NavList:

   

Reply

Lu wrote

> True, but then why didn't the rest of the "learned" crowd jump on the
> idea as a solution for the motion of the planets?   Or were they more
> interested in a "logically satisfying" solution than one that provided
> the easiest solution to a problem?

They were too busy trying to pound a square peg into a round whole thanks to
Aristotle, Plato, and others who told them the peg must be round. Premise
faulty, conclusion usually faulty. Faulty logic. Sort of trying to solve a
math problem when you believe 2+2=5. The celestial bodies movements, no
matter what revolved around what, *had* to move in a perfect circles at
constant velocity, so they went about putting epicycles into the orbits to
account for the "erratic" motions of the planets.  All sorts or crystal
spheres and magic moving forces.  The circle idea lasted all the way through
Copernicus and early Kepler.

There are a lot of steps between observing something, be it an apple falling
from a tree or spontaneous generation of life (nothing, then maggots then
flies, on meat), accurately measuring what was observed relative to the
observer's position, creating a model to accurately predict, then explaining
to a lead-pipe cinch why it does what it does.  All that based on
observations in our little niche in the universe; and in the historical
areas we ponder, without most of the tools we now enjoy.

So the turning point was not so much having answers to the age old
questions, but rather asking new questions. Starting with a blank sheet of
paper.  What if everything we know from the ancients is wrong?

Fast forward, what will history say about Newtonian physics, quantum
mechanics, and string theory?  We have mathematical models for the effects
of gravity/gravitation, but do we really know why two bodies attract each
other? Still sort of magic.  We just swapped out angels for gravitons. 

Bill

   

Reply