$ 1000 offered for proving Earth revolves around the sun

[Darth Wong]

I have never seen a definition restricting the term "orbit" to those going around gravity wells.

Part of the definition of orbits is that object A should significantly influence object B's movement. If you magically remove the Earth from the solar system, Mars would continue to orbit around the Sun. If you magically remove the Sun, Mars would fly away. That's the difference. That's also why you can only say that you "orbit" me when I turn around in my chair by stretching the definition of "orbit". Even if you can be said to revolve around me from a point of view fixed on my body, the fact is that I exert no significant influence on you, and your "orbit" is purely incidental.

[tharkûn]

You're funny, Tharkun. You really are. You took the bait perfectly.

Oh look the Troll is desperately trying to pretend he intended this. I suppose he would think being a duplitious lying bastard is preferable to debating honestly and being wrong.

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.

Hey moron. The "dictionary definition" I grabbed applies to liberation points equally as well as celestial bodies. There is nothing inconsistent for me say that a Lissajous orbit is centered on a saddle. Given no other point of reference the intelligent reader will assume standard conventions.

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?

Gravity is irrelevant. The mass around at Earth-Mars distances and velocities but have masses of 1 gram each. Propulsion is provided by a distant laser and light pressure on the second mass.

One can have orbits without gravity - they just require some other force to provide the requisite acceleration. Think about two opposite charges with trajectory between capture and escape velocity. Yeah that's an orbit. Think about a rocket going round an arbitrary point in space, yes that is an orbit as well.

Part of the definition of orbits is that object A should significantly influence object B's movement. If you magically remove the Earth from the solar system, Mars would continue to orbit around the Sun. If you magically remove the Sun, Mars would fly away. That's the difference. That's also why you can only say that you "orbit" me when I turn around in my chair by stretching the definition of "orbit". Even if you can be said to revolve around me from a point of view fixed on my body, the fact is that I exert no significant influence on you, and your "orbit" is purely incidental.

So if I were to place a bouy at some point on the oceon surface and told ships to orbit it they would be unable to do so? If the ships know the position of the bouy, say using GPS, they will still revolve around that point indefinately even if the bouy is removed. In space I think the concept of a powered orbit is viable; a craft could orbit an arbitrary point so long as it has the propulsion to do so.

You are using a definition of orbit I have never heard in any of my physics classes. If your definition is the standard one and I somehow missed it, well then I stand by my comment that Earth goes around Mars and Mars goes around Earth, but conceed I misused the term orbit. Could you please provide a link or a source to where you got the standard definition of orbit?

If this is your opinion of what you think the definition of orbit should entail, I respectfully disagree. In any event your definition was not what I meant by the term "orbit" nor is it the common meaning.

[SirNitram]

You're funny, Tharkun. You really are. You took the bait perfectly.

Oh look the Troll is desperately trying to pretend he intended this. I suppose he would think being a duplitious lying bastard is preferable to debating honestly and being wrong.

Yes, yes, try and desperately save face. Sorry, kid, ain't flying today. Your argument for Mars orbiting Earth relies on us beleiving that orbit involves going around a celestial body, because if it doesn't, we can continue living in a sane land of, you know, knowing what the fuck we're talking about, and saying Mars goes around Sol. You just publically insisted that gravity isn't dependent on a celestial body.

Face it, Tharkun, you walked into that one headlong. More than one you publically stated that no, orbit isn't something subjective. That proves you were lying when you said mars orbits earth. You can play all the subjective games in the world. You can rant, rave, froth, and spray spittle on your computer, but it does nothing to hide the fact you proved yourself wrong, I just kept handing you rope.

[tharkûn]

Yes, yes, try and desperately save face. Sorry, kid, ain't flying today.

I know why do you bother trying?

Your argument for Mars orbiting Earth relies on us beleiving that orbit involves going around a celestial body

No Mars can be viewed as orbiting any arbitrary point in space. We say Mars orbits Sol because that is the most useful statement to make. According to common denotation is perfectly correct to say Mars orbits Earth.

The only counter definition you have put forth is either:
1. Incorrect.
or
2. A duplitious lie because you cannot make your point in a straightforward manner.

Given the definition of orbit found in the bloody dictionary, it is acceptable to say that Mars orbits Earth from the perspective of Earth.

In any event let's go back to the original comment which you took such umbrage at:

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.

What part of that statement, specificly is invalid? From Earth's perspective Mars goes around Earth. From Mars's perspective Earth goes around Mars. Just as from Mike's perspective I go around him when he turns around.

