I remember reading years ago, that epicycles were added to epicycles in order to improve the predictions with observations. "Someone" then observed that in the limit of an infinite number of epicycles that it matched the predictions from the heliocentric / elliptical model -- and, of course, the actual observations.
to expand, the fact that epicentric orbits are a form of fourier series approximation means that any path can be traced by epicentric orbits of different sizes and speeds
@@heyheyjj search for something like ``3Blue1Brown Fourier'' and you'll find some very interesting animations as well as info on how to make ?arbitrary? shapes.
When you get the final answer right but your working was wrong. Edit: Thankyou to all of you that explained why my statement was incorrect (oh and thanks for teaching another lost soul how to read...they need it tbh)
@@Phasguy Chill man. The video itself said that while studying one thing, someone discovered something else. The comment is referencing that, not saying he's incorrect. They're literally agreeing with him.
@@Phasguy He’s basically saying that both approaches conclude to the same correct answer, but having the earth as the center requires way more complex calculations.
I love how taking a step back and trying to view it from a different perspective can help things make sense without having to change anything. It makes me wonder what else would become clear to me from stepping out of my own shoes
If you could step out of your shoes to the point where you could see the entire universe you'd probably be able to answer every question astronomers have ever had😮... And there are so many questions that will never be answered until we are able to do this
Yes, you could conclude that they were all just religious idiots... or maybe this comment: "Goes to show that people in the past weren't stupid and how, based on incomplete evidence, you could draw the wrong conclusion with the right facts"
I just finished my Astronomy: Intro to the Universe class this spring semester and never fully understood epicycles, this video explained them perfectly in less than 1 minute
@@zerada00 sure. I didn't mean to be rude honestly. The mistake in the video is that Mars's epicycle is smaller than the sun's orbit. In reality, Mars is never between earth and the sun
@@Platypus333 Indeed. If Mars is on the same 'side' of the sun as us, it's quite a lot shorter to send a mission (it's a bit more complicated than that, as you don't simply shoot something straight ahead towards the destination but have to calculate for lateral velocity and orbiting, though).
When you’re dead set on a certain model (Ptolemy and the Greeks believing the Earth was the center of the universe), you will stop at nothing to prove that it is correct.
@@diegomarti0749he wasn't. I'm Protestant but this is a blood libel. The pope or whatever bishop was actually very enthusiastic about Galileo's theories but Galileo decided to commit an unforced error, overtly attacking him and depicting him as a fool in a satire he wrote, PLUS he never even bothered to prove his theory. That's what got him on the s*t list
That’s part of why Galileo was rejected. He did not account for elliptical orbits in his equations, and so his predictions were actually less accurate than the Ptolemaic model. It wasn’t until Kepler that this changed.
@ no, I did not “just make it up.” This is common knowledge. My source is “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” by Galileo Galilei. You can also read “The Galileo Affair” by Dr. Maurice Finocchiaro (available from the University of California Press)
I know people trash everything that isn't standardized education, but I've always admired this model and think it's a great reminder that the sciences are evolving tools based on how we understand our biological perceptions against broader reality. To "believe in science" undercuts what science is: a dynamic toolbox we add and remove from to improve how we handle our perceptions, and not something to cling to, even if our current, man-made equations line up with observations. New studies always seem crazy, because most are, but even more accurate models spend some time in the looney bin because most people cling to what they've been taught from others, and we as individuals would benefit in seeing a bit of ourselves in the older sciences who were confident in outdated views.
Well said! It's amazing how smart people can be, but we must always stay skeptical. This is just one of many stories that show how true genius can still lack a critical piece of data that makes an entire worldview false. Always be flexible in your thinking, you never know when that piece of data will enter your life and make you question everything!
@@PallyChan The only caveat to something like this are scientific laws. Examples of which are those that break 2nd law of thermodynamics. e.g. "Free energy" devices.
not really, laws can also be disproven or be incomplete. Its just really unlikely, since they remain so consistently true in every case, but its always possible.@@akappleby
@@buycraft911miner2 I agree. Though I feel that most people need to understand that laws aren't as bendable or even as breakable as news media sensationalism would have them believe. And that scientific articles or papers that claim to "Break known laws of nature" need to be looked at with extreme scrutiny.
nah cus this model also fails to predict ALOT of other stuff that only gravity could help predict. and even then we didn't fully understand the orbits of the planets around the solar system until einstein came in with general relativity which allowed us to understand mercury's orbit better.
@sobbles6242 epicycles in the ptolemaic system are just examples of a fourier series. Mathematically accounting for gravity and the helios system lets you use fourier series. Shut up nerd
@@sobbles6242 That is the reason you need to show your work, A right answear don´t matter. It is if you can build on it or redo it with another situation that you can use it in your life.
The video oversimplifies it. Such simple epicycle is equivalent to _circular_ heliocentric orbit, which is only a rough approximation of the actual elliptical orbit.
Hey WelchLabs! Just came across this short after not seeing anything by you for years and totally forgot about you. Just wanted to let you know: you taught me python. You brought me on my track to learn data science and deep learning. I am now the Lead Data&AI Architect at a tech company in Germany, responsible for managing the data & ai initiatives of the entire company and I have 6 years as a data scientist and data engineer behind me. All because one video of yours got me thinking. Thank you.
@@ShadowShadow-j8c "Center" in which respect? I mean, yes, you can define it that way, but there is nothing that makes earth somehow special. For the movement, mainly gravitational forces are at play, and regardless if you use Newtonian or relativistic gravity, the influence of the sun is much bigger on earth than the other way around, so it makes more sense to define the sun as the center of this system (as it makes sense to define earth as the center of the moon-earth system).
Yeah, it's fascinating. It happens a lot in physics actually. For example Newtonian mechanics is observationally correct to a very high precision, but epistemologically completely wrong - as is all classical physics.
@@ShadowShadow-j8c no its not. there are still problems with the zodiac preferences not alining with what we could actually observe. there is a reason we threw it the fuck out when galileo and especially newton came with their model
@@HerbertLandei Yes there's is nothing special about earth, I meant that this is possible to choose the earth as centre and even write other gravitational law which would work perfectly fine, but of course it would be much more complicated than our current law
I mean that’s not impossible but quantum theory works incredibly well for what it is designed to do. If there is a new break through that happens quantum theory most likely will not completely discarded
@@johndoe7017 I'm just saying they'll potentially find something mathematically equivalent that has a more reasonable physical interpretation. I know there's Bell's theorem, but modern physicists have gotten too defensive of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. They act like it's not important to understand what's really going on, and that it's not real science. The founders of quantum mechanics made their students scared to question their formulation, and that mentality still exists today.
"I'm glad we have our supersciences now. I'd go crazy to live in the archaic 21st century, when the Church mandated a belief in spatial dimensions and superscience was held back by the fanatics of relativity and the periodic table. I don't understand how they couldn't conclude from basic observations the Background Causality Potential, Lumina Brane Phase Approach, and to not constantly deny the higher beings' insistent communications and resource offerings with us under the excuse of physical senses not picking them up."
