@@windowsxpmemesandstufflol Earth and the moon do orbit a common point between them: The barycentre of the Earth-Moon system. (That this point is consistently a few kilometres below Earth's surface doesn't change the fact that Earth and moon orbit each other.)
The first planet to be discovered in modern time was Uranus in 1781, by that time, heliocentrism was already being the accepted theory since more than a century.
Claudius Ptolemy was a real crazy genius to create such a complicated model for an idea we now know to be untrue. Probably many difficult topics of today will be replaced by much simpler ones in the future too.
Also it actually isn't identical to Ptolemy's model because he thought that planets didn't change their distance to Earth and were just rotating in circles inside big spheres which had Earth in the centre
@Mac Smith I mean, if you think about it, yeah It's true, just a matter of perspective (although it is untrue if you add gravity and everything actually orbits Earth like that)
Big thing missing here is the orbits being elliptical. Until rules for elliptical orbits were discovered both used a pair of circular motions to describe the orbits of the planets. So, with both requiring a pair of circles to describe the motion of any one planet, the geocentric view arguably wasn't any simpler, at least until Kepler came up with his laws describing planetary motion.
Just saying, the orbits of the planets of our solar system have such low eccentricities that they would be pretty much indistinguishable from a perfect circle on a rough diagram like this, even if drawn correctly.
Fun fact, sometimes models from perspective of certain bodies have use Idk if geocentric is, but unconventional models do appear, for instance, iirc asteroid tracking?
it's really useful when you need to take into account the gravity of all the bodies at once but if you only take 1 nearest body gravity into acount heliocentrism is the goat
This is an excellent anecdote for parsimony. If your unproven idea of "how things are" requires extremely elaborate and confusing interactions, each requiring more unseen mechanics.. then it's probably NOT TRUE.
This doesn't work every time though Consider Quantum Mechanics - there's probably no way to describe it without "extremely elaborate and confusing interactions"
@WDeltaG it doesn't work well when you don't have information about the other options. It does when you do have information, then take a step back and throw out what you don't know. For example, Quantum mechanics actually makes perfect sense when you consider it as the interactions of massless particles. When considering that mass is just "change in vector" and special relativity, even the weirdest quantum interactions become intuitive. For example, a massless particle would, sensibly, go "infinite" velocity always. Since infinite velocity to any given reference frame is "c but infinitely time dialated," it makes sense that any two interactions with a lightspeed particle occur simultaneously in its reference frame, with its time only progressing relative to ours when changing vector. You have just explained quantum quantum duality, the erasure experiment, and observation collapse. All it took was focusing on the math and not thinking in terms of our expectations.
@@wdeltag Parsimonious doesn't mean simple, it means as simple as possible given our observations. Geocentrism is more complicated to explain the same observations as heliocentrism. Not so with quantum mechanics
@@wdeltag We know that Quantum mechanics is an incomplete picture of the truth, but the model works well. QM at its most basic isn't as confusing as many try to make it seem, it's actually rather elegant. I approach this as a person who studied chemistry, not physics so some will be lost on me but I did take a few courses on QP.
@@beforethelightning9465 true. . Planetary spirograph then? Solar system spirograph, while alliterative and applicable if you expanded it to include comets and stuff, doesn't have the same punch to me. Edit: the longer I stare at the latter name here, the more it grows on me...
4 месяца назад
Yeah its a shame they cut off the animation so that they dont show you the repeating pattern created by the lights in the sky i.redd.it/h9t66famd1d81.png But oh well right? Im sure they would never cut off a 1 minute video to make it seem like its all wonky and non-sensical... Would they??? Oh yeah. Yeah they evidently would
Depends where you lived: In ancient greece, you tell a friend about it, you both discuss it over some wine. In the middle ages, you tell a friend about it you burn at the stake
@@spector3881 it’s a myth, galileo was hated by the church because he openly insulted the pope in one of his books and went agains’t old aristotle ideas. Copernicus said the same things that galileo said,before he was even born, and was never executed or arrested for it. Also galileo didn’t live in the middle ages but the period after, the renaissance.
Ironically, Galileo was right about heliocentrism, but for the wrong reason. He believed that the tides were caused by the earth's rotation - which required a heliocentric view of the solar system - rather than by the moon's gravity. But even at the time scientists understood that the moon was responsible for the tides, even if they weren't sure of the gravitational mechanism that made it happen. Thus, there are some historians who posit that Galileo actually set acceptance of the heliocentric model back because his arguments were so easy to disprove.
