The Earth is the center of our Solar sytem

[Anonymous No.9934267]

The only reason we believe the Earth rotates around the Sun is because we base it around the amount of time it takes for a full year rotation of the earth.

However, has the question ever been intelligently answered that perhaps the Sun rotates around the Earth? The Sun is 109 times larger than the Earth according my my educational resources, thus we conduct the academic equation 360.33^109 and get 4.790115266959691e+278.

That being said, it takes the Sun 4.790115266959691e+278 days to rotate around the Earth.

Would anyone challenge this hypothesis?

[Anonymous No.9934282]

>>9934267

Objects in space don't move, the space around them warps. Movement in space is an illusion.

[Anonymous No.9934283]

>>9934267
>we base it around the amount of time it takes for a full year rotation of the earth.
never reproduce

[Anonymous No.9934305]

>>9934282
By that logic the Sun is not the center because nothing is the center.

The question now is whether space is Subjective, or Objective?

[Anonymous No.9934332]

>>9934305
The sun was never the centre of the universe.
Also, why do you think the Sun moves around the Earth, if it were so?

[Anonymous No.9934351]

>>9934332
I conducted an experiment where I had three video cameras angled differently at various parts of a wetlands environment and took 3 72 hour cycles to analyze the results.

What I had discovered was that the sun had moved to different places, but in the same direction. It would disappear on one side, and reappear on the other hours later. This lead me to believe that the Sun was in fact, rotating around the earth.

[Anonymous No.9934355]

>>9934267
Yes, we notice that the sun "goes up and down" once a day, so if the earth is stationary and the sun goes around, it would have to take 1 day.
Q.E.D
/thread

[Anonymous No.9934356]

>>9934351

Jesus fucking christ

Why is it always the amerimutts who are this fucking retarded?

[Anonymous No.9934375]

>>9934351
Interesting observation.
Could it perhaps be that the earth was rotating about it's own axis, and therefore, achieve the same effect without the sun rotating at such insane speeds?
Also, you haven't told me what you think powers a huge object to spin around a smaller object.

[Anonymous No.9934382]

>>9934332
>The sun was never the centre of the universe.

It was thought to be, between the moment we abandoned the geocentric model and the time we figured out that the cosmos is a lot bigger than we had previously assumed.

[Anonymous No.9934391]

>>9934382
Yes, that's true.
My bad, English isn't my first language.
What I meant to say was that we don't think of the Sun as the centre of the Universe anymore.

[Anonymous No.9934416]

[Anonymous No.9934419]

>>9934382
The Earth CAN be the center however due to the fact that the Earth maintains 99% of conscious life in the Universe.

Was it Nietzsche who argued "I think, therefore I am."?

[Anonymous No.9934425]

>>9934419
no, that was give her the dick guy

[Anonymous No.9934430]

heliocentrism makes equations much simpler that's all, it's not the "truth"

[Anonymous No.9934435]

>>9934430
->>9934305
> The question now is whether space is Subjective, or Objective?

[Anonymous No.9934460]

>>9934267
In your model, why would the Sun move north and south over the course of a year?

[Anonymous No.9934477]

>>9934460
East to West, in that direction.

[Anonymous No.9934483]

>>9934477
You could've just said you didn't understand the question.

The Sun passes overhead on the Earth at a latitude of 23.5°N in the summer, moves to over the equator by the Fall Equinox, then 23.5° S in the winter, then back up to the equator by the vernal equinox, then back to 23.5°N in the summer and repeats ethat cycle every year.

What mechanism causes this in your universe?

[Anonymous No.9934501]

>>9934483
> I think therefore I am

Conscious energy is what everything must be drawn towards. The only plausible center of the universe is that which is conscious, the Earth, because all else would not exist if it was not recognized and acknowledged.

What is existence? Or what causes something to exist? Fire exist because it burns "fuel", being all that tit touches. If fire was not acknowledged, it would not exist, because nothing would be burnt. "But the fire must start, when you perhaps light a match?" The match is that of which that is being burnt, the match is acknowledging the fire. If there was not match to acknowledge the flame, there would be no fire.

If there is no conscious to acknowledge all existence, all it existence would cease to exist.

[Anonymous No.9934530]

>>9934501
Lemme know when the drugs wear off, and we'll start over.

Fookin bongloaders

[Anonymous No.9934535]

>>9934530
I would not exist if you did not respond, and you would not respond if I didn't start your flame. Consciousness is that which allows all substance to exist.

