In any system you can choose any center!
This is basic if we want to proceed with the discussion.
If for some reason you believe a specific center is more “valid” than any other, then you must justify it.
Here’s a physics.stackexchange question on the same topic, with some possibly enlightening answers.
Throughout my other readings on the topic, the most common answer seems to be “We treat the sun as the center because the equations are simpler.” So, it’s not just a matter of atheistic ‘we are nothing’ beliefs. There’s an actual practical benefit to it.
All things are NOT relative.
Relativity itself is merely relative.
I don’t believe that the universe has a geometric center. And that allows for one to be chosen based upon other concerns. And the mathematical model used to predict movements is essential and that leads to the use of the Sun as a center and the Milky Way’s black-hole as a center. Any spiraling, orbiting, or amassing establishes a center.
Humanity can easily be the center of priorities for humans. But with that in mind, mathematical centers must be respected.
Actually the heliocentric system needs MORE epicycles.
And Hubble did not think about that at all.
He just DISCARED his conclusions that the Earth seems at the center of the Universe simply because “Humans could not be at the center”!
And this was an atheistic belief.
Isn’t that only true if you take the planets to be orbiting in circles?
In other words, taking the planets to orbit the sun in elliptical paths with zero epicycles is simpler than the sun and the planets orbiting earth with epicycles, no?
If no, then why do epicycles happen?
I am afraid both models are wrong, and its scientifically provable.
After reading the book ‘The Book Nobody Read’ about the history of the work De Revolutionibus and its influence over the science of the next few centuries (sun was not the center by the way, it orbited a void at the center) I started collecting data, in pursuit of classical Natural Philosophy… of the cosmos, and nature, in the form of biology and geology.
After years of reviewing the data, I came to a startling yet impossible to ignore conclusion, based on direct observation and years of empirical understanding… the one uniting element observable in every case was me. Therefore, I am the most common binding element to the universe, and all revolves around me. Every chemistry test, I was there. Every plant cataloged, I was there. Every undiscovered valley descended into and climbed, I was there.
Truely, I am there, everywhere. Infact, I can disprove most third party scientific data is wrong, as the data doesn’t show evidence of my presence, but when I replicate it, I find this glaring omission of me present.
My theory is that in our universe bodies move in a spiral-cyclical way.
The orbits of both moons around their planets and the planets around their stars, and even the stars around their galactic center clearly do not describe circles or ellipses, but spirals. For example, while our Sun spirally orbits the center of our galaxy, the Earth spirally orbits the sun, and our Moon spirally orbits the Earth. For bodies that move around bodies, which also move around bodies, do not move two-, but three-dimensionally. They move spirally and thus also cyclically, more precisely said: in a spiral-cyclical way. If something moves around a body or a point which does not move around another body or point and is not moved in a different way by external forces, then (and only then) can this (and only this) motion be two-dimensional.
That’s a great theory, because it’s right. I think most everyone agrees with it, too. At any rate, just as it’s fine to talk about a car speeding in a straight line on some highway on the surface of the earth, it is still possible to talk sensibly about a heliocentric solar system and elliptical orbits when the frame of reference is the solar system. Context is key.
It has been proved that heliocentric system of world is not effective, but some scientists still try prove that it is. Could you please explain why this happens?
Where has the solar system model been proven ineffective? Sources?
We insist that the Sun is the center of the system because we are not only concerned about relative movement but about underlying forces. The theory of gravity is not coherent with a model of planetary systems where the sun orbits a planet.
First thought is that, as the universe is uniformly expanding from a BB, it means that every single point in the universe is simultaneously at the centre of the BB.
Next thought is that it make a great deal of difference to recognise that as distinct objects neither are at a centre of the universe in relational terms
The reason that we do not consider the earth as motionless with the sun going round it is that objects in the UNiverse would have to transgress the speed limit (speed of light) for it to be true.
This is the difference between geometry and physics.
