nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 209:
Line 209: +
Talk:Geocentric theory (view source)
Revision as of 12:14, November 2, 2008
, 12:14, November 2, 2008→Jupiter moons: Too many fudge factors.
==Jupiter moons==
==Jupiter moons==
I don't agree with the latest edits by Samd. Why do the moons of Jupiter necessarily cause a problem for geocentric theory? Why is it better to say, "the assumption that Earth lies at its center"? Maybe it was an assumption, or maybe not. Either way it could be geocentric theory. I am not sure it is even known why Ptolemy put the Earth at the center. What flaws were found in the 1500s? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:19, 2 November 2008 (EST)
I don't agree with the latest edits by Samd. Why do the moons of Jupiter necessarily cause a problem for geocentric theory? Why is it better to say, "the assumption that Earth lies at its center"? Maybe it was an assumption, or maybe not. Either way it could be geocentric theory. I am not sure it is even known why Ptolemy put the Earth at the center. What flaws were found in the 1500s? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:19, 2 November 2008 (EST)
: I don't know specifically how the moons affected it, but my understanding is not that the geocentric theory couldn't explain thing like them, but that in order to keep explaining all the new observations they had to keep making ''ad hoc'' variations to the theory. A bit like the Big Bang today needs the fudge factors of dark matter and dark energy to keep the Big Bang as an explanation. In the end, it just got to the point where there were so many fudge factors that the load on the theory became unrealistic. Probably the key word is "adequately"; geocentric theory could explain it, but only at a stretch, not "adequately". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 2 November 2008 (EST)