FYI This is not Ptolemy’s model. Ptolemy had the earth offset from the center and the center of the epicycle moving at a non-uniform speed. The model here was developed by Apollonius of Perga.
When that random person claiming to make a correction on an educational video about planetary orbits goes by “GalileosTelescope”, you probably should listen to him.
@@argentum3919yeah that’s the word in the streets… apparently it appears he may have fudged his data a bit to make his model fit. It was noticed and corrected by later muslim astronomers. But despite it being known his model didn’t work, it still took some 1500 years for someone (Kepler) to come up with a model that did better.
@@argentum3919 Aristarchus of Samos had a heliocentric model, but not the same as Keplers. His had circular orbits with constant orbital speed, while Kepler had elliptical orbits with the sun at a focus, and non-uniform orbital speed. They’re not the same model.
I've been watching Orb On The Movement of Earth and they showed an example of a geocentric model (based off ptolemy's) and it looked really cool. Thankfully the universe doesn't actually work like that because it would be chaotic
Thinking of it this way actually makes the concept of epicycles way more understandable. Like I’m only used to hearing them in the context of it being a clearly wrong theory of the solar system that simply added extra unjustifiable movements to the cosmos to keep earth at the center. But if you think of it just as a circular orbit going around another circular orbit, it’s actually not that strange. If you could observe earths moon from the sun, you might see similar epicycles (but, in that case, you’d also see the earth itself much more readily, so there’s that, lol)
This is why astronomers in the Middle Ages deserve more credit. They weren’t dumb idiots for believing geocentrism… it’s the default position a civilization starts at, and their math made sense and checked out in many ways. It was the Church (which single-handedly funded and advanced astronomy as a field of science as its biggest supporter for centuries) using a scientific method and careful scrutiny to move from one model to accepting another more accurate model. The Church criticized Galileo because his math didn’t add up and he couldn’t provide explanations for his model’s discrepancies (and he was also a total asshole so that didn’t help him either)
@CatholicSamurai No. No. Dumb idiots way back when. People were absolutely attempting to make sense of their world but didn't have the best instruments to do so. But with today's technology, how fo you explain the FLAT EARTH believers and moon landing deniers that exist? And there are a LOT of them!
@@michamusGalileo had bad math through using perfect elliptical circles rather than slightly oval ones. Therefore his mathematical predictions weren't able to get as accurate in relation to the planets.
@rylinwilliams1393 that's true although he eventually corrected his math and was able to properly prove his heliocentric theory but still died under prosecution.
That's also how that looks like in any kind of software or game when you change the frame of reference off the central body. The resulting orbital lines are funky and unitiitive.
@@PunzL The Ptolemaic model works because it is equivalent to the Heliocentric model, but the Heliocentric is the truth because of other facts like gravity.
Definitely not wrong. In terms of observing actual behavior from the perspective of Earth, the Ptolemaic model is strictly superior, and considering that's precisely what it was used for, you can hardly call it wrong. The fact that it does a poorer job of highlighting the forces at play is largely irrelevant to an astronomer trying to map the solar system.
@@Jonessinho360 The effect of gravity is a fact. We just don't know how gravity is propagated though space time. The theories relate to how gravity propagates. We don't know if there is a particle in the form of a graviton or not. Gravity may be the weakest fundamental force, but it is the least understood. If we understood gravity like we understand magnetism we would likely be able to control gravity like we control magnetic fields.
@@group555_ A model where the sun orbits the Earth is not accurate. The point is that to fit his observations and his preconceived notion that the Earth was the center of the universe, Ptolemy theorized epicycles. These epicycles end up making a model where the sun orbits the Earth, but everything else orbits the sun when you track their relation to the sun rather than their relation to Earth. So he inadvertently proved that a heliocentric model makes far more sense considering his observations. Why would all the planets in our solar system orbit the sun, except the Earth? Simple answer, the Earth is not an exception, it too orbits the sun.
@Blueeyesthewarrior i'm not saying it is practical to use such a model. But the frame of reference should not change the findings. You can calculate the forces present in a car crash with all data being relative to the sun. It's convoluted, but it will still give the same result. The sun is not the centre of the universe either. And when modelling the galaxy, we do not place it at the centre. The only reason why an earth centric model of the solar system isn't used is not because it can not fit observation, but because the model is needlessly complex and clunky.
@@Blueeyesthewarrior Except the sun orbits the earth, just like the earth orbits the sun. You don't understand simple physics enough to understand gravity and points of references ? There's no single center of the universe, the expansion of the universe shows us every point in the universe can be considered the center of the universe, and as such is a valid reference point for any movement you want to describe. The reference point you choose has only one purpose : make the data you get from your model as easy to use as possible. The heliocentric model serves no purpose for observation from earth : why would ancient people bother with a point of view from the sun, when your only available point of view is from the earth ? The geocentric model and epicycles allow you to predict the motion of every planets relative to earth, which is kind of the point when you're stuck on earth anyway, the heliocentric model makes it much harder to predict movements relative to earth. So yeah, try and open your mind and get a better understanding of how physics and math works, and try to show more humility when it comes to judging ancient works, as you clearly showed you have no actual understanding of how physics, maths and overall science works : don't try to make them look stupid when you're just strongly believing in what you were taught at school.
So fascinating! They were doing all their geometry right back then, the only thing they were missing was relativity, and the proper reference frame of course.
Keep in mind the model wasn't actually wrong, it was just missing a piece of information: what causes the Epicycles. As we got more information which added that missing context. You can even still apply the geocentric model to predict planetary movements in reference to the earth. So our current models do have known limits. For example dark matter, gravity propagation or quantum fields. At some point we will fill these holes and expand our existing knowledge
Daily reminder that this model is not incorrect, because the movement is relative. It all depends where you have your reference point. Just like for the observer outside the car, the car is moving and he is standing still; for the person inside, car interior is immobile, while person outside is moving.
@@Midaspl Well the model does assume that earth is the actual physical centre of the universe. If you treat it as relative it's correct but they did not.
I know, it always fascinates me and makes me curious what, in a hundred years, we thought was settled science will be turned upside down because of advancements in the field.
