On May 16, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
> John Doty 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
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 20:52 +0200, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
> John Doty 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.
Epicycles really reminds me to gEDA.
Both were great
John Doty 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 fo
3 matches
Mail list logo
