Does the Earth revolve around the Sun?

See this in column 112: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%99-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%95-%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%95-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9A-%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95-%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A8-112/ You may have also seen this in one paragraph of my article on the “Knowing to Believe” website (which is included in the link below). In any case, the video shows a typical debate in which both sides are wrong. Indeed, Bernauer, who linked this to the theory of relativity, made a gross error. There is no connection whatsoever to the theory of relativity. This is about Galileo’s principle of relativity, as the critic rightly claims. Galileo already understood that it is impossible to define absolute motion, and that all motion is relative to a certain set of axes. But Bernauer was right in his claim that (according to Galileo) the question of who revolves around whom is meaningless. The critic decided that when we talk about rotation, we do so in relation to the center of mass, but this is an arbitrary decision. Usually we do so in relation to the speaker’s position (and this is also of course arbitrary). Therefore, if we are on Earth, it is reasonable to describe the rotation in our own terms, that is, geocentrically. Of course, mathematically the two descriptions are equivalent and we can choose the easier and more convenient one. Indeed, the question of who is right and who is wrong is meaningless. I will add that all of this is on the kinematic level (description of motion). On the dynamic level, physicists tend to use other descriptions in which the question of who rotates around whom can have meaning (the appearance of imaginary forces, etc.), but even there it is an arbitrary definition. Kinematics remains the same. There is no way to define who rotates around whom in any objective way. It is a question of definition. Beyond that, things are also related to the debate over Mach’s principle and the bucket problem. See here . The critic’s claim that, according to Bernauer, Copernicus did not innovate anything is context-dependent. Copernicus found a more convenient system for describing the kinematics (and perhaps also the center of mass of the system) but he did not find a more correct system. Note that no one has ever claimed that the geocentric description is more convenient. The church claimed that it is more correct, and in this it was wrong. The critic claims that it is less correct, and in this he is also wrong. Both are equally correct, and the use of each depends on the purpose and effectiveness of each of the two for that purpose. The answer to why people laugh at religious people (as the video’s title suggests) is: Somewhat rightly and some not. Unfortunately, there is ignorance in both the religious and secular worlds. Of course, everyone can be laughed at, but equally. What is surprising is discovering ignorance among professionals, and in my opinion it is the result of the agenda. In the case of Bernauer, who certainly knows the theory of relativity and Galileo’s mechanics, the need to impress probably got the better of him. He had an agenda to present atheism as outdated and modern science as confirming the religious view. But here it is simply not true. To the same extent, the secular critic also reveals ignorance, and it is probably an agenda for him as well. As I explained, the common use of Copernicus as an argument against the religious view suffers from the same fallacy as the religious view being examined itself.