If you calculate a trajectory in either frame of reference that trajectory can safely deliver a probe from Earth to Mars. A modified Tychonian model, one that is or is exceedingly close to the frameshifted equivalent of the standard model used today would be up to the task.

Even if you are right and somewhere in orbital mechanics something akin to Mike's definition is stated to be the standard definition it has ZERO bearing on the FACT that Mars goes around Earth - the frames are equivalent.

[SirNitram]

Yes, yes, try and desperately save face. Sorry, kid, ain't flying today.

I know why do you bother trying?

Your bullshit deconstructed by your own statements, we are now exposed to second grade schoolyard flames from you. How very sad you are, Tharkun.

Your argument for Mars orbiting Earth relies on us beleiving that orbit involves going around a celestial body

No Mars can be viewed as orbiting any arbitrary point in space. We say Mars orbits Sol because that is the most useful statement to make. According to common denotation is perfectly correct to say Mars orbits Earth.

The only counter definition you have put forth is either:
1. Incorrect.
or
2. A duplitious lie because you cannot make your point in a straightforward manner.

It would be the duplicitous one. Because I enjoy handing morons enough rope to hang themselves. Is that wrong? Maybe, hasn't stopped me yet.

My point was clear from the start: You're bullshitting by misapplying relativity. This is why I challenged you twice to substantiate your point instead of restating it. When you didn't, it became clear the way to get the most enjoyment out of your frantic bullshitting was to play you like a puppet.

Given the definition of orbit found in the bloody dictionary, it is acceptable to say that Mars orbits Earth from the perspective of Earth.

In any event let's go back to the original comment which you took such umbrage at:

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.

What part of that statement, specificly is invalid? From Earth's perspective Mars goes around Earth. From Mars's perspective Earth goes around Mars. Just as from Mike's perspective I go around him when he turns around.

Because it destroys the usefulness of the word, dumbass. Because some of us like the fact objective data is useful. Because, as you yourself said, the guy you're abusing the work of showed precisely the opposite: That it definately goes around a specific place, not wherever you care to insert your perspective.

In short, you showed you don't know shit about relativity. I just helped make it fun.

If you calculate a trajectory in either frame of reference that trajectory can safely deliver a probe from Earth to Mars. A modified Tychonian model, one that is or is exceedingly close to the frameshifted equivalent of the standard model used today would be up to the task.

And Newtonian physics can work for many things on the Earth, but don't try calculating the perihelion with it. Because the math works in some cases is not a valid answer for this; Oh wait! You walked into that one too!

Even if you are right and somewhere in orbital mechanics something akin to Mike's definition is stated to be the standard definition it has ZERO bearing on the FACT that Mars goes around Earth - the frames are equivalent.

You are showing yourself to be full of bullshit again. You apparntly just don't get what relativity means when it talks about frames of reference. Not my problem, though. Go educate yourself with more than google sometime.

[Darth Wong]

You are using a definition of orbit I have never heard in any of my physics classes.

Oh puh-lease, physics can quite easily differentiate between a natural orbit and an artificial one.

[tharkûn]

Because it destroys the usefulness of the word, dumbass.

Not it doesn't the common meaning of the word is exactly what is implied by that frame of reference.

Because some of us like the fact objective data is useful.

Objective data is useful in the frame of reference in which it is gathered or by application of the appropriate transform. There is nothing about saying the Earth goes round Mars that makes data useless. One could run the math with the assumption that Mars (and the center of mass for the solar system) go around Earth and and get WORKING answers out.

I just helped make it fun.

Ignorance is bliss, maybe somebody will beleive you had it all planned from the getgo.

And Newtonian physics can work for many things on the Earth, but don't try calculating the perihelion with it. Because the math works in some cases is not a valid answer for this; Oh wait! You walked into that one too!

The math for a geocentric frame of reference works in ALL cases, thats what the triple bar means. There is no problem a heliocentric (or any other) model can handle that a geocentric one cannot. Newtonian mechanics does not have working math when dealing with sufficiently high relative velocities or sufficiently close to massive bodies. When Newtonian mechanics is not valid it is readily obvious because the math no longer works.

You apparntly just don't get what relativity means when it talks about frames of reference. Not my problem, though.

In other words you are a vapid troll who knows nothing about relativity when you have something intelligent to say please try again. Essentially your entire arguement is semantics about the words "around" and "orbit". You beleive that because of the wording of one my answers to your obvious lack of knowledge about relativity I must have admitted that I use a definition of "orbit" other than the one found in the dictionary.

