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)
If the heliocentric model is simpler and more elegant than the geocentric model, then Occam’s Razor suggests we should use the simpler model unless there’s a compelling reason otherwise.
We do know the distances to the other planets and stars. We use radar echo to figure out how far away the planets are (because we know the current speed of light) and we can measure stellar distances through parallax. Planetary mass, orbital velocity, and distance from the sun can also be calculated by tracking their motion across the sky and applying Keppler’s laws. Space probe data also helps confirm.
Of course it’s impossible to prove the earths motion using the earth’s reference frame. Everything is stationary from its own reference frame. That’s the basic premise of relative motion. Every frame of reference must be considered, not just Earth’s own reference.
If the heliocentric model is simpler and more elegant than the geocentric model, then Occam’s Razor suggests we should use the simpler model unless there’s a compelling reason otherwise.
Agreed
We do know the distances to the other planets and stars. We use radar echo to figure out how far away the planets are (because we know the current speed of light) and we can measure stellar distances through parallax. Planetary mass, orbital velocity, and distance from the sun can also be calculated by tracking their motion across the sky and applying Keppler’s laws. Space probe data also helps confirm.
We presume to know because those things are influenced by the medium through which they are traveling.
Parallax of other stars has been successful one (1) time, and that was at 0.00001 of a degree.
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)
If the heliocentric model is simpler and more elegant than the geocentric model, then Occam’s Razor suggests we should use the simpler model unless there’s a compelling reason otherwise.
We do know the distances to the other planets and stars. We use radar echo to figure out how far away the planets are (because we know the current speed of light) and we can measure stellar distances through parallax. Planetary mass, orbital velocity, and distance from the sun can also be calculated by tracking their motion across the sky and applying Keppler’s laws. Space probe data also helps confirm.
Of course it’s impossible to prove the earths motion using the earth’s reference frame. Everything is stationary from its own reference frame. That’s the basic premise of relative motion. Every frame of reference must be considered, not just Earth’s own reference.
Agreed
We presume to know because those things are influenced by the medium through which they are traveling.
Parallax of other stars has been successful one (1) time, and that was at 0.00001 of a degree.