[Anonymous No.9934609]

>>9934351
>>9934356
Don't give him a hard time, we stand on the shoulders of giants and he stands somewhere around the taint.

[Anonymous No.9934611]

>>9934356
blame american pre-college education

[Anonymous No.9934706]

>>9934267
>However, has the question ever been intelligently answered that perhaps the Sun rotates around the Earth?
When we look at the other planets really closely and measure how the Sun moves as it is affected by the planets that orbit it, we can be sure that Earth is not the center of the solar system.

[Anonymous No.9934718]

>>9934706
At any point since Galio looked into the stars for the first time, have these other planets/asteroids went around the sun? we would need a 360^2 sonar telescope to shoot signals at a constant rate to analyze whether or not the movement of the planets is around the sun or the Earth based on the arch of their circular rotation to us and an equated prediction as to how the arch should be for every possible situation.

For all we know if we conducted this test, Pluto could be the center of our solar system.

[Anonymous No.9934728]

>>9934267

because that's not the only reason. Every other planet does behave exactly like it was on an ellyptic trajectory around sun as well. Apart from that, the smaller oject revolving around the larger one iks the only sensible way to interpret what we know about gravity.

[Anonymous No.9934740]

>>9934267

You can pick any point in the solar system, proclaim it a center and then describe orbits around it. We "picked" the Sun because of Newtonian physical laws of gravity and mass.

[Anonymous No.9934875]

>>9934305
>the Sun is not the center because nothing is the center.
Correct

[Anonymous No.9934914]

>>9934267
1. You pulled those academic equations out of your ass, the number of days you came up with is larger than the anmount of particles in the observable universe
2. We've had this debate since the 15th century and we end it in, like, the 17th century, learn some fucking history
3. For fuck's sake, learn to round numbers, nobody gives a shit about the 10th significant digit when the number in your calculations has 5 of them
4. Have you looked into an hero? Please try.

[Anonymous No.9935011]

>>9934267

[Anonymous No.9935515]

>>9934501
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE

[Anonymous No.9935518]

>>9934267
I wonder when will the Aristotelian abiogenenesis theorists show up

[Anonymous No.9935823]

>>9934267
Correct, the earth is at the "center". The heliocentric model is sun worship (Helios is a Greek sun God) - they made the earth orbit the sun God, tilted towards it as if it's bowing.

The sun circles above the stationary earth, webm related, it's clear the earth is not rotating.

[Anonymous No.9935846]

Stop worshipping Helios, and you faggots call yourselves atheists?

[Anonymous No.9935909]

These are just all different stories that reuse the story of the sun and the earth. What you are failing to notice is that when you change the intent of the story or the narrator (perspective) of the story, you create new stories that create new intents and new narrators, and limit the stories you can then tell.

The earth can be held stationary, but not in an inertial or gravitational story. But the inertial and gravitational stories CAME from not holding the earth stationary!

You can make the sun and the planets rotate around the earth. But you can't then hold the same rules about angular energy, or energy being minimized, or Noether Symmetry or the conservation laws that come from them, but all those laws came from not holding the earth as the center.

But then again, if your only intent is to find out where the sun comes up, by all means, you better make the earth the center.

If you want to find stars or planets at night, just try to hold the sun as the center.

If you want to launch a satellite to Neptune's moons, just try using anything but the satellite itself as the center of the solar system.

It all depends on the story you want to tell and whether that story is useful to be believed for its intent and its narrator or does that story stop...

[Anonymous No.9935942]

>>9934267
The fact that you're asking this question tells me you don't know what a system of reference is, which tells me you haven't taken a basic physics course. Please come back after you've taken an undergrad level intro to physics course.

[Anonymous No.9936067]

>>9934483
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcN5h8zEacM

[Anonymous No.9936071]

>>9934718
If you disrgard the orbital mechanics, you can arbitrarily define any point as the "center" and map how everything moves around it. See:>>9934416

[Anonymous No.9936074]

>>9935823
>tilted towards it as if it's bowing.

Titled away for the same amount of time, though. So apparently THEY wanted us to worship the Sun halfheartedly.

[Anonymous No.9936126]

>>9936074
You do one full bow every year brainlet

[Anonymous No.9936184]

>>9934914
> the number of days you came up with is larger than the anmount of particles in the observable universe

Are Earthlings so competent that they base the increments of which to measure distance and time in the universe on their own day cycles? The Sun is 109.1 times as large as the Earth, so the suns day cycles are bound to be significantly larger than the Earth's, but instead Earth people stick to their English and Metric systems of measurement that limit the magnitude of comprehension for things around them in the universe.

