Tycho's model certainly does not employ the Ptolemaic model whatsoever. In fact he and Longomontanus ridiculed the 'equant' of Ptolemy. Tycho adopted the dual epicycle that Copernicus used but was not his original concept. It is attributed to Arzachel the Spaniard by both Tycho and Longomontanus and I believe Copernicus also attributes it to him.
Totally agree and these are all very good questions. I honestly don't know the answers. I just accepted heliocentricity. One day after a run outside I sat and thought, 'can I really prove to myself that I just ran on a spinning, moving sphere?' It didn't make a lot of sense, that I just had a canter on a spinning ball moving at 30 km/sec, a speed that I can't comprehend. But I knew it was true, I was told it true. But I can't find the mechanical proofs. This was Einstein's whole charade - he admitted we can never mechanically prove heliocentricity. It was a thought experiment, but if I look at Brahe and Ptolemy, I don't see why 'they are wrong'. They save the phenomena just as well and explain the actual measurements much better. In general I don't think we know that much about our universe, though the establishment confidently delcares that we know everything.
Yes, science as depicted by many great writers - Orwell, Huxley, C.S Lewis - becomes all too easily the 'lights of perverted science' to quote Churchill. The history of science is littered with wrong turns. To the modern mind, trained in science propaganda, it is inconceivable that the abstraction called 'science' could ever be wrong, or take a wrong turn. The expectation is that 'science' is always right, benign and positive if not perfect. Historically there is no proof of this and in the modern world, we can see where the perversion of reality can be used to completely contradict reality and common sense - all in the name of 'science'. As you said, much of it is now arrogant bunkum, built on hocus pocus, maths and models. Money and power, not truth or curiousity, seems to be the mainspring of 'science'.
Thanks David. The more you dive into this topic, the more interesting and convoluted it gets. As Einstein admitted, 'I consider myself more of a philosopher, than a scientist'. Indeed.
Most education is a form of philosophy and in science, very much dogma. Not a single teacher or prof promoting STR for eg. understands it. If you raised your hand and asked, 'can you show me physical proof', you will be met with more maths and angry hand-waving that everyone knows it is proven. Whether or not heliocentricity as a philosophy makes sense is dependent on the data. The Science, as they do with everything, twist the failures which cannot confirm the Earth's motion, to somehow supporting the same. It is rather incredible but that is how bold they are. Anything to save the phenomena. In the next post we will look at the dozens of experiments after 1905 which again show no movement. And how many people know this? Einstein said many times, if Michelson-Morley's negative result is valid, STR is dead and heliocentricity would be unproven.
If you have read any of STR you are ahead of 95% of the population. As Einstein quipped maybe '12 people on the planet' understood STR. That was the whole point to 'save the phenomena'. Blind them with maths. If you can fix a car you are more intelligent than the rest of us including Einstein. That is something real and practical, STR is not. Kant heavily inlfuenced Mach who was maybe the greatest 'teacher' of Einstein and Kant's philosophy is bascially there is no reality. This leads to STR and to women are now men. Sussex - same county as ourselves - a blessed place, some sanity still reigns here. Unlike London.
Tycho's model certainly does not employ the Ptolemaic model whatsoever. In fact he and Longomontanus ridiculed the 'equant' of Ptolemy. Tycho adopted the dual epicycle that Copernicus used but was not his original concept. It is attributed to Arzachel the Spaniard by both Tycho and Longomontanus and I believe Copernicus also attributes it to him.
Totally agree and these are all very good questions. I honestly don't know the answers. I just accepted heliocentricity. One day after a run outside I sat and thought, 'can I really prove to myself that I just ran on a spinning, moving sphere?' It didn't make a lot of sense, that I just had a canter on a spinning ball moving at 30 km/sec, a speed that I can't comprehend. But I knew it was true, I was told it true. But I can't find the mechanical proofs. This was Einstein's whole charade - he admitted we can never mechanically prove heliocentricity. It was a thought experiment, but if I look at Brahe and Ptolemy, I don't see why 'they are wrong'. They save the phenomena just as well and explain the actual measurements much better. In general I don't think we know that much about our universe, though the establishment confidently delcares that we know everything.
Yes, science as depicted by many great writers - Orwell, Huxley, C.S Lewis - becomes all too easily the 'lights of perverted science' to quote Churchill. The history of science is littered with wrong turns. To the modern mind, trained in science propaganda, it is inconceivable that the abstraction called 'science' could ever be wrong, or take a wrong turn. The expectation is that 'science' is always right, benign and positive if not perfect. Historically there is no proof of this and in the modern world, we can see where the perversion of reality can be used to completely contradict reality and common sense - all in the name of 'science'. As you said, much of it is now arrogant bunkum, built on hocus pocus, maths and models. Money and power, not truth or curiousity, seems to be the mainspring of 'science'.
Thanks David. The more you dive into this topic, the more interesting and convoluted it gets. As Einstein admitted, 'I consider myself more of a philosopher, than a scientist'. Indeed.
Most education is a form of philosophy and in science, very much dogma. Not a single teacher or prof promoting STR for eg. understands it. If you raised your hand and asked, 'can you show me physical proof', you will be met with more maths and angry hand-waving that everyone knows it is proven. Whether or not heliocentricity as a philosophy makes sense is dependent on the data. The Science, as they do with everything, twist the failures which cannot confirm the Earth's motion, to somehow supporting the same. It is rather incredible but that is how bold they are. Anything to save the phenomena. In the next post we will look at the dozens of experiments after 1905 which again show no movement. And how many people know this? Einstein said many times, if Michelson-Morley's negative result is valid, STR is dead and heliocentricity would be unproven.
If you have read any of STR you are ahead of 95% of the population. As Einstein quipped maybe '12 people on the planet' understood STR. That was the whole point to 'save the phenomena'. Blind them with maths. If you can fix a car you are more intelligent than the rest of us including Einstein. That is something real and practical, STR is not. Kant heavily inlfuenced Mach who was maybe the greatest 'teacher' of Einstein and Kant's philosophy is bascially there is no reality. This leads to STR and to women are now men. Sussex - same county as ourselves - a blessed place, some sanity still reigns here. Unlike London.