@@davidwuhrer6704 It did NOT make the maths easier. Kepler had to go through more than 7,000 paper worth of calculations to finally figure out that planets orbit in ellipses, not a perfect circle. Remember, Planets orbit in 3 dimensions. And mapping out an ellipse in 3-DImensional space is a Nightmare. Every single object in the solar system affects every other object so it's not a perfect ellipse either. No telescopes. No way to measure the distance to the planet or the mass of the planet. 30 years before Newton.. there were no "Laws of gravity". No Calculus. Just dots in the sky... But Kepler did it. That's why he is still the Greatest Astronomer of All Time.
@@sankang9425 Bit it did make the maths easier. A lot easier. You think calculating ellipses in 3D is a nightmare? Try calculating trajectories that involve epicycles in 3D. But yes, Kepler was amazing.
very cool, it would be great if this was extended by showing the geocentric model based on the sequence of the planets discovered, as at one point it got too confusing
Thanks for the video. Am I correct in thinking that if you pause the video at any point, the relationship to and the distance of the planets from each other are the same in either model?
Well... We didn't accept this model because it's simpler but because it's true. For example Newton's gravity laws are much simpler than Einstein's but the latter is much closer to the actual nature of the universe
@@Chisito23 In the end we did accept it because it was simpler and as such easier to analyze and make theories about. Both models are equally valid ways to look at the universe and in fact the latter is still used in astronomy today because for certain applications using the Ptolemaic model with Kepler corrections is actually less computationally heavy than starting with the Kepler system from the get go.
@@joshs5577 in terms of reality, all of the planets orbit the sun (or a barycenter slightly outside of the sun) but yes technically you can describe movement from any system bc movement is relative
@@Chisito23 its also simpler. The reason why the orbits in the geocentric model looks like that is to account for the planet’s apparent retrograde motion and also the fact that Venus and mercury can only be seen close to the sun. And its a good example of Occam’s Razor. The geocentric model adds more complicated stuff than it addresses like why planets loop regularly around their orbit and why different planets have different looping patterns
@@joshs5577es it was simpler, but also wrong, yes, you can calculate everything having the Earth as the centre, but the planets (and all the universe) don't orbit around it, neither it is the actual centre of the universe. For calculations? Way simple. For reality? Not even close, functional, but the theory just isn't real.
There are various versions of the geocentric model that do not require the above planetary motions. The modified tycho brahe model has the planets orbit the sun and the sun orbit the earth. The interferometer results and George Airies telescope experiment are consistent with a stationary Earth.
We still use both models in astronomy. The Earth observational Ptolemy model tells us where Jupiter, the Sun, Mars, etc will be any given observational moment. Both models are correct from different chosen centers. Our sun is not the center of our universe either....but it is from our observations. Nothing is the center of anything as what we observed isn't where it was where we now observe it. With hand calculations the heleocentric model of Copurnicus was much easier for Kepler to plot for his planetary movement laws. Physics is often about picking the best mathematical point and relating vectors and curved formulas to it. Kepler found that the planets orbit in an ellipse, so the sun is not the center either...but one of two foci....a center point is between the sun and that other foci...in empty space.
Even that's not right, as Jupiter is massive enough to move the centre of mass of the Solar System outside of the Sun, so we all orbit the empty space between the Sun and Jupiter.
@@drunkenhobo8020 but you're never in the same space again, as the entire system is progressing in the galaxy and the galaxies are progressing... All physics is choosing a convenient spot for relational math and observational analysis. Locally the surface of the Earth is flat, as tabletop freshman physics equations assume.
However, both models are correct in a way. For example: the Sun and the Earth both revolve around one another but we say the Earth orbits the Sun because the Sun is far more massive and play a much bigger role in that interaction than Earth does. And, as this video shows, it makes predicting orbits of other objects in the solar system much easier (though not as simple as this video makes it seem).
Who tf told you the Sun revolves around the Earth? The Sun only barely wobble because of the mass of the entire Solar System pulling against it, and most of that is caused by Jupiter anyway
@@SimonSenaviev What revolves around what is simply a matter of perspective after all the basis behind relativity is that each observer is stationary within their own reference frame. We choose heliocentricity because it is easier to calculate and lends itself better to obtaining testable predictions about the solar system.
