Jump to content
Curious Cosmos
Mylo.X.

Is the Earth stationary, or does it revolve around the sun?

Recommended Posts

seivtcho said:
Why not you in the CAI do the opposite? Find a non-moving refferance point and film the sun while orbiting the earth.

Are you familiar with the Michelson - Morley experiment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Enlight me, please. Where is their static point outside of the solar system from where they filmed on a movie how the sun rotates the Earth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seivtcho said:
No. Enlight me, please. Where is their static point outside of the solar system from where they filmed on a movie how the sun rotates the Earth?

The geocentrics use a combination of telescopic observation and mathematics/physics to assert their claims. (please remember, I do not believe they are correct).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

The experiment shows the earth appears to be sitting dead still in space. Not even the rotation of the earth can be measured using this experiment. This experiment is being interpreted to mean that the whole universe is rotating about the earth. But the interpretation is just an opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Mylo.X. said:
The geocentrics use a combination of telescopic observation and mathematics/physics to assert their claims. (please remember, I do not believe they are correct).

It seems, that the same things is based also the opposite - that the earth is rotating around the sun.

Einstein said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

The experiment shows the earth appears to be sitting dead still in space. Not even the rotation of the earth can be measured using this experiment. This experiment is being interpreted to mean that the whole universe is rotating about the earth. But the interpretation is just an opinion.

I didn't understand much of the experiment, especially from the mathemathic part. Can you please, explain it to me in brief? There is a beam of light, that is separated from a mirror? And then what is expected to happen and what are the results?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason I believe that the earth is revolving around the sun is due to stellar aberration of the stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seivtcho said:
It seems, that the same things is based also the opposite - that the earth is rotating around the sun.

I think the Michelson - Morley experiment actually raises more questions based on the experimental results. If what the experiment says is true, then everything in the heavens appears to be rotating around the earth.

I'm not disputing the results of the experiment. Those are the facts.

There is another interpretation that is also suggested as well. The motion in the heavens that we think we perceive, may actually just be an illusion. If all gravitating bodies produce the same results, then everything would actually exist in a motionless state. There is a way the math could work to explain this. The perceived motion that we see appears to act in a two dimensional plane for our solar system. That is only one two dimensional plane out of three two dimensional planes that exist in 3D space. So possibly the Michelson-Morley experiment is denoting the absence of motion on one of the other two planes which would be orthogonal to the perceived plane of motion that we do see. Orthogonal planes of force could be mathematically described as being totally immune to the effects of each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is that universe without motion? The universe is expanding - all galaxies, and stars are enlarging constantly the distance between them. How this will happen without any motion?

Mylo.X. is citing a site named "http://biblelight.net/" What do you expect from a site, naming itself the light of the bible except spamming constantly religious propaganda.

I didn't understand the Michelson - Morley experiment above, but here are some things, that got my attention:

"The expected relative difference in the measured speed of light"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but differences in the speed of light does not exist if it travels in one and the same environment - the speed of light is constant and also is independent from the movement of the object.

"After all this thought and preparation, the experiment became what has been called the most famous failed experiment in history"

"Afterward, Michelson and Morley ceased their aether drift measurements and started to use their newly developed technique to establish the wavelength of light as a standard of length"

The speed of light is the same, but the wave lengths are different. They are in a spectrum from infra - red to ultra violet. So there is no one wavelength. There are many wavelengths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seivtcho said:
It seems, that the same things is based also the opposite - that the earth is rotating around the sun.

I didn't understand much of the experiment, especially from the mathemathic part. Can you please, explain it to me in brief? There is a beam of light, that is separated from a mirror? And then what is expected to happen and what are the results?

The experiment was designed to detect directional motion. If a beam of light has its velocity increased, as it would if the beam source were moving toward you then the frequency would increase. The same thing would be true if you were moving toward the beam source. The experimental device will reflect this if the device is moved along the direction of one of the light beams. The other light beam in the device is at right angles to the motion and is unaffected. When the beams of light are recombined, they create an interference pattern. So if motion exists along the path of one of the light beams, the frequency of that light beam will change. This will cause a change in the interference pattern of the recombined beams of light. That change in the interference pattern is indicative of motion being present. So that's the gist of how the device works. You really have to know your science to completely understand it.

But when this device was used to measure the motion of earth through the heavens, it was found that no motion existed. It was also used to measure the rotation of the earth, and it was found the no rotational motion existed either. Kind of conflicting experimental data that disagrees with what we thought we knew to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... did they expect the speed of the moving earth to be added to the speed of light? Because, if they expected that, it will not happen. The speed of the moving object is not added to the speed of light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So... did they expect the speed of the moving earth to be added to the speed of light? Because, if they expected that, it will not happen. The speed of the moving object is not added to the speed of light.

 

That is a fact. The speed of light can add to or subtract from a bodies motion. It results in redshifting or blueshifting of the light. This is an astronomical phenomena that happens naturally. It's one of the main tools we use in determining the distance of objects in the heavens. The more redshifted the light is, the faster it is moving away from us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I got totally confused. I am sure, that I red somewhere, that the speed of the light is so constant, that it is not influenced even from the movement of the object, that emits it.

