Replies

If heliocentrism is a 'fact', Why did Einstein and Infield say in 'The Evolution of Physics, "(Einstein and Infeld, 1938, p. 212):

Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS."

Did you ever heard about fictitious or pseudo forces? They appear if you use a non-inertial reference frame. You really can use every CS you want but one is special the one CS with an inertial reference frame.

The CS that is an inertial reference frame for our solar system describes the planets motion including the earth motion as ellipses around the sun (better: center of mass of the system).

You can use different points of view. No matter. But one is special. May we call this point of view "reality"?

"Did you ever heard about fictitious or pseudo forces? They appear if you use a non-inertial reference frame. You really can use every CS you want but one is special the one CS with an inertial reference frame."

Of course. That's part of the beauty of the non-inertial reference frames.

"The CS that is an inertial reference frame for our solar system describes the planets motion including the earth motion as ellipses around the sun (better: center of mass of the system)."

"You can use different points of view. No matter. But one is special. May we call this point of view "reality"?"

Hate to burst your bubble, but there isn't just *one* (i.e., heliocentric) special, non-inertial reference frame. A geocentric non-inertial reference frame is perfectly acceptable as the 'special' reference frame.

Don't you know that?