Glenn wrote:
>>>Gordie wrote:
>>The real reason physics reject geocentrism is that its accommodation very
seriously messes up the simple description we have all been taught; a lot of
simple mathematical order would be lost in the process. Thus, at great cost,
the language of appearance can be sustained within the framework of physics.
<<
I hate to attempt a correction of Gordie, but I believe the reason physics
and astronomy rejects geocentrism is because of stellar parallaxes. I can
not find a quotation on this, but I beleive that the final nail in the coffin
of ptolemaic astronomy was in 1838 with the measurement of parallax. I may
be off on the date.
In a geocentric universe, there is no explanation for the slight yearly
wobble in the position of stars. Each star exhibits maximum excursion in
their apparent position at different times of the year depending upon the
star's right ascension. Stars near the earth's orbital plane show a linear
parallax. That is, the star goes back and forth along a line. relatively
near stars in the direction of the north pole make small circular motions
against the background stars.
This can not be explained by geocentrism.<<<
I don't know for sure but suspect/believe Glenn's last statement is not
absolutely true - only effectively true.
The important point - which I fear has been left out of this discussion -
is that science opts not for mere explanations of data but rather for
explanations which reflect order. The geocentric model became unorderly
as soon as enough data became available to make this clear.
What does this say about the evolution debate?
Gordie