To start with, the idea as it’s expressed is wrong. The objects on the sky that we call planets are proper planets and not stars or moons.
It’s quite common for ideas to exist where we lack the ability to prove whether or not they are true. It’s true for many mathematical theorems that they exist for years without there being a proof whether or not the theorem is true.
Unfortunately, I knowledge of how the mathematical community deal with theorems where the truth status in unknown is limited but it might be possible that how it deals with them might be useful for other domains where unproven ideas might currently have a higher chance of being seen as crank ideas.
To start with, the idea as it’s expressed is wrong. The objects on the sky that we call planets are proper planets and not stars or moons.
I disagree, but perhaps I was not clear enough in my description of the idea. In particular I was not using the modern definitions of sun, star, moon, and planet. The ancient definition of “planet” was an object that wanders across the sky. Also, by “moon” I was trying to mean a body which shines by reflected light rather than producing light of its own like the sun does.
I do like your suggestion to look at mathematics for how to deal with statements whose truth is unknown.
To start with, the idea as it’s expressed is wrong. The objects on the sky that we call planets are proper planets and not stars or moons.
It’s quite common for ideas to exist where we lack the ability to prove whether or not they are true. It’s true for many mathematical theorems that they exist for years without there being a proof whether or not the theorem is true.
Unfortunately, I knowledge of how the mathematical community deal with theorems where the truth status in unknown is limited but it might be possible that how it deals with them might be useful for other domains where unproven ideas might currently have a higher chance of being seen as crank ideas.
I disagree, but perhaps I was not clear enough in my description of the idea. In particular I was not using the modern definitions of sun, star, moon, and planet. The ancient definition of “planet” was an object that wanders across the sky. Also, by “moon” I was trying to mean a body which shines by reflected light rather than producing light of its own like the sun does.
I do like your suggestion to look at mathematics for how to deal with statements whose truth is unknown.
If you care about ancient definition, shining light by reflection doesn’t seem to be a popular way to think about moons.
Good point. I really could have done a better job of getting my point across.