# Prove that the Earth orbits the sun **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795 "2014-02-20T15:49:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/61 "2014-02-21T15:41:49Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > In the geocentric model, Venus is always between the Earth and the Sun, moving on its epicycle. Consequently, the phases of Venus do not change substantially since Venus always has its sunlit face away from the Earth. Nor does the apparent size of Venus change much. > > However in the heliocentric model, Venus is sometimes between the Earth and the Sun and sometimes on the farside. The phases can be seen and the size changes. When Venus is between the Earth and the Sun, we would not see much of it because most of the bright side is pointed back to the sun. Venus would also seem larger because it’s closer. I cannot see that the behavior of Venus necessitates a heliocentric model: one could have a geocentric model in which Venus simply orbits the sun, the effect would be the same. For me, though, the biggest piece of evidence is the tropics: how does a geocentric universe explain that _everything_ in the sky has that annual north-south motion? If the earth is actually stationary, this “vertical” motion is extremely difficult to account for. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/62 "2014-02-21T16:11:43Z")
> [@j\_sum1](#): > > I cannot speak for other religions, but I know that the concept of faith is a well established and well defined concept within the Bible. And nowhere does it imply that faith is at the expense of rational judgement. Faith is an expression of trust precisely because there is good evidence to suggest that the object of the faith is trustworthy. Hebrews 11:1 is the famous one that’s often quoted: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” It specifically says that “faith” is believing what you hope for when there is no _actual_ evidence. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/63 "2014-02-21T16:17:15Z")
> [@For You](#): > > I cannot see that the behavior of Venus necessitates a heliocentric model: one could have a geocentric model in which Venus simply orbits the sun, the effect would be the same. That would be the which was developed to explain the Tychonic model which was developed to account for Venus. However, this model was destroyed by the discovery of [star aberration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light#Planetary_aberration) in the 18th century, which was conclusive proof that the Earth moved around the Sun. This was easier to observe than stellar parallax, and could be possible for someone to recreate. So, my vote is for the phases of Venus to disprove the classic geocentric model and then star aberration for people such as **For You**. ---
**Author:** ![mendi80](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@mendi80](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mendi80)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/64 "2014-02-21T17:21:43Z")
You cant prove that its not all one big dream. So what do you mean by prooving? ---
**Author:** ![snowthx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowthx/32/10660_2.png) [@snowthx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snowthx)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/65 "2014-02-21T17:54:19Z")
**Prove that the Earth orbits the sun** Layman’s observation: The sun is always visible from some point on the earth. If the rest of the planets orbited the earth, they would also always be visible from some point on the earth, too, right? (at least the closer ones Venus and Mars). They are not always visible, since sometime in their orbit of the sun, they are on the other side of it, and not visible to earth at all. Ergo, the planets do not orbit the Earth, but instead orbit the Sun. It would not take too much more logic to conclude that the Earth is also a planet, and probably behaves the same way as the other planets in relation to the sun. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/66 "2014-02-21T18:00:37Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > The above statement by **TokyoBayer** assumes Newton’s law of gravity is true in all places and at all times in the classical universe. As such, he is completely correct although I think it’s fair to only say that it is very strong evidence. If the OP allows for a large enough telescope, then we can observe [the parallax](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax) of nearby stars. This would give us a second, relatively independent piece of very strong evidence. > > The question remains as to what the burden of proof is. Do two independent pieces of strong evidence qualify, or do we need three or more? > > Faith in something that can _never_ be demonstrated is dogma. Science is basically an “explanation model” as to how physical phenomena work. It may not apply everywhere in the universe, there may be a specail exception for 10 square feet in the center of the Taj Mahal, etc. - but the explanation that does not allow for those divergences, still shows a remarkable consistency in explaining observed phenomena. You can make up anything and claim it is an exception - but without observations or a logical mechanism to explain why it diverges from the model that currently explains observed reality, no experiments to prove your exception - there is nothing to back up the claim. Ocam’s razor, simplest explanation is likely the most correct. > [@mendi80](#): > > You cant prove that its not all one big dream. > So what do you mean by prooving? This is the problem. You can make up or say anything you want. If you can’t prove it, via observation or experiment, it’s not really science. > [@For You](#): > > I cannot see that the behavior of Venus necessitates a