The Earth Revolves Around the Sun

//You make two claims. Aye //The first is an appeal to gravity, the force about which scientists are about the most ignorant. Whether scientists are ignorant to some extent or not, gravitational theories of today are capable of astounding accuracy. On the macro-scale, not once has data been observed that does not follow quite closely with gravitational theories. //The second, an appeal to vision from space, supposedly at a vantage point from which the motion of the planets can be better observed. Aye. //But firstly, while gravity may account for the planetary movements, it would do so even if the Earth were fixed. It's entirely possible that, while all of the other planets in the solar system revolve around the Sun, the sun itself revolves around the Earth, tugging all of the planets with it. Gravity would account for the movement, but it doesn't neccessarily dictate which object it is that is moving. 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. //Secondly, the vantage point from the space shuttle is still caught up in the movements its supposedly observing. The moon is simply not far enough away to clearly observe whether it is the sun or the moon which is moving. 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. Also, 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. As I see it, you have 2 choices: Either Accept a current framework that gives a model of the solar system with _staggering_ accuracy and has no real reason to be discarded. Or 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. And actually, there's a third choice: You could continue to not recognize the inability for the sun to orbit around the earth under the current framework. This is the only choice where you would have no possibility of being right. Choice A has what I would say has 99.9...9% likelihood, choice B would have the rest. And no, that doesn't make B worth consideration.