It never fails to amaze me just how much work people put in to their claims that the earth was at the centre, pride makes you do incredible things for the dumbest of reasons instead of just admit the simpler solution.
it's amazing how much simpler the truth can be than you trying to bend over backwards to make reality fit your preconceived notions. How satisfying and frustrating at the same time can a moment of realisation like that be
@@davidhawley1132generally the simpler a theory is, the more correct it is. this is because uh... simplification of concepts happens gradually, and tends to coincide with more researchers. so like... right now, quantum physics is a relatively complex field, but that's MOSTLY because it hasn't been simplified yet. information about quantum physics isn't accessible to the public via informational barriers (you need a ton of precursory knowledge) because it's such a new and constantly changing field. quantum physics also has very few researchers (relatively speaking), which contributes to a general lack of simplification. so it's less like simple = true, and more like simple = more researchers. a good example for the opposite of quantum physics is philosophy. generally, as long as someone can find a good source, or has a dictionary on-hand, they can understand philosophy. hundreds and thousands of people have already discussed philosophical topics, resulting in a simpler portrayal of most problems. one of the more interesting exceptions is music theory. extremely complicated field, despite how old and well-researched it is. fortunately, i have an excuse for why it doesn't apply... because it's mostly man-made. like, music scales weren't built into nature or anything. there's no real reason to use them specifically, and there are other systems that are simpler. it is worth noting that this doesn't always apply, and most fields are actually a mix of complicated and uncomplicated. it's also very difficult to say for sure because of the fact that simplicity is distinct from how easy something is to learn. most things have a very steep learning curve, but are simple. interestingly, tetris is quite a good example of this. extremely simple game, yet extremely difficult to master. great question though!!! the answer seemed instinctively obvious but it actually took me a bit of thinking to fully logic it out.
This is a good case where we can apply Occam's Razor: when two or more theories explains the same phenomena, the simplest one is more likely the correct one.
These are not theories, these are models, and both of them are correct. The heliocentric model isn't more correct than the geocentric model. The geocentric model is correct just like the heliocentric model is correct.
@@brianfitch5469I suppose it depends on your frame of reference. Explaining the Milky Way galaxy rotating around our solar system might take some additional work.
I remember hearing about this, but the church said that the Earth was at the center, so the people who were getting these weird results had to figure out a way to make it a line with the church's doctrine. In other places in the world it was fine to talk about, but that's why Galileo was forced into house arrest. He had reproducible proof that the church was wrong, and they didn't want him saying so.
you're not telling the actual story of what happened. Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentrism. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. At that time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. The censure of Galileo were because he was proclaiming that the Bible was incorrect because of his findings. At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it.
@@ChristopherMarlowe I'm not intentionally not sharing information, that's just something I wasn't told. I was told that in a lot of Europe the idea was able to be discussed openly, but to defy the church in Italy could land a person in jail, which is what happened. Whether or not he was able to definitively provide evidence that supported an old theory, he was able to provide new evidence that conclusively demonstrated that the current theory was incorrect.
@@FurryEskimo As I mentioned above, Aristotle had already disproved the heliocentric model because parallax shifts were not observed. Galileo could not overcome this. That is not an "old theory". Parallax shifts is a real thing. You should really research the true story because what is commonly told is just a slander against the Catholic Church. They present it as if the Church resisted science but that is not what happened at all. Galileo was not proposing anything new. He was proposing an old disproven model without any proof. Copernicus, who was a Catholic Canon, had already published his heliocentric theory and it was presented to Pope Clement VII in 1533, which was before Galileo was even born. The Pope was so pleased by the theory that he gave the presenter a valuable gift. The different treatment of Copernicus and Galileo show that the common story is a lie.
Millenia of hypothesis, observations, calculations, discoveries, and predictions, to culminate in flerfs with their eyes closed, fingers in their ears, yelling "LALALALALALALA!!!"
Geocentric and heliocentric are neither 'right' nor 'wrong', they both describe reality from different perspectives. The heliocentric is a scientific model that explains the movement of the planets due to natural forces. The geocentric one shows the movement from the human perspective here on earth. The latter is more aligned with our day-to-day experience.
@@Wyserbytheday Sorry, the scientific method uses the predictions made by a hypothesis and then the experimental results to prove or disprove the hypothesis. The many experimental results over the centuries prove that the heliocentric hypothesis is correct and the geocentric hypothesis is incorrect. There is no room for “day-to-day experience”. If this were allowed, then the the “flat earth” hypothesis would be viable, but it is not.
@@RGF19651 Nope, the geocentric and heliocentric models are equivalent and predict the exact same things. Of course that doesn't mean that the predictions of 14th century astronomers were correct, but the reason is not that the origin of the coordinate system is misplaced. Classical physics don't depend on the frame of reference. It's got absolutely nothing to do with flat earth theory and I challenge you to explain how they are related
I love the visuals. It reminds me of how I have experienced "seeing/remembering" via chemical emhancements, not limited to, but including breathing exercises. The music is great, too.
I had a programming class where i was supposed to create a mock-up of the solar system. We were supposed to make a series of orbs that each rotated and orbited. It's an exercise in moving an object to the point of origin, transforming it, moving it back, and transforming it, again, to create rotation and orbit. I wanted to simulate a geocentric orbit just to be different from all the heliocentric models created by classmates. I could not find the math to follow, anywhere. My classmates all insisted that since the real world was heliocentric, a geocentric model would be impossible. I insisted that it had been done, and would be possible. I appreciate this video proving my point, even if it doesn't have the math and is almost 10 years too late
It is surreal how the difference between heliocentrism and geocentrism is fundamentally just perspective and semantics. I find it oddly poetic that both can be true at the same time.
It’s just a question of where you place your frame of reference, in the Earth or in the Sun. However, the Sun being a mass hugely bigger than all planets, it makes more sense to consider the heliocentric model.
@@betaorionis2164 'More Sense' is subjective to what you're trying to use your frame of reference for (hence the lasting appeal of the geocentric model for modeling the changes across the night sky for example). It's easier to build and teach a heliocentric model of the solar system, and to utilize heliocentrism in understanding other solar systems, hence its primacy in education and broader astronomy.
@hydra5758 Except they are only equivalent mathematically, not physically. As soon as you introduce a force law, the symmetry breaks. Under Newtonian Mechanics, the "reason" the planets follow their (elliptical) orbits is because they're on free fall around a point which is one of the focii of the ellipse (the elliptical shape discovered by Kepler, but he also didn't "explain" them). This focus is properly "the center" of the solar system and is located much closer to the sun than any other body (the reason for this ofc being that the sun is so much massive than anything else in the solar system) In a deeper sense (metaphysically) you may be right, but physically, in a geocentric model the planets accelerate and decelerate and change directions, all of which would need a force to act on them. We have no explanation for such forces, no reason for them to be there, so the two models are not the same.
@@cynicviper Right, I'm not disputing the relationality of the bodies at play, where the sun obviously acts as the central body of the system's relationships. Like you said, its a metaphysical observation.
The real takeaway: The authoritarian establishment proclaimed that the earth was the center of everything and scientists were forced to construct elaborate nonsense to explain their observations.
