26% of Americans Believe The Sun Revolves Around the Earth (1 Viewer)

[joffer]

People considering the earth is the center of the universe has nothing to do with the Bible.

One guy disagrees

That and $2.98 will get you a cup of coffee.*

*Offer not valid at all locations. See store for details.

http://www.fixedearth.com

http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html

 

[Lutherman2112]

People considering the earth is the center of the universe has nothing to do with the Bible.

If you put it on an x-y-z axis, everything becomes clearer.

 

[matuski]

Gravity can not be explained by [more fundamental] laws of physics.

We've never identified a graviton, if that's what you mean. That's different from saying that gravity defies (i.e., contradicts) other laws of physics.

The way it was explained to me, buy a science teacher in high-school (real high credentials, I know) if you spin an object, the loose mater on the surface of that object is going to be carried away from the object by inertia, not be attracted to it, so, the idea that the earths revolution causes the force of gravity defies what we know today about the laws of physics..

A highlight of 2014.

 

[Scoresman]

howcome highlights like these always seem to come from the conservative folks of the forum? maybe its just me.

 

[jon_mx]

howcome highlights like these always seem to come from the conservative folks of the forum? maybe its just me.

Well you pretty much have your own highlight reel.

 

[joffer]

this was classic jon

 

[sublimeone]

I like to see a Venn diagram illustrating the correlation between this group and welfare recipients

 

[bostonfred]

I think survey fatigue could be coloring the data. Hardly a day goes by where I'm not solicited to take part in some survey or another. This is on top of all the other data collection that takes place via social media and various "club" cards. I wonder if it's possible for a survey to get near 100% agreement on any fact based question.

If there were a lot if questions and people were just trying to get it over with as quick as possible, there could be a decent amount that misread the question. It's pretty common for students in class to mix up this they know because they were in a hurry, misread or just had a brainfart.

Or they could be correct and the question is poor. From the perspective of someone on earth, the sun is revolving around us. From the perspective of other locations in our solar system, it would appear the sun is relatively stationary and the earth spins and orbits around the sun.

This really explains a lot.

lol

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

I'd like to see how many out of this 26% are against gays, believe in creationism, and vote republican.

Conversely, how many attended failing inner city public schools and voted for Obama?

 

[fatness]

I think survey fatigue could be coloring the data. Hardly a day goes by where I'm not solicited to take part in some survey or another. This is on top of all the other data collection that takes place via social media and various "club" cards. I wonder if it's possible for a survey to get near 100% agreement on any fact based question.

If there were a lot if questions and people were just trying to get it over with as quick as possible, there could be a decent amount that misread the question. It's pretty common for students in class to mix up this they know because they were in a hurry, misread or just had a brainfart.

Or they could be correct and the question is poor. From the perspective of someone on earth, the sun is revolving around us. From the perspective of other locations in our solar system, it would appear the sun is relatively stationary and the earth spins and orbits around the sun.

Still

 

[joffer]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/12/24/zero_g_day_nope.html

The number of my idiot friends posting this on FB makes me think these poll results could be right on the money.

 

[fatness]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/12/24/zero_g_day_nope.html

The number of my idiot friends posting this on FB makes me think these poll results could be right on the money.

The very first nonsense I had to debunk in 2014 was a claim that on Jan. 4 of that year a planetary alignment would cause gravity to decrease, allowing you to float momentarily or fall more slowly if you jumped in the air at the right moment: Zero G Day.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Pretty much 911 truthers, JFK conspiracists, birthers, flat earthers, UFOologists, etc, they're everywhere, talk to enough strangers and you will find 'em.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/12/24/zero_g_day_nope.html

The number of my idiot friends posting this on FB makes me think these poll results could be right on the money.

Reminds me of those dopes that repeat the myth "if the earth moved just 10 feet closer or farther from the sun we would burn or freeze to death".

 

[Mr. Retukes]

I'd like to see how many out of this 26% are against gays, believe in creationism, and vote republican.

Conversely, how many attended failing inner city public schools and voted for Obama?

That's a bizarre mix of past tense and present tense.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I'd like to see how many out of this 26% are against gays, believe in creationism, and vote republican.

Conversely, how many attended failing inner city public schools and voted for Obama?

