Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

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.