To my (somewhat provocative) comment that "... in fact, geocentrism IS
consistent with the Newtonian laws of motion," David Tyler wrote:
"I'm afraid I'm tempted back to respond on this one, Gordie! I don't
think geocentrism can appeal to Newtonian physics - because geocentrists
cannot regard gravity as the force providing stability within the solar
system or the universe. Mathematically, it is possible to say that
everything is relative: it really does not matter whether the earth or the
sun is at the centre of the solar system. This is why Tycho's model could
be regarded as viable (until the discovery of stellar parallax). But a
mathematical description, without physical causes, is profoundly
dissatisfying to the physicist."
The Newtonian laws of motion do not require accelerative forces to be
identified with gravity. Others must be introduced for the geocentric
perspective, and this is the reason I wrote: "The real reason physics
reject geocentrism is that its accommodation very seriously messes up the
simple description we have all been taught; a lot of simple mathematical
order would be lost in the process. Thus, at great cost, the language of
appearance can be sustained within the framework of physics."
In this regard, I believe Jim Blake is effectively pointing out the
nonessentialness of "gravity" as an explanatory force when he states:
"Relativity does allow us to distinguish between accelerated and
non-accelerated reference frames. Just not the cause of the acceleration,
or between different non-accelerated reference frames. A rotation involves
an acceleration which we can uniquely determine experimentally - so a
non-rotating frame is not equivalent to a rotating one."
I do thank David and Jim for their comments on my posting.
Gordie