That's a bizarre mix of past tense and present tense.

It looked like Brock once attending a failed school that will be in the inner city.

 

[cstu]

I'd like to see how many out of this 26% are against gays, believe in creationism, and vote republican.

Conversely, how many attended failing inner city public schools and voted for Obama?

That's a bizarre mix of past tense and present tense.

It looked like Brock once attending a failed school that will be in the inner city.

There's nothing wrong with that sentence.

 

[fatness]

I'd like to see how many out of this 26% are against gays, believe in creationism, and vote republican.

Conversely, how many attended failing inner city public schools and voted for Obama?

That's a bizarre mix of past tense and present tense.

It looked like Brock once attending a failed school that will be in the inner city.

Either that or he climbed a tree and got too close to the sun.

 

[jon_mx]

I think survey fatigue could be coloring the data. Hardly a day goes by where I'm not solicited to take part in some survey or another. This is on top of all the other data collection that takes place via social media and various "club" cards. I wonder if it's possible for a survey to get near 100% agreement on any fact based question.

If there were a lot if questions and people were just trying to get it over with as quick as possible, there could be a decent amount that misread the question. It's pretty common for students in class to mix up this they know because they were in a hurry, misread or just had a brainfart.

Or they could be correct and the question is poor. From the perspective of someone on earth, the sun is revolving around us. From the perspective of other locations in our solar system, it would appear the sun is relatively stationary and the earth spins and orbits around the sun.

Still

It is my fault you don't understand perspective and relativity? You do realize the sun like the earth is not the center of the universe, and it is an arbitrary selection to chose one or the other as if it is? No, I am certain you do not.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I think survey fatigue could be coloring the data. Hardly a day goes by where I'm not solicited to take part in some survey or another. This is on top of all the other data collection that takes place via social media and various "club" cards. I wonder if it's possible for a survey to get near 100% agreement on any fact based question.

If there were a lot if questions and people were just trying to get it over with as quick as possible, there could be a decent amount that misread the question. It's pretty common for students in class to mix up this they know because they were in a hurry, misread or just had a brainfart.

Or they could be correct and the question is poor. From the perspective of someone on earth, the sun is revolving around us. From the perspective of other locations in our solar system, it would appear the sun is relatively stationary and the earth spins and orbits around the sun.

Still

It is my fault you don't understand perspective and relativity? You do realize the sun like the earth is not the center of the universe, and it is an arbitrary selection to chose one or the other as if it is? No, I am certain you do not.

Still

 

[jon_mx]

I think survey fatigue could be coloring the data. Hardly a day goes by where I'm not solicited to take part in some survey or another. This is on top of all the other data collection that takes place via social media and various "club" cards. I wonder if it's possible for a survey to get near 100% agreement on any fact based question.

If there were a lot if questions and people were just trying to get it over with as quick as possible, there could be a decent amount that misread the question. It's pretty common for students in class to mix up this they know because they were in a hurry, misread or just had a brainfart.

Or they could be correct and the question is poor. From the perspective of someone on earth, the sun is revolving around us. From the perspective of other locations in our solar system, it would appear the sun is relatively stationary and the earth spins and orbits around the sun.

Still

It is my fault you don't understand perspective and relativity? You do realize the sun like the earth is not the center of the universe, and it is an arbitrary selection to chose one or the other as if it is? No, I am certain you do not.

Still

I wish I could dumb it down so you could comprehend it, but that is about as simple as can be done.

 

[roadkill1292]

BTW, good luck in this year's tournament, jon.

 

[Josie Maran]

Wonderful.

 

[jon_mx]

BTW, good luck in this year's tournament, jon.

I could point you to countless scientific discussions which point out that geocentric modeling is a perfectly valid and useful model, which is quite different than believing the earth is the center of the universe, which I never said. It is a perfectly valid frame of reference. I score lots of points in your little tournament of belittling people behind their backs, but in most cases like this one, like infinity, like exponential....I am not the ignorant one, but the people mocking me are.

 

[Doug B]

The way it was explained to me, buy a science teacher in high-school (real high credentials, I know) if you spin an object, the loose mater on the surface of that object is going to be carried away from the object by inertia, not be attracted to it, so, the idea that the earths revolution causes the force of gravity defies what we know today about the laws of physics..