Do you have anything substantitive to say rather than semantics whoring?

Oh puh-lease, physics can quite easily differentiate between a natural orbit and an artificial one.

Yes but an artificial orbit is still an orbit. Your definition makes much more sense as one for "natural orbit" or something along those lines. My books have always gone with defining what is orbiting what as whatever is most convenient for the problem at hand. If you are doing a simple problem at L1 then saying something orbits L1 makes the most sense. If you are working with something at L2 observing something in the asteroid belt then saying it orbits Sol makes the most sense. If you are working with something at L3 bouncing signals to Earth, then it makes the most sense to say it orbits Earth.

Whichever one makes the math easiest is what I tend to say something orbits, but I realize that if you don't give a damn about the difficulty of the math you can pick another point and say it orbits that.

[SirNitram]

Tharkun, it's interesting. Every time I ask you to substantiate your colossal bullshit, it mysteriously vanishes from your reply's quoted passage, and you again accuse me of trolling. You have not a shred of support aside from blatant semantics, and yet... You accuse others of doing this.

This is, of course, not only amusing as you're behaving like a second grader on the schoolyard, but very telling.

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't mean to stick my nose into to this debate since I don't have the biggest knowledge of physics on the planet, but according to Kepler's First Law of Planetary Motion and by definition, aren't all orbits of planets and satellites ellipses, with the object's primary at one focus?

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't mean to stick my nose into to this debate since I don't have the biggest knowledge of physics on the planet, but according to Kepler's First Law of Planetary Motion and by definition, aren't all orbits of planets and satellites ellipses, with the object's primary at one focus?

EDIT: Never mind, ignore this.

[tharkûn]

it mysteriously vanishes from your reply's quoted passage, and you again accuse me of trolling. You have not a shred of support aside from blatant semantics, and yet... You accuse others of doing this.

You mysteriously have nothing to say beyond the most vague charges that somehow accepting that "Mars goes around Earth" somehow makes objective observation worthless.

Frankly I'm not sure what would meet your goalpost. Must I reproduce the fact that the general field equations have a solution in an Earth centered frame of reference? Do I have to derive the equation for the motion of Mars relative to Earth and show yes it does go completely around the Earth? Do I need to show that the transform introduces no discotinuities? You have disparaged math as being unimportant, and in doing so showed your lack of knowledge, so I haven't a clue as to what problems you see with saying Mars goes around Earth from an Earth centered frame. Only that somehow it makes bad things happen.

In addition to the massively vague nature of your complaints, your debating tactics are obfuscate, lie, and then insult. When asked about orbits not relying on massive gravitation you BS'ed your way through or were deliberately ignorant; finally choosing not to answer when no wiggle room was left. And this is how it always is when you enter a debate. You post many accusations which have little substance and are at best nebulous about your objections. When specific counterexamples are cited you say "I was joking" or something equally vapid as your BS about your stupidity about orbits around gravity wells.

In normal discussions, those not talking about how Catholic apologists are going to skip out of paying prize money. I use the same standard conventions as anyone else when talking about orbital mechanics. However those conventions are just that, conventions. At best you're alleged rhetorical tactics are going to show that I am used to speaking in line with traditional conventions and on occassion don't explicitly state the myriad of qualifiers normally implicit. I really should be more careful when debating a moron like yourself, but hey any excuse to draw the debate away from your lack of clear points and woeful ignorance of the subject is good right?

So tell me what precisely is wrong with stating Earth goes around Mars from a Martian frame of reference? Don't give your stock vague BS about "destroying the usefulness of the word" what the hell does that mean? If you plot the trajectory of Earth in a Martian frame of reference it does manage to encircle Mars what in bloody hell does that do to the word "around"? Doing you anything more to say than "Einstein wouldn't like it", "It doesn't work that way", or "Words don't mean that"?

[Zoink]

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.

OK.

Mars goes around Earth. Earth goes around Mars. It is just a matter of perspective and how difficult you want the math to be.

OK, but if that's the case then you can't discount the proof that the Earth "revolves around" the Sun. Any math that says you can change the frame of reference from the Sun to the Earth requires that all frames are equally valid.

So while you may be able to indicate a complicated frame of reference where the Earth isn't orbiting by adding in all sorts of uniform rotating gravitational fields and stuff, you can't say the frame where it *is* orbiting is not valid.

