Ptolemy was right

[ZenitYerkes]

And Copernicus was wrong.

Well, both*; since modern science proved all movement is relative to the reference system we choose to observe the Universe with. For example, whereas for a person in the street it looks like the traffic lights don't move from their place, for a car driver they just pass by their side.

*Einstein is actually right here

Any case -if everything depended on that, how would the rest of the Universe revolve if we took the Earth as the system of reference, and we made it stand still?

"Earth is not static at all"

It depends.

But a picture is worth a thousand words:

*ain't those some awesome stunts?*

For the camera, it's not it itself which is moving, neither the holder of it -it's the whole world around it which moves. I insist -from the camera's point of view.

Were you sat down on a bench, you'll see how this guy jumps around; but that'll be your point of view.

From an astronaut who is watching you both from his station with a huge telescope, he will see you disappear and appear again as the planet spins.

Everything is relative to the point of view.

The heliocentric system places the Sun as the center of the system and it remains still as the planets revolve around it.

But why not the geocentric system? The great pro of this model is that it explains how we see the Universe; though a great con is that the all movements happen to be more complex compared to the orbits Copernicus, Newton or Kepler described.

I've made a quick draft, so you can see how this twisted system works.

• The blue spot is planet Earth. For seeing the rest of objects' orbits clearer, I've taken it not as a completely still point -it still spins for making days, this is, it still follows the 24h daily rotation.
• The red one is the Sun, which revolves around planet Earth. It completes its orbit in a year, since we have taken out the day-night rotation. As you can see, I've made circular orbits -which is a mistake, but then again I'm making this not for precision but clarity.
• The green one is an hypothetical planet, which revolves around the Sun describing a circular orbit and completes it after 122 days. Each quarter of its orbit is a month, so there are as many green orbits as months.

And yes, I placed an extra planet in the wrong orbit. I make mistakes, K?

[txen]

I can't watch the videos, but I will make one observation.

The closest thing that we have to a reference is the microwave background radiation. With careful observation of it's temperature you will slight variations. For example if you are moving relative to it's frame of reference you will see blue shifting in "front" of you and redshift "behind."

It's kind of interesting the level they took modeling the motion of the planets when the basis was the earth was fixed. It was kind of amazing. In fact Copernicus' revelation was in a large part driven by the insane complexity of the model of the day. His model was so much simpler.

[Banefull]

Quite amazing how choosing a different reference point makes things different.

Time and space are both relative. Space as an entity merely explains the relative movement of objects. Time runs at different rates for all observers. However, there is such a thing as absolute space-time. If a baseball was thrown in the air, two observers in different locations watching the ball would agree upon the arc of the trajectory that the ball traveled. What they would disagree upon is where that trajectory was and how long it lasted.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Banefull

Quite amazing how choosing a different reference point makes things different.

Time and space are both relative. Space as an entity merely explains the relative movement of objects. Time runs at different rates for all observers. However, there is such a thing as absolute space-time. If a baseball was thrown in the air, two observers in different locations watching the ball would agree upon the arc of the trajectory that the ball traveled. What they would disagree upon is where that trajectory was and how long it lasted.

How about if we placed a camera to the ball?

Its perspective is completely different from both viewers.

[Banefull]

The "camera" on the ball would say that he traveled in an arc. An observer from the ground would also.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Banefull

The "camera" on the ball would say that he traveled in an arc. An observer from the ground would also.

For the camera, the whole would would have moved -not itself.

[The Man in Black]

Frame of reference is absolutely critical: think about our position in our universe and galaxy, astronomers have had to overcome our frame of reference for centuries. We've finally been able to overcome some of these obstacles over the decades, but it's similar to an advanced civilization that could hypothetically begin underwater. If they never break the surface, then from their point of view, the world is only what they observe.

And txen is absolutely right, the CMB accounts for much of what we know from the beginnings of our universe.

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

For the camera, the whole would would have moved -not itself.

We can sense whether we are accelerating or not. What we can't sense is velocity; only changes in it.

[Human No More]

Ah, WTF.
Seriously, this makes no sense at all. Things just aren't one particular way just because people used to think that.

[joeylovesgaia]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Ah, WTF.
Seriously, this makes no sense at all. Things just aren't one particular way just because people used to think that.

People still do astrology from the geocentric POV. And before you knock that particular field, someone close to me has it as a hobby. Says she's found interesting patterns.