$ 1000 offered for proving Earth revolves around the sun

[DPDarkPrimus]

James Randi talked about this very "challenge" in his latest weekly column.

Reader Matt Hunt sends us to the Catholic Apologetics International [CAI] site: http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics ... llenge.htm, where we find a pale imitation of the JREF challenge which begins:

The Geocentrism Challenge

CAI will write a check for $1,000 to the first person who can prove that the earth revolves around the sun. (If you lose, then we ask that you make a donation to the apostolate of CAI). Obviously, we at CAI don't think anyone CAN prove it, and thus we can offer such a generous reward. In fact, we may up the ante in the near future.

You can submit your "proofs" to our e-mail address cairomeo@aol.com. We will then offer a response. Both your "proof" and our response will be posted on the CAI science page at our website. If you do not want your actual name listed, we will change your name, but your contents will be posted. If you do not want either your name or your contents posted, then you are not eligible for a reply from CAI nor the $1,000 reward. CAI will be the sole judge of whether you have successfully proven your case. But since CAI is built on its reputation of honesty and truthfulness, rest assured that if you do indeed prove your case, you will be rewarded the money.

And of course, it runs on and on, with their naïve notions of science and reason. I'm sure that you can anticipate my response....? Here it is:

JREF will write a check for $1,000,000 to the first person who can prove that the Sun revolves around the Earth. (If you lose, then we don't ask any donation to the apostates at the JREF.) Obviously, we at JREF don't think anyone CAN prove it, and thus we can offer such a generous reward. In fact, it's so large, we don't have to up the ante in the future.

You can submit your "proofs" to our e-mail address jref@randi.org. We will then offer a response. Both your "proof" and our response will be posted on the JREF website. If you do not want your actual name listed, that's tough. If you do not want either your name or your contents posted, then you are not eligible for a reply from JREF, nor the $1,000,000 reward. JREF will never be the judge of whether you have successfully proven your case and JREF will not depend on "its reputation of honesty and truthfulness" in acting as a judge of whether or not you have successfully proven your case; tests, as always, will be independently designed and conducted by neutral agencies. If you do indeed prove your case, you will be rewarded the money.

My math tells me that this offer is at least a thousand times as good as the Catholic Apologetics International offer....

[tharkûn]

What point are you trying to make with this? It's still a stupid comment.

There are many phrases in language that do accurately the world as scientific consensus sees it. I refer you to the phrases "sunrise" and "sunset" which only make intrisinic sense in a geocentric view.

Where in Luke 4:5 does it mention it as a "supernatural event"? And why would they have to go to "a high mountain" to do it?

The whole teleporting between desert, temple roof, and high mountain require either figurative reading (i.e. none of those scenes was meant to be physicly accurate and are figurative) or supernatural (for 1st century Jews) means of transportation.

No, the hebrews (and christians)were wrong and thought the Earth was flat, as anyone that has actually read educational, not inerrantist apologetic material on the matter will attest to.

Do you have a source? I seem to recall Rabbinic Hebrews opting for the round world, but haven't a source to back that up.

This is OT, but i don't understand exactly how that works. I mean, i know that in general relativity all inertial frames of reference are equivalent but i didn't think that applied to rotation too. I mean, if i was standing in the middle of a circular room that was spinning lazily around me and i threw darts at targets on the wall, i'd lead the target by the same amount as if i was spinning lazily and the walls were still. But if you compare the room spinning a zillion times a second to my body spinning at that same rate, then either my hair gets mussed or i explode. What am i missing here?

You are forgetting about the key to relativity: dilation. The length of the walls and the apparent passage of time will shift so that in no frame of reference can physical impossibilities occur. Length, in the direction of motion, and passage of time are not constant.

For a practical example the GPS system has atomic clocks in orbit and receivers on the ground. The clocks in orbit run slower to the appearance of observers on the ground (the difference is something around 1 part in 10^10 give or take orders of magnitude). Something which appeared to be spinning far faster would necessarily have far greater dilation in effect.

Without dilation it is possible to violate casuality and the experimental results agree EXTREMELY well with theory (the only possible violation I know of are the deep space probes which are going just a bit too slow, but that is not a rigorious experiment and alternative explanations abound).

