[stbede]

> The difference with the Copernican stuff is that you can fly a satellite (e.g. Voyager) to the edge of the solar system, look back, and see the planets orbiting the sun.

Or you can put the satellite in the back of a truck and back the truck out of your garage and see the sun orbiting the earth. Yet it remains sane to put anywhere in the center depending on your context.

[podocarp]

If you have a reasonable grasp of Newtonian gravity you would also be unable to conclude that. A wrestler flailing a skinny guy around, from the POV of the skinny guy, is still definitely not the skinny guy flailing the wrestler about. I don't see what's to argue here. Given all facts, then there is no POV that results in the conclusion the sun goes round the earth. Just like how there's no placement of the camera that results in you claiming I'm pushing the earth away.

[stbede]

I agree with the example of human agents because we can acknowledge concepts like will, choice, agency, etc. But none of those ideas are present in Newton's laws of motions.

[IIsi50MHz]

Will, choice, and agency are unnecessary for explaining the example. It can be described simply by the forces exerted. The locations of the observers or sensing equipment matter little in this case, though they do become problematic when attempting discern whether heliocentric model fits unaided observations from a planetary surface.

[stbede]

Am I wrong to think that because equal and opposite forces are always present, names have to be given to phenomena that are not present in the formal math itself?