Fwiw, they’re both accurate models when it comes to predicting locations of celestial objects.
The whole parallax debate was a good case study in this: the geocentric argument was that “if the planet revolves around the Sun, then that means a fixed celestial body should appear at different angles of incident at different parts of the year. Since they couldn’t notice any difference, they stayed geocentric. What they DIDN’T know was that those objects are extremely distant, rendering the angle distances virtually the same.
Geocentric had a hard time explaining retrograde motion of the planets, which prompted the heliocentric model in the first place.
Im not invested in either model because Im sold on the Proto-Saturn hypothesis which posits earth, Saturn, Mars, and Venus all aligned axially in a Z-pinch. (I’m shilling for electric universe/plasma theory). It’s just way more interesting and makes a lot more sense given the Greeks referred to Saturn as Helios AND Kronos (Father Time).
Fwiw, they’re both accurate models when it comes to predicting locations of celestial objects. The whole parallax debate was a good case study in this: the geocentric argument was that “if the planet revolves around the Sun, then that means a fixed celestial body should appear at different angles of incident at different parts of the year. Since they couldn’t notice any difference, they stayed geocentric. What they DIDN’T know was that those objects are extremely distant, rendering the angle distances virtually the same.
Geocentric had a hard time explaining retrograde motion of the planets, which prompted the heliocentric model in the first place.
Im not invested in either model because Im sold on the Proto-Saturn hypothesis which posits earth, Saturn, Mars, and Venus all aligned axially in a Z-pinch. (I’m shilling for electric universe/plasma theory). It’s just way more interesting and makes a lot more sense given the Greeks referred to Saturn as Helios AND Kronos (Father Time).