heliocentric model: one could have a geocentric model in which Venus simply orbits the sun, the effect would be the same. > > For me, though, the biggest piece of evidence is the tropics: how does a geocentric universe explain that _everything_ in the sky has that annual north-south motion? If the earth is actually stationary, this “vertical” motion is extremely difficult to account for. True. You can posit the whole universe circles the stationary earth, and physical phenomena are adjusted to compensate. But there’s no easy model that explains that. WHereas, the mass=gravity model explains the motions we observe, chemistry adds the observed changes in spectrum lines indicating earth motion, etc. Again, simplest explanation. > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > What does textual criticism tell you about the reality of the afterlife, or the divinity of Jesus? It can point out inconsistencies and possible alterations of the text which may help prove the assertions contradict and don’t make sense. But the basic tenets of the faith are still unproveable. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/67 "2014-02-21T18:04:44Z")
With all the evidence and observation apparently to only myself (only a layman), it would take much more faith to believe in something like Geocentrism. What’s more than that, I would have to be willfully ignorant, and intellectually dishonest with myself to accept Geocentrism, et al, as the reality over our current modeling of our solar system. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/68 "2014-02-21T21:05:34Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > With all the evidence and observation apparently to only myself (only a layman), it would take much more faith to believe in something like Geocentrism. > > What’s more than that, I would have to be willfully ignorant, and intellectually dishonest with myself to accept Geocentrism, et al, as the reality over our current modeling of our solar system. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when gencentrism was “main stream” understanding, to say otherwise might get your head cut off. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/69 "2014-02-21T23:07:49Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but when gencentrism was “main stream” understanding, to say otherwise might get your head cut off. Yehhh… But that wasn’t science so much as it was heresy. ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2014, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/70 "2014-02-22T00:09:53Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > A quibble. > > We largely take it on faith that results are reproducible and take it on faith that other people have indeed done so. > > If you tell me there’s a great steakhouse in Perth, Australia, I’ll accept your word on faith. Not a religious sort of faith but the faith that I can verify this opinion directly or that other people can do so and that the balance of probabilities is there’s little reason for you to mislead me about such a thing. Getting to Perth would be difficult to implausible for an “ordinary” person, yet we don’t challenge this sort of “faith”. I’ve begun to use the word “trust” in these kind of situations rather than “faith”. I trust that the sun will rise tomorrow. I don’t “believe” it, I “trust” that it will. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2014, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/71 "2014-02-22T14:32:47Z")
> [@j\_sum1](#): > > However, his central point as posited by DrumGod was that everyone accepts stuff on faith and I would say that that particular point is unchallenged. No, this point has been repeatedly refuted. We _trust_ things, but the point of science is to challenge what we trust when a conflict arises. > [@](#): > > Suffice to say that there is strong archaeological support, very strong manuscript support and theses within the Bible that can be tested experientially. Which is to say that the Bible contains some truth. Of course the Bible’s claim is to be _The Truth_ which raises the stakes somewhat. There are several lines of reasoning that one can take that would tend to support a supernatural origin of the Bible. That is not a point to be surrendered lightly, but seems to be an obvious and expected characteristic if it is produced by a supernatural God. Once that point is conceded then it is possible to admit the supernatural claims of the Bible’s message: miracles and the like. Having now established that it contains truth and a plausible (or at least internally consistent) claim to supernaturality, the next step is a study of the Bible’s claims about creation, the nature of humans and the character of God and a systematic comparison of these with what can be observed. If the results of this comparison are favourable, it is but a small step to stating equivocally that the Bible is The Truth: a step comparable with the conclusive statements that scientists make all of the time regarding their own hypotheses. This is not a hijack in that the letter writer was attempting to equate a belief in something which cannot possibly be tested with a hard scientific fact which requires deliberate ignorance in order to claim it’s a matter of “faith.” Here, you are conflating the scientific method with religion. It doesn’t work, and it’s as erroneous as the letter writer. Your “proof” is that, since “A” contains “some truth” that the supernatural elements (which cannot be proven) can also be claimed to be true. You simply cannot go from the first part to the conclusion, without allowing the same argument to be used by everyone from Scientologists, Mormons, and a myrad of mutually exclusive religious groups. Any process which allows mutually exclusive arguments fails. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/72 "2014-02-22T17:24:03Z")
