good science?

[EdRegis]

Martin Hewlett writes:

>The Ptolemeic model did not fail to explain parallax.  In fact, 
>parallax is a *prediction* of the Copernican model.  
>Parallax was not observed (i.e., observation made) until the 
>19th century, when instrumentation had improved sufficiently. 

I'm not sure about your history, but I cannot check it one way or the
other at the moment.  My point was that whereas people often parrot the
line that the Ptolemaic system explained "everything," parallax is one
fact of empirical reality that it did not explain.  

Now let me ask you: How about nutation?  This was observed in the time of
the Greeks, and it is not explained by the Ptolemaic system so far as I
know, was it?    

Ed
edregis at aol.com/"186,000 miles per second is not just a good idea, it's
the law!"