"Since divine goodness has bestowed on us Tycho Brahe the most diligent observer, from whose observations this error of 8 minutes in Ptolemy's calculation for Mars has been deduced; it is right that with grateful minds we acknowledge and profit by God's good gift... Now, because they could not be disregarded, these eight minutes alone will lead us along a path to the reform of the whole of Astronomy..." Johannes Kepler, 'The New Astronomy'
You might fall into the trap of Adding complexity as it is satisfying and will make you look more genius and give you a feeling of dopamine dose, yet you're only getting more lost away from the real solution
The ancients were wrong about a lot. However, we have to keep in mind their small populations, subsistence economies, archaic technology, oppressive regimes, limited transportation, high mortality, and starting at nothing - among myriad other disadvantages. They did a very good job at finding frameworks to explain and predict the natural world well enough to meet their needs. Without telescopic observations to serve as evidence to the contrary, the Ptolemaic Model is the simplest explanation for understanding the motions of the night sky. It's not accurate on timescales of centuries, but in the ancient world, where death and war were often one failed harvest away, it was good enough. We do well in looking upon our ancestors in such ways as we would wish our descendants to look upon us. Learn what their lives were like, and put yourself in their shoes. Imagine trying to understand the entire night sky with: • the naked eye • a protractor • an hourglass • records of measurements made using the aforementioned means • knowledge of logic, arithmetic, geometry, trigonometry, and algebraic concepts; but no calculus, negative numbers, complex numbers, proper algebra, or modern notation • an abacus • a clay tablet • the apparent motion of the Heavens and apparent stillness of the Earth
I thought I had seen all the well made science videos between Action Lab, Veritasium, Electro Boom, Styro Pyro. nope, there is still room for more good stuff, Thank you!
I wrote a paper on this. This is like the fourier series, rephrasing a problem but essentially theyre the same thing viewed from different perspectives.
![The most beautiful equation in math, explained visually [Euler’s Formula]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f8CXG7dS-D0/mqdefault.jpg)
I remember reading years ago, that epicycles were added to epicycles in order to improve the predictions with observations. "Someone" then observed that in the limit of an infinite number of epicycles that it matched the predictions from the heliocentric / elliptical model -- and, of course, the actual observations.
It's a Fourier series
to expand, the fact that epicentric orbits are a form of fourier series approximation means that any path can be traced by epicentric orbits of different sizes and speeds
@@Scubadooperyes precisely
@@heyheyjj search for something like ``3Blue1Brown Fourier'' and you'll find some very interesting animations as well as info on how to make ?arbitrary? shapes.
Trying to understand. Really interested 😢
When you get the final answer right but your working was wrong.
Edit: Thankyou to all of you that explained why my statement was incorrect (oh and thanks for teaching another lost soul how to read...they need it tbh)
Wow man you’re just so smart and enlightened. Please correct him for us. You are my hero
@@Phasguy I don't think you got what he was saying.
@@Phasguy Chill man. The video itself said that while studying one thing, someone discovered something else. The comment is referencing that, not saying he's incorrect. They're literally agreeing with him.
@@Phasguy He’s basically saying that both approaches conclude to the same correct answer, but having the earth as the center requires way more complex calculations.
@@Phasguy who hurt you? 😭
Goes to show that people in the past weren't stupid and how, based on incomplete evidence, you could draw the wrong conclusion with the right facts
Indeed
clever-wrong ideas :)
Or the right conclusions from the wrong facts.
It makes you wonder what we think is obviously correct but we've got totally wrong in today's scientific thought.
@@HallieEva Do you have any examples?
I love how taking a step back and trying to view it from a different perspective can help things make sense without having to change anything. It makes me wonder what else would become clear to me from stepping out of my own shoes
'Truths' about the hegemonic ideology of today are a safe bet. Start with traveling
If you could step out of your shoes to the point where you could see the entire universe you'd probably be able to answer every question astronomers have ever had😮... And there are so many questions that will never be answered until we are able to do this
That's a good thing to take away from this. Maybe things aren't as we see them from this angle all the time
Apparently other dimensions. If you can wrap your head around them which I cannot.
I hear about a game called 5d golf. Or something like that. Helps.
It would become clear to you that the ground is disgusting and that it'd be easy to get wounds on your feet when you step out of your own shoes.
"Man you mortals are really overthinking this thing."
😂so true
😂😂😂😂fr
Yes, you could conclude that they were all just religious idiots... or maybe this comment: "Goes to show that people in the past weren't stupid and how, based on incomplete evidence, you could draw the wrong conclusion with the right facts"
my mindest when humans talk about change (humans call it time)
@@Llaveroja27 the fixed earth theory in this situation is backed by marse orbiting around nothing...
I just finished my Astronomy: Intro to the Universe class this spring semester and never fully understood epicycles, this video explained them perfectly in less than 1 minute
Nice huh? Only can you tell the one major thing that's wrong in the way the model is displayed here?
You must be a very dumb student if you learned less during the whole semester than from a short
@@Jonathanbass1990
Ya know you could tell us if something is wrong here instead of trying to be rude about it.
This proves the sun is flat. @@Jonathanbass1990
@@zerada00 sure. I didn't mean to be rude honestly. The mistake in the video is that Mars's epicycle is smaller than the sun's orbit. In reality, Mars is never between earth and the sun
I've never heard this explained so concisely and clearly. Thank you.
Exactly what I was thinking. Is this why we launch Rovers at certain times so it's quicker to get there?
@@Platypus333 Indeed. If Mars is on the same 'side' of the sun as us, it's quite a lot shorter to send a mission (it's a bit more complicated than that, as you don't simply shoot something straight ahead towards the destination but have to calculate for lateral velocity and orbiting, though).
@@robertnett9793 I just watched a video on Orbital Mechanics. I think I understand less, now. 😂
I still didn't get one thing he said
Fourier series are apparently easier to invent than an ellipse.
Fourier series were only known 200 years ago, elliptical orbit: 400 years ago, epicycles: over 2000 years ago.
When you’re dead set on a certain model (Ptolemy and the Greeks believing the Earth was the center of the universe), you will stop at nothing to prove that it is correct.
@@Soarvivor Especially when someone (Galileo Galilei) gets almost killed by the Church for saying otherwise
@@diegomarti0749he wasn't. I'm Protestant but this is a blood libel. The pope or whatever bishop was actually very enthusiastic about Galileo's theories but Galileo decided to commit an unforced error, overtly attacking him and depicting him as a fool in a satire he wrote, PLUS he never even bothered to prove his theory. That's what got him on the s*t list
@@Soarvivor"don't let the truth ruin a good story"
That’s part of why Galileo was rejected. He did not account for elliptical orbits in his equations, and so his predictions were actually less accurate than the Ptolemaic model. It wasn’t until Kepler that this changed.
Source? You just made this up.
@ no, I did not “just make it up.” This is common knowledge. My source is “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” by Galileo Galilei.
You can also read “The Galileo Affair” by Dr. Maurice Finocchiaro (available from the University of California Press)
@@carsonianthegreat4672Bro really said read a book before you open your mouth, so real for that
He's still rejected by anyone with common sense.
I know people trash everything that isn't standardized education, but I've always admired this model and think it's a great reminder that the sciences are evolving tools based on how we understand our biological perceptions against broader reality.
To "believe in science" undercuts what science is: a dynamic toolbox we add and remove from to improve how we handle our perceptions, and not something to cling to, even if our current, man-made equations line up with observations. New studies always seem crazy, because most are, but even more accurate models spend some time in the looney bin because most people cling to what they've been taught from others, and we as individuals would benefit in seeing a bit of ourselves in the older sciences who were confident in outdated views.
