Okay, this constant bickering about the earth's rotation has tempted me back to SPELL IT OUT for some of you guys.
1. It was me who raised the scenario in the first place.
2. I did it as an example that from the scientific position (post Einstein) THERE IS NO PRIVILEGED REFERENCE FRAME FOR MOTION. Science scouldn't care less whether "an observer" placed himself on a rotational earth or not ! Successful prediction can operate either way.
3. The STANDARD MODEL, functionally adopted by modern astronomers is for a rotating earth (etc) on the basis of the ELEGANCE OF THE MODEL FOR THEIR CONSENSUAL PURPOSES.
(Anybody not understanding points 2 and 3 would flunk Philosophy of Science 101
4. If you are honest with yourself (big IF !), you will have observed that we only
use the word "reality" in actual life is as part of a social situations where "delusion","points of view" or "reasons" are being debated. Each protagonist accuses the other of "subjectivity" and claims for himself"objectivity". These are both LAYMAN'S CONCEPTS whose categorization ultimately rests on appeal to consensus. A concept of "reality"is irrelevant when everyday assumptions remain functional.
5. It follows that because our purposes and model modifications shift, and that we only have indirect access
to what we conceive as external to us by virtue of our distinct physiology, that "reality" is context dependent, species specific, culture specific, consensual and negotiable.
The irony of this analysis is that other than addressing the misconceptions about the status of scientific models, it is entirely based on common sense rather than abstruse philosophy.