5 ms·
However, using an heliocentric reference to describe the movement of planets is both much more "elegant" and "right" than an earth-centric reference. It suggest
by astrobe_ 12y ago
However, using an heliocentric reference to describe the movement of planets is both much more "elegant" and "right" than an earth-centric reference. It suggests me that nature is relatively "simple", and that excessively complicated models are "wrong" or at least suspicious.
- jarin 12y agoIt's also not completely accurate. The Sun is not the center of the planets' orbits, but it is one focus of their orbital ellipses. Also, using the Sun's reference frame is only an approximation due to forces from other stars, the galaxy, etc.
- goldenkey 12y agoUnfortunately it's the best we have. Integrating gravitational waves for N-bodies is near impossible when N gets sufficiently large. Gotta have a threshold of importance to get any meaningful approximation.
- dm_throwaway 12y agoPeople spent centuries assuming that orbits (whether helio- or geo-centric) were circular, because it was more elegant. They were wrong!
- astrobe_ 12y agoI don't think so. Assuming circular orbits is certainly more "almost right" than "wrong" to me. By the way, Copernicus' circular heliocentric model was refined a few decades (not centuries) later by Kepler with elliptic orbits.