Hey, don’t shoot the messenger.
As before, the statements were “just to be a pain”.
“it’s the one that matches the observations and matches all that is known about the physical behavior of matter (including gravity)”
Matching observation of matter... anything like matching the observation of the quata? Nearest my recollection, even the “natural science” of observations of matter and movement still does not claim to be definative. Science itself even holds that.
Thus the debate on so many crevo threads about evolution. The Darwinists insist that science will continue to provide new information previously unheld by man (or uncomprehended). -No, this is not a segue into an evolution debate, it is a point that is easy to reference about science and the whole “True/False, Right/Wrong” debate.
If you say so.
When NASA scientists and engineers sent the Magellan probe to Venus, when they placed the Rovers on Mars, when they sent the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft to Saturn and Saturn's moon Titan, which model do you suppose they used to determine the flight paths these spacecraft used to arrive at their destinations? The modern version with the earth and other planets orbiting the sun, or the Ptolemaic (geocentric) version with its epicycles?