Something I've wondered, presumably for several hundred years, Ptolemy's observations could be thought of as the standard model, and consistently day after day, year after year, the sun rose in the east and set in the west to 5 or 6 sigma etc.. that it could be said was proof he was correct.
Ptolemy is often spoken in the pejorative, but for so long until the man from Krakow came along, how could you prove otherwise?
Does this situation apply today and that a future "Copernicus" will turn the Higgs Boson on its head?
Genuinely interested how a consistent set of findings which correspond to predictions, can really be said to prove a discovery?
But remember, his theory had huge holes, such as the movement of the planets. Newton's model, too, explained much more, but still not everything, and Einstein then helped fill that gap. It's not a case of Model A is 100% right but, look!, Model B is also 100% right and better. It's more like Model A is 97%, Model B 99.1%,...
"The Egyptians pride themselves on being the most ancient people in the world. In their authentic annals ... one may read that since they have been in existence, the course of the stars has changed direction four times, and that the sun has set twice in that part of the sky where it rises today."
