Concerning Tycho and his Mars campaigns, here is a report with pdf,
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JHA....29....1G/abstract
Thanks. I found that I do have part of that document, but I'm not able to download it so I just have about a dozen pages, which may be all I need (Pg 29 on, I think).
Stellar parallax had specific math with geometry predicting this would be observable.
That's clearly true today, and it was well known how parallax works. But the problem was that Copernicus had no means whatsoever to demonstrate whether or not stars were so far away that they couldn't demonstrate parallax no mater what was done in his day. He published in 1543, as you know, and it wasn't discovered for almost 300 years (Bessel, 1838, as you mention later).
In his day, it was almost ludicrous to suggest those lights on the celestial sphere were at a distance beyond what could be measured to have parallax for the Copernican model. The maximum allowable distance required is about 300 billion miles to allow a 1 arcminute (human eye resolution) parallax. [This assumes the current value for Earth's orbit, which might be overstated by 2 or 3x.]
You may recall that when Ptolemy was asked why he assumed an inner orbit for Venus (vs. outside the Solar orbit around Earth), he said that God wouldn't waste all that space. Imagine how much more odd it would have seemed to everyone back then to suggest such stellar distances and all that wasted space.
It was a fair argument against Copernicus, IMO. So what I'm saying is that 300 years from now, science could conceivably, like improved telescopes and careful observations, have something that could make that leap to demonstrate abiogenesis as a valid idea, if not hypothesis.
Unlike abiogenesis, this specific prediction was documented using the telescopes in 1838 and since then, astronomers could calculate this prediction and look for it.
Hopefully you see from above that that Copernicus had little reason to hope this would happen since no telescope was even remotely suggested in his day. Tycho, with the use of multiple observers had his best measurements (Mars of course) at 1/2 arcminute. What would be required is something closer to 0.3 arcseconds, about 100x better than the best method known.
Where is the specific prediction or predictions for abiogenesis like the math of stellar parallax calculations? It should be pointed out that stellar parallax uses known natural law *defined by specific math* to make the measurements too. Abiogenesis does not have a specific math model that predicts in a warm little pond for example, how long will it take for the living cell to evolve?
I get that it would be great to have a mathematical (the language of science) approach to abiogenesis, but there is no law that says a certain amount of math is required for a given hypothesis. There is, no doubt, biochemists who can give you lots of mathematical analysis regarding things such as the need for energy flow, which is a match, apparently, between cells and the alkaline vent fluxes.
Helio, your example of stellar parallax can be calculated, defined, and *observed* within a short period of time...
But you know this wasn't true for 300 years. I'm not saying the math for parallax wasn't available back then, indeed they both had it and used it Some probably said it falsified his model, though in a day and age where science wasn't about falsification but rather it was more about applying purpose (teleology) to scientific ideas.
But let's imagine we did have a mathematical equation we could use to observe for abiogenesis itself. But let's also imagine that those observations aren't infinite in scope (pun intended
). 300 years from now, it may be abiogenesis has long been demonstrated as having been a viable idea. Or, it maybe some other things will surface to argue against it more strongly.
..., repeatedly vs. abiogenesis that has not been observed operating in nature since Charles Darwin's letter in 1800s and lacks a specific time interval for verifying abiogenesis at work in nature on Earth today or perhaps somewhere else in the universe.
Darwin is another good example of what I'm saying.
His work was highly respected, all his books (1250 printed in the first edition, IIRC) sold out the first day, much to his surprise. But evolutionists of his day rejected his paradigm because he did not, and could not, demonstrate a biological mechanism to explain how traits are passed. He missed recognizing, or not even seeing, Mendel's results. Darwin also had no math to get to where he needed to go.
But, as with Cop's model, things happened over time that made that which was impossible in his day to advance his model, with Kepler's ellipses added, to finally become mainstream science. Also true for Darwin, of course.
Helio, you already agreed that abiogenesis cannot be falsified...
Well, I was agreeing that not finding life on Mars would not falsify abiogenesis. Whether or not a theory, or hypothesis, or a seemingly great idea, can find acceptance depends on the objective evidence. At some point in the future, we may learn enough to not bother trying to falsify it once we have shipped it off to the town I like to use for such things --Sillyville. Abiogenesis, I doubt, will end up there.
...where the stellar parallax can be if not seen and this is true for other predictions of the heliocentric solar system like Tycho Brahe's Mars campaign to refute Copernicus. There is a huge difference here between the *sciences* in my view.
It should be noted that stellar parallax also supports the Tychonic model, demonstrating that science is more than just the math, but math is the key conversation piece.