Your first mistake is assuming that I am not aware of the arguments and beliefs surrounding the heliocentric vs geocentric positions.
Your second mistake is in not being able to provide an 'observed fact' that uniquely supports heliocentrism. But that's pretty standard for you guys. You can't distinguish between observed fact and belief.
"Ok, using telescopes to observe the motion of the planets, it becomes clear that the Earth is *not* the center of the system but the Sun is."
You move very easily from observed facts to beliefs without recognizing the difference, which is what I pointed out earlier. The observed fact that the planets orbit the sun does not mean that the earth orbiting the sun is also an 'observed fact'. Are you able to understand that?
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."
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."
:-D
Um, do you know what that means?
It means that the system is a product of *all* bodies in the system, and that it doesn't matter what coordinate system you
Let's start with the simplest level:
When you look into a telescope, and watch the moon, say. You watch it go from horizon to horizon, "circling" the Earth. You see this happens every day, in a pattern. That is one bit of evidence supporting heliocentrism -- a larger body's gravity acting on the smaller body.
Then look at your telescope again, at Mars, say. You now observe the same behavior. This, then, supports the same dynamic gravity system. No matter what coordinate system you use, you will notice that the behavior can be explained by the same set of equations, based on the gravitation pull of the two objects in question.
Right?
No, your logic is false. Your premise, observed fact = planets orbit the sun, cannot be true if you also claim that it is not an observed fact that the planet earth orbits the sun. If a=b then a=b.
Also what exactly is your point about Einsteins point that there are no absolute reference points? How does that invalidate heliocentrism?