>>23659
>But if this always ends with philosophical nonsense, is there a way to discuss it properly?
Philosophy has been looking for the answers to the very same questions for ages now, and the final answer has been never found. The same applies to physics, the deeper physicists go, the more discouraging answers they find. So, should we stop? I don't think so, for some reason the problem of reality seems to be very attractive, and even we're sure there is no obtainable answer, it's fun to ponder about it. At the end, this kind of activity is as pointless as any other one.

>Stationary Sun model is less practical I guess, although it has some advantages over Earth model.
Sure, if we considering only interaction of the Earth and the Sun, it doesn't matter which is moving and which is not (actually, it would be impossible to determine). But since there are other celestial bodies moving around, the more elegant theory to explain than movement is the one with stationary Sun. Of course, that kind of knowledge is totally irrelevant if you're just traveling from one city to another. If your journey is relatively short, you don't even need to consider the shape of the Earth, you can assume it's flat.

>>23663
>This is the main problem with philosophy. It always ends in this.
True. But there is a small detail. Unable to find the answer, a philosopher obtains some side-answer (which seems to be negligible at the first glance).
I know that I know nothing, but the others do not even know that.