The conclusion would be that the Earth *is* orbiting the Sun from at least one frame of reference (the least complicated none-the-less) and therefore you can claim the $1000 prize.

-------

There's a lot of words flying around: 'goes around', 'revolve around', 'orbit'.

The website used the world "revolves around". The dictionary says revolve is to "orbit a central point". So I can "go around" something without necessarily "revolving" around it. Unless the Earth is the center of revolution in whatever frame, then (imho) Mars can't revolve around the Earth and vice-versa, even if it may "go around" it.

Further, in the 'normal' frame, comets usually "go around" the earth but we never say they're orbiting or revolving around the Earth.

[SirNitram]

So tell me what precisely is wrong with stating Earth goes around Mars from a Martian frame of reference? Don't give your stock vague BS about "destroying the usefulness of the word" what the hell does that mean? If you plot the trajectory of Earth in a Martian frame of reference it does manage to encircle Mars what in bloody hell does that do to the word "around"? Doing you anything more to say than "Einstein wouldn't like it", "It doesn't work that way", or "Words don't mean that"?

Tharkun, here's a concept for you: If you come into a thread and make a statement, you must be prepared to back it up. Your long-winded whining about how you 'don't know how' to substantiate a claim is nothing but absolute proof you're a trolling peice of shit. This is not just meeeeeeeeean old SirNitram once again fucking up your nice day, this is a rule of this site:

If you are asked for evidence to support a claim you've made, you should either produce this evidence or concede the point until such time as you can produce this evidence. People who consistently ignore requests for evidence to support their claims (particularly contentious claims) are not looked upon kindly here.

You can continue whining and bitching with your burden-of-proof fallacy, trying to make me leap through the hoops, but it ain't happening.

You made the contentious claim. You must provide evidence or concede. And no, whining 'BUT I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PLAY SEMANTICAL GAMES!' is not evidence, you peice of shit.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't understand how tharkun is wrong. You can mathematically describe the mechanics of the solar system by setting one's frame of reference to either Earth or the Sun. There is no absolute frame of reference.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... +reference

General relativity does not care about any particular choice of coordinates. The (tensorial) equations are exactly the same regardless--which shouldn't be suprising, since tensors were specifically invented to be coordinate-independent. One could define a frame of reference which treats Earth as a stationary, non-rotating center, and it will be just as empirically successful. This is already quite common in Newtonian mechanics; for example, gravitational potential energy enables one to treat a body gravitating with another as stationary (even though it is not), and likewise the centrifugal and Coriolis forces enable the treatment of rotating frames as if they were inertial. The problem is that while rotating frames give rise to forces which can clearly be identified as `fictitious' in both Newtonian mechanics and special relativity, no such identification is possible in a general GTR situation, with a notable exception of an asymptotically flat spacetime (which is just a compact way of saying that at sufficiently great distances, spacetime looks like that of special relativity).

So what? Well, a scientist might either rely on the barycenter to tell what is rotating around what (and since the center of mass for the solar system is by far dominated by the Sun, the issue seems rather clear under this definition), or the response might be that treating the Earth as a special point explains nothing new and only obfuscates matters, and so is incorrect by Occam's razor. A philosopher might agree with either, but some might hold that the whole question is scientifically meaningless, since our most general theory (GTR) does not allow one to empirically decide the issue--it seems to be a question of computational practictality alone. I'm not sure which is more damaging to geocentrism--the view that its central claim makes sense but is wrong or the view that the claim is completely devoid of scientific meaning.

There is no such thing as an objectively absolute frame of reference in ANY situation, including our solar system. It can be described both geocentrically and heliocentrically (obviously its simpler for the sake of the solar system if we treat the Sun as our stationary frame of reference).

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... +reference

My point is that the question itself is meaningless within science. In naively formalized Newtonian mechanics, the question makes sense, since quite simply some frames of reference are preferred over others (cf. the isolated rotating bucket experiment). In more recent theories of physics, however, there is absolutely no fundamental difference between a pair of any particular frame of references, including whether or not they are 'inertial'. In such a situation, the question is no longer a scientific one. The only way to make it make sense is either treat it as a question of metaphysics or by reference of a long-outdated theory of physics.

[SirNitram]

I don't understand how tharkun is wrong. You can mathematically describe the mechanics of the solar system by setting one's frame of reference to either Earth or the Sun. There is no absolute frame of reference.

There's two issues here which are where the trip-up is being made.

