mass of the two body system is inside of the Sun, it is within the order of magnitude given by both Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity correct to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
That's pretty much what I was trying to say.
Technically one does not revolve around the other - they revolve around a mutual center of mass which due to the difference in size may as well be the sun. Anyways, I think we agree.
Not the best analogy with Aristotle because technically the Sun and Earth revolve around each other. His theory is not wrong, its just not the whole picture.
His theory was completely wrong on all counts. In no way does the Sun revolve around the Earth. In every way measurable or discernable the Earth revolves around the sun, since the CoM of the E-S system is deep inside the Sun, barely a smidge away from the center of the sun.
To describe the orbit properly you need to take into account the CoM and put that as one of the foci of the elliptical orbit that will be calculated when you do that. But even that is not correct. That's Newton's theory.
In GR the mass density of the sun creates a shape of spacetime that the earth follows (a geodesic aka shortest possible path. In Euclidian (flat) space a geodesic is a straight line). That path, like Newton's model, is approximately an ellipse with one of the foci at the center of the CoM of the two body system. This foci almost coincides with the center of the sun. There are also other effects which alter that geodesic, such as the deformations of spacetime due to the other planets, and all the other effects I listed in my previous post. That doesn't even touch on the earths pulling on the aether ("spacetime" in GR parlance) which causes frame dragging which further effects the shape of the geodesic in time.
When one plots the path of the earth relative to the path of the sun in a 4D spacetime diagram using GR one sees the sun go on an almost perfectly straight line (in this E-S system) and the Earth go in a 4D spiral with the sun almost exactly at the center.
There is no discernable movement of the sun in such a system to a very high degree of measurement accuracy.
My argument is in the wording of your correction. The Earth absolutely revolves around the sun. They do not in any way revolve around each other. Thus using Aristotle as analogy was accurate to an extremely high order of magnitude.
Nothing is ever exact in any measurement or model we humans have ever created. Within the scope of what is measurable or discernible it was a perfect analogy. More importantly, your "correction" was substantially less accurate.
I apologize for being a dick about this, but you corrected me inaccurately, and I am trying to set the record straight.
Not the best analogy with Aristotle because technically the Sun and Earth revolve around each other. His theory is not wrong, its just not the whole picture.
Then again, maybe they did have it right back then and that history was rewritten to remove critical pieces of information to hold humanity back.
The Sun does not revolve around the Earth. Within the scope of the E-S two body system, the Earth and the Sun revolve around their collective center of mass.
That CoM is ever changing because of the influence of the multibody system that is our collection of planets, the rest of the stars and mass in our galaxy, the supercluster of galaxies that the Milky Way belongs to, the larger mass of all galaxies in the visible universe, the dark matter that may or may not exist along with those galaxies, and the dark energy that may or may not exist and influence the center of mass of the twobody Earth-Sun system as it drives the expansion of the universe.
And that's just from the theory of General Relativity that is almost certainly incomplete if not completely wrong (in some of its axioms).
But since the Sun is a million times more massive than the Earth, and that center of mass of the two body system is inside of the Sun, it is within the order of magnitude given by both Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity correct to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
That's pretty much what I was trying to say.
Technically one does not revolve around the other - they revolve around a mutual center of mass which due to the difference in size may as well be the sun. Anyways, I think we agree.
His theory was completely wrong on all counts. In no way does the Sun revolve around the Earth. In every way measurable or discernable the Earth revolves around the sun, since the CoM of the E-S system is deep inside the Sun, barely a smidge away from the center of the sun.
To describe the orbit properly you need to take into account the CoM and put that as one of the foci of the elliptical orbit that will be calculated when you do that. But even that is not correct. That's Newton's theory.
In GR the mass density of the sun creates a shape of spacetime that the earth follows (a geodesic aka shortest possible path. In Euclidian (flat) space a geodesic is a straight line). That path, like Newton's model, is approximately an ellipse with one of the foci at the center of the CoM of the two body system. This foci almost coincides with the center of the sun. There are also other effects which alter that geodesic, such as the deformations of spacetime due to the other planets, and all the other effects I listed in my previous post. That doesn't even touch on the earths pulling on the aether ("spacetime" in GR parlance) which causes frame dragging which further effects the shape of the geodesic in time.
When one plots the path of the earth relative to the path of the sun in a 4D spacetime diagram using GR one sees the sun go on an almost perfectly straight line (in this E-S system) and the Earth go in a 4D spiral with the sun almost exactly at the center.
There is no discernable movement of the sun in such a system to a very high degree of measurement accuracy.
My argument is in the wording of your correction. The Earth absolutely revolves around the sun. They do not in any way revolve around each other. Thus using Aristotle as analogy was accurate to an extremely high order of magnitude.
Nothing is ever exact in any measurement or model we humans have ever created. Within the scope of what is measurable or discernible it was a perfect analogy. More importantly, your "correction" was substantially less accurate.
I apologize for being a dick about this, but you corrected me inaccurately, and I am trying to set the record straight.