This question requires explanation. Discussion on the second day of Galileo’s Two Chief World Systems raises the point.
Simplicio, taking the position of those opposed to Copernicus, doubts the Earth moves; if Earth moved it would have to move at too great a speed. Sagredo and Salviati say this objection has no merit. The fixed stars have a radius far greater than the Earth, and yet the implied speed, much greater than that of the Earth in the Copernican conceptual reference frame, does not undermine the belief of the anti-Copernicans in their objection. Here is an inconsistency.
The inconsistency is not encountered in modern times that takes for granted the heliocentric model of the solar system. This argument, based on the large radius of the distant stars, is one not usually encountered. One supposes that is so, because it is unnecessary. But then the question arises. Does society lose or forget these old insights that are discarded once new conceptual reference frames take hold? Or, perhaps, is nothing lost?
Hello @Robert Shour,
On the question, "Does society lose or forget these old insights that are discarded once new conceptual reference frames take hold?" Yes, in the sense that too much "knowledge" eclipses common sense. A case in point is what I call the "Wimbledon Phenomenon". A couple years ago, British social scientists conducted a survey among 1) Housewives, and 2) Tennis trainers, asking who would win the next Wimbledon championship. The housewives out-performed the tennis trainers by a large margin.
It could also be argued that the Friedman-Robertson-Walker metric (as "a new conceptual reference frame") and its attendant big bang theory and LambdaCDM cosmological model have eclipsed all common sense about the nature of the universe, insofar as huge contradictions now exist in standard cosmology, for example related to Dark Energy, which has a phantom equation of state p