@@joshs5577 you're just spreading your own ignorant bias around comment that's like saying someone is right for thinking the universe is all about them because they're the protagonist of their own story, complete nonsense
@@SimonSenaviev You seem to be conflating center with importance when I never said that. If percentage of the solar system’s mass (and thus its gravity) the measure of importance then the sun is undoubtedly the most important celestial body in it. How it moves has a greater effect on the other bodies than any other. That does not mean however that the most important thing needs to be at the center. To use your story analogy just because the Sun is Superman doesn’t make Superman the immediately preferred protagonist of the story. Maybe the story from Jimmy’s POV offers a better insight into the messages I want to convey.
@@SimonSenaviev motion is relative, so a system can be defined from really any point heliocentric is the most useful be the sun has the most mass and everything orbits around it, but for things such as earth orbits it is easier to define a geocentric system (same for all of the other planets)
Neither of them is wrong, but one is _so_ much easier to work with than the other. It's amazing that a simple change in perspective can make such a difference.
I mean, looking at the geocentric model you can see how each planet is the same distance from the sun at all times. They all move relative to the sun's position, is almost like they revolve around the sun WAIT
Yeah and this video disproves the geocentric possibility only to people ready to disregard a whole bunch of unknown physical properties to our celestial bodies.
Imagine someone from ancient times trying to remember how the planets 'n stuff orbit "...so this one goes woop, weeeeeee and then woop, this is only wee, the other's weee woop weee and the other goes woawoawoawoa..."
What’s even more impressive is the Antikythera Machine which shows the motion of the planets, including that small wiggle they do. Insane that it was made so long ago.
Geocentrism fails in the momment we found out other planets had their own moons. the entire idea on Geocentrism is that earth is the literal center of the universe and everything that mattered happened here or was related to earth.
(I am not a geocentrist) But fun fact: the reason culture was uneasy to switch to heliocentricity was not because 'they thought they were the center of the universe' (I mean, literally they did, but not in a prideful way) in fact, quite the opposite. They believed anything higher than the moon to be divine/eternal, and thus placing the earth as 'just another planet' basically defiled that divinity.
Yeah, as with many cool mathematical/physical things, Keplers Laws are super obvious in hindsight but it still took ages of research and a flash of inspiration to find them. Very similar for stuff like special relativity.
Unpredictable hyperbolical motions of the planets as they are visible from Earth is the reason why the planets in the ancientry were depicted as horses, randomly throwing itself forward and then coming to a dead stop. In 1907 Nikolai Morozov, understanding this symbolism, used it for astronomical interpretation of the Book of Revelation.
Could you make one but make the pivot point right beside the Sun or spaced out from the Sun because I believe our solar systems pivot point and it isn't the Sun or any planet it's invisible right next to the Sun. Thanks 🙏
There is no singular objective pivot point. All movement is relative and depending on what scale you are looking at, different points appear to be the pivot point.
You're kind of right, the pivot point is the center of the solar system's mass, which right now isn't in our Sun, but right next to it. But to show it acurately the planets and Sun on this model must be in more realistic scale, which would make planets hard to see
If there was a “pivot point”, well that’s not exactly how it would work, because as the planets move, so does the barycenter, so things would be slightly more complicated.
If the pivot were in the Solar System's Barycenter and you could watch the video in a screen big enough that Neptune's orbit would measure 1 meter, the whole thing would wobble by 1/10th of a millimeter due to the Barycenter oscilation. So I belive it is fair to say that this video already has the Barycenter as it's pivot.
Geocentrism is harder to explain with this spinning model? In the example of geocentrism I see how everything's spinning beautifully around the sun, following it's sort of magnetic orbit. Looks more alive than the Heliocentric.
Like someone else said the physics would be the exact same the only difference is that rather than the sun (or rather the solar system’s barycenter) being considered stationary the earth would instead and the barycenter would instead move around making the complex pattern seen on the right.
Thanks. If two models can be said to be equally efficient, why did the ideas change? What made Copernicus say that the Earth revolves around the sun? What did Copernicus find that people haven't found for 1500 years?
