Response - Brad

I am sure I can speak for all of us when I say we do not believe the earth to be the "ultimate" frame of reference. As Maya masterfully demonstrated, this cannot be the case. However, I do believe there is a bit of confusion over just what an "ultimate" frame of reference would be.

In my personal opinion, "ultimate" in this context is much more akin to "largest" than "best," simply because of what a frame of reference is. A frame of reference, as we have determined, is like a viewport, adding perspective to our scientific work. As there are a huge range of problems and experiments that science can solve, each requires a specialized frame of reference to be it most accurate. This means that there is no "best" frame of reference for all problems; the best frame of reference is the one that offers the best view of the solution. This does not preclude, though, the notion of the "largest" frame of reference. In that sense, we have little to no idea of just what that frame looks like, as we are ourselves always inside it. For this reason the subject of the "ultimate" frame of reference is completely open to ideas scientific and religious - we simply don't know (for a fact) and may never know.

Mr. Freundlich asked that our comments on the work of others remain positive, so I offer some contructive criticism to Mr. Benjamin Snow. Be careful not to call people "silly" and denounce their ideas just because they don't agree with yours. Naturaly, we all have our own opinion and may come off as "silly" to those who disagree. Let us not be so overzealous in defense of science that we lose sight of its purpose - to find the truth and order of the universe. The truth can only be found when people are free to choose for themselves what they believe.