Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious
Stupid question: given General Relativity, and in particular that <i>all reference frames are equally valid</i>, including rotating and accelerating ones, in what sense is heliocentrism more &#x27;true&#x27; than geocentrism?<p>E.g. you can pick a geocentric reference frame and all the math works out (albeit you&#x27;d need to define large fictitious forces, etc., but again, they are only &#x27;fictitious&#x27; from the perspective of a different reference frame; in the chosen frame they look quite real!).<p>Isn&#x27;t the choice between geocentrism and heliocentrism purely one of convenience, and we can simply pick and choose whichever reference frame is most convenient for calculation purposes?<p>For example, if I&#x27;m interested in things happening in daily life, I pick a reference frame at rest with respect to the ground beneath my feet. If I am figuring out satellite orbits, I use a geocentric frame. If I&#x27;m calculating a trip to Mars, I use a heliocentric frame (perhaps a rotating one).<p>If so, why do we still define heliocentrism to be more correct? Is the argument really an implicit throwback to Newtonian absolute space and time, which Relativity rejected?