Re: [Phys-l] Galileo was wrong

["Rauber, Joel" <Joel.Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>]

I'd be tempted to suggest that the complexity of the geocentric description did *not* defy description; within the accuracy of measurements.  Which is one reason that description lasted so long; it was only when the accuracy of the measurements made the description untenable (Brahe's data as analysis by Kepler.)

The above grossly simplifies the history, as a two sentence description must. 

_________________________

Joel Rauber, Ph.D 
Professor and Head of Physics
Department of Physics
South Dakota State University
Brookings, SD 57007
Joel.Rauber@sdstate.edu 
605.688.5428 (w)
605.688.5878 (fax) 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
> bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Dr. Richard Tarara
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 1:50 PM
> To: Forum for Physics Educators
> Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Galileo was wrong
>
> Maybe it is 'just' a question of complexity, but while the motions of
> the
> heavens could be (were) described using a geocentric reference frame,
> the
> complexity of that description (rotating spheres on rotating spheres)
> defied
> any consistent theory to explain the motion.  Subjects such as the
> formation
> of the solar system and indeed the whole 'big bang' theory of the start
> and
> evolution of the universe would be incredibly complex, if possible at
> all,
> from a geocentric frame--especially if you maintained that the
> geocenticism
> was absolute and 'real'.
>
> Rick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeffrey Schnick" <JSchnick@Anselm.Edu>
>
>
> > It seems to me that a reference frame rigidly attached to the earth is
> a
> > valid reference frame.  It is not an itertial reference frame and
> > spacetime, as viewed from that reference frame is much more
> complicated
> > than it would be as viewed from an inertial reference frame but that
> > just makes in an inconvenient reference frame.  I don't think that
> > anyone can or has scientifically proved that one reference frame is
> more
> > real than another.  "Which is more real?" is not a physics question.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l