--- "Bill Arnold" wrote in wsm-7958:
>
> "Nico Benschop" <n.benschop@c...> wrote:
> >
> > --- "Bill Arnold" wrote in 7956:
> > > > > Either the Sun goes round the Earth,
> > > > > or the Earth goes round the Sun.
> > > >
> > > > I take exception to this Bill:
> > > > there is an infinity of alternatives
> > >
> > > Nico, I take exception to your exception...
> > > Which model is correct? Copernicus or Ptolemy?
> >
> > It's very simple:
> > for accuracy and simplicity I would prefer Copernicus' model.
>
> Great. Now we agree on something. Perception is wrong,
> and analysis is correct: the Earth travels round the Sun.
>
> And isn't that the basis of physics: objective agreement by
> different observers about the value of facts to statements of
> truth and certainty about things? -- Bill Arnold

NB: You sound like Bush "I don't do nuance";-)

You conveniently skip the essence of my message, Bill. Namely
that 'objective' (as absolute fact gathering) is NOT an absolute,
but depends on an agreed context - which unfortunately is usually
taken as 'understood', hence not mentioned --> the cause of many a
dispute. The Earth _definitely_ circling around the Sun only became
'obvious' after realizing the context of the planetary system as a
whole, the need for a simpler model than Ptolemeus' epi-cycles, and
the insight that the Earth might NOT be the center of the Universe
(contrary to Biblical/Church wisdom). It cost Geordano Bruno his
life (at the stake) to suggest there might be other planets like the
Earth, with alien life on it. Just imagine that, Bill!

Ciao, Nico.