Well said! It's amazing how smart people can be, but we must always stay skeptical. This is just one of many stories that show how true genius can still lack a critical piece of data that makes an entire worldview false. Always be flexible in your thinking, you never know when that piece of data will enter your life and make you question everything!
@@PallyChan The only caveat to something like this are scientific laws. Examples of which are those that break 2nd law of thermodynamics. e.g. "Free energy" devices.
not really, laws can also be disproven or be incomplete. Its just really unlikely, since they remain so consistently true in every case, but its always possible.@@akappleby
@@buycraft911miner2 I agree. Though I feel that most people need to understand that laws aren't as bendable or even as breakable as news media sensationalism would have them believe. And that scientific articles or papers that claim to "Break known laws of nature" need to be looked at with extreme scrutiny.
@@akappleby yeah, Its good to highlight that
Ancient people get way too little credit for how smart they were.
Yeah but they’re old and stinky 😷
they knew math, but not that birds migrate south for the winter
@@cam5816ok
Frrr. Like how the hell did they even come close to figuring this shit out to begin with??
But but but...ALIENS! (sarcasm)
"I like your funny words magic man"
Just Euclidean Geometry!
That's like getting the right answer but doing it differently than the teacher wanted you too.
nah cus this model also fails to predict ALOT of other stuff that only gravity could help predict. and even then we didn't fully understand the orbits of the planets around the solar system until einstein came in with general relativity which allowed us to understand mercury's orbit better.
🤓@@sobbles6242
@sobbles6242 epicycles in the ptolemaic system are just examples of a fourier series.
Mathematically accounting for gravity and the helios system lets you use fourier series.
Shut up nerd
@@sobbles6242 That is the reason you need to show your work, A right answear don´t matter. It is if you can build on it or redo it with another situation that you can use it in your life.
The video oversimplifies it. Such simple epicycle is equivalent to _circular_ heliocentric orbit, which is only a rough approximation of the actual elliptical orbit.
Kepler gave us the skeleton key to the stars, the universe.
Love the hard work you've put into this project, thank you!
Hey WelchLabs!
Just came across this short after not seeing anything by you for years and totally forgot about you. Just wanted to let you know: you taught me python. You brought me on my track to learn data science and deep learning. I am now the Lead Data&AI Architect at a tech company in Germany, responsible for managing the data & ai initiatives of the entire company and I have 6 years as a data scientist and data engineer behind me. All because one video of yours got me thinking.
Thank you.
What a great story! 👍
I'm jealous of you being in Germany.
For me, epicycles are a reminder that if a model "works", it doesn't have to be correct.
But it's fully correct, Earth still can be center of the universe
@@ShadowShadow-j8c "Center" in which respect? I mean, yes, you can define it that way, but there is nothing that makes earth somehow special. For the movement, mainly gravitational forces are at play, and regardless if you use Newtonian or relativistic gravity, the influence of the sun is much bigger on earth than the other way around, so it makes more sense to define the sun as the center of this system (as it makes sense to define earth as the center of the moon-earth system).
Yeah, it's fascinating. It happens a lot in physics actually. For example Newtonian mechanics is observationally correct to a very high precision, but epistemologically completely wrong - as is all classical physics.
@@ShadowShadow-j8c no its not. there are still problems with the zodiac preferences not alining with what we could actually observe. there is a reason we threw it the fuck out when galileo and especially newton came with their model
@@HerbertLandei Yes there's is nothing special about earth, I meant that this is possible to choose the earth as centre and even write other gravitational law which would work perfectly fine, but of course it would be much more complicated than our current law
Galileo must have been like “YOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!”
He was an asshole, the pope actually wanted to hear him out but he insulted the pope and went all reddit mod on him. hence jailed in his house.
Kepler, when he realised that the mars orbit was elliptical on circular 😲
😂
I think Galileo probably had many of those moments
And everyone wants to crap on the religionists of the day.
This is how future generations will look at our quantum theories
I mean that’s not impossible but quantum theory works incredibly well for what it is designed to do. If there is a new break through that happens quantum theory most likely will not completely discarded
@@johndoe7017 I'm just saying they'll potentially find something mathematically equivalent that has a more reasonable physical interpretation. I know there's Bell's theorem, but modern physicists have gotten too defensive of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. They act like it's not important to understand what's really going on, and that it's not real science. The founders of quantum mechanics made their students scared to question their formulation, and that mentality still exists today.
I imagine it would be more like us looking at the Bohr model. It's ok and useful but not the complete picture.
@@johndoe7017 Epicycles worked "incredibly well for what they were designed to do" as well.
I think it's more than likely.
"I'm glad we have our supersciences now. I'd go crazy to live in the archaic 21st century, when the Church mandated a belief in spatial dimensions and superscience was held back by the fanatics of relativity and the periodic table. I don't understand how they couldn't conclude from basic observations the Background Causality Potential, Lumina Brane Phase Approach, and to not constantly deny the higher beings' insistent communications and resource offerings with us under the excuse of physical senses not picking them up."
Excellent! Never thought of the fact that moving the sun to the center simply cancels out the epicycle.
Man i needed this video for
Orb: The Movements of Earth anime.
The mars reversig direction was a phenomenon i needed to understand.
FYI This is not Ptolemy’s model. Ptolemy had the earth offset from the center and the center of the epicycle moving at a non-uniform speed. The model here was developed by Apollonius of Perga.
When that random person claiming to make a correction on an educational video about planetary orbits goes by “GalileosTelescope”, you probably should listen to him.
I think Ptolemy knew that his model wasn't correct. Is that right?
@@argentum3919yeah that’s the word in the streets… apparently it appears he may have fudged his data a bit to make his model fit. It was noticed and corrected by later muslim astronomers. But despite it being known his model didn’t work, it still took some 1500 years for someone (Kepler) to come up with a model that did better.
@@GalileosTelescope
Nah, Aristarchus of Samos figured it out 1900 years before Kepler!
@@argentum3919 Aristarchus of Samos had a heliocentric model, but not the same as Keplers. His had circular orbits with constant orbital speed, while Kepler had elliptical orbits with the sun at a focus, and non-uniform orbital speed. They’re not the same model.
I loved this explanation ❤❤❤🎉
It’s also a great way to show relativity. It’s really awesome video.
@@Zei33 Yep that means both theories can be true until proven otherwise.
@@BoominGame well no. Relativity is true, since there is no centre of the universe, no frame of reference.
Had a prof go through great lengths to explain this w/o animation. Took me weeks to finally get it (too stoned most of the time - a child of the 70s).
@@heavypen trust me, being stoned is not a 70s phenomenon.