The more you learn about creation, the more you understand that literally nothing created is “that simple”.. that geocentric model seems follow a continuous theme in basic geo-metry of life
Tycho Brahe was a Danish man whose family was extremely wealthy. He built an island observatory and kept very detailed records of the positions of the planets in the sky over time. He wasn't quite sure how to interpret the data himself, but he was dedicated to making accurate records in case they could someday advance our understanding of the cosmos. In the final year of his life, he was assisted in his work by Germany's Johannes Kepler. Kepler eventually interpreted Tycho Brahe's data to develop his three laws of planetary motion. These laws recognized that the planets move in elliptical paths with Earth as one of the foci, changes in the planets' speed along this ellipse have a consistent mathematical relationship to changes in their distance from the Sun, and the time it takes for a planet to complete a single orbit has a mathematical relationship to the semi-major axis of the path. This was all accurate enough for its time, but the scientific community still didn't know _why_ the planets move in this way. England's Isaac Newton then developed his theory of gravity to explain the basis for Kepler's laws. All of these advancements happened over the course of about 110 years, from the time that Brahe was given the island and the research money to the time Newton published his theory.
But it's not completely unpredictable, it's actually very regular and elegant (if we treat all the orbits as circular, elliptical orbits make everything complicated). Each planet orbits circularly about a point which orbits circularly about the earth. Once it's compared with a heliocentric view yeah all of a sudden it seems nonsensical, but only given the original data you can see why people naturally assumed that's just how it worked, as it was still a regular and fairly elegant pattern. Also I think people had a hard time accepting that that the earth moves because intuitively you think that you would be able to feel it if it was moving.
@@clayel1 Nah, I mean orbital periods compared to earth: Mercury is 0.2 years, Venus is 0.6 years and Jupiter is 12 years! And in this video they have periods really close to each other But yeah, that way it won't be so smooth and cool (sorry I said revolutionary speed xD)
@@clayel1 Well it sounds pretty reasonable as a name xD Though google excessively tries to correct it into "orbital resonance" (which is btw what is illustrated in tge video) So I guess "orbital period ratio" is the best to use here to be clear
Se adotarmos a visão relativista, podemos dizer que os dois conceitos são verdadeiros. Pois nada impede de tomarmos a Terra como referência. Ou não é assim?
Heliocentrism (simplicity) v geocentricism (YIKES!) Occam's razor: the simplest explanation for any given phenomenon is most likely the correct one. Thus, the heliocentric model of the solar system should be chosen over the geocentric model.
@@AbuMaia01 It's a fundamental principle of relativity that all frames of reference are equally valid. Calculating orbits in a geocentric model is far more complicated than in a heliocentric model, but they always give the same results.
@@AbuMaia01 What this person is basically saying, is that the image on the right is the orbits from your perspective on Earth. Both reference frames (as it’s called in physics) are valid, they are just different. The model on the right is only wrong if you say that is what the orbits look like from space, when it is only what it looks like from the surface of the Earth.
YES exactly the irony is that both of those are valid and from our point of view Geocentrism is kind of more correct but a pain in the ass to use practically. Personally subscribe Galactocentrism where all our orbits are just wavy lines.
@@AbuMaia01 When you want to shoot stuff at other planets you use multiple reference frames. Any interplanetary mission starts of geocentric for the launch and transfer preparation stage, because that time is spent in orbit around earth, so geocentric descriptions (specifically ECI coordinates) make everything more pleasant. As you accelerate to escape velocity and begin your transfer, you leave the gravitational influence of earth behind and transition to heliocentric coordinates. Calculating the transfer this way is by far the easiest way to do it. As you approach the target planet, you switch coordinate systems again, this time centering on that planet to make orbital calculations there easier again.
Hold up though, the left model isn't one anyone ever used since a heliocentric model with circular orbits doesn't work. To make circular orbits work the center of the system has to actually be near the sun not inside it. Copernicus also used epicycles (causing weird orbits like the one on the right) to make circular orbits work.
Hi David, my name is Josh and I am a TV Assistant Producer for a NASA-approved documentary series. Do you have an email address I can contact you to enquire about asking for permission to use your animation for our show? Many thanks.
Hello Joshua, first of all, I would like to tell you that share this short animation shall be a great pleasure. Actually I spend my free time making these short animations as a didactical support to help my students to keep their motivation at my physics classes at university level. To me will be a great satisfaction share to you and to your workteem my permission of using it. My e-mail is david.velasco.v@gmail.com. ¡Thanks!
@@notmichaelmccormick ▪️ Nasa themselves *helped* proliferate the flat world astroturf movement. You either 1] already know of this, and are playing dumb. 2] are trolling trying to be humorous. Or 3] one of the 0.001 percent ree-rees that fell for the FE shiII operation. 🟥
We can consider both reference frames, that's correct. Just going to add because I have seen some people confuse it, just because you can describe everything in Earth's reference frame does not make saying planets and stars orbit Earth valid.
