John Doty <j...@noqsi.com> writes: > Because when the theory is all epicycles and no physics, there's no > foundation upon which to stand.
Epicycles are no less physics than Keplers Laws. They described the observed ephemerides of planets just fine (for the time). Kepler replaced them by ellipses because he found the math turns out easier that way, but there is no more physics in there than in Ptolemaeus math. It is often the case that the wrong choice of reference frame makes the math more complicated, but not necessarily wrong. Currently we believe that Einstein got the math right, at least as precise as we can measure. Does that make the GRT more physics than Kelpers laws or epicycles? You are right, though, epicycles are no good foundation to go any further, neither is general relativity. Kepler may fit just fine, simple Euklidian geometry in a plane. -- Stephan _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
