Aren't we subatomically where we were 500 years ago in astronomy, ridiculous theories to preserve 'the atom'?

Question

I used to be extremely interested in science, particularly astronomy and things at the sub-microscopic level, building blocks of matter, etc. Then just about the time I was contemplating a career in science or technology, the whole damn shebang exploded into nonsense in my humble opinion.

All of a sudden we went beyond mesons and pi-mesons and neutrinos to quarks and last I heard over two hundred different types of sub-atomic particles and entities. The whole thing reminds me of the period when astronomical data were being rapidly collected (Brahe, etc.) and all sorts of weird curliecues were being plotted with retro-orbits etc. to maintain the illusion of a workable GEOCENTRIC system.

Of course, the truth, beauty and simplicity of the heliocentric system replaced all of that and the foolishness all then fell aside . . . so

Why should we NOT believe that we're in the same exact stage of knowledge and theory at the subatomic level now that we were 500 years ago in astronom

Answer 1

I don't think you're giving Geocentrism enough credit.

First, there are micro-orbits on the orbital chart for heliocentric perspective as well. The reason heliocentric theory won out is because there are LESS micro-orbits to calculate, ergo it's the simpler theory, ergo it meets physic's requirement to describe phenomenon in the simplest most accurate terms possible. Even so, Einstein's theory of relativity showed the world that niether heliocentrism nor geocentrism were entirely stand-alone correct. By relativity, ANY point can be considered the center of the universe with all other points orbiting it.

Where does this come in to what you're saying? Science certainly doesn't know everything. there are PLENTY of hair-brained ideas that describe the way things work. Knowing those different theories is fun and, well, sometimes the craziest ideas turn out to be right. Who would have ever thought that extremely heavy objects could bend light before Einstein had that "crazy" idea just to preserve his theories. As an aside, we know bohr's model of the atom is naive and innacurate, but it's a good conceptual model for beginning students.

Answer 2

Because now we know enough to do quantum computing, to design electron microscopes and MRI machines, and make atomic weapons. There will always be something new to discover out there - no matter how much we learn.