A highlight of 2014.

If I were principal of that HS and heard one of my teachers explaining gravity and centrifugal force like that, they'd be summarily re-assigned.

Did Carolina eventually grok it all? That was a nice slice of a post, but hopefully it wasn't left like that.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

BTW, good luck in this year's tournament, jon.

He's making a strong charge here by doubling down.

 

[jon_mx]

BTW, good luck in this year's tournament, jon.

He's making a strong charge here by doubling down.

I am doubling down on being correct. I would bet you $100 that I am correct. You are just confusing two different things. The idea that the earth is the center of the universe has been proven incorrect. Using the earth as a frame of reference is perfectly valid and even can be useful. The center of the sun is not even the center of the solar system (close but not quite), let alone the center of the galaxy (not close), or the center of the universe (really not close).

 

[fatness]

BTW, good luck in this year's tournament, jon.

I could point you to countless scientific discussions which point out that geocentric modeling is a perfectly valid and useful model, which is quite different than believing the earth is the center of the universe, which I never said. It is a perfectly valid frame of reference. I score lots of points in your little tournament of belittling people behind their backs, but in most cases like this one, like infinity, like exponential....I am not the ignorant one, but the people mocking me are.

I could point you to the elementary school children laughing at you.

 

[jon_mx]

BTW, good luck in this year's tournament, jon.

I could point you to countless scientific discussions which point out that geocentric modeling is a perfectly valid and useful model, which is quite different than believing the earth is the center of the universe, which I never said. It is a perfectly valid frame of reference. I score lots of points in your little tournament of belittling people behind their backs, but in most cases like this one, like infinity, like exponential....I am not the ignorant one, but the people mocking me are.

I could point you to the elementary school children laughing at you.

I will open up the above $100 bet to you also. I need extra cash.

 

[FlapJacks]

If we have learned anything form this tread, it's these two things

1. Our educational system is churning out a significant portion of science illiterates

2. A significant portion of FFA members must have exceptionally small penises

 

[fatness]

jon thinks that when he drives to Walmart, Cleveland moves.

 

[jon_mx]

jon thinks that when he drives to Walmart, Cleveland moves.

Everything moves. If my frame of reference is myself, then if I change my location on the earth's surface, then yes, Cleveland has moved relative to my position.

 

[jon_mx]

jon thinks that when he drives to Walmart, Cleveland moves.

The ironic thing about that statement is that you are acknowledging an geocentric viewpoint with that statement which would be represented by a map. Cleveland is in a fixed location on a paper map (geocentric). However, in today's world of smart phones, the maps on our phones are egocentric where directions and distances all change with your movement.

 

[Doug B]

I am doubling down on being correct. I would bet you $100 that I am correct. You are just confusing two different things. The idea that the earth is the center of the universe has been proven incorrect. Using the earth as a frame of reference is perfectly valid and even can be useful. The center of the sun is not even the center of the solar system (close but not quite), let alone the center of the galaxy (not close), or the center of the universe (really not close).

Forgetting the poll question in the OP for a second:

Jon is 100% correct about what I've bolded. I only pick nits with on the concept of something being/not being the "center of the universe." As I understand it, the universe no more has a center than the surface of a sphere has a center.

,,,

I will posit, however, that not one in a thousand people polled (those interviewed for the poll mentioned in the OP) used the "variable frame of reference" argument when responding to the question that the Sun does indeed revolve around the Earth. I do, though, have huge doubts about the validity of the poll.

 

[Doug B]

Everything moves. If my frame of reference is myself, then if I change my location on the earth's surface, then yes, Cleveland has moved relative to my position.

While this is esoterically true, both you and Cleveland share "The Earth" as a common frame of reference. It takes just as long for light to make it to Cleveland from a point 1,000 miles east of Cleveland as it does from 1,000 miles west of Cleveland -- when the time the light traveled is measured from a point on Earth's surface.

Now then -- if you could measure those two light beamd converging on Clevelad from, say, the Voyager probe's current position outside of the solar system ... then the westbound light beam would appear to cover slightly less ground than the eastbound light beam to Cleveland, and thus the westbound beam would appear to have travelled a very slightly less time than the eastbound beam.