> [@Doughbag](#): > > I have faith in the believe, that the light in the fridge turns off when I close the door. > > … and the only way to be 100% sure that the light in the fridge is actually turning off, is by checking that it’s off… > > Ever sat in a fridge and really, really, really checked? > > Faith, right! So, God must be real as well and exciest – it’s the same, right? I never had any such faith. Instead, I saw the limit switch that the door hits when it closes. I push the switch, the light goes out. Bingo. No faith required, just the expectation that the switch will tend to work the same way all the time (and when it doesn’t, as has happened, it’s broken.) ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2014, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/73 "2014-02-22T20:55:46Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but when gencentrism was “main stream” understanding, to say otherwise might get your head cut off. No, just tortured to death. see this: [http://web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#sentence](http://web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#sentence) Specifically, this bit: > [@](#): > > This Holy Congregation has also learned about the spreading and acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, which is also taught by Nicholaus Copernicus’s On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres and by Diego de Zuniga’s On Job. This may be seen from a certain letter published by a certain Carmelite Father, whose title is Letter of the Reverend Father Paolo Foscarini, on the Pythagorean and Copernican Opinion of the Earth’s Motion and Sun’s Rest and on the New Pythagorean World System (Naples: Lazzaro Scoriggio, 1615), in which the said Father tries to show that the above-mentioned doctrine of the sun’s rest at the center of the world and the earth’s motion is consonant with the truth and does not contradict Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that this opinion may not creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) and Diego de Zuniga (On Job) be suspended until corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini be completely prohibited and condemned; and that all other books which teach the same be likewise prohibited, according to whether with the present decree it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them respectively. In witness thereof, this decree has been signed by the hand and stamped with the seal of the Most Illustrious and Reverend Lord Cardinal of St. Cecilia, Bishop of Albano, on 5 March 1616. > > P., Bishop of Albano, Cardinal of St. Cecilia. > Fra Franciscus Magdalenus Capiferreus, O. P., Secretary. > Rome, Press of the Apostolic Palace, 1616. The story I recall reading is that there was a neo-Pythagorean cult (or school of thought, or whatever…) Buried in the quote there is the mention of Zuniga’s “On Job”. Pythagoras has pushed an theory that the earth and planets orbited a central fire. Zuniga’s contribution was to assert that there is a passage in The Book of Job that backs this up. However, this required an alternative translation and the assertion that the official translation/interpretation of the holy scripture was wrong. So asserting the earth orbits the sun was a sign one belonged to a cult that contradicted official doctrine… sort of like trying to reconcile evolution and scripture nowadays - the Vatican dug in its heels and said the earth does not move, any assertion to the contrary is aiding this heresy. While the church is busy trying to stamp out a cult of intellectuals who say they know better than the church officials, along comes an arrogant jerk (Galileo) who happens to publish scientific information that backs the Pythagoreans rather than the church and having been warned once, still won’t shut up about it. hence the second trial. There was a whole thread about this a year or so ago. Quite a few intellectuals, even inside the church, recognized the science was pointing to Galileo being correct, and rote interpretation of scriptures did not work. The church recognized Galileo was not a heretic like the numerologists, but they had to shut him up because he was giving the wrong side a boost. They gave him all the warnings, they showed him the instruments of torture (but did not torture, from what we know) and when they sentenced him, it was to pretty lenient house arrest, not prison. So like all “urban legends” of history, there’s more to this than the simplistic situation. ---
**Author:** ![j\_sum1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8baadc/32.png) [@j\_sum1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j_sum1)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/74 "2014-02-23T04:46:09Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > No, this point has been repeatedly refuted. We _trust_ things, but the point of science is to challenge what we trust when a conflict arises. You clearly missed the bit where I pointed out that what is often described as religious faith by both Christians and non-Christians has no significant biblical basis. No I did not take you through a theological treatise on the subject. Neither the time nor the place. > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > This is not a hijack in that the letter writer was attempting to equate a belief in something which cannot possibly be tested with a hard scientific fact which requires deliberate ignorance in order to claim it’s a matter of “faith.” Who says it can’t be tested. You can test the claims of the Bible easily. The book of Proverbs is full of if-then statements that can be tested. Admittedly, most require a level of personal commitment and the results of the experiment are things that are personally experienced. But that does not make them less real or less testable. > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Here, you are conflating the scientific method with religion. It doesn’t work, and it’s as erroneous as the letter writer. No such conflating. > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Your “proof” is that, since “A” contains “some truth” that the supernatural elements (which cannot be proven) can also be claimed to be true. I did not present a proof. Again, not the time nor place. I merely pointed out the elements that would be contained in such a proof. You are right to highlight the tricky issue of the supernatural. My comment at this juncture are twofold: Firstly that what we would commonly call supernatural occurrences are an essential component of the biblical message and not something to raise the eyebrows if the Bible is given by a supernatural God. Secondly, this is a matter that needs thorough treatment and proper examination of the evidence. Hearsay of so-called modern miracles will not suffice. Nor will a fly-by posting in a message board. Perhaps I will open up a discussion in GD. But it is not going to be this week – I have too much other stuff to do. > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > You simply cannot go from the first part to the conclusion, without allowing the same argument to be used by everyone from Scientologists, Mormons, and a myrad of mutually exclusive religious groups. Surely one evaluates truth claims on the strength of the evidence presented. If a Mormon ever presents me with some solid archaeological evidence, I will look at it. At this point however I would peg the truth claims of the Bible as being of a higher calibre than any other world view or religion that I have encountered. > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Any process which allows mutually exclusive arguments fails. I am not presenting mutually exclusive arguments. I was trying to not actually present arguments. This isn’t GD. I am merely claiming that a proper treatment of evidence is warranted. Rebuttal done (for now anyway). Back on to the topic. In the brief comments of the letter writer that DrumGod mentioned, as far as we can tell, the writer was stating that belief in the Bible was similar to belief in the heliocentricity of the solar system on the following grounds: Both require acceptance of some claims of truth as facts because we are unable to check them out for ourselves. My comment is 1. There is a false rendering of the concept of faith. Faith, according to the Bible does not preclude proper examination of evidence and rationalisation. Rather, the Bible encourages this. 2. As borne out by many posters, the heliocentricity of the solar system is something that can be verified through simple observation. Some level of commitment to observation and reasoning is required. The process can be circumvented if one defers to the opinions of scientists who have done the donkey work previously. 3. Belief in the Bible need not be a blind and irrational act that flies in the face of presentable evidence. Granted, some do. But there are many who have grappled with the Bible and its contents, subjecting them to the same truth tests that they would in other areas of life and knowledge, and have concluded that the Bible’s claim to truth is justified. C. S. Lewis, Anthony Flew and Lee Strobel spring to mind. Back to our letter writer: the truth claims of the Bible can be verified (or refuted) in a manner similar to the geometry of the solar system. I am not sure that my treatment of the subject is exactly what the writer had in mind, but that statement of similarity certainly is true. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/75 "2014-02-23T05:55:48Z")
I don’t think the OP’s original antagonist was suggesting that the Bible said that the earth didn’t move about the Sun. Earth-Sun motion was simply a rhetorical device as a proxy for all scientific theories - basically that most people take these theories on trust - and for the most part don’t have the means to verify them for themselves. He could have substituted the Higgs Boson, but the esoteric nature of that would have weakned the impact of the argument. Where I think the sticking point with scientific argument versus Biblical study is that the basic nature of the logical steps are different. A scientific argument is as strong as its weakest link. You can’t get to a scientific theory if any step does not fit a very stringent set of requirements. Further, some arguments in the steps are simply not accepted. Appeals to authority is one. Very careful avoidance of recursive or circular reasoning is critically important. The creation of an internally self consistent set of reasoning does not in and of itself create science. Finally, a scientific theory must be testable. If not, it isn’t science. So, whilst there may be a long history of theological reasoning (and it would be foolish to discount the very real contribution to logic and philosophy made by some of these theologians), if there is a logical derivation of a result, it isn’t enough to assert the result, it needs to be testable. A difficulty with logical derivations from holy texts is that at some point there always seems to be a step that involves the entire text being assumed, or in some sense - proven, to be entirely true. That step usually seems to involve an invalid step of circular reasoning. (A friend of very devout faith, once simply said to me, “The Bible must be true, because if God to created it, he wouldn’t mess up.” He seemed oblivious to the logical fallacy here.) Now to be fair, if you delve into the underpinning philosophy of science, there are clear components where arguments are built on sand, and like any philosophical question, you easily reduce to the fundamental question of philosophy, and it all comes to a grinding halt. But, if you step up, and look at the accepted nature of science as practised in the modern world, and the reasonably clear understanding of what science is and isn’t, the disparity between scienctific logical argument, and and rhetorical arguments in theology, there is a very clear and absolute dividing line. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/76 "2014-02-23T06:42:40Z")
The thing is, all knowledge is contextual. You can’t change something like the workings of our solar system without having to adjust our thinking of other things as well. And you can’t change those things without having to adjust our thinking of other things. Soon, all our knowledge is challenged, including things that we KNOW are true. Suppose we change the Pythagorean theorem or the value of pi. In doing so, we have fundamentally altered everything we know about the world around us. It’s all interconnected and mutually dependent. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/77 "2014-02-23T18:38:41Z")
Since this is now more about the nature of knowledge than about scientifically demonstrating that the Earth moves about the sun, let’s move this to Great Debates. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/78 "2014-02-25T02:44:58Z")
> [@j\_sum1](#): > > You clearly missed the bit where I pointed out that what is often described as religious faith by both Christians and non-Christians has no significant biblical basis. We need a set of words which people can agree on the definitions in order to have a discussion. If you and I are using different meanings for the same words, the discussion will go nowhere really fast. People in the thread are proposing to use the word “faith” in the religious sense of a belief in a god. They are also proposing to use the word “trust” in the sense of taking someone’s word for something. Scientist A says that X is Y. I trust Scientist A, so I believe that X is Y. In the opinion of many in this thread, myself included, we believe that the letter writer was using ambiguous terms which could be confusing. In the interest of fighting ignorance, I believe that clarity is essential. If you disagree with the terminology or believe that there isn’t a significant difference between our definitions, then please suggest something else. > [@](#): > > Who says it can’t be tested. You can test the claims of the Bible easily. The book of Proverbs is full of if-then statements that can be tested. Admittedly, most require a level of personal commitment and the results of the experiment are things that are personally experienced. But that does not make them less real or less testable. This is all too vague. What are you testing for? How do you test things? You talk about archeological evidence, but what does that mean and how does it demonstrate? > [@](#): > > Surely one evaluates truth claims on the strength of the evidence presented. If a Mormon ever presents me with some solid archaeological evidence, I will look at it. At this point however I would peg the truth claims of the Bible as being of a higher calibre than any other world view or religion that I have encountered. I take it you are a Christian, so I hope you feel that way. Just like I expect a Muslim to believe that their truth claims are the best. What science tries to do, (and scientists aren’t perfect, so they don’t always do this) is to make it so that things can be objectively looked at. What are the facts that can be tested and what do they show? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/79 "2014-02-25T04:01:44Z")
When used the way the OP does, the word “faith” becomes so diluted as to be worthless. I have “faith” that there’s such a place as Australia, because I’ve never been there. I have “faith” that other minds exist, that reality itself exists, that this isn’t all a massive sim, etc. etc. I even have to have “faith” that two plus two equals four, because I might be being deceived when I sit and count up the change in my change basket. Maybe those “four” dimes are actually “five” and my mind is tricked via some kind of hypnosis. Solipsism is the only philosophy that is absolutely devoid of “faith” – assumptions. And it’s the most pointless damn idea that anyone ever came up with. To try to compare, directly, faith in the existence of Australia and faith in the existence of God, is grossly fallacious. ---
**Author:** ![WheatCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/258eb7/32.png) [@WheatCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WheatCat)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795/80 "2014-02-28T16:49:55Z")
Foucault’s Pendulum shows that Earth rotates, a feature which ought to greatly complicate argument on behalf of any model other than heliocentric. However, I am not sure the geocentric hypothesis may ever be considered disproven, in the sense of demonstrating that its underpinning mathematics are _impossible_ to construct-- ridiculously complicated and unaesthetic yes, yes, but mathematically impossible, no. I would like to be mistaken on that point, and I hope that the combination of all that is known about planetary motion makes all geocentric models mathematically impossible to the same degree that the phases of Venus apparently make the Ptolemaic model mathematically impossible. Although much interesting information has been related in this thread by several members it would be nice to obtain comment from a scientist having knowledge of astrophysics, or to obtain a link to some site where the subject is examined in detail (as in a few thousand words, and some nice illustrations would be helpful too) by a professional astrophysicist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prove-that-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/681795.md?page=5)