Claim CH910:
Relativity states that there is no favored frame of reference, so a
geocentric frame is as good as a heliocentric one.
We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a
geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a
difference has no physical significance (Hoyle 1975, cited in
Willis 2000, 2).
Source:
Willis, Tom, 2000. "The Laws of Cause and Effect, and the 1st
and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics have been invalidated by modern science",
Part 2. CSA News 17(2) (Mar/Apr): 1-2.
Response:
- The fact that different frames of reference all work does not mean that
one frame makes as much sense as any other in any application. For
navigating city streets, a geocentric frame makes sense; we would not
want constantly to recalculate our position relative to the sun. For
considering the solar system as a whole, however, a heliocentric frame
makes sense. Figuring the calculations of the rest of the universe
spinning and wobbling around the earth would be possible in theory, but
prohibitive in practice.
Another frame of reference and mathematical transformations put the
universe on the inside of a hollow earth. That model is mathematically
equivalent to standard cosmology (S. Morris 1983). If physical
significance is the only criterion, it is just as good as a
heliocentric frame, too.
- The claim cuts both ways. It also says that heliocentrism is just as
good as geocentrism, as is the frame of reference relative to any other
planet around any other star. It says that geocentrism is correct only
if you choose to interpret it that way. Some people may want to
interpret it that way, but they cannot then claim that others are
wrong. The earth still moves.
References:
- Hoyle, F., 1975. Astronomy and Cosmology - A Modern Course. San
Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co.
- Morris, Scot, 1983. The hollow earth: a maddening theory that can't be
disproved. Omni 5(11) (Aug.): 128-129.
created 2003-6-11