a20f8d87   
   XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics.particle   
   From: jeroen@nospam.please   
      
   On 2012-06-05 16:43, Big Dog wrote:   
   > On Jun 5, 8:53 am, Jeroen Belleman  wrote:   
   >> On 2012-06-05 00:26, Poutnik wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> Unfortunately, it works...   
   >>   
   >> So did epicycles.   
   >   
   > And just so we're clear, what was wrong with epicycles, in your view?   
   > If you say, "It was the wrong explanation," then you've missed the   
   > whole point.   
      
   Epicycles modeled the observed movement of the planets pretty well,   
   but had a lot of parameters with seemingly arbitrary values. It   
   afforded no insight in the --finally very simple-- Newtonian laws   
   that underlie these movements.   
      
   There's a clear analogy with the current state of the standard model   
   of physics here. Granted, this doesn't go any length towards a   
   convincing argument that a simple small set of laws must exist that   
   explains it better.   
      
   Jeroen Belleman   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)