[Anonymous No.9936201]

>>9936184
>The Sun is 109.1 times as large as the Earth
Is it though?

[Anonymous No.9936246]

>>9936201
>>9936184
I'm done with this board
Why the fuck are you not on >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.9936259]

>>9936246
You're the one that worships Helios you should go to /x/. The sun looks a similar size to the moon to me, call me crazy.

[Anonymous No.9936264]

>>9936259
You're crazy.

[Anonymous No.9936284]

>>9936264
>thinks the moon is an old chunk of the earth that fell off after an impact ages ago and just so happened that the right amount fell off to form into a sphere nearly exactly the same size as the sun appears and eclipses it perfectly year after year, despite their vast differences in size and distance.

[Anonymous No.9936300]

>>9934267

1: Matter cannot travel faster then the speed of light.

2: If the Earth was at the center of the universe and everything revolved around it, then a dwarf planet like Pluto would need to go faster then the speed of light.

[Anonymous No.9936310]

>>9936246
I do enter /omg/ to talk about herbal witchcraft from time to time. Herbal witchcraft is just a subjective interpretation from simple medical biology and plant science.

>>9936300
And what is to say that everything does not rotate around the earth? We base rotation off of a circular shape consisting of 360 degrees. Are Earthlings so concomitant to base all rotational phenomena in the universe on our own subjective definition of that which is the "rotation"? We should analyze the shape of the universe, movement patterns of planets, stars, asteroids, and other space objects in addition to their size to compose an average speed, pattern, size, and shape to base the shape that we define a rotation upon as.

Do scientist ever form absolute answers? I would argue that each hypothesis leads only to more questions.

[Anonymous No.9936320]

>>9936300
Show your best proof that Pluto is made of matter.

[Anonymous No.9936323]

>>9936310
how what you said disprove >>9936300 him?pluto would need to move at 545415km/s if the earth was the center, and don't come with bullshit like "is pluto really at 7.5b km" or "are you sure that the light speed is the limit" we can easily prove these on earth.

[Anonymous No.9936332]

>>9936323
as I said in ->>9936310 , why do we conclude that rotations must be in a perfect 360 degree circle? Do all things become absorbed into a black hole at a constant circular rate? I would say that things move around and into black holes at different rates based on crossness. Also, what weight factors attribute to the speed that Pluto rotates around the Earth by "nudge-like" pulls as Pluto passes their proximity?
A planet such as Ross 128 could certainly alter this circular rotation humans are so fascinated with.

[Anonymous No.9936342]

>>9936332
well, even if it moved in straight line it would be faster than light, but I can't comprehend the rest anom

[Anonymous No.9936346]

>>9936342
Answer this >>9936320

[Anonymous No.9936378]

>>9936346
it still breaks general relativity since it would transfer information faster than light, it would even be possible to see two images in certain conditions

[Anonymous No.9936382]

>>9936378
Show proof that Pluto is as far away as you say it is.

[Anonymous No.9936395]

>>9936382
just pick two powerful telescopes and make stellar parallax at the same time (but in different locations of earth), this will work since we can see Pluto with enough resolution

[Anonymous No.9936397]

>>9934267
False dichotomy. The true answer is that the Earth-Sun system revolves around its common barycenter. We say the Earth orbits the Sun because the barycenter lies inside the Sun.

[Anonymous No.9936398]

>>9936395
We need to send sonar signals at Pluto and a solid asteroid at as near distance as Pluto is to us and we need to analyze the density of the response.

[Anonymous No.9936400]

>>9936398
for what?

[Anonymous No.9936404]

>>9936400
To measure the density of substance an matter in Pluto to clarify it isn't just a ball of smoke and hale.

[Anonymous No.9936405]

>>9936395
>stellar parallax
Doesn't this method assume a load of shit in its calculations like the distance of other celestial objects or that the earth is tilted and orbiting the sun? It's already biased.

[Anonymous No.9936406]

>>9934718
>At any point since Galio looked into the stars for the first time, have these other planets/asteroids went around the sun?
Orbital period is defined by distance from the center of the orbit, so, yes. Most of what we can see in our solar system has gone around the Sun multiple times since Galileo looked up. Venus and Mercury more times than Earth.

