B both options are correct
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.
Answer:
Microsociology
Explanation:
Microsociology is a little bit different compared to other branches of sociology because it only focus its study to human interactions in the smallest scale. It act as some sort of complementary knowledge for sociology as a whole.
From the excerpt above, Jamal to record his family's habit along with their daily interaction. Since he did not observe the connection between his family and the society around them, we can conclude that this study is a part of micro sociology.
No, there can be no equality if there is separation. Take for example segregation, where African Americans were separated from whites in public facilities like schools and restaurants. The two groups of people did not receive equal treatment, and therefore there was no true equality.