I can't find again my source in the internet. When searched, I managed to find some other sources, however. They all say, that the speed of light is not affected from the movement of the object...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seivtcho said:
Now I got totally confused. I am sure, that I red somewhere, that the speed of the light is so constant, that it is not influenced even from the movement of the object, that emits it.

I can't find again my source in the internet. When searched, I managed to find some other sources, however. They all say, that the speed of light is not affected from the movement of the object...

Yes, I agree it is confusing. The most confusing statement is the following:

"The speed of light is constant in all reference frames."

But, not all reference frames are identical to each other. That is the key you need to understand the statement.

A moving reference frame doesn't change the speed of light. But if the reference frame is moving toward you, its velocity adds to the speed of light making it appear that the light emitted from it is traveling faster than light. So translating speeds from one reference frame to the other does not violate the rule. In reality it's just the frequency of the light that is blueshifted that tells you there is a velocity component that is adding to the speed of light. The same thing happens with a train whistle. As it moves toward you, the sound is higher pitched because of the speed of the train adding to the speed of sound. And I might add that radar guns work on this same principle.

Time dilation also will make a light emitting body appear as if it is moving away due to the redshifting of light. Our sun emits time dilated light. So to us here on earth it appears the light from the sun is coming from a body that is moving away from us. Its not moving away really, just moving through time more slowly. So if we actually clocked the light coming in from our sun, it would appear to have a speed lower than the speed of light. But we know time dilation is causing this. If it were possible to measure the speed of light from the sun on the surface of the sun, the speed measured there would come out correct because we would then also be in the slower time dilation frame.

So most of the confusion is coming from mixing different reference frames together. Just remember that if the speed of light doesn't calculate out correctly, you have either an additional time dilation component or velocity component that may be combining with the speed of light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually reading that as a "dopler effect". Wasn't that visible for the light beam only in very fast speeds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red shift and blue shift are frequency shift. It is not additive velocities to that of light. A frequency shift of light does not mean the light is traveling any slower or faster. Only that its waves are stretched out or compressed.

RMT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seivtcho said:
I was actually reading that as a "dopler effect". Wasn't that visible for the light beam only in very fast speeds?

At extremely high speeds there is an additional time dilation for the inertial body that has accelerated to that speed. So light emitted from such a body would have a time dilation component plus a velocity component to factor out in order to get the correct speed of light when transforming between your reference frame and the high speed reference frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RainmanTime said:
Red shift and blue shift are frequency shift. It is not additive velocities to that of light. A frequency shift of light does not mean the light is traveling any slower or faster. Only that its waves are stretched out or compressed.

RMT

So, can the light shift be applied for the Michelson - Morley experiment? Has their devise been used for another purpose,for example to detect the movement of a speeding car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seivtcho

RainmanTime is misdirecting you with his statements. The difference in the velocity or time dilation between different reference frames is the direct cause of Doppler shift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dizzie said:
Obviously, the Earth rotates around me. The sun too.:cautious:

Why not go for the whole universe?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einstein said:
At extremely high speeds there is an additional time dilation for the inertial body that has accelerated to that speed. So light emitted from such a body would have a time dilation component plus a velocity component to factor out in order to get the correct speed of light when transforming between your reference frame and the high speed reference frame.

I think, that you both - RainmanTime and you, Einstein, are right. I have red, that the red shifts and the blue shifts have been used to prove, that the universe is expanding. The results of the experiment, however, sounds me strange. Why it has not detected shifts? Is it because the detecting device does not move relative to the light source? I mean, that shifts are exampled with the change of the sound of a moving train, that hears someone on the ground, while the train passes. But if you are on the train, you will move with its speed and will not hear a dopler shifted sound. Is it the same with this experiment?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seivtcho said:
I think, that you both - RainmanTime and you, Einstein, are right. I have red, that the red shifts and the blue shifts have been used to prove, that the universe is expanding. The results of the experiment, however, sounds me strange. Why it has not detected shifts? Is it because the detecting device does not move relative to the light source? I mean, that shifts are exampled with the change of the sound of a moving train, that hears someone on the ground, while the train passes. But if you are on the train, you will move with its speed and will not hear a dopler shifted sound. Is it the same with this experiment?

I think you are starting to understand.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was used to create a Doppler shift in the path of one of the light beams. Because one of the beams of light was expected to change. The experiment was originally created to detect the ether. A popular theory at the time. But no ether was ever detected. Then they used the experiment to measure the rotation of the earth. That was puzzling too. Because no rotation was measured. The experiment was suggesting that the earth was sitting dead still in space. Now the experimental results are undeniable facts.

But does it really mean that the universe is revolving around the earth? That is what this debate is all about. My stance is that the data is correct. But the interpretation is not. And further data gathering needs to be done. For instance: If we did the Michelson-Morley experiment on Mars, would we get the same results over there too?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...