I don’t think this one got answered, though I may hav skimmed over a reply.
In Catholicism, we believe it does happen, though not terribly frequently. But excorisms do happen.
Not just certain Christians; don’t forget the Scientologists (if you consider them a “true” religion) and their objections to psychology and psychotherapy.
An inertial reference frame is one in which there is no accelleration. The Earth is rotating upon its axis as well as orbiting about the sun which is itself orbiting around the galaxial core. You can’t just “define” it to be an inertial reference frame. You are allowed to define it as a reference frame, you just have to invent a new set of forces (pseudoforces) that explain the difference between observations in that reference frame and what would be observed in an inertial reference frame, e.g., centrifugal, coriolis forces.
Why not? One man’s accelerated frame is another man’s gravitational force, isn’t it?
Yeah, but that doesn’t make it an inertial reference frame. Acceleration is not relative motion–it’s not reasonable to suggest that the earth is still and the rest of the universe is rotating.
If the Earth is fixed and the universe is revolving around it, some distant objects are travelling at speeds greater than c.
Yep, a gravitational force also means that it’s not an inertial reference frame. Otherwise, light wouldn’t bend in a gravitational field. But that’s getting into general relativity.
Right you are! I stand corrected.
Thanks, bandit…I appreciate the reply 