I did not think it was a prevailing theory. Now I’m curious about what you wanted to accomplish by asking that question. Why would it matter either way?
As to what I am trying to accomplish: your comments, suggesting you have some theory about how the planets move that somehow scientists have missed, suggests to me some basic misunderstanding about how science or scientific knowledge works, and I’m trying to get at that, to possibly help you see something you are missing.
I don’t even know what you are talking about when you say ‘theory’. I can’t remember ever seeing a model of the planets rotating around the sun presented as a ‘theory.’ It’s just a model to explain what is understood about it, and of course a simplification. Of course scientists understand that the sun is also moving and if you combine that motion with the orbiting of the planets you of course get a spiral.
Oh, well that’s good to know. Thanks! I guess I need to update my own knowledge of what prevailing thought is.
Did you really think that what you were able to infer from basic knowledge about the motion of the planets was not realized by scientists?
I did not think it was a prevailing theory. Now I’m curious about what you wanted to accomplish by asking that question. Why would it matter either way?
As to what I am trying to accomplish: your comments, suggesting you have some theory about how the planets move that somehow scientists have missed, suggests to me some basic misunderstanding about how science or scientific knowledge works, and I’m trying to get at that, to possibly help you see something you are missing.
I don’t even know what you are talking about when you say ‘theory’. I can’t remember ever seeing a model of the planets rotating around the sun presented as a ‘theory.’ It’s just a model to explain what is understood about it, and of course a simplification. Of course scientists understand that the sun is also moving and if you combine that motion with the orbiting of the planets you of course get a spiral.