 

[tonydead]

Jon, why are you defending the original question with your defined coordinate system on earth and then suddenly transport yourself to the center of the milky way when you decide to Google fun facts about our galaxy?

I have talked a half a dozen times throughout this discussions of different perspectives and how the solar system moves throughout the galaxy and how our galaxy moves throughout the universe. It was probably one of my first points brought up. Viewing the movement as simply the earth revolving around the sun is a simplistic view which does not take into account a lot of other stuff going on. The movement of the solar system through the galaxy is actually much faster than the earth moves and the movement of the galaxy is even a much faster movement yet.

I understand all that. My question was why you did chose earth as your perspective for the sun-earth relationship originally and then the center of the milky way as your perspective when you gave us the fun facts about our galaxy? My follow on question would be why do you think there are fun facts about the speed of our galaxy from that perspective?

:crickets:

Jon, are you answering questions about this thread again? If so here is one you missed. TIA.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/12/24/zero_g_day_nope.html

The number of my idiot friends posting this on FB makes me think these poll results could be right on the money.

The very first nonsense I had to debunk in 2014 was a claim that on Jan. 4 of that year a planetary alignment would cause gravity to decrease, allowing you to float momentarily or fall more slowly if you jumped in the air at the right moment: Zero G Day.

This also works in falling elevators. Jump up just before it crashes and you will be fine.

 

[joffer]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/12/24/zero_g_day_nope.html

The number of my idiot friends posting this on FB makes me think these poll results could be right on the money.

The very first nonsense I had to debunk in 2014 was a claim that on Jan. 4 of that year a planetary alignment would cause gravity to decrease, allowing you to float momentarily or fall more slowly if you jumped in the air at the right moment: Zero G Day.

This also works in falling elevators. Jump up just before it crashes and you will be fine.

I'll admit, right during that five minute window two people asked me if I'd lost weight.

 

[jon_mx]

Jon, why are you defending the original question with your defined coordinate system on earth and then suddenly transport yourself to the center of the milky way when you decide to Google fun facts about our galaxy?

I have talked a half a dozen times throughout this discussions of different perspectives and how the solar system moves throughout the galaxy and how our galaxy moves throughout the universe. It was probably one of my first points brought up. Viewing the movement as simply the earth revolving around the sun is a simplistic view which does not take into account a lot of other stuff going on. The movement of the solar system through the galaxy is actually much faster than the earth moves and the movement of the galaxy is even a much faster movement yet.

I understand all that. My question was why you did chose earth as your perspective for the sun-earth relationship originally and then the center of the milky way as your perspective when you gave us the fun facts about our galaxy? My follow on question would be why do you think there are fun facts about the speed of our galaxy from that perspective?

:crickets:

Jon, are you answering questions about this thread again? If so here is one you missed. TIA.

You choose your perspective which makes visualizing and/or calculations the easiest.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The idea that the earth is the center of the universe has been proven incorrect.

How so?

 

[lod01]

The idea that the earth is the center of the universe has been proven incorrect.

How so?

Because if earth is as good as it gets, this universe sucks the big one.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I could point you to countless scientific discussions which point out that geocentric modeling is a perfectly valid and useful model, which is quite different than believing the earth is the center of the universe, which I never said. It is a perfectly valid frame of reference.

The only test that ultimately counts for whether a particular theory is true is whether it makes accurate predictions.

Geocentric theories can make accurate predictions about planetary motion. In this sense, they can't be said to be false.

But geocentric theories of planetary motion are highly complicated and convoluted compared to heliocentric theories, so heliocentric theories are generally preferred. Heliocentric theories also have the advantage of being consistent with the rest of physics (not just planetary motion), while geocentric theories would be harder to incorporate into standard theories of force and acceleration and whatnot.

You say, for example, that the earth is a perfectly valid frame of reference. But in Einstein's relativity, frames of reference are used to measure velocity -- not acceleration. The earth and sun revolve around each other, and revolution is acceleration. We can say that I am moving with respect to Cleveland, or that Cleveland is moving with respect to me, or that we are both moving with respect to Jupiter. But we do not say that I am accelerating with respect to Cleveland. Either I am accelerating or I am not -- there's no "with respect to" about it.

