[dr_dshiv]

Nothing. His model actually fit the data worse than epicycles. He just thought it was a more sensible approach that matched the Pythagorean opinion.

It wasn’t until Kepler that a geocentric model involving ellipses actually was more predictive.

Might be worth returning to the Pythagorean interpretation (which Bohr discussed): All is number. The world is made of math, not stuff.

[wahern]

> It wasn’t until Kepler that a geocentric model involving ellipses actually was more predictive.

You mean heliocentric?

[dr_dshiv]

Thanks, my bad.