This just shows how far down you can go to make your assumption correct to yourself, beautiful
Yeah and the question is are there things today that we're doing the same with
It also shows why you should always look towards the simplest plausible explanation
@@zachb1706 yup, Occam's razor
@@zachb1706 yup, Occam's razor
it's also why you should look for yourself and not trust what a random person tells you.
no matter what their costume of choice is
I've been watching Orb On The Movement of Earth and they showed an example of a geocentric model (based off ptolemy's) and it looked really cool. Thankfully the universe doesn't actually work like that because it would be chaotic
this scratched my brain in a delightful way
Thinking of it this way actually makes the concept of epicycles way more understandable. Like I’m only used to hearing them in the context of it being a clearly wrong theory of the solar system that simply added extra unjustifiable movements to the cosmos to keep earth at the center. But if you think of it just as a circular orbit going around another circular orbit, it’s actually not that strange.
If you could observe earths moon from the sun, you might see similar epicycles (but, in that case, you’d also see the earth itself much more readily, so there’s that, lol)
This is why astronomers in the Middle Ages deserve more credit. They weren’t dumb idiots for believing geocentrism… it’s the default position a civilization starts at, and their math made sense and checked out in many ways.
It was the Church (which single-handedly funded and advanced astronomy as a field of science as its biggest supporter for centuries) using a scientific method and careful scrutiny to move from one model to accepting another more accurate model. The Church criticized Galileo because his math didn’t add up and he couldn’t provide explanations for his model’s discrepancies (and he was also a total asshole so that didn’t help him either)
heliocentrism is the belief that the sun is the celestial body that the planets orbit, it’s literally in the name.
This is certainly one way to spin what happened. Also, mind citing areas where his math didn't work with observations?
@CatholicSamurai
No. No. Dumb idiots way back when. People were absolutely attempting to make sense of their world but didn't have the best instruments to do so.
But with today's technology, how fo you explain the FLAT EARTH believers and moon landing deniers that exist?
And there are a LOT of them!
@@michamusGalileo had bad math through using perfect elliptical circles rather than slightly oval ones. Therefore his mathematical predictions weren't able to get as accurate in relation to the planets.
@rylinwilliams1393 that's true although he eventually corrected his math and was able to properly prove his heliocentric theory but still died under prosecution.
Ohh this is so beautiful. I want some living art that will do the solar system and switch frames of reference between planets and the sun
I know astronomists had a rough time through the years but seriously this shit was brilliant.
That's also how that looks like in any kind of software or game when you change the frame of reference off the central body. The resulting orbital lines are funky and unitiitive.
Wow. I mean, that makes perfect sense. It's just math and the way you look at it.
Kinematics, we still don’t truly understand the dynamics.
Anyone know what song he used in the background?? It sounds amazing.
i'm in search for this song too! not me alone trying to find the name of the song
I'm probably wrong, but it sounds similar to the Gravity Falls theme.
Did anyone find it?
Yess what song
im looking for it as well, like jokermage sounds it seems familiar to the gravity falls theme, but I dont think it is.
crazy how both models work but one is completely wrong
Both models work because both models are correct. It's all just a matter of perspective
@@PunzL The Ptolemaic model works because it is equivalent to the Heliocentric model, but the Heliocentric is the truth because of other facts like gravity.
Definitely not wrong. In terms of observing actual behavior from the perspective of Earth, the Ptolemaic model is strictly superior, and considering that's precisely what it was used for, you can hardly call it wrong. The fact that it does a poorer job of highlighting the forces at play is largely irrelevant to an astronomer trying to map the solar system.
@@MrMineHeads. Please prove the fact of gravity. I thought it was a theory not a fact
@@Jonessinho360 The effect of gravity is a fact. We just don't know how gravity is propagated though space time. The theories relate to how gravity propagates. We don't know if there is a particle in the form of a graviton or not. Gravity may be the weakest fundamental force, but it is the least understood. If we understood gravity like we understand magnetism we would likely be able to control gravity like we control magnetic fields.
The fact that the two models actually have the same prediction is quite nice. The heliocentric one is just simpler to explain so it’s preferred.
What a great animation 😊😊
We got geocentric model comeback before GTA 6
It’s all just kinematics…
There's no comeback
In a certain relativistic plane the universe is geocentric
@@rampaging_teddy hence the name relativity lol.
Remember space is relative. So in that sense you can be the center of the universe.
False; Republican scientists have proven the sun rises and falls on Trump alone.
This is actually a great demonstration about how going into things with a fixed mindset/assumptions often just makes things harder for yourself.
Frame of reference is irrelevant. This model is as correct as having the sun be fixed. It's just not a very readable way to show the solar system.
@@group555_ A model where the sun orbits the Earth is not accurate.
The point is that to fit his observations and his preconceived notion that the Earth was the center of the universe, Ptolemy theorized epicycles. These epicycles end up making a model where the sun orbits the Earth, but everything else orbits the sun when you track their relation to the sun rather than their relation to Earth. So he inadvertently proved that a heliocentric model makes far more sense considering his observations.
Why would all the planets in our solar system orbit the sun, except the Earth? Simple answer, the Earth is not an exception, it too orbits the sun.
@Blueeyesthewarrior i'm not saying it is practical to use such a model. But the frame of reference should not change the findings. You can calculate the forces present in a car crash with all data being relative to the sun. It's convoluted, but it will still give the same result.
The sun is not the centre of the universe either. And when modelling the galaxy, we do not place it at the centre.
The only reason why an earth centric model of the solar system isn't used is not because it can not fit observation, but because the model is needlessly complex and clunky.
@@Blueeyesthewarrior Except the sun orbits the earth, just like the earth orbits the sun.
You don't understand simple physics enough to understand gravity and points of references ?
There's no single center of the universe, the expansion of the universe shows us every point in the universe can be considered the center of the universe, and as such is a valid reference point for any movement you want to describe.
The reference point you choose has only one purpose : make the data you get from your model as easy to use as possible. The heliocentric model serves no purpose for observation from earth : why would ancient people bother with a point of view from the sun, when your only available point of view is from the earth ? The geocentric model and epicycles allow you to predict the motion of every planets relative to earth, which is kind of the point when you're stuck on earth anyway, the heliocentric model makes it much harder to predict movements relative to earth.
So yeah, try and open your mind and get a better understanding of how physics and math works, and try to show more humility when it comes to judging ancient works, as you clearly showed you have no actual understanding of how physics, maths and overall science works : don't try to make them look stupid when you're just strongly believing in what you were taught at school.
I had to pick my jaw off the floor. Beautiful illustration 👏🏼
So fascinating! They were doing all their geometry right back then, the only thing they were missing was relativity, and the proper reference frame of course.
I do really wonder how much of our current science might actually be like this without us realizing it...
😂 gotta laugh about it
Keep in mind the model wasn't actually wrong, it was just missing a piece of information: what causes the Epicycles. As we got more information which added that missing context. You can even still apply the geocentric model to predict planetary movements in reference to the earth.
So our current models do have known limits. For example dark matter, gravity propagation or quantum fields. At some point we will fill these holes and expand our existing knowledge
So... you mean that our current models are accurate based on our prevalent understanding? Yes, that's obvious.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Their question was to what degree that is the case, smartass.