Since revolution involves acceleration, it is not just as valid to say that X is revolving round Y as it is to say that Y is revolving around X. In the case of the sun and the earth, they are both revolving, but the earth's revolution objectively involves more acceleration than the sun's. In that sense, the earth revolves around the sun a lot more than the sun revolves around the earth -- irrespective of any frame of reference.

 

[tonydead]

Jon, why are you defending the original question with your defined coordinate system on earth and then suddenly transport yourself to the center of the milky way when you decide to Google fun facts about our galaxy?

I have talked a half a dozen times throughout this discussions of different perspectives and how the solar system moves throughout the galaxy and how our galaxy moves throughout the universe. It was probably one of my first points brought up. Viewing the movement as simply the earth revolving around the sun is a simplistic view which does not take into account a lot of other stuff going on. The movement of the solar system through the galaxy is actually much faster than the earth moves and the movement of the galaxy is even a much faster movement yet.

I understand all that. My question was why you did chose earth as your perspective for the sun-earth relationship originally and then the center of the milky way as your perspective when you gave us the fun facts about our galaxy? My follow on question would be why do you think there are fun facts about the speed of our galaxy from that perspective?

:crickets:

Jon, are you answering questions about this thread again? If so here is one you missed. TIA.

You choose your perspective which makes visualizing and/or calculations the easiest.

Which is why I keep wondering why you chose earth or any other spot inside the solar system to visualize earth and sun movement? You've introduced a lot of relative motion unnecessarily instead of just stepping outside the solar system (easiest).

 

[TobiasFunke]

I could point you to countless scientific discussions which point out that geocentric modeling is a perfectly valid and useful model, which is quite different than believing the earth is the center of the universe, which I never said. It is a perfectly valid frame of reference.

The only test that ultimately counts for whether a particular theory is true is whether it makes accurate predictions.

Geocentric theories can make accurate predictions about planetary motion. In this sense, they can't be said to be false.

But geocentric theories of planetary motion are highly complicated and convoluted compared to heliocentric theories, so heliocentric theories are generally preferred. Heliocentric theories also have the advantage of being consistent with the rest of physics (not just planetary motion), while geocentric theories would be harder to incorporate into standard theories of force and acceleration and whatnot.

You say, for example, that the earth is a perfectly valid frame of reference. But in Einstein's relativity, frames of reference are used to measure velocity -- not acceleration. The earth and sun revolve around each other, and revolution is acceleration. We can say that I am moving with respect to Cleveland, or that Cleveland is moving with respect to me, or that we are both moving with respect to Jupiter. But we do not say that I am accelerating with respect to Cleveland. Either I am accelerating or I am not -- there's no "with respect to" about it.

Since revolution involves acceleration, it is not just as valid to say that X is revolving round Y as it is to say that Y is revolving around X. In the case of the sun and the earth, they are both revolving, but the earth's revolution objectively involves more acceleration than the sun's. In that sense, the earth revolves around the sun a lot more than the sun revolves around the earth -- irrespective of any frame of reference.

Nerd mic drop!

 

[FlapJacks]

I could point you to countless scientific discussions which point out that geocentric modeling is a perfectly valid and useful model, which is quite different than believing the earth is the center of the universe, which I never said. It is a perfectly valid frame of reference.

The only test that ultimately counts for whether a particular theory is true is whether it makes accurate predictions.

Geocentric theories can make accurate predictions about planetary motion. In this sense, they can't be said to be false.

But geocentric theories of planetary motion are highly complicated and convoluted compared to heliocentric theories, so heliocentric theories are generally preferred. Heliocentric theories also have the advantage of being consistent with the rest of physics (not just planetary motion), while geocentric theories would be harder to incorporate into standard theories of force and acceleration and whatnot.

You say, for example, that the earth is a perfectly valid frame of reference. But in Einstein's relativity, frames of reference are used to measure velocity -- not acceleration. The earth and sun revolve around each other, and revolution is acceleration. We can say that I am moving with respect to Cleveland, or that Cleveland is moving with respect to me, or that we are both moving with respect to Jupiter. But we do not say that I am accelerating with respect to Cleveland. Either I am accelerating or I am not -- there's no "with respect to" about it.

