Re: [asa] geocentricity

It seems that we've phrased the whole discussion inappropriately. Yes, as
George mentions, it is possible to find a frame of reference in which the
earth is stationary (though possibly rotating) and one in which the sun is
stationary.

If we think of the view where the author(s) of the Bible write from their
own reference frame, then a reference frame centered at the surface of the
earth, in Mesopotamia perhaps, would be the proper reference. In that frame,
the earth is indeed stationary.

To the scientific question of whether the helio- or the geo- frame should be
used, the answer should be neither. As particle physicists do, one must talk
of the center of mass reference frame wherein the two-body system is at
rest, though eventually the effects of other bodies must be included.

Ted, how do geocentrists resolve the stellar paradox observations?

Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Loren Haarsma" <lhaarsma@calvin.edu>; "_American Sci Affil"
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] geocentricity

> Yes, an observer in an accelerated frame like one in a braking car will
> feel a "force" due to the acceleration. This is a fictitious force,
> simply part of ma moved to the other side of the equation & labelled F in
> order to maintain Newton's laws. That's the cost of pretending that an
> accelerated frame is inertial in Classical physics. What Einstein
> realized is that such fictitious forces have the same property of
> gravitation, that they're exactly proportional to the inertial mass of a
> body they act on. Gravitation itself is a fictitious force that's
> introduced so that we can pretend that space-time is flat.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 5 17:21:15 2007