I love how Mars just goes
“IM GONNA CRASH-“
“SIKE”
How i've missed this channel...
I love that its not just conceptually correct, but mathematically correct
this can pretty much help us answer why there is no such existing center in the expansion of the universe, bravo!
Daily reminder that ancient scholars weren’t stupid, just lacking in the knowledge base we have today.
Daily reminder that this model is not incorrect, because the movement is relative. It all depends where you have your reference point. Just like for the observer outside the car, the car is moving and he is standing still; for the person inside, car interior is immobile, while person outside is moving.
@@Midaspl Well the model does assume that earth is the actual physical centre of the universe. If you treat it as relative it's correct but they did not.
He just explained Tycho Brahe's model, which is not the heliocentric model of Copernicus and Kepler . P.S. Kepler was Brahe's apprentice .
No, Brahes model was that the sun orbited earth and the planets orbited the sun
@@Thetarget1 Exactly . That's my point .
The amount of ingenuity that humans have in being incorrect is astounding!
I know, it always fascinates me and makes me curious what, in a hundred years, we thought was settled science will be turned upside down because of advancements in the field.
This is one of the most interesting shorts I’ve seen in awhile!! Blew my mind
It never fails to amaze me just how much work people put in to their claims that the earth was at the centre, pride makes you do incredible things for the dumbest of reasons instead of just admit the simpler solution.
My brain went blank for 5 seconds and now i dont understand what's going on
it's amazing how much simpler the truth can be than you trying to bend over backwards to make reality fit your preconceived notions. How satisfying and frustrating at the same time can a moment of realisation like that be
Why should simpler be better? Or more factual?
@@davidhawley1132 Because it's more unifying
@@davidhawley1132generally the simpler a theory is, the more correct it is. this is because uh... simplification of concepts happens gradually, and tends to coincide with more researchers. so like... right now, quantum physics is a relatively complex field, but that's MOSTLY because it hasn't been simplified yet. information about quantum physics isn't accessible to the public via informational barriers (you need a ton of precursory knowledge) because it's such a new and constantly changing field. quantum physics also has very few researchers (relatively speaking), which contributes to a general lack of simplification. so it's less like simple = true, and more like simple = more researchers.
a good example for the opposite of quantum physics is philosophy. generally, as long as someone can find a good source, or has a dictionary on-hand, they can understand philosophy. hundreds and thousands of people have already discussed philosophical topics, resulting in a simpler portrayal of most problems.
one of the more interesting exceptions is music theory. extremely complicated field, despite how old and well-researched it is. fortunately, i have an excuse for why it doesn't apply... because it's mostly man-made. like, music scales weren't built into nature or anything. there's no real reason to use them specifically, and there are other systems that are simpler.
it is worth noting that this doesn't always apply, and most fields are actually a mix of complicated and uncomplicated. it's also very difficult to say for sure because of the fact that simplicity is distinct from how easy something is to learn. most things have a very steep learning curve, but are simple. interestingly, tetris is quite a good example of this. extremely simple game, yet extremely difficult to master.
great question though!!! the answer seemed instinctively obvious but it actually took me a bit of thinking to fully logic it out.
This is a good case where we can apply Occam's Razor: when two or more theories explains the same phenomena, the simplest one is more likely the correct one.
Well you can say that today, but at the time there were quite a few rational reasons to believe that geocentric theory was the correct one.
These are not theories, these are models, and both of them are correct.
The heliocentric model isn't more correct than the geocentric model. The geocentric model is correct just like the heliocentric model is correct.
@@bendu49100most dont understand this. The helio model is used for simplicity.
@@brianfitch5469I suppose it depends on your frame of reference. Explaining the Milky Way galaxy rotating around our solar system might take some additional work.
Ngl, considering relativity, and measuring from earth as a point of view, this actually makes a lot of sense and is surprisingly accurate.
I knew this and this either refreshed my knowledge or deepened my understanding, in any case great video
Careful, flat earthers are going to somehow twist this
This has already been a talking point in FE communities for a while
I remember hearing about this, but the church said that the Earth was at the center, so the people who were getting these weird results had to figure out a way to make it a line with the church's doctrine. In other places in the world it was fine to talk about, but that's why Galileo was forced into house arrest. He had reproducible proof that the church was wrong, and they didn't want him saying so.
you're not telling the actual story of what happened. Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentrism. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. At that time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed.
The censure of Galileo were because he was proclaiming that the Bible was incorrect because of his findings.
At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it.
@@ChristopherMarlowe I'm not intentionally not sharing information, that's just something I wasn't told. I was told that in a lot of Europe the idea was able to be discussed openly, but to defy the church in Italy could land a person in jail, which is what happened. Whether or not he was able to definitively provide evidence that supported an old theory, he was able to provide new evidence that conclusively demonstrated that the current theory was incorrect.
@@FurryEskimo As I mentioned above, Aristotle had already disproved the heliocentric model because parallax shifts were not observed. Galileo could not overcome this. That is not an "old theory". Parallax shifts is a real thing. You should really research the true story because what is commonly told is just a slander against the Catholic Church. They present it as if the Church resisted science but that is not what happened at all. Galileo was not proposing anything new. He was proposing an old disproven model without any proof. Copernicus, who was a Catholic Canon, had already published his heliocentric theory and it was presented to Pope Clement VII in 1533, which was before Galileo was even born. The Pope was so pleased by the theory that he gave the presenter a valuable gift. The different treatment of Copernicus and Galileo show that the common story is a lie.
I have a headache but ty.
They made astronomy so much more difficult than it had to be
The church did. The scientists didn't want to die, and so had to come up with all levels of nonsense to keep themselves safe.
This is why teachers say, "Show your work."
The man was smart, he just didn't have all the information to completely process the problem.
Millenia of hypothesis, observations, calculations, discoveries, and predictions, to culminate in flerfs with their eyes closed, fingers in their ears, yelling "LALALALALALALA!!!"
Khh your s(hh)elf. You religious (rh)tar/h-/d.
Khhh your shhlllfff (:
Facts
Geocentric and heliocentric are neither 'right' nor 'wrong', they both describe reality from different perspectives. The heliocentric is a scientific model that explains the movement of the planets due to natural forces. The geocentric one shows the movement from the human perspective here on earth. The latter is more aligned with our day-to-day experience.
Bro lol ok
In reality there is only one way that is accurately describing how mars is actually moving. So one one is right and the other is wrong
@@Wyserbytheday Sorry, the scientific method uses the predictions made by a hypothesis and then the experimental results to prove or disprove the hypothesis. The many experimental results over the centuries prove that the heliocentric hypothesis is correct and the geocentric hypothesis is incorrect. There is no room for “day-to-day experience”. If this were allowed, then the the “flat earth” hypothesis would be viable, but it is not.
@@RGF19651 Nope, the geocentric and heliocentric models are equivalent and predict the exact same things. Of course that doesn't mean that the predictions of 14th century astronomers were correct, but the reason is not that the origin of the coordinate system is misplaced. Classical physics don't depend on the frame of reference. It's got absolutely nothing to do with flat earth theory and I challenge you to explain how they are related
Putting the largest, heaviest object in the center does make calculations and intuition easier tho
anyone watching orb?