[Anonymous No.9936409]

>>9936284
>imagine being this uninformed about eclipses and yet trying to use them in an argument
Annular eclipses will blow your mind.

[Anonymous No.9936413]

>>9936320
It reflects light in visible wavelengths.
Feel free to show me proof of something that isn't matter that reflects light in visible wavelengths.

[Anonymous No.9936412]

>>9936409
Just happens by chance isn't that right brainlet?

[Anonymous No.9936415]

>>9936413
>reflects
Show proof it reflects light.

[Anonymous No.9936417]

>>9936405
No. It works off known things.

[Anonymous No.9936419]

>>9936412
Yes.

[Anonymous No.9936421]

>>9936406
->>9934718
> Most of what we can see in our solar system has gone around the Sun multiple times since Galileo looked up. Venus and Mercury more times than Earth.
They have been around the Sun and the Earth an equal number of times. To so instantly assume that it is the Sun they have rotated around and not the Earth is like saying babies come out of a female's waist when the waist is in fact non other than a container for the true reproductive organ. Adding onto what I have been saying all along in this thread, we base the movements of orbit based on Human's over-competent and assumptions circular rotation model. How do we know that a complete rotation is circular?

[Anonymous No.9936423]

>>9936415
We can see it in the night sky with a powerful enough telescope.
We have also taken photos of it with New Horizons. It doesn't make its own light because it has a night side.
Please feel free to show proof that these photos are fake.

[Anonymous No.9936424]

>>9936417
Such as?

[Anonymous No.9936425]

>>9936404
I think they can figure it by how it looks from earth, but it would be made of matter anyway

[Anonymous No.9936426]

>>9936419
What are the chances huh!?

[Anonymous No.9936427]

>>9936421
Retrograde motion, nigger.

[Anonymous No.9936428]

>>9936423
Post a photo that you believe is real.

[Anonymous No.9936429]

>>9936426
Kinda low. What is your point?

[Anonymous No.9936431]

>>9936405
nope you probably can achieve the same thing with simultaneous measurements in two different places of earth since you can see Pluto well enough

[Anonymous No.9936432]

>>9936424
trigonometry

[Anonymous No.9936434]

>>9936428

[Anonymous No.9936436]

>>9936429
It takes more faith to believe it's down to pure chance, than to think it's not.

[Anonymous No.9936440]

>>9936431
Not talking about just Pluto - don't the measurements assume that the earth is orbiting the sun too? And that the sun is 93 million miles away?

>>9936432
I'm talking about assumptions made about earth and the solar system in general.

[Anonymous No.9936441]

>>9936436
No.
You're just ascribing a special meaning to it.

[Anonymous No.9936443]

>>9936440
The only needed assumption is the size of the Earth, which is well known.

[Anonymous No.9936444]

>>9934267
Look at the star-like things that are designated as "planets" and observe their movement for an entire year.

[Anonymous No.9936448]

>>9936434
Does that look real to you?

[Anonymous No.9936449]

>>9936444
->>9936421

[Anonymous No.9936450]

>>9936441
The moon is a chunk of the earth that fell off ages ago, right?

[Anonymous No.9936453]

>>9936443
How's that?

[Anonymous No.9936456]

>>9936440
nope, you will only different times for stars far away since you need a big distance to it be observable. it probably would work well enough only with Pluto since its nearby

[Anonymous No.9936457]

>>9936448
Yes. Do you have proof of it being fake?

[Anonymous No.9936459]

>>9936450
"Fell off" is a strange way of putting getting struck by a planet sized object.

[Anonymous No.9936461]

>>9936421
>To so instantly assume that it is the Sun they have rotated around and not the Earth
Look at their paths, you absolute nigger. You have a fuckton of explaining to do with Mars's path in the sky being like this.

[Anonymous No.9936462]

>>9936453
Using that one known distance and trigonometry we can work out the other distances.
We know the size of the Earth we have works because we use it in navigation all the time now.

[Anonymous No.9936465]

>>9936456
But then this assumes stars are really far away doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.9936468]

>>9936457
What is the source of the photo?

[Anonymous No.9936469]

>>9936459
Please admit you think the moon is an old chunk of the earth.

[Anonymous No.9936473]

>>9936469
Most likely part of it is from Earth, part from the original planetoid.

[Anonymous No.9936474]

>>9936473

[Anonymous No.9936475]

>>9936468
You're not going to go "Aha! It's NASA so that proves it's fake!" are you?
That would be actually funny.

