Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Regarding Herb's comment:wrong by
...
In space everything is in relative motion. Although it is muchsimpler to describe the sun and the moon as celestial objects that are
relatively still with respect to the earths motions, there is nothing
believing that the earth is motionless and everything else in space isin
motion.a
Gottlieb from New York City
(Where the sun rises in the East and sets in the West )
There might not be anything practically wrong with such a
perspective for a practical prescientific description, and
there is nothing morally wrong with this description either.
But there *is* something scientifically
wrong with it if it is to be used to describe the motions of objects
farther than about 27.48 AU from the earth's spin axis. The
rotating coordinate system in which the earth's surface is at rest has
cylinderical coordinate singularity at this distance from the
rotation axis, and it cannot be used for distances greater than that.
(Objects greater that this distance travel at speeds greater than c inthis
coordinate system.) Such a situation *is* a real problem for athan the
proper scientific (i.e. relativisitic) description of the motions of
distant heavenly bodies. Even Neptune and Pluto are in this forbidden
region-- let alone all the Kuiper belt objects, all the stars (other
sun) and interstellar gas and dust clouds, all the galaxies, all the
galactic clusters, all the superclusters, all the quasars, all the
inhomogeneities in the cosmic microwave background, etc.
David Bowman
David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu