Originally posted by Debater
View Post
However, the simple argument itself still stands. Gravity makes the Earth orbit the Sun. Not the other way around.
The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics (1938) (CS refers to coordinate system)
Or how about Fred Hoyle:
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. Astronomy and Cosmology -- A Modern Course (1975)
Or Max Born:
...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right. Einstein's Theory of Relativity (1962)
Thus there is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in modern physics that says that the Earth is NOT the center of the Universe, or that the Sun does NOT revolve around the Earth, and the sooner you athiests stop lying by claiming that there is, the sooner we can start discussing the issues rationally.
Leave a comment: