First of all ... that's not how Science works at all. A scientist who looks for evidence that
he can use to prove his theory is a very poor scientist, and most likely gets the cold
shoulder from his colleagues.
The 'evidence' comes first, except that it's not called "evidence", because nobody is
trying to prove anything yet. It's called "data", and it's simply a clear, careful, detailed
description of what is seen in nature.
Then the "theory" comes after that. It's an attempt to explain what was seen in nature.
The theory that comes up with the closest fit to what was actually seen is the accepted
theory, until somebody comes up with a theory that fits the observations better, or until
new and better observations show that the theory doesn't really fit so well.
Between the beginning and end of a year, the stars don't shift at all. But they turn completely
all the way around an observer in one day. And if you measure carefully, you observe that
each night, the stars reach the same place about 4 minutes earlier than they did on the
previous night. That's the data. That's what we see in nature. That's what happens,
and there's no debate. Everybody who watches it sees the same thing happening. The
debate starts when different thinkers try to offer explanations for how the whole system
is built, and why we see what we see.
You could explain what you see by saying that we are in the center of a giant globe. All of
the objects in the sky are attached to the inside of the globe, and the globe turns around
us once a day. The sun and the moon are not so firmly attached, though, and they slide
slowly along the inside of the globe. The moon slides all the way around the inside of the
globe every 29 days, and the sun slides all the way around it every 365 days, while the
whole globe turns around once a day.
That's a theory that very nicely explains what we actually see in the sky.
But then somebody comes along and calls our attention to five bodies that also slide along
the inside of the globe, all at different rates. They wander in such puzzling ways that they're
called "wanderers" ... "Planeti" in Italian. They never get too far away from the paths that
the sun and moon follow, which is comforting, but three of the five have this peculiar
habit ... once a year, each one reverses its direction and slides backwards for a while,
then reverses again and resumes sliding along the inside of the globe in the original
direction. Really weird. Maybe they're not even hooked to the inside of the globe like
everything else at all. We start to feel uncomfortable with the theory that explains everything
we see in the sky.
Then somebody comes along, buys his kids the latest thing at Toys Я Us called a "telescope",
steals it one night after they go to bed, looks through it into the sky ... and he sees four new
little tiny bodies that nobody had ever seen before, and they're not attached to the giant
globe at all, they're circling one of the planeti! In a flash, he knows that the accepted theory
is hogwash.
You see where this is going. Long story short ... as new things are observed, we need new
theories to explain what we see. As of today ... the year 2010 ... the theory that best explains
everything we can see and measure is the theory that proposes that the earth orbits the sun,
in the way predicted by Newton's theory of universal gravitation.
As they say ... "It's just a theory".
And that's true. If someone comes along tomorrow with a new observation that the theory
can't explain, and his observation is confirmed by other observers, then the theory is out
the window.
The moral of the story is: If you look for evidence that you can use to prove a theory, then
you're going to ignore evidence that doesn't support it. You'll be a rotten scientist, and
nobody in the business will talk to you or listen to anything you have to say. The theory
is what the scientist offers to explain the data. The earth orbiting the sun is the best
explanation that's been offered to explain everything that people have been seeing in
the sky since we've had eyes to see it and speech to tell other people about what we saw.
Saturn is 9 AU from the Sun, or 8-10 AU from the Earth, depending on the relative positions in the two orbits.
Earth. It orbits the sun and the moon orbits it
The Sun as it's the only body in the Solar System that is undergoing nuclear fusion.
An electron orbits the nucleus of the atom, which consists of protons and neutrons. Electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the same sense that the moon orbits the earth. They might be said to form a cloud, which occupies a specific energy level around the nucleus, with their positions and motion describable only in terms of probability.
The moon orbits the earth and together the earth and the moon orbits the sun. Together the solar system orbits the center of the milkyway (where it is thought to be a black hole).
parallax :)
yes
Because of the relative positions of the earth, sun and moon.
The variations in how much reflected sunlight we see as the Moon orbits Earth.
The variations in how much reflected sunlight we see as the Moon orbits Earth.
Saturn is 9 AU from the Sun, or 8-10 AU from the Earth, depending on the relative positions in the two orbits.
The Earth orbits around the Sun, while the moon orbits around the Earth.
Not only the earth's rotation , the lunar phases change cyclically as the Moon orbits the Earth, according to the changing positions of the Moon and Sun relative to the Earth.
No. Earth is a planet. It orbits the sun, which is a star.
Earth. It orbits the sun and the moon orbits it
C.
The moon IS a satellite that orbits earth