[Firefox]

There are many phrases in language that do accurately the world as scientific consensus sees it. I refer you to the phrases "sunrise" and "sunset" which only make intrisinic sense in a geocentric view.

Indeed, but "four corners of the Earth" isn't one of them.

The whole teleporting between desert, temple roof, and high mountain require either figurative reading (i.e. none of those scenes was meant to be physicly accurate and are figurative) or supernatural (for 1st century Jews) means of transportation.

Yet Jesus' view of "all the kingdoms of the world" doesn't imply supernatural mechanisms. Again, why do so from a high mountain, which implies they were looking at "all the kingdoms" visually?

[Kuroneko]

General relativity states that all frames of reference are equivalent. If one choses a geocentric frame of reference - with the earth static and everything else revolving around it - or a heliocentric reference both will give valid consistent observations.

Right. This came up previously several times before on this board, but it is important to stress that that kind of viewpoint is really just as defeating to geocentrism as it is to heliocentrism.

This is OT, but i don't understand exactly how that works. I mean, i know that in general relativity all inertial frames of reference are equivalent but i didn't think that applied to rotation too.

Oh, no. Such a thing would not apply to rotation because rotational frames are not inertial (they accelerate). However, while special relativity treats all inertial observers equivelently, yes, but general relativity treats all observers equivalently, completely erasing the inertian/non-inertial distinction. To some extent this is true in special relativity as well, in that it is possible to formulate it independently of any particular choice of coordinates, but in computing the geodesic equations of motion in rotating frames, extra terms that can be identified as the centrifugal and Coriolis force. However, this is possible only because there is a fixed background (Minkowski) metric. In general relativity, there is no such case to compare to, and hence no general way to sensibly identify those kinds of forces as `fictitious'. It becomes more or less a metaphysical question rather than a scientific one.

I mean, if i was standing in the middle of a circular room that was spinning lazily around me and i threw darts at targets on the wall, i'd lead the target by the same amount as if i was spinning lazily and the walls were still. But if you compare the room spinning a zillion times a second to my body spinning at that same rate, then either my hair gets mussed or i explode. What am i missing here?

There is absolutely no difference; the only relevant effect is the relative rotation between you and the room. Whether the forces you experience are due to your own rotation (centrifugal force) or the rest of of the (rotating) universe frame dragging you is entirely a matter of interpretation; they are observationally equivalent. Perhaps the hardest part to grasp about this is trying to picture what happens if neither the room nor anything else was there, but you kept on rotating in a completely empty universe. You would still feel the centrifugal force even in an empty universe, because the space around you is curved (according to you), with the difference in curvature at different parts of your body resulting in the apparent force that you feel. Again, whether or not space is 'really' curved, and why one should prefer flat metrics to non-flat ones, seem to be metaphysical questions of interpretation rather than scientific questions of what is observable.

You are forgetting about the key to relativity: dilation. The length of the walls and the apparent passage of time will shift so that in no frame of reference can physical impossibilities occur. Length, in the direction of motion, and passage of time are not constant.

Dilation effects are not actually directly relevant. The speed of light only applies locally; it doesn't matter one bit whether or not an observer measures an apparently superluminal speed for a distant object, as long as the object stays subluminal relative to its immediate neighborhood. Such situations are possible in general relativity.

[Junghalli]

Though surely the fact that our missions to other planets have been based on the mathematical model of the heliocentric system, and sure enough they arrived, should be some small proof that even they accept. Anyone want to find the mathematical geocentric system and tell all the silly fundies how much Mars Rover would have missed by if they were right?

My thoughts exactly. The great thing about pragmatism is it's hard to argue against something that's been shown to actually work. If Mars went around Earth... ho boy, I'm pretty sure none of the probes sent would ever have gotten anywhere near it.

[tharkûn]

Right. This came up previously several times before on this board, but it is important to stress that that kind of viewpoint is really just as defeating to geocentrism as it is to heliocentrism.

Sure, that is why astronomy has advanced 400 years. The point is any "proof" that sun goes round the earth can be explained by a geocentric model and frame shifting the interpretation of ANY data.

Dilation effects are not actually directly relevant.

Only when rotation approaches superluminal velocities. I assumed that "zillion" was meant to imply relativistic rotation in which case the room has to dilate or violate causality.

