Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken G
Taking that as evidence that the Earth orbits the Sun is to adopt a slightly different meaning for "orbit", that the causal agent "deserves" to occupy a special place in the coordinates. That is often done, just as we say the Earth spins rather than saying the stars go around us once a day. But the equations we use as "laws of nature" don't know the difference-- we view it as quite fundamental that those equations are coordinate independent.
|
Agreed, and the fact that we say the Sun rises and sets doesn't help my "preferred frame" logic.
Nevertheless, both theories of gravity (Newton and Einstein), from the use of the scientific method, predict a coordinate change if the mass is altered. Yet, conversely, it does not predict a mass change if we change the coordinate framework, at least I assume so. I'm probably wording this poorly, but I do see a difference that is a cause and effect issue regardless of the fact that the interlock between the math and the behavior are unchanged, like a horse and cart analogy; one leads the other. The larger bodies will be seen to not orbit the smaller bodies, so Geocentricity fails though the math is equivalent. Similarly the cart does not push the horse, though the horse's sweat and temperature makes the physics easier.
Using the universe as my reference frame, or at least space near the Solar system in this case, and claiming it as a prefered view that favors a near-Sun barycenter model may be my downfall, but there must be some logical or objective advantage that shows it is more than a matter of philosophy. Perhaps it is an Ocaham's Razor for reference frames as to which is the most elegant with greatest utility (ignoring all those Earthling's desires to use geocentricity for their own selfish wish for easier calculations, of course).