Scientific errors in the Bible

It is now apparent that you are not making the same argument as Mr. Fortenberry. His position was that there is no evidence for heliocentricity and that therefore the Bible is correct about geocentrism. Your argument seems to be that Mr. Fortenberry was as correct to argue for geocentrism as we are for heliocentrism. This is much more interesting, but still wrong.If you're truly a physicist, as you claim in Message 140, then it's hard to fathom your failure to address the acceleration issue. After all, the question is one of whether the earth orbits the sun, or the reverse, and acceleration is key to the definition of orbit, a condition whereby the rate of falling is balanced by the rate of motion.It is certainly valid to have an accelerating frame of reference - we use one all the time right here on earth. Byt the way, not only is earth an accelerating frame of reference, even the acceleration isn't constant! In other words, and keeping it simple by addressing only the one dimensional case, not only is there a δx/δt (changing position, or velocity v), not only is there a δv/δt (changing velocity, or acceleration a), but there is even a δa/δt (changing acceleration).So you can choose the earth as your frame of reference, but that means your frame of reference is in orbit around the sun, because it is your frame of reference that is experiencing all the change of velocity and acceleration, and not the sun.--Percy

Hi Geodesic!Thank you for quoting Einstein for us, bus as I just said in the very post you're replying to, "It is certainly valid to have an accelerating frame of reference."I think you're confused about the question Mr. Fortenberry was addressing. It wasn't whether one could construct a physics for arbitrarily moving coordinate systems, but whether it is the sun or the earth which orbits the other. Since your stationary frame of reference with respect to the earth is experiencing not only acceleration but changing acceleration, it is clearly the one in orbit.Try this thought experiment. Remove yourself a lightyear or two above the plane of the solar system, so as to for the most part eliminate the gravitational effects of the sun, and align your motion to the earth. You won't be able to do so without continually firing your rockets. This is because it is the earth that is in orbit because of a balance between acceleration and motion. If you instead align your motion to the sun you'll discover that once accomplished, your rockets can be turned off.--Percy

That you are not really a physicist is readily apparent. Reread your Einstein quote - here it is for your convenience: Einstein is only making a point about frames of reference, and is definitely not saying that you cannot tell who orbits who. I agree with Einstein and disagree with your misreading of Einstein. Perhaps you are misinterpreting his wry reference to the Ptolemy/Copernican systems, perhaps intended as a sort of joke, because the difference between them is definitely not meaningless. You can very easily tell which frame of reference is experiencing acceleration and changing acceleration. And the situation where a body's motion and acceleration is in balance is defined as an orbit, the precise situation the earth holds with respect to the sun. Your choice of frame of reference cannot affect this fact.Did you try the thought exercise from Message 151? Why don't you go back and think it through. The rocket that you have to keep firing tells you in no uncertain terms that your frame of reference is not maintaining a constant velocity or acceleration. And when your rocket runs out of fuel you won't be able to maintain your frame of reference anymore, and except for motion differences you'll suddenly find yourself in the same frame of reference as the sun. That's pretty much conclusive about who's orbiting who.--Percy

Your source is misleading you. Einstein isn't saying any such thing about the general theory of relativity. This is what Einstein actually says on page 76 about the special theory: You're giving the strong impression of not understanding the subject matter because you keep appealing to other authorities instead of directly addressing the issues raised.--Percy

The discussion has somehow diverged into two different topics:

1. The arbitrariness of choice of coordinate systems. About this you are correct.
   ​
2. Whether the earth orbits the sun, or the other way around. About this you are incorrect. By the definition of orbit, the earth orbits the sun. (For simplicity we'll skip the fact that they actually are both in orbit about a common point buried deep within the sun due to its much greater mass, and we'll also skip the fact that the orbits are ellipses rather than circles). You can choose a coordinate system fixed to a point somewhere on the earth if you like, but that doesn't change who orbits who.

--Percy