@@alocsx actually the barycenter is the relationship between all bodies in a system which means actually yes, all bodies, including the sun, rotate around one another. Sorry!
@@victorkenrick2088 The planets and stars do not orbit Earth because they are not dominated by Earth's gravity. Even if you can describe everything rotating Earth this does not relate to the actual orbit of the planet; that is what I was trying to say in, what I believe, better words. Barycenter is also a concept that depends of gravitational influence of both the bodies. Calculating barycenter actually helps understanding the true orbits in play. The barycenter of, for example, Earth-Sun system would locate closer to Sun than to Earth, showing which body has more influence in the system.
@@alocsx the heliocentric model is correct, and the geocentric model is correct. What matters is what you want to do. If you launch shit from earth at other celestial spheres orbiting around the sun, you need to use the geocentric model. You need to know what inertia you already have and how to leverage that toward a goal. If you want to stroke the heliocentric model off, come find me when you live on the surface of the sun. Until then, I’ll be on earth as god intended
@@narrativeless404 It's just a, warning that these people and Religious Extremists are dangerous now days... and their growing (i didn't mean to be hostile or anything)
@@dr.fjoer_the_crazy_scienti5841 They are only dangerous if you meet face to face And government exists, so you can just call the police and they'll do the job Religion is bullshit, just to say And those who are ready to kill for it, are just cavemen and must *extinct*
But planetary orbits can be appreciably elliptical, there is no obvious parallax of the fixed stars, we didn’t have spectroscopes, no theory of gravity, no concept of inertial frames, and so on. Even today many people believe that the motion of a Trojan round a Lagrangian point L4 or L5 is an orbit, so this is unfinished business. It’s actually a nutation like a spinning top. I’ve written the computer simulations and I can see the similarity.
Just because it looks like that doesn't mean it is the case. By that logic ships sink in the ocean because they disappear bottom up when going over the horizon. Do you seriously think the whole f_cking universe goes around us every day? Also why is earth magically the only thing stationery? CoolHardLogic along with countless others debunked geo bs.
If you pay attention, they're both the same, the difference is that in heliocentrism the camera is pointed towards the sun, and in geocentrism the camera is pointed towards earth
What’s neat here is that the sun is seen to follow a perfect orbit around the earth if the geocentric model is to be believed, but every other celestial body must make wild deviations to fit the retrogrades. In the mind of an empirically-focused geocentrist, this should propose the suspicion that, since the only two possibilities to explain it are that the earth is in orbit around the sun or the sun is in orbit around the earth, and since the latter explanation produces a far sloppier system, the earth might orbit the Sun. They would do the math and realize their explanation doesn’t make nearly as much sense as the heliocentric model. The point being that there are not really any empirically-minded geocentrists.
I prefer the neo-Tychonic model. Not only does it require stars and galaxies orbiting at insane speeds, pulled by forces of mind melting magnitude, it’s a geocentric model that’s more heliocentric than the heliocentric model.
That's your issue? What do you Imagine the eccentricity of the planets' orbits to be? It's obviously not an accurate representation of the solar system simply because the distances between the planets is not a geometric progression. But the orbits are elliptic enough.
I wonder if we have an animation for Lunacentrism.
You could make one.
Its basically the same except earth "orbits* it the closest
The Moon wasn't even in this animation duh
@@narrativeless404 Nor did he suggest it was.
@@windowsxpmemesandstufflol Earth and the moon do orbit a common point between them: The barycentre of the Earth-Moon system.
(That this point is consistently a few kilometres below Earth's surface doesn't change the fact that Earth and moon orbit each other.)
I remember reading that the ancient Greeks couldn't make sense of the movement of the planets until they considered a heliocentric model
That’s because the earth is flat
@@eddiehill3466 u still believe it?
@@eddiehill3466 bro u still believe in that shit 💀☠️💀
@@eddiehill3466 flat earth only makes it worse
@@eddiehill3466Still believing bullsh*t?
Great animation. Shows why the geocentric concept became too complex as more planets were discovered.
Solar system😊
If you use a globe, but flat Earth explains it just fine 🙄
The first planet to be discovered in modern time was Uranus in 1781, by that time, heliocentrism was already being the accepted theory since more than a century.
