You're also incorrect, there's a set of positive claims that have been made concerning the shape, size, density, speed in multiple different vectors (around the sun, sun around the galaxy, galaxy relative to others) that are not objectively proven. The onus is on the one making the positive claims more than those who point out the flaws in those claims.
Well, you can start with the heliocentric model, where a geocentric model operates equally well. It's not been proven and could not be within a planetary reference because of the relative motion.
The heliocentric model is proffered because it is more simple to draw, and for the philosophical reasoning of not wanting to have the earth in a special position.
The geocentric model doesn’t work, it required epicycles and endless modifications to those epicycles to model the movement of the other planets. The heliocentric model better and more accurately models planetary motion using orbital mechanics. Copernicus and Galileo started poking holes in the geocentric model centuries ago. It was the Catholics who had erroneous philosophical reasons for wanting the earth to be the center of creation.
It does work, it's just not as elegant or simple for the reasons you mentioned.
They poked holes at them for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones.
This also comes to the second assumption, that the distances between those bodies are known, when the best they could be called are estimates or presumptions.
(Don't worry, I'm not suggesting that the earth is stationary, just among the objectively unprovable from an earthly reference frame)
Billions of dollars per year.
You're also incorrect, there's a set of positive claims that have been made concerning the shape, size, density, speed in multiple different vectors (around the sun, sun around the galaxy, galaxy relative to others) that are not objectively proven. The onus is on the one making the positive claims more than those who point out the flaws in those claims.
Which claims specifically haven’t been proven?
Well, you can start with the heliocentric model, where a geocentric model operates equally well. It's not been proven and could not be within a planetary reference because of the relative motion.
The heliocentric model is proffered because it is more simple to draw, and for the philosophical reasoning of not wanting to have the earth in a special position.
The geocentric model doesn’t work, it required epicycles and endless modifications to those epicycles to model the movement of the other planets. The heliocentric model better and more accurately models planetary motion using orbital mechanics. Copernicus and Galileo started poking holes in the geocentric model centuries ago. It was the Catholics who had erroneous philosophical reasons for wanting the earth to be the center of creation.
It does work, it's just not as elegant or simple for the reasons you mentioned.
They poked holes at them for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones.
This also comes to the second assumption, that the distances between those bodies are known, when the best they could be called are estimates or presumptions.
(Don't worry, I'm not suggesting that the earth is stationary, just among the objectively unprovable from an earthly reference frame)