2) "In other words when we see the Sun we see where it was apx 8 and a half minutes ago."This is true, of course. But the Sun is in the same place that it was 8.5 minutes ago, which is where we see it. This is because the apparent motion is due not to the Sun revolving around us, but to our rotation, and these are not relative.
That we see the Sun where it was 8.5 minutes ago would of course be true whether we were rotating or whether the Sun were orbiting us, but in the former case the Sun is where we see it while in the latter case the Sun is 2 degrees ahead of where we see it. These situations are not equivalent.
Now, if we want to hit the Sun with our "LASER", we must aim at where the Sun will be 8.5 minutes from now: In the former case we would aim at where we see the Sun, while in the latter case we would need to lead the Sun by 4 degrees (not 2) from where we see it. Again, the situations are not equivalent.
The sun is not stationary in the universe. Indeed, nothing is.
Our solar system is orbiting the Milky Way galaxy at a speed of 486,000 miles per hour. And on top of that, space/time itself is expanding.
The Newtonian physics being described here should be seen as local with respect to the universe.
Or to put it another way, coordinates for non-inertial frames are usually transformed to inertial frames when speaking of the cosmos in order to avoid fictitious forces which are nevertheless handy when dealing with physics on earth.
You are correct Zero Sum. I mistakenly thought they were relative, your explanation of the inertial-noninertial frames is what did it for me. That and when I tried to shoot your LAZER at the sun and make both frames equivalent. They aren't.
Mrjesse and Fichori you were essentially correct too and I would like to apologize for cavalierly dismissing your arguments and I would like to thank you both for your persistence in helping to show me my error : )
This is a very good day. I have been humbled a little bit and I have learned a couple of valuable lessons : )