Since revolution involves acceleration, it is not just as valid to say that X is revolving round Y as it is to say that Y is revolving around X. In the case of the sun and the earth, they are both revolving, but the earth's revolution objectively involves more acceleration than the sun's. In that sense, the earth revolves around the sun a lot more than the sun revolves around the earth -- irrespective of any frame of reference.

So you are saying that while the earth revolves around the sun at a greater acceleration, it is also true that the sun revolves around the earth...

 

[jon_mx]

Jon, why are you defending the original question with your defined coordinate system on earth and then suddenly transport yourself to the center of the milky way when you decide to Google fun facts about our galaxy?

I have talked a half a dozen times throughout this discussions of different perspectives and how the solar system moves throughout the galaxy and how our galaxy moves throughout the universe. It was probably one of my first points brought up. Viewing the movement as simply the earth revolving around the sun is a simplistic view which does not take into account a lot of other stuff going on. The movement of the solar system through the galaxy is actually much faster than the earth moves and the movement of the galaxy is even a much faster movement yet.

I understand all that. My question was why you did chose earth as your perspective for the sun-earth relationship originally and then the center of the milky way as your perspective when you gave us the fun facts about our galaxy? My follow on question would be why do you think there are fun facts about the speed of our galaxy from that perspective?

:crickets:

Jon, are you answering questions about this thread again? If so here is one you missed. TIA.

You choose your perspective which makes visualizing and/or calculations the easiest.

Which is why I keep wondering why you chose earth or any other spot inside the solar system to visualize earth and sun movement? You've introduced a lot of relative motion unnecessarily instead of just stepping outside the solar system (easiest).

Because I was trying to illustrate the answer to the question 'does the earth revolve around the sun?' is dependent upon the perspective you choose.

 

[Doug B]

So you are saying that while the earth revolves around the sun at a greater acceleration, it is also true that the sun revolves around the earth...

Strictly, this is not accurate -- both the sun and the earth are revolving around a common point. That common point happens to be something like a few km away from the center mass of the sun, and so is still way within the sun itself.

All planetary bodies and other objects in the solar system have this relationship with the sun. In observable terms -- laying the math aside -- the sun wobbles a bit while the planets, dwarfs, asteroids, comets, etc. revolve aroumd the sun. All this is readily apparent to, say, an observer in one of the Magellanic Clouds with an awesomely unreal telescope.

 

[Ilov80s]

Anything can be a reference point, but I'm not sure what the point is.

 

[Ilov80s]

Jon, why are you defending the original question with your defined coordinate system on earth and then suddenly transport yourself to the center of the milky way when you decide to Google fun facts about our galaxy?

I have talked a half a dozen times throughout this discussions of different perspectives and how the solar system moves throughout the galaxy and how our galaxy moves throughout the universe. It was probably one of my first points brought up. Viewing the movement as simply the earth revolving around the sun is a simplistic view which does not take into account a lot of other stuff going on. The movement of the solar system through the galaxy is actually much faster than the earth moves and the movement of the galaxy is even a much faster movement yet.

I understand all that. My question was why you did chose earth as your perspective for the sun-earth relationship originally and then the center of the milky way as your perspective when you gave us the fun facts about our galaxy? My follow on question would be why do you think there are fun facts about the speed of our galaxy from that perspective?

:crickets:

Jon, are you answering questions about this thread again? If so here is one you missed. TIA.

You choose your perspective which makes visualizing and/or calculations the easiest.

Which is why I keep wondering why you chose earth or any other spot inside the solar system to visualize earth and sun movement? You've introduced a lot of relative motion unnecessarily instead of just stepping outside the solar system (easiest).

Because I was trying to illustrate the answer to the question 'does the earth revolve around the sun?' is dependent upon the perspective you choose.

Imagine a kid is running around the outside of a house. Is the answer to which object is moving (house or kid) dependent on the "perspective"?

 

[Doug B]

Imagine a kid is running around the outside of a house. Is the answer to which object is moving (house or kid) dependent on the "perspective"?

It is, actually**, but that fact doesn't help whoever blew the poll question so vividly. Maurile's point about acceleration stands.

** from the perspective of, say, an imaginary sentient bacterium that's hitching a ride on the surface of the running kid's skin. The bacterium knows IT'S not moving, so it observes the house moving around it. But once a gust if wind blows that bacterium up in the air a ways, it can look down and see what's going on.