@@MagicCookieGaming Unfortunately the Earth isn't flat 🫨
@@MagicCookieGaming then explain it
Claudius Ptolemy was a real crazy genius to create such a complicated model for an idea we now know to be untrue. Probably many difficult topics of today will be replaced by much simpler ones in the future too.
it's not untrue, it's just a more needlessly complicated model.
Also it actually isn't identical to Ptolemy's model because he thought that planets didn't change their distance to Earth and were just rotating in circles inside big spheres which had Earth in the centre
@Mac Smith I mean, if you think about it, yeah
It's true, just a matter of perspective (although it is untrue if you add gravity and everything actually orbits Earth like that)
@@celavetex it's true if you add gravity as well. It's just a messy truth
Not untrue. Just more complicated ( needlessly)
Fun fact: the ancient greeks were basically doing Fourier series without realizing it. Any arbitrary orbit can be modeled with the right epicycles.
Oh my gosh, I never thought of it like that
Dong…
Or fourier was basically doing ancient greek series or something without realising it😂
Big thing missing here is the orbits being elliptical. Until rules for elliptical orbits were discovered both used a pair of circular motions to describe the orbits of the planets. So, with both requiring a pair of circles to describe the motion of any one planet, the geocentric view arguably wasn't any simpler, at least until Kepler came up with his laws describing planetary motion.
It's a simplified model. Considering we have to deal with flerthers. Basic concepts need to be introduced at the crayon level
@@stevennelson8479 Good point. I just saw a lot of people in the comments asking why people were resistant to switch to the heliocentric model.
Just saying, the orbits of the planets of our solar system have such low eccentricities that they would be pretty much indistinguishable from a perfect circle on a rough diagram like this, even if drawn correctly.
Yes. Keppler's laws of planetary motion.
Exactly this is completely inaccurate
I love how under geocentrism, Jupiter just chills in the same spot for a little bit in it's orbit, like it's taking a breather ☠️
Both Jupiter and Saturn do that, though I think Saturn's is better as it pauses for a little longer.
yeah geocentrism is way cooler, I choose to believe in that now XD
It's easy to pause an online game.
can you give a time stamp for what you're talking about?
actually Jupiter was at that point in its orbit last year on September 26th. it wont be that close to earth again until the year 2129
Geocentrism: the solar system but on drugs
Fun fact, sometimes models from perspective of certain bodies have use
Idk if geocentric is, but unconventional models do appear, for instance, iirc asteroid tracking?
Then it’s no more solar, more like Tellurian.
it's really useful when you need to take into account the gravity of all the bodies at once but if you only take 1 nearest body gravity into acount heliocentrism is the goat
Tychosium prove helicentrism is wrong
Ooh how clever & smart you are...No, actually our model is perfect & Sungenis destroyed your heretical one lol
This is an excellent anecdote for parsimony.
If your unproven idea of "how things are" requires extremely elaborate and confusing interactions, each requiring more unseen mechanics.. then it's probably NOT TRUE.
This doesn't work every time though
Consider Quantum Mechanics - there's probably no way to describe it without "extremely elaborate and confusing interactions"
@WDeltaG it doesn't work well when you don't have information about the other options. It does when you do have information, then take a step back and throw out what you don't know.
For example, Quantum mechanics actually makes perfect sense when you consider it as the interactions of massless particles. When considering that mass is just "change in vector" and special relativity, even the weirdest quantum interactions become intuitive.
For example, a massless particle would, sensibly, go "infinite" velocity always. Since infinite velocity to any given reference frame is "c but infinitely time dialated," it makes sense that any two interactions with a lightspeed particle occur simultaneously in its reference frame, with its time only progressing relative to ours when changing vector.
You have just explained quantum quantum duality, the erasure experiment, and observation collapse. All it took was focusing on the math and not thinking in terms of our expectations.
@@wdeltag Parsimonious doesn't mean simple, it means as simple as possible given our observations. Geocentrism is more complicated to explain the same observations as heliocentrism. Not so with quantum mechanics
@@wdeltag We know that Quantum mechanics is an incomplete picture of the truth, but the model works well. QM at its most basic isn't as confusing as many try to make it seem, it's actually rather elegant. I approach this as a person who studied chemistry, not physics so some will be lost on me but I did take a few courses on QP.
Occam’s Razor
This is what ive been searching for. Geocentric animation. Thank you!
The pattern with the geocentric model actually looks cool btw
Galactic spirograph
@@ShadowFoxSF except it's not a galaxy. It's a stellar system, one of many billions in the Milkyway galaxy.