My thoughts exactly. The great thing about pragmatism is it's hard to argue against something that's been shown to actually work. If Mars went around Earth... ho boy, I'm pretty sure none of the probes sent would ever have gotten anywhere near it.

Mars goes around Earth. Earth goes around Mars. It is just a matter of perspective and how difficult you want the math to be. A trajectory calculated in a Sol static frame is identical to one calculated in an Earth centered frame after the requisite transformation.

A modified Tychonian model would accurately send the probes to Mars.

Yet Jesus' view of "all the kingdoms of the world" doesn't imply supernatural mechanisms. Again, why do so from a high mountain, which implies they were looking at "all the kingdoms" visually?

Every other part of that story implies the supernatural, it seems incredibly lame to say "Hey in the midst of turning rocks into bread, jumping off of lethal heights without harm, and moving at supernatural speeds all while two supernatural characters are chatting (one of whom is at least supposed to be all seeing anyways) - hey this one single aspect of the story must be naturalistic because then that implies it is wrong."

[Firefox]

Every other part of that story implies the supernatural, it seems incredibly lame to say "Hey in the midst of turning rocks into bread, jumping off of lethal heights without harm, and moving at supernatural speeds all while two supernatural characters are chatting (one of whom is at least supposed to be all seeing anyways) - hey this one single aspect of the story must be naturalistic because then that implies it is wrong."

Only if it was taken literally, would it be considered wrong. The fact that it's supposed to take place on a high mountain, with a wide vantage point, leads me to believe that that particular instance is referring to some natural event, not a supernatural "vision".

[SirNitram]

My thoughts exactly. The great thing about pragmatism is it's hard to argue against something that's been shown to actually work. If Mars went around Earth... ho boy, I'm pretty sure none of the probes sent would ever have gotten anywhere near it.

Mars goes around Earth. Earth goes around Mars. It is just a matter of perspective and how difficult you want the math to be. A trajectory calculated in a Sol static frame is identical to one calculated in an Earth centered frame after the requisite transformation.

A modified Tychonian model would accurately send the probes to Mars.

This justification I have got to hear. Einstien must be hitting 70,000RPM at the concept of someone twisting 'Well, it doesn't matter what point is 0,0,0 for charting movement' and 'No matter where you are, gravity is universal and cee is constant' into 'Mars goes around Earth! Earth goes around Mars! WHEEEEE!'

[tharkûn]

SN:

From an earth perspective Mars will go on a prolonged and whacky orbit around the earth. Sol goes round Earth on an elliptical orbit, Mars goes around Sol on an elliptical orbit. The math works out to a 284 year cycle, but the entire Martian orbit will repeat (minus perturbations and other stuff normally ignored).

The orbit isn't pretty nor practical, but it can be expressed.

[SirNitram]

SN:

From an earth perspective Mars will go on a prolonged and whacky orbit around the earth. Sol goes round Earth on an elliptical orbit, Mars goes around Sol on an elliptical orbit. The math works out to a 284 year cycle, but the entire Martian orbit will repeat (minus perturbations and other stuff normally ignored).

The orbit isn't pretty nor practical, but it can be expressed.

So can gravity on Earth being 4.2, and any number of utterly incorrect notions. Expressing something doesn't make it objectively correct, and spewing ignorance about how relativity can be honestly used to demonstrate this is not only missing the damn point of the theory, but maligning alot of hard work.

[tharkûn]

Expressing something doesn't make it objectively correct, and spewing ignorance about how relativity can be honestly used to demonstrate this is not only missing the damn point of the theory, but maligning alot of hard work.

Place Earth at the origin of your coordinate system (I will be using a 2D projection onto the the "plane of the solar system" for simplicity), what do you get? You get a mars which goes through all 4 quadrants in a very fun pattern and endlessly repeats said pattern (minus the usual disclaimers). How could Mars possibly be said not go around earth? Sure the orbit looks like a spiralgraph pattern, but the basic truth is Mars goes around Earth when you place earth at the origin.

You can do ANYTHING in that frame of reference where Mars goes around Earth that can be done in a heliocentric frame - and get it right. The fuel efficiency of the Hohmann transfer calculated in this system will be identical to one calculated in the traditional manner. The time at which Mars, Earth, and Sol will all be colinear is also correctly predicted.

The bloody point of the theory is that physics is independent of the frame chosen and that differences arising between frame selection are irrelevent. Mars goes around Earth, when you work with an Earth static frame of reference. Earth goes around Mars when you work with a Mars static frame of reference.

[SirNitram]

Expressing something doesn't make it objectively correct, and spewing ignorance about how relativity can be honestly used to demonstrate this is not only missing the damn point of the theory, but maligning alot of hard work.

Place Earth at the origin of your coordinate system (I will be using a 2D projection onto the the "plane of the solar system" for simplicity), what do you get? You get a mars which goes through all 4 quadrants in a very fun pattern and endlessly repeats said pattern (minus the usual disclaimers). How could Mars possibly be said not go around earth? Sure the orbit looks like a spiralgraph pattern, but the basic truth is Mars goes around Earth when you place earth at the origin.

No. Anyone who actually has worked this out will quickly notice Mars is orbiting some point far from Earth.. Call it around eight light minutes. In the same way we can use the Sun as our PoO and work out that both it and Alpha Cent are orbiting the galactic centre.

You can do ANYTHING in that frame of reference where Mars goes around Earth that can be done in a heliocentric frame - and get it right. The fuel efficiency of the Hohmann transfer calculated in this system will be identical to one calculated in the traditional manner. The time at which Mars, Earth, and Sol will all be colinear is also correctly predicted.

The math working out makes it right? Sorry, nope. Newton's math works fine.. But it's still wrong, and Einstein is still right. You playing Stupid Sophist Tricks with relativity in lieu of actually understanding what was being talked about with all frames of references being equal doesn't impress anyone.

The bloody point of the theory is that physics is independent of the frame chosen and that differences arising between frame selection are irrelevent. Mars goes around Earth, when you work with an Earth static frame of reference. Earth goes around Mars when you work with a Mars static frame of reference.

Gods, you're stupid. Cee's velocity is independent of frame of reference. Gravity is also. I can't beleive you can be talking about Einstein's work with gravity, while simultaneously claiming Mars is orbiting Earth. Do you comprehend the model used by Einstein would clearly show Mars as orbiting a point at or near the Sun's location?(Why near? Because Sol is wobbling from all this crap going around it..) But no. We're going to get 'Du-uh, I can make the maf work!'

[Darth Wong]

Place Earth at the origin of your coordinate system (I will be using a 2D projection onto the the "plane of the solar system" for simplicity), what do you get? You get a mars which goes through all 4 quadrants in a very fun pattern and endlessly repeats said pattern (minus the usual disclaimers). How could Mars possibly be said not go around earth? Sure the orbit looks like a spiralgraph pattern, but the basic truth is Mars goes around Earth when you place earth at the origin.

This is like saying that you orbit around me because you're moving around in a funny pattern relative to me.

[tharkûn]

No. Anyone who actually has worked this out will quickly notice Mars is orbiting some point far from Earth.. Call it around eight light minutes. In the same way we can use the Sun as our PoO and work out that both it and Alpha Cent are orbiting the galactic centre.

So what? That does not negate the fact that every conceivable observation or experiment could be worked out if one assumes that Mars goes around Earth.

The math working out makes it right? Sorry, nope. Newton's math works fine.

No it doesn't. Newton's incorrectly predicts Mercury's perihelion when observed over a sufficiently long baseline. Newton is incorrect because the math DOESN'T work. Newton is an approximation and under certain conditions it works within the limits of resolution, but it most certainly not as correct as GR.

You playing Stupid Sophist Tricks with relativity in lieu of actually understanding what was being talked about with all frames of references being equal doesn't impress anyone.

You being a dumbass who doesn't understand that Newtonian mechanics gives WRONG answers because the math DOESN'T work out isn't terribly impressive.

Cee's velocity is independent of frame of reference. Gravity is also. I can't beleive you can be talking about Einstein's work with gravity, while simultaneously claiming Mars is orbiting Earth. Do you comprehend the model used by Einstein would clearly show Mars as orbiting a point at or near the Sun's location?(Why near? Because Sol is wobbling from all this crap going around it..) But no. We're going to get 'Du-uh, I can make the maf work!'

No Einstein would predict that Mars orbits around two foci, as has been known since the 17th century. Those two foci can occur next to exactly NOTHING, as seen in most binary star systems. The reason Sol appears to be one of those foci is that they are determined by the center of mass, which Sol greatly exceeds.

Centering the solar system on Sol is convention, centering it on the center of mass is the simplest representation, any other frame is equally valid.

[SirNitram]

No. Anyone who actually has worked this out will quickly notice Mars is orbiting some point far from Earth.. Call it around eight light minutes. In the same way we can use the Sun as our PoO and work out that both it and Alpha Cent are orbiting the galactic centre.

So what? That does not negate the fact that every conceivable observation or experiment could be worked out if one assumes that Mars goes around Earth.

I challenge you to prove this. But then again, I know you won't, because I've already challenged you to put some substance behind this ranting once, and you opted to instead repeat yourself.

The math working out makes it right? Sorry, nope. Newton's math works fine.

No it doesn't. Newton's incorrectly predicts Mercury's perihelion when observed over a sufficiently long baseline. Newton is incorrect because the math DOESN'T work. Newton is an approximation and under certain conditions it works within the limits of resolution, but it most certainly not as correct as GR.

Sort of like how claiming Mars orbits Earth is completely wrong when actually looking at the gravity wells the two are moving in, hrm? Oh, wait, we should ignore those pesky things Einstein worked with, we're busy misusing his work.

You playing Stupid Sophist Tricks with relativity in lieu of actually understanding what was being talked about with all frames of references being equal doesn't impress anyone.

You being a dumbass who doesn't understand that Newtonian mechanics gives WRONG answers because the math DOESN'T work out isn't terribly impressive.

Your being impressed or not doesn't worry me, child. You're the one whining about the math working out. The math also works for Newtonian physics when you want to put a rocket in orbit. The fact it proceeds to not work afterwards is rather my point.

Cee's velocity is independent of frame of reference. Gravity is also. I can't beleive you can be talking about Einstein's work with gravity, while simultaneously claiming Mars is orbiting Earth. Do you comprehend the model used by Einstein would clearly show Mars as orbiting a point at or near the Sun's location?(Why near? Because Sol is wobbling from all this crap going around it..) But no. We're going to get 'Du-uh, I can make the maf work!'

No Einstein would predict that Mars orbits around two foci, as has been known since the 17th century. Those two foci can occur next to exactly NOTHING, as seen in most binary star systems. The reason Sol appears to be one of those foci is that they are determined by the center of mass, which Sol greatly exceeds.

There you go. Mars does not orbit Earth. It orbits the system's centre of gravity, which as I specifically stated, occours within or very close to Sol, depending on where our primary is in it's wiggle. Thank you for conceeding so ungraciously, but I expect nothing else.

Centering the solar system on Sol is convention, centering it on the center of mass is the simplest representation, any other frame is equally valid.

Assigning 0,0,0 to any point is valid. Claiming Earth orbits Mars(As you rather specifically did earlier) is not. But you won't admit this or substantiate your bullshit.

[tharkûn]

This is like saying that you orbit around me because you're moving around in a funny pattern relative to me.

If it is a periodic and totally circumnavigates you why wouldn't such a pattern be called an orbit?

Frankly the same arguement applies to REAL orbits. Put a satellite in a Lissajous orbit at L1 and what does its orbit look like from Sol? A funny periodic pattern that circumnavigates the sun. Or how about the Trojan orbits? Those also exhibit funny patterns, yet they still go round the sun.

Satellites orbiting any of the Liberation points anywhere in the system are going to exhibit funny patterns quite similar to that of Mars as viewed from Earth.

The truth is placing Earth at the center of your frame of reference experimentally equivalent to putting Sol there or the galatic center. The only difference is in how clean the math will work out to be. If you send probes to Mars on trajectories derived from a Mars going around Earth in a funny pattern - they WILL get there if you do all the math right.

[Darth Wong]

This is like saying that you orbit around me because you're moving around in a funny pattern relative to me.

If it is a periodic and totally circumnavigates you why wouldn't such a pattern be called an orbit?

I just stood up from my chair and spun around in a circle. There, you orbited around me.