1) The math works. Yes, it does. There's a reason I brought up Newtonian motion against Einstein's improvements. The math for Newton works out just fine on the planet and for getting things into orbit, but that doesn't make it accurate.

Math is not reality. It's a useful tool to describe reality, but it's not the same thing.

2) The position 'Earth and Mars orbit the centre of gravity in our system' does not require an absolute frame of reference. You can derive it from Earth as 0,0,0, Mars as it, Jupiter, Sol, or Alpha Centauri.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't understand how tharkun is wrong. You can mathematically describe the mechanics of the solar system by setting one's frame of reference to either Earth or the Sun. There is no absolute frame of reference.

There's two issues here which are where the trip-up is being made.

1) The math works. Yes, it does. There's a reason I brought up Newtonian motion against Einstein's improvements. The math for Newton works out just fine on the planet and for getting things into orbit, but that doesn't make it accurate.

Math is not reality. It's a useful tool to describe reality, but it's not the same thing.

2) The position 'Earth and Mars orbit the centre of gravity in our system' does not require an absolute frame of reference. You can derive it from Earth as 0,0,0, Mars as it, Jupiter, Sol, or Alpha Centauri.

Yes, and Kureneko covered that; you're defining things using the gravitationally dominant object in the solar system (the barycenter): the Sun. But that does not mean orbits cannot be described using ANY frame of reference. Its still completely arbitrary. Its an arbitrary determination where the criteria for determining the solution is quite significant to us on Earth, but it is still ultimately arbitrary and subjective. There is no objective, absolute meaningful answer for helio or geocentricism because there is no absolute frame of reference. This debate was previously covered in the above links.

As he put it, there's no meaningful answer within science.

[SirNitram]

Yes, and Kureneko covered that; you're defining things using the gravitationally dominant object in the solar system (the barycenter): the Sun. But that does not mean orbits cannot be described using ANY frame of reference. Its still completely arbitrary. Its an arbitrary determination where the criteria for determining the solution is quite significant to us on Earth, but it is still ultimately arbitrary and subjective. There is no objective, absolute meaningful answer for helio or geocentricism because there is no absolute frame of reference. This debate was previously covered in the above links.

As he put it, there's no meaningful answer within science.

This is what I specifically said in the last post. You don't need an absolute frame of reference to notice that Earth and Mars orbit the barycenter. It can be determined from anywhere, just by analyzing what's acting on the two bodies.

The only way you can claim there's no meaningful answer is to play semantics games.

[tharkûn]

Tharkun, here's a concept for you: If you come into a thread and make a statement, you must be prepared to back it up.

Wonderful. According to GR all frames of reference are equivalently valid. In some frames of reference Mars goes around Earth in others Earth goes around Mars. I'm still waiting for what the problem with picking an arbitrary frame and making valid observations is.

You made the contentious claim. You must provide evidence or concede.

Again what is your goalpost? Do I need to prove a solution for the field equations exists? Do I need to show the transform introduces no discotinuities? Do I need to give you a complete repost of a proof of GR?

And no, whining 'BUT I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PLAY SEMANTICAL GAMES!' is not evidence

I know, I wish'd you'd contribute something other than them.

1) The math works. Yes, it does. There's a reason I brought up Newtonian motion against Einstein's improvements. The math for Newton works out just fine on the planet and for getting things into orbit, but that doesn't make it accurate.

Yes it does. Accuracy is how close theory comes to actual results. For most terrestrial system the accuracy of Newtonian mechanics is better than that of the instruments used to measure it. Where Newtonian mechanics is inaccurrate the math gives a number that is not in line with observation. Picking a Martian frame of reference DOES NOT DO THAT. The difference between the predictions using a Martian frame of reference and those experimentally measured are ZERO in ALL cases (using the conceit that a Sol centered frame has perfect accuracy).

Math is not reality. It's a useful tool to describe reality, but it's not the same thing.

Really. So how do I tell the difference between something that is 'real' and something that perfectly describes reality, but apparently isn't?

2) The position 'Earth and Mars orbit the centre of gravity in our system' does not require an absolute frame of reference. You can derive it from Earth as 0,0,0, Mars as it, Jupiter, Sol, or Alpha Centauri.

So what does Luna orbit?

The point you seem to be missing is that saying such and such orbits the center of mass, this liberation point, or whatever is that it happens to be a matter of convention. In any event nothing in that convention says that things cannot go "around" other things in differing frames of reference.