I love the visuals. It reminds me of how I have experienced "seeing/remembering" via chemical emhancements, not limited to, but including breathing exercises.
The music is great, too.
I had a programming class where i was supposed to create a mock-up of the solar system. We were supposed to make a series of orbs that each rotated and orbited. It's an exercise in moving an object to the point of origin, transforming it, moving it back, and transforming it, again, to create rotation and orbit. I wanted to simulate a geocentric orbit just to be different from all the heliocentric models created by classmates. I could not find the math to follow, anywhere. My classmates all insisted that since the real world was heliocentric, a geocentric model would be impossible. I insisted that it had been done, and would be possible.
I appreciate this video proving my point, even if it doesn't have the math and is almost 10 years too late
It is surreal how the difference between heliocentrism and geocentrism is fundamentally just perspective and semantics. I find it oddly poetic that both can be true at the same time.
It’s just a question of where you place your frame of reference, in the Earth or in the Sun.
However, the Sun being a mass hugely bigger than all planets, it makes more sense to consider the heliocentric model.
@@betaorionis2164 'More Sense' is subjective to what you're trying to use your frame of reference for (hence the lasting appeal of the geocentric model for modeling the changes across the night sky for example). It's easier to build and teach a heliocentric model of the solar system, and to utilize heliocentrism in understanding other solar systems, hence its primacy in education and broader astronomy.
@hydra5758 Except they are only equivalent mathematically, not physically. As soon as you introduce a force law, the symmetry breaks. Under Newtonian Mechanics, the "reason" the planets follow their (elliptical) orbits is because they're on free fall around a point which is one of the focii of the ellipse (the elliptical shape discovered by Kepler, but he also didn't "explain" them). This focus is properly "the center" of the solar system and is located much closer to the sun than any other body (the reason for this ofc being that the sun is so much massive than anything else in the solar system)
In a deeper sense (metaphysically) you may be right, but physically, in a geocentric model the planets accelerate and decelerate and change directions, all of which would need a force to act on them. We have no explanation for such forces, no reason for them to be there, so the two models are not the same.
@@cynicviper Right, I'm not disputing the relationality of the bodies at play, where the sun obviously acts as the central body of the system's relationships. Like you said, its a metaphysical observation.
@@betaorionis2164Gravity hasn't even been proved to be real, so no.
The real takeaway: The authoritarian establishment proclaimed that the earth was the center of everything and scientists were forced to construct elaborate nonsense to explain their observations.
They weren't stupid back then, they just didn't have all the evidence. And neither do we.
We do now
this is a fun way of showing Fourier series
Nature has always elegant ways😊
maybe earth is the center, after all
Whats more likely: earth is what we see and feel?
Or the sun stars and moon are illusions?
@@bruhbruh3847inverse Square law of light proves stars are not far away
Maybe you're stupid
That's what you got out of this video?
@@abhishekn7200 earth is stationary, the heavens adorn us
Since movement is relative, that model isn't really wrong.
It's just that heliocentric model visualises the forces at work better.
How can a RUclips Short be THIS GOOD?
That's a good visual there. Love it 😊
This is definitely how future generations will see our current theories on dark energy and dark matter.
Loved the explanation and the use of the gravity fails theme❤
No idea how this got into my algorithm but I'm always excited for new knowledge, if I won't remember it. Thanks for spreading the knowledge!
"Since divine goodness has bestowed on us Tycho Brahe the most diligent observer, from whose observations this error of 8 minutes in Ptolemy's calculation for Mars has been deduced; it is right that with grateful minds we acknowledge and profit by God's good gift... Now, because they could not be disregarded, these eight minutes alone will lead us along a path to the reform of the whole of Astronomy..."
Johannes Kepler, 'The New Astronomy'
A great lesson learned:
Adding complexity isn't always the path to find the solution, simple yet solid understanding of things shall be your first bit
You might fall into the trap of Adding complexity as it is satisfying and will make you look more genius and give you a feeling of dopamine dose, yet you're only getting more lost away from the real solution
Hod knew what He was doing. Creation is so fascinating
The ancients were wrong about a lot. However, we have to keep in mind their small populations, subsistence economies, archaic technology, oppressive regimes, limited transportation, high mortality, and starting at nothing - among myriad other disadvantages. They did a very good job at finding frameworks to explain and predict the natural world well enough to meet their needs.
Without telescopic observations to serve as evidence to the contrary, the Ptolemaic Model is the simplest explanation for understanding the motions of the night sky. It's not accurate on timescales of centuries, but in the ancient world, where death and war were often one failed harvest away, it was good enough.
We do well in looking upon our ancestors in such ways as we would wish our descendants to look upon us. Learn what their lives were like, and put yourself in their shoes. Imagine trying to understand the entire night sky with:
• the naked eye
• a protractor
• an hourglass
• records of measurements made using the aforementioned means
• knowledge of logic, arithmetic, geometry, trigonometry, and algebraic concepts; but no calculus, negative numbers, complex numbers, proper algebra, or modern notation
• an abacus
• a clay tablet
• the apparent motion of the Heavens and apparent stillness of the Earth
I thought I had seen all the well made science videos between Action Lab, Veritasium, Electro Boom, Styro Pyro. nope, there is still room for more good stuff, Thank you!
And he was like "...wait we're not the center? Who is?" And solved it with ONLY MATH
My brain LOVES stuff like this! It itches what feels like a spot on my brain as a 6 year old.. everything being a really cool mystery!
The Ptolemaic model is incorrect but undoubtedly brilliant
The heliocentrism is probably a 5 top paradigm in human understanding of the cosmos.
When nature just casually puts in easter eggs to show we are actually in a simulation that matters not at all
You guys should check out "orb: on the movements of the earth". The show is a historical fictional anime on the history of astronomy.
That's awesome, feel like I've learned exactly why we prefer the heliocentric model and how we collectively arrived there.
It’s crazy how much sense this makes after just a month of taking astronautics
I believe you can also use epicycles to match elliptical orbits too, but you need more of them, and then you have a Fourier series
so without that great perspective they still got the math correct in a sense
The switch to the Copernicus model is magical =D
This is a concise explanation that works for the flat earth. Thank you.
I wrote a paper on this. This is like the fourier series, rephrasing a problem but essentially theyre the same thing viewed from different perspectives.
Even after this heliocentric model, people in that time wouldn't know planet doesn't have circular orbit until Kepler discovered it.
Funny how their first model was a more mathematically complicated model than was reality.
The music and tone of voice would suggest you are reading a fairy tale to a child under the age of seven inducing a strong delusional hypnosis.
Nope, just light playful music and calm tone lol
I have almost no idea what was told, but im impressed
The equivalent of getting the answer right in a math exam using the wrong formula
And then Mars in retrogade got associated with events in your life 💀