![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
![]() And yes, I placed an extra planet in the wrong orbit. I make mistakes, K?
__________________
I love Plato, but I love Truth more - Aristotle
Last edited by ZenitYerkes; 11-19-2010 at 08:11 PM. |
|
|