[Anonymous No.9936477]

>>9936465
yes I assumed, but just mentioned it to say that you can't see their parallax well (that's why you need bigger distances) enough which probably doesn't happen with pluto, so you can jump to calculations. it would be possible to calculate pluto distance with this method even if other stars didn't existed so it is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.9936478]

>>9936474
>if i post a reaction image i win!
What difference does it make?

[Anonymous No.9936480]

>>9936461
What this tells me is that the Sun is actually what is moving in the sky, not Mars nor Earth.

[Anonymous No.9936481]

>>9936475
NASA are 100% credible what are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.9936482]

>>9936480
How? That's Mars right there that's moving in the night sky from the perspective of someone on the surface of the earth.

[Anonymous No.9936483]

>>9936477
Are you also assuming the size of the earth and assuming it is moving with a tilt around a 93 million miles away sun?

[Anonymous No.9936484]

>>9936478
It's an extremely funny belief that's all.

[Anonymous No.9936486]

>>9936481
If we are judging validity purely off credibility then why should I consider you as honest?

[Anonymous No.9936488]

>>9936480
>pic of mars having different positions on the night sky depending on the time of year
>"hurr durr mars don't move"
>"hurr durr therefore erff don't move too"

[Anonymous No.9936490]

>>9936482
As a proper scientist I will admit my mistake, I assumed that was a picture of the sun from one of our rovers or mars probes.

[Anonymous No.9936491]

>>9936484
Not as funny as religions.

[Anonymous No.9936494]

>>9936483
nope just the radius but you can calculate it with just a stick, its so easy that people know it since 240BC

[Anonymous No.9936497]

>>9936490
Dude, you're too retarded to be a scientist.

[Anonymous No.9936499]

>>9936486
That's for you to decide.

[Anonymous No.9936500]

>>9936491
It's pretty much a religious belief though, just replacing God with random chance.

[Anonymous No.9936502]

>>9936494
And Eratosthenes' experiment doesn't assume anything beforehand either?

[Anonymous No.9936505]

>>9936490
nigga, that picture he posted was the largest hole in the old school model of celestial mechanics. ptolemeic astronomy refined its mathematical gymnastics over a couple hundred years such that its calculations are still used by sailors to navigate over heliocentric methods. its considered a case study in "untrue" science still having practical applications. right up there with the hard shell model of the atom.

[Anonymous No.9936508]

>>9936500
Ah, so you're a retarded hard determinist. I don't know if you know this but not everything happens for a reason. The fact that a dog managed to shit in the same exact place for my current pacing to be able to position my foot in such a way that that my sole is able to encompass the area that the shit is on doesn't mean there's a higher meaning to it. Sometimes, a dog just happens to shit somewhere by random chance and your pacing managed to position your foot on the exact area where the shit is by random chance.

[Anonymous No.9936511]

>>9936502
nope just mathematical knowledge and the known distance between two locations

[Anonymous No.9936515]

>>9936502
A few assumptions that you already agree on. The earth is round and the sun's rays being a straight line that doesn't perfectly encompass the entire surface earth evenly.

[Anonymous No.9936516]

>>9936502
flat earther too?

[Anonymous No.9936541]

>>9936508
Not really a valid comparison is it? Did the shit you stepped in match the shape of your shoe? Does this happen repeatedly at predictable times?

[Anonymous No.9936546]

>>9936511
So you're in disagreement with
>>9936515
Everything is an assumption based upon another assumption.

[Anonymous No.9936548]

>>9936516
Direct realist.

[Anonymous No.9936553]

>>9936541
>going on about how the moon "perfectly" blocks the sun
It doesn't, you fucktard. The sun is really fucking far and despite how big it actually is, it's apparent """size""" from our perspective is almost comparable to a pea held at arm's length. So no, the moon doesn't block it "perfectly". What it's blocking every eclipse is 95% rays.

[Anonymous No.9936554]

>>9936480
Mars or Earth has GOT to be moving -- or do you think Mars is stationary in the sky?

[Anonymous No.9936556]

>>9936546
>cant no nuffin

[Anonymous No.9936557]

>>9936553
Wow yeah I mean look how off center it is

[Anonymous No.9936559]

>>9936553
Depends on the eclipse. Sometimes the moon is a bit larger than the Sun, and the eclipse lasts a bit longer. Sometimes the moon appears a bit smaller, and you get an annular eclipse.