Mars goes around Earth, Earth goes around Mars, Mars and Earth go around Sol. Pick any statement to be true, then select an appropriate frame in which that is true, and you can do all of modern science without hitting any new discontinuities, paradoxes, or other problems.

[SirNitram]

Tharkun, here's a concept for you: If you come into a thread and make a statement, you must be prepared to back it up.

Wonderful. According to GR all frames of reference are equivalently valid. In some frames of reference Mars goes around Earth in others Earth goes around Mars. I'm still waiting for what the problem with picking an arbitrary frame and making valid observations is.

Because you're not making observations, you ignorant slutbucket. You're making statements. An observation would be, oh, this jewel from Mike which proves you're completely full of shit:

Part of the definition of orbits is that object A should significantly influence object B's movement. If you magically remove the Earth from the solar system, Mars would continue to orbit around the Sun. If you magically remove the Sun, Mars would fly away. That's the difference.

I can't put it better, so I'll just quote it. You refuse to buckle over in the face of logic and facts, but that's not new.

This is a farce. You were asked from my first post in this to substantiate your bullshit. You've done nothing but dance around like a typical asshat, refusing to do so or ignoring the request. If you're aren't gonna, you know, play by the rules, I'm under no real impetus to do anything but mock you, retard.

Your entire position is dependent on misinterperating Relativity. But you don't care. You just think you're l33t. Pity no one cares.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This is what I specifically said in the last post. You don't need an absolute frame of reference to notice that Earth and Mars orbit the barycenter. It can be determined from anywhere, just by analyzing what's acting on the two bodies.

The only way you can claim there's no meaningful answer is to play semantics games.

I think I'll believe Kureneko over you. More qualified authority of subject and all that jazz.

[Illuminatus Primus]

He's NOT misrepresenting relativity. Did you not read the quotes I supplied or not?

[SirNitram]

This is what I specifically said in the last post. You don't need an absolute frame of reference to notice that Earth and Mars orbit the barycenter. It can be determined from anywhere, just by analyzing what's acting on the two bodies.

The only way you can claim there's no meaningful answer is to play semantics games.

I think I'll believe Kureneko over you. More qualified authority of subject and all that jazz.

If you want to ignore the fact that if we removed the influence of the sun on Mars and Earth, they'd stop their orbits, go ahead.

[tharkûn]

What a surprise SN ducks questions again. Maybe one day he will have something substantial to say rather than semantic whoring and me-too'ing mike.

Because you're not making observations, you ignorant slutbucket. You're making statements.

I am making an observation. The trajectory of Mars in an Earth centered frame of reference circumnavigates Earth. I choose to use the colloquiall phrase Mars goes around Earth to describe this. What is invalid about this?

Part of the definition of orbits is that object A should significantly influence object B's movement. If you magically remove the Earth from the solar system, Mars would continue to orbit around the Sun. If you magically remove the Sun, Mars would fly away. That's the difference.

If you magicly remove the Sun Mars would continue to orbit the old center of mass until the gravity wave reached Mars. But aside from that nitpick Mike has already agreed that "artificial orbits" exist which are not based on A influency B.

For instance take a solar sail, make it revolve around Ceres at a distance of .1 AU at an arbitrary speed. Is this orbit natural or stable? No. If Ceres is removed does the sail keep orbiting the same point it has been? Yes. Does the sail orbit Ceres (perfectly circular trajectory in a Ceres centered frame of reference with no deviations)?

Face it your entire arguement has now boiled down to semantics whoring about the definition of orbit. You can't even properly argue that so you simply quote Mike and make a useless post rather than admit you haven't a clue. At worst the term orbit means something other I intended to convey, so what? How does that invalidate the concept that Earth goes around Mars in a Martian frame of reference?

[SirNitram]

What a surprise SN ducks questions again. Maybe one day he will have something substantial to say rather than semantic whoring and me-too'ing mike.

From the guy whose been avoiding a request for evidence from the first post I've made in this thread. The outright hypocrisy burns as brightly as the morning sun.

[Darth Wong]

Oh puh-lease, physics can quite easily differentiate between a natural orbit and an artificial one.

Yes but an artificial orbit is still an orbit. Your definition makes much more sense as one for "natural orbit" or something along those lines.

It also fits the the English word "orbit", one of whose definitions is regions of influence. While it would be fairly simple to mathematically describe your orbit around me when I twirl on my swivel chair (wheee!), the phrase "tharkun orbits Michael Wong" generally implies influence, not just incidental translation for that reason.