Earth’s rotation around its axis
peace,
I saw that they talked about the relationship between the Earth and the Sun.
I wasn’t sure if I added a question there you would see it, so I opened a separate question.
I saw that regarding the relationship between the Earth and the Sun, you said that these are just different definitions, and it can be defined this way and that.
Is it possible to define that the Earth does not rotate around itself? The problem is that if that were the case, the entire universe would rotate around us once a day, and that would be at speeds faster than the speed of light. thanks
I see every comment everywhere.
It is indeed possible kinematically. And it is true, the speed can be greater than the speed of light. In the theory of relativity there are more complicated transformations between reference frames in which you will not get a speed greater than the speed of light.
To the honorable Rabbi
The question is whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun?
Or is the question the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around itself?
In addition, how can we say that this is a question of definition? After all, it is a real thing, movement is a reality
So one moves and one rests?
Or maybe both do half the work
After all, nutrition must come from the power of energy
So who is the energy exerted on?
When a car is driving on a road, can we say that the road is moving?
Both.
Strange indeed, but it's a question of definition. Think of two bodies, one rotating around the other. If you sit on the rotating body, you'll see the first one rotating around you. The question is where you sit.
The question of energy is a more subtle matter, but it's related to dynamics (forces, how the rotation happens) and not to kinematics (mathematical definition of motion).
The basis for a car and a road is also just a question of definition.
The point is that the concept of motion itself is not absolute. Motion is always defined relative to something. You can't say the body is moving. You have to say it is moving relative to x.
From Wikipedia
In December 1613, Galileo wrote a letter to his former student, Benedetto Castelli, and in the spring of 1615 he wrote the ”Epistle to Christina di Lorena” (which was also indirectly addressed to church theologians). In these letters, Galileo wrote that he saw the heliocentric model as a physical reality and not just a means of mathematical calculation, as this model was perceived by the church at that time. He also argued that the passages in the Bible that speak of the movement of the sun should be interpreted allegorically and not taken literally. He also expressed his hope that the church would change its position regarding the prohibition of Copernican books, because in his opinion the Christian faith should not be based on scientific facts
Does this agree with the rabbi's words?
What's the question? Is it a reading comprehension question? What do I care whether Galileo agreed with me or not?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