[tharkûn]

I challenge you to prove this. But then again, I know you won't, because I've already challenged you to put some substance behind this ranting once, and you opted to instead repeat yourself.

I await your disproof of relativity. If there is an observation or experiment that couldn't be worked out from an earth centered frame of reference then it would imply relativity is incorrect.

Sort of like how claiming Mars orbits Earth is completely wrong when actually looking at the gravity wells the two are moving in, hrm? Oh, wait, we should ignore those pesky things Einstein worked with, we're busy misusing his work.

What's an orbit?
The path of a celestial body or an artificial satellite as it revolves around another body.

Mars has a path it follows when it completes full revolutions around earth. It is ugly, impractical, and funny looking but it still follows that path. Why that path exists is irrelevent mars could be under the influence of large external mass or be under active acceleration the entire time. The point is in either case it follows a periodic path around the Earth.

Assigning 0,0,0 to any point is valid. Claiming Earth orbits Mars(As you rather specifically did earlier) is not.

What is invalid? Let's assume for a moment that I have two bodies in interstellar space, one follows the trajectory of Mars relative to Earth in respect to the other body. This occurs in the abscence of a gravity well due to active propulsion. Would these two bodies orbit each other?

[tharkûn]

I just stood up from my chair and spun around in a circle. There, you orbited around me.

Yes I did from your frame of reference, so what?

[Darth Wong]

I just stood up from my chair and spun around in a circle. There, you orbited around me.

Yes I did from your frame of reference, so what?

The point is that by adopting this loose definition, you make the concept of an orbit virtually meaningless.

[tharkûn]

The point is that by adopting this loose definition, you make the concept of an orbit virtually meaningless.

Orbit is used to described the path of one body revolving around another. It doesn't matter if the path is a "funny pattern" like the Trojan asteroids relative to Sol or if the revolution is not due to gravitational attraction as in the case of orbits under active propulsion.

This "looseness" of definition allows the statements that Luna orbits Earth and Luna orbits Sol to both be correct. Likewise Earth orbits Sol and Earth orbits the galatic center. Depending on what problem you are working on it makes sense to view Luna as orbiting Sol or Earth orbiting the galatic center.

[SirNitram]

I challenge you to prove this. But then again, I know you won't, because I've already challenged you to put some substance behind this ranting once, and you opted to instead repeat yourself.

I await your disproof of relativity. If there is an observation or experiment that couldn't be worked out from an earth centered frame of reference then it would imply relativity is incorrect.

Two challenges for you to substantiate your bullshit, and instead of substance we get...

'Dur! YOU DISPROVE RELATIVITY!'

Rather obviously, I can't disprove Einstein's theory of relativity. Of course, I don't have to. Not a word in it disagrees with me. You could, of course, try to prove that yes, I am disagreeing with it.. Say by actually substantiating your claims.. But you won't. We can all see this.

Your entirely basing your bullshit on the strawman that giving something it's own reference frame assume it's motionless, but anyone familiar with the theories and, indeed, with modern science, can see that's not only silly, it's objectively wrong.

Sort of like how claiming Mars orbits Earth is completely wrong when actually looking at the gravity wells the two are moving in, hrm? Oh, wait, we should ignore those pesky things Einstein worked with, we're busy misusing his work.

What's an orbit?
The path of a celestial body or an artificial satellite as it revolves around another body.

Can't win a debate? Take a page from Tharkun, kiddies: Quote the dictionary and pretend that holds up!

An orbit, when dealing with relativity, is specifically the motion of an object around a gravity well. Hell, relativity is where we get the ideas of gravity well and spacetime being distorted by a heavy object. Surely you would know that, if you actually knew what the fuck you were on about...?

Doesn't matter, though. Your lie is just as easily dispelled by quoting your last post:

No Einstein would predict that Mars orbits around two foci, as has been known since the 17th century.

You go on to note these foci don't even need to be in an object. So your own words render your claimed definition bunk!

God, it's easy when your opponent is a lying, self contradicting retard.

Mars has a path it follows when it completes full revolutions around earth. It is ugly, impractical, and funny looking but it still follows that path. Why that path exists is irrelevent mars could be under the influence of large external mass or be under active acceleration the entire time. The point is in either case it follows a periodic path around the Earth.

