Islam and Astronomy

[INPEFESS]

Copernicus was wrong, so was Galileo.

Yes, I know. And if I earned a dime every time you said that, I'd never have to work again. 

Heliocentrism is wrong too. The sun is the not the centre of anything, or it is the centre of everything.

I think heliocentrism only says that the planets revolve around the sun - not that everything else does, too - and that the Sun is the center of the universe. If the Sun can be the center of the universe according to relative motion, then can you say that it is wrong? 

Relativity makes the issue more interesting in that from any perspective, anywhere can be the centre. The earth is our vantage point of the universe, hence, it is the centre. The laws of physics work both ways: the movement of the heavenly bodies can be described relative to the earth as much as the earth can be described to move relative to them. Relative to other objects in the universe, we are moving near the speed of light, but no one would claim that we are moving the speed of light and experiencing its effects (although, we are, relative to other things).

Of course, but heliocentrism is still, de facto, "wrong"?

Has anyone seen this promotion of the geocentric model proposed by Islam before? Shouldn't knowledge of the Earth's revolution around the Sun prove Islam false to Muslims?

Careful...

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

Careful of what? ...of saying that the Earth has been placed by God in the foundation of its orbit, never to be moved? I don't think Scripture condemns that.

Notice that I didn't say:

Has anyone seen this promotion of the geocentric model proposed by Islam before? Shouldn't knowledge of heliocentrism prove Islam false to Muslims?

Instead, I said:

Has anyone seen this promotion of the geocentric model proposed by Islam before? Shouldn't knowledge of the Earth's revolution around the Sun prove Islam false to Muslims?

Do you deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun in the foundation of an orbit?

No existing model can be proven - even St Thomas Aquinas said that of the geocentric model.  We are free to believe either model as it is impossible to ever prove for certain which is correct.  The geocentric model works perfectly well - the heliocentric model works perfectly well - an invented model with Mars at the center would also work equally well.  These models are not supported by proof - they are merely attempts to give the best description of the sky and its motion.

I believe in the geocentric model - I believe the Sun revolves around the earth which is the dead center of physical reality - but it is not to say you can't believe your own model - mine just accords better with ancient writings which I am interested in.

Putting the center of the universe aside, you don't believe in this?

[Rosarium]

Putting the center of the universe aside, you don't believe in this?

But it is all relative. A model could be given with any as the centre and the laws of physics would be shown. That is the point. When it comes to the planets and stars, suspended in space, moving relative to each other, there is no single reference point.

However, there is. Since the only known life lives on earth, and does not travel far from it, earth is the central observation point, even for most of the satellites we launch. Earth is therefore the centre relative to our us and everything else.



Too bad I can't find it animated (I found a single orbit animated to explain retrograde motion, but that is it).

It is all about reference points. In space, there are no universal ones. If one were suspended north of the galaxy (this is an actual direction given to our galaxy...it is more or less above it in the typical representation of how our galaxy looks), the motions of the solar system in which we live would look very different. However, we, as humans, have the earth as our reference point. The sun comes and goes from our view, the planets wander about the sky in patterns and the stars are relatively fixed and move as a unit (they don't actually, but it seems that way). That is our universal reference point. We can model this in many ways.

[Rosarium]

I think heliocentrism only says that the planets revolve around the sun - not that everything else does, too - and that the Sun is the center of the universe. If the Sun can be the center of the universe according to relative motion, then can you say that it is wrong? 

The issue of the -centrism was the centre of the universe I think, so heliocentrism is just as valid as geocentrism in that regard, but it is equally false.

The sun can be the centre of the universe and I can be. From my point of view, I am

Of course, but heliocentrism is still, de facto, "wrong"?

It isn't a matter of right and wrong, but of the model used.

In general, the simplest model will be used. In modern use, the simplest is still the geocentric for many applications.

Do you deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun in the foundation of an orbit?

From the sun's point of view it does, however, I do deny that it is a universal perspective.

Imagine you are floating in a dark void. There is no up or down or anything in site (but you can see, there is just nothing to so). You suddenly see a pin of light, which starts getting bigger. As it gets bigger, you realise it is getting closer and is a sphere of a sort. Are you moving towards it or is it moving towards you?

[INPEFESS]

Putting the center of the universe aside, you don't believe in this?

But it is all relative. A model could be given with any as the centre and the laws of physics would be shown. That is the point. When it comes to the planets and stars, suspended in space, moving relative to each other, there is no single reference point.

However, there is. Since the only known life lives on earth, and does not travel far from it, earth is the central observation point, even for most of the satellites we launch. Earth is therefore the centre relative to our us and everything else.



Too bad I can't find it animated (I found a single orbit animated to explain retrograde motion, but that is it).

It is all about reference points. In space, there are no universal ones. If one were suspended north of the galaxy (this is an actual direction given to our galaxy...it is more or less above it in the typical representation of how our galaxy looks), the motions of the solar system in which we live would look very different. However, we, as humans, have the earth as our reference point. The sun comes and goes from our view, the planets wander about the sky in patterns and the stars are relatively fixed and move as a unit (they don't actually, but it seems that way). That is our universal reference point. We can model this in many ways.

When we speak of rotations (as is the subject of this thread), we are not talking about "center" of the universe. We are talking about which object has the greater mass producing a greater gravitational force. So does the Sun orbit the Earth or the Earth the Sun? Unless the Earth has a greater gravitational pull than the Sun, the Sun cannot be in a gravitational orbit around the Earth. Islam says that the Sun is in orbit around Earth. I disagree. I find it acceptable that the Earth could be the center of the universe according to relative motion, but I find it quaint that some claim the Sun is in an orbit around a gravitational pull of the Earth.

[Rosarium]

When we speak of rotations (as is the subject of this thread), we are not talking about "center" of the universe. We are talking about which object has the greater mass producing a greater gravitational force. So does the Sun orbit the Earth or the Earth the Sun? Unless the Earth has a greater gravitational pull than the Sun, the Sun cannot be in a gravitational orbit around the Earth.

It does not matter.

Third Law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction".

For an interesting thought experiment, when walking, think of YOU moving the earth, instead of the you moving on the earth. You are stationary. A singular being created in God's image, moving the universe with your feet (or, if drunk, with your hands and knees). It is perfectly valid to think of it this way. It also makes long walks easier to bear in the heat for some reason.

Islam says that the Sun is in orbit around Earth. I disagree. I find it acceptable that the Earth could be the center of the universe according to relative motion, but I find it quaint that some claim the Sun is in an orbit around a gravitational pull of the Earth.

If the earth were not where it was, the sun would not move as it does relative to the earth, therefore, the sun's motion relative to the earth is caused by the earth's presence.

Speaking of disagreeing...I spent a lot of time thinking what you said about rhythm at work, and I think I agree with you, although, I think there are some application differences.

[INPEFESS]

When we speak of rotations (as is the subject of this thread), we are not talking about "center" of the universe. We are talking about which object has the greater mass producing a greater gravitational force. So does the Sun orbit the Earth or the Earth the Sun? Unless the Earth has a greater gravitational pull than the Sun, the Sun cannot be in a gravitational orbit around the Earth.

It does not matter.

It doesn't? Does the tire rotate around the axle, or does the axle rotate around the tire? I mean, I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but it seems pretty clear that the Sun is the center of gravity around which at least 9 planets rotate.

Third Law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction".

For an interesting thought experiment, when walking, think of YOU moving the earth, instead of the you moving on the earth. You are stationary. A singular being created in God's image, moving the universe with your feet (or, if drunk, with your hands and knees). It is perfectly valid to think of it this way. It also makes long walks easier to bear in the heat for some reason.

Of course. Yes, I'm not denying that the Sun isn't affected by the gravitational pull of Earth. I am denying, however, that the Sun is rotating in orbit around Earth's gravitational field.

Islam says that the Sun is in orbit around Earth. I disagree. I find it acceptable that the Earth could be the center of the universe according to relative motion, but I find it quaint that some claim the Sun is in an orbit around a gravitational pull of the Earth.

If the earth were not where it was, the sun would not move as it does relative to the earth, therefore, the sun's motion relative to the earth is caused by the earth's presence.

Again, that Sun's motion is not circular (or elliptical) around Earth. I do not think the mass of the Earth is not great enough to support the orbit of the Sun.

Speaking of disagreeing...I spent a lot of time thinking what you said about rhythm at work, and I think I agree with you

I am not sure I understand. I thought that was a moot subject with you. What even led you to reconsider it?

[Rosarium]

Of course. Yes, I'm not denying that the Sun isn't affected by the gravitational pull of Earth. I am denying, however, that the Sun is rotating in orbit around Earth's gravitational field.

That is true. The sun is rotating around its axis (as is the earth).

Again, that Sun's motion is not circular (or elliptical) around Earth. I do not think the mass of the Earth is not great enough to support the orbit of the Sun.

No, it isn't, it is a bit more complex. It isn't a matter of orbit, but motion.

I am not sure I understand. I thought that was a moot subject with you. What even led you to reconsider it?

A post you made on another thread, and someone playing the radio at work.

[INPEFESS]

Again, that Sun's motion is not circular (or elliptical) around Earth. I do not think the mass of the Earth is not great enough to support the orbit of the Sun.

No, it isn't, it is a bit more complex. It isn't a matter of orbit, but motion.

Do explain. I understand relative motion, but I don't think relative motion changes the fact that one thing moves in a circular (or elliptical) pattern around another. Yes, a bird circles prey beneath the ground, and yes, the prey is moving as well (moving as fast as Earth is rotating and revolving), but the bird is still circling the prey relative to the prey and the bird's attraction to it. From the prey's perspective, it might be moving as the face of the Earth rotates, but we can tell the bird is circling the prey according to the bird's attraction to the prey because the motion of the rotation is relative to the motion's object, without which there would be no circular motion.

Even if the Sun were rotating around some larger celestial body, the Earth would still be rotating around the Sun as the Sun rotated around the larger object, much like the Moon rotates around the Earth as the Earth rotates the Sun.

Please do explain what you mean. Are you saying that both are swinging each other around in a lopsided circular motion like the head and handle of a hammer tossed into the air?

I am not sure I understand. I thought that was a moot subject with you. What even led you to reconsider it?

A post you made on another thread, and someone playing the radio at work.

Alright. I don't see how that would get you to seriously reconsider anything; I am obtuse and seem unable to communicate my meaning through words. But I'd imagine that you're being serious at least in your consideration.