Geodesic writes:
Relative motion occurs between the constituent bodies of the universe, and *all effects* due to motion are due to this relative motion. All reference frames are equally valid and yield the same laws of physics. The fact that some coordinate systems are simpler for the purpose at hand, does not make them more real or more true. All coordinate systems are equally valid, period.
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