Index to Creationist Claims,  edited by Mark Isaak,    Copyright © 2004

Previous Claim: CH901   |   List of Claims   |   Next Claim: CI001

---

Claim CH910:

We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance (Hoyle 1975, cited in Willis 2000, 2).

Source:

Response:

1. The fact that different frames of reference all work does not mean that one frame makes as much sense as any other in any application. For navigating city streets, a geocentric frame makes sense; we would not want constantly to recalculate our position relative to the sun. For considering the solar system as a whole, however, a heliocentric frame makes sense. Figuring the calculations of the rest of the universe spinning and wobbling around the earth would be possible in theory, but prohibitive in practice.
   
   Another frame of reference and mathematical transformations put the universe on the inside of a hollow earth. That model is mathematically equivalent to standard cosmology (S. Morris 1983). If physical significance is the only criterion, it is just as good as a heliocentric frame, too.
   
   
2. The claim cuts both ways. It also says that heliocentrism is just as good as geocentrism, as is the frame of reference relative to any other planet around any other star. It says that geocentrism is correct only if you choose to interpret it that way. Some people may want to interpret it that way, but they cannot then claim that others are wrong. The earth still moves.

References: