The Earth Revolves Around the Sun

Thanks for the argument, Beem0r. However, I do find your reasoning to be circular. You assert... >I find your lack of understanding disturbing. The reason for celestial objects orbiting one another is centripetal acceleration. This acceleration is directly proportional to the mass of the object that is in orbit. >In this case, gravity is the force causing the overwhelming bulk of the centripetal aceleration. We'll call the acceleration that gravity would predict 'A'. Acceleration A, while quite an accurate number for what would be required for the earth to be pulled around the sun at current speed and orbit, would not be NEARLY enough acceleration to keep something as massive as the sun in orbit at that same relative speed and distance. The problem, however, is that the bulk of our understanding of gravity and of the related centripetal acceleration comes from our observations of planetary movements. You are therefore arguing that: We derive G from observing M. Therefore G explains M. That is circular and self-fulfilling reasoning. And applying scientific definitions to the application of this reasoning only conceals the basic fallacies of the underlying logic. Nor does a lack of counter-evidence equate to a proof. We have only the circumstantial evidence that one and the other seem to explain each other. If this any of this is a strawman, I'd ask you to spell out your logical argument in a simple skeletal framework and demonstrate sound argument that your position is correct. As to your second argument... >Ah, but I never set a specific distance from which the arrangements be observed. Pretend, now, that I said 'from a nearby solar system.' >And all we would have to do is get sufficiently far away from all the planets, we'd notice that we were nearly stationary with respect to the sun, whereas the earth would seem to be moving around the sun, with all the other planets. Assuming, of course, that we could get so far away and continue to observe real-time movements for long enough periods of time to observe motion. From outside the solar system, where of course the SPACE SHUTTLE has not travelled, we cannot videograph the entire solar system for the very lengthy period of time it would take to adequately observe the movements. Consequently, we have only still-photographs, which is not enough to clarify the movements. Finally, you assert... >Each body in our solar system is taking some path through space. It can be described as V + A, where V is the path the solar system as a whole is taking and A is the local path within the solar system, which is largely based on gravity. The paths that we would come up with using modern theory would give the sun very little A, since on average it has just as much local gravitational pull on one side as the other, whereas the earth would have a significant A, due to the fact that the bulk of the gravitational pull is always on one specific side of it - the side where the sun is. Therefore we can say that the sun is fairly stationary and the earth is fairly not. That is, if we're not deciding to reject valid theory, theory for which this would be the first major contradictory observation. But this is again an appeal to gravitational forces, the full affects of which are primarily observed through cosmological planetary movements. Using an appeal to gravity, which is derived from observation, to explain those observations, is circular. The fact remains that while observations may indicate that everything would be explained by the rotation of the Earth around the sun, there is actually nothing more than circumstantial evidence to support this. As to your choices... >Discard said framework, supposing some unknown force that _just so happens_ to make the other framework look really accurate, except that it's completely wrong about what's at the center of our solar system. I have not actually proposed an alternative, except to hint at a Tychonic model of the solar system (which, outside this debate, I of course reject). I will hypothesize a model now... this is only an example of another model which might explain the evidence. 1) All Planets revolve around the Sun except the Earth because of the Sun's gravity. 2) The location of the Earth is fixed for reasons we do not yet understand. 3) The Sun's own gravity pulls it in rotation around the Earth, dragging the other planets along with it. 4) Hence, the Earth might be the center of the solar system.