The heliocentric model was generally rejected by the ancient philosophers for three main reasons:
1) If the Earth is rotating about its axis, and orbiting around the Sun, then the Earth must be in motion. However, we cannot ``feel'' this motion. Nor does this motion give rise to any obvious observational consequences. Hence, the Earth must be stationary.
—————————————
2) If the Earth is executing a circular orbit around the Sun then the positions of the stars should be slightly different when the Earth is on opposite sides of the Sun. This effect is known as parallax. Since no stellar parallax is observable (at least, with the naked eye), the Earth must be stationary. In order to appreciate the force of this argument, it is important to realize that ancient astronomers did not suppose the stars to be significantly further away from the Earth than the planets. The celestial sphere was assumed to lie just beyond the orbit of Saturn.
—————————————
3)The geocentric model is far more philosophically attractive than the heliocentric model, since in the former model the Earth occupies a privileged position in the Universe.
<span>forces do not cancel out because they act on different bodies </span>
<span>also the forces acting on the horse is not just the force he exerts on the wagon </span>
<span>he also applies force on the ground so the static friction on the ground helps the horse move forward </span>
<span>forces acting on the horse are friction in its direction of motion and the tension opposing motion </span>
<span>if the surface has enough friction he can always move</span>
Caucuses.
If you look up each word you will learn the difference of each.
The correct answer would be option B. Transitional Argument. The second sentence in this paragraph is an example of a transitional argument. What makes this sentence a transitional argument because of the introductory word "fortunately" which signals a transition of ideas in the paragraph.
