[LeGrande]

The Sun is only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth, in a two body model.

How would you falsify this hypothesis?

It is easy, show how the earth is not one AU away from the sun or that the earths rotational speed is different. Or demonstrate that the speed of light is instantaneous or simply a different speed, etc. etc. In short, measure it : )

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

It is easy, show... that the earths rotational speed is different.

By using a Foucault pendulum or ring laser gyroscope?

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande: The Sun is only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth, in a two body model.

Said Ethan Clive Osgoode: How would you falsify this hypothesis?

Said LeGrande: It is easy, show how the earth is not one AU away from the sun or that the earths rotational speed is different. Or demonstrate that the speed of light is instantaneous or simply a different speed, etc. etc. In short, measure it : )

Says mrjesse: Yeah but as soon as we pull out any tools to measure any of those things you'll say "Stop! That won't work because you just introduced a third body!" So ECO's point stands I say - the statement is not falsifiable. Really it's not even honest, since all you're really saying is that "Without any way to measure which is spinning and which is orbiting, you can't measure which is spinning and which is orbiting." But to say that there is no difference just because one can't measure the difference is dishonest - especially when the reason that we can't measure is because your definition bars us from using any tools which allow us to measure, when in reality such tools do exist!

-Jesse