If it's under the influence of a large external mass(Say, the system's centre of gravity), the correct statement would be it's not orbiting Earth, it's orbiting the centre of gravity. But this would be objectively correct and prove you wrong, so you'll now begin lying all over again.

Assigning 0,0,0 to any point is valid. Claiming Earth orbits Mars(As you rather specifically did earlier) is not.

What is invalid? Let's assume for a moment that I have two bodies in interstellar space, one follows the trajectory of Mars relative to Earth in respect to the other body. This occurs in the abscence of a gravity well due to active propulsion. Would these two bodies orbit each other?

Without their Primary? Earth is heavier, so the centre of gravity both orbit will be closer to it than Mars, but both will go around that centre of gravity, or if we use your language from an early post, the foci.

Oops, there I go again with actually using relativity as it's meant to be used, and not just playing stupid sophist games.

[SirNitram]

Orbit is used to described the path of one body revolving around another.

Adopting one dictionary definition and excluding, oh, I dunno, the definitions coming from the theory you're abusing, is very accurately described as a 'bullshit argument'. Specifically, it's semantics whoring.

[tharkûn]

An orbit, when dealing with relativity, is specifically the motion of an object around a gravity well. Hell, relativity is where we get the ideas of gravity well and spacetime being distorted by a heavy object.

A Lissajous orbit, such as the one SOHO currently occupies at L1 goes around a gravitational saddlepoint, not a well. A Trojan orbit, like say any of the more than 1,500 already observed and catalogued among the asteroids is centered on an anti-well.

I have never seen this definition of orbit, perhaps you might provide a link or reference of where you came across such a demonstrably false definition?

Earth is heavier, so the centre of gravity both orbit will be closer to it than Mars, but both will go around that centre of gravity, or if we use your language from an early post, the foci.

I said two bodies, not Earth and Mars. Gravity is completely irrelevent as this is an orbit under continious propulsion.

Adopting one dictionary definition and excluding, oh, I dunno, the definitions coming from the theory you're abusing

I have never seen a definition restricting the term "orbit" to those going around gravity wells. That would be decidely stupid as in a Sol centered frame of reference thousands of orbits exist which are not centered on gravity wells. Where in hell did you get that definition which excludes all the Lissajous and Trojan orbits?

[SirNitram]

An orbit, when dealing with relativity, is specifically the motion of an object around a gravity well. Hell, relativity is where we get the ideas of gravity well and spacetime being distorted by a heavy object.

A Lissajous orbit, such as the one SOHO currently occupies at L1 goes around a gravitational saddlepoint, not a well. A Trojan orbit, like say any of the more than 1,500 already observed and catalogued among the asteroids is centered on an anti-well.

I have never seen this definition of orbit, perhaps you might provide a link or reference of where you came across such a demonstrably false definition?

You're funny, Tharkun. You really are. You took the bait perfectly. I lay it out for you, and instead of stopping and thinking to maintain your bullshit, you leap straight for it. Your entire argument here has been reliant on the dictionary definition you grabbed, that an orbit must be around an object(So you can claim Mars goes around Earth). Then you go and prove yourself wrong, by accurately noting orbits can be around wells, anti-wells, saddlepoints.. All sorts of fun things.

Point, set, match. That was fun.

Earth is heavier, so the centre of gravity both orbit will be closer to it than Mars, but both will go around that centre of gravity, or if we use your language from an early post, the foci.

I said two bodies, not Earth and Mars. Gravity is completely irrelevent as this is an orbit under continious propulsion.

Then it will be defined by the gravity they exert on each other. Or is this going to be another of your stupid little attempts to pick and choose from relativity, that you can claim it's irrelevence of perspective while ignoring everything else?

Adopting one dictionary definition and excluding, oh, I dunno, the definitions coming from the theory you're abusing

I have never seen a definition restricting the term "orbit" to those going around gravity wells. That would be decidely stupid as in a Sol centered frame of reference thousands of orbits exist which are not centered on gravity wells. Where in hell did you get that definition which excludes all the Lissajous and Trojan orbits?

I didn't. I just laid out the bait for a flaming retard to contradict himself, and lo and behold, you did. Thank you, Tharkun. You amuse me greatly.

And just because the fans demand it, the appropriate quote:

DANCE, PUPPET, DANCE!