To a naive observer, or even to a naked eye astronomer, all three give pretty decent predictions over the course of a few decades.
Ignoring for the moment my huge confusion between Copernicus and Kepler, I don’t see why I care that naive observers can’t tell the difference between Kepler and Ptolemy—just like I don’t care that a naive observer can’t tell the difference between Newton and Einstein.
I don’t see why I care that naive observers can’t tell the difference between Kepler and Ptolemy—just like I don’t care that a naive observer can’t tell the difference between Newton and Einstein.
It is possible that I interpreted “Because my impression was that “Copernicus is better than Ptolemy” pays rent pretty much immediately” badly but I guess I didn’t see months of observation using telescopes would be what I would normally call “pretty much immediately” then. But this may be just an issue of timespan and equipment that is called to mind for “immediate”.
Ignoring for the moment my huge confusion between Copernicus and Kepler, I don’t see why I care that naive observers can’t tell the difference between Kepler and Ptolemy—just like I don’t care that a naive observer can’t tell the difference between Newton and Einstein.
It is possible that I interpreted “Because my impression was that “Copernicus is better than Ptolemy” pays rent pretty much immediately” badly but I guess I didn’t see months of observation using telescopes would be what I would normally call “pretty much immediately” then. But this may be just an issue of timespan and equipment that is called to mind for “immediate”.