@@beforethelightning9465 true. .
Planetary spirograph then?
Solar system spirograph, while alliterative and applicable if you expanded it to include comets and stuff, doesn't have the same punch to me.
Edit: the longer I stare at the latter name here, the more it grows on me...
Yeah its a shame they cut off the animation so that they dont show you the repeating pattern created by the lights in the sky
i.redd.it/h9t66famd1d81.png
But oh well right?
Im sure they would never cut off a 1 minute video to make it seem like its all wonky and non-sensical... Would they???
Oh yeah. Yeah they evidently would
Bro, the idea heliocentrism must’ve been one of the greatest plot twists in history
Imagine the first guy to ever suggest the idea
Depends where you lived:
In ancient greece, you tell a friend about it, you both discuss it over some wine.
In the middle ages, you tell a friend about it you burn at the stake
Ace Attorney Pursuit Theme Starts Playing
@@spector3881 it’s a myth, galileo was hated by the church because he openly insulted the pope in one of his books and went agains’t old aristotle ideas.
Copernicus said the same things that galileo said,before he was even born, and was never executed or arrested for it.
Also galileo didn’t live in the middle ages but the period after, the renaissance.
Nicole Oresme and Nicholas of cusa bishop and Cardinal discussed the idea during the middle age.
@@helast3916 thank you! Galileo really is the most misunderstood and overrated person in history.
Thanks, Galileo, for saving us from this
You mean Copernicus.
@@komnennos both of them are cool
Kepler proved it so you should thank him
@@pedrolmlkzk I thank every person that have anything to do with this
Ironically, Galileo was right about heliocentrism, but for the wrong reason. He believed that the tides were caused by the earth's rotation - which required a heliocentric view of the solar system - rather than by the moon's gravity. But even at the time scientists understood that the moon was responsible for the tides, even if they weren't sure of the gravitational mechanism that made it happen. Thus, there are some historians who posit that Galileo actually set acceptance of the heliocentric model back because his arguments were so easy to disprove.
"The big yellow one is the sun"
No, it's your mum
Many moosen and boxen.
Nah its actually ya mum! Ha gottem
*laughter track*
Occam's Razor. The explanation with the fewest assumptions (in favor of observations) is usually the best one.
Because the heliocentric model looks simpler? Ironically it's not realistic at all for what it is. They both look chaotic realistically
May I ask WHY you feel the left heliocentric one carry less assumptions?
This shows how frame of reference works, and the newer models reference was just chosen because the sun is the center of gravity
Also, it makes the maths a lot easier, plus it makes it more intuitive to understand what is going on.
@@davidwuhrer6704 It did NOT make the maths easier. Kepler had to go through more than 7,000 paper worth of calculations to finally figure out that planets orbit in ellipses, not a perfect circle.
Remember, Planets orbit in 3 dimensions. And mapping out an ellipse in 3-DImensional space is a Nightmare. Every single object in the solar system affects every other object so it's not a perfect ellipse either. No telescopes. No way to measure the distance to the planet or the mass of the planet. 30 years before Newton.. there were no "Laws of gravity". No Calculus.
Just dots in the sky... But Kepler did it. That's why he is still the Greatest Astronomer of All Time.
@@sankang9425 Bit it did make the maths easier. A lot easier. You think calculating ellipses in 3D is a nightmare? Try calculating trajectories that involve epicycles in 3D.
But yes, Kepler was amazing.
It isnt
Geocentrism still makes sense if you consider the planets are following the torus field. It's actually kinda beautiful
Yeah taking things into consideration the video doesn't disprove anything.
I'm convinced. Geocentrism is true in purely aesthetic grounds, no other justification needed
This is how I make every decision
very cool, it would be great if this was extended by showing the geocentric model based on the sequence of the planets discovered, as at one point it got too confusing
Thanks for the video. Am I correct in thinking that if you pause the video at any point, the relationship to and the distance of the planets from each other are the same in either model?
Yes, your idea is completly correct. In this specific case we say in physics that distance is invariant over this kind of transformation.
The sun sure looks like it's hitting the first two planets
The lamp picture 💀
You are correct - that is why it cannot be proven if the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Universe revolves around the Earth.
@@derrekrjohnson It's really simple.... Track the other planets.... you saw the video.
And this is an old version of the heliocentric model I believe. An accurate one would have the planets following an elliptical orbit around the sun.
Yeah, orbits aