In fact knowledge is the thing that allows you to choose which constants to calculate at all. It is not intuitive why a light in the sky should have a size. What is the size of a sunset? What is the size of a rainbow? What is the size of an eclipse?
Knowledge is not the mere accumulation of measurement. It is the organizational structure that allows you to separate between what we can and cannot measure, what we have measured before and have not measured yet. It is what tells us whether "the" sun is a singleton or that "a" rainbow today is not the same today as tomorrow.
> who don't know history
I think you would benefit from reading up on the current consensus among historians on the Conflict Thesis before presenting it to those of us who have caught up on our Ferngren, Barker, etc.
Conflict Thesis has nothing to do with the facts I've presented. I haven't invented any. Where have you found any error in these?
And no, this is also not true: "really it took the invention of the telescope"
It's Tycho Brahe who measured enough:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe
"he was the last of the major naked eye astronomers, working without telescopes for his observations."
I don't understand why people who don't know history try to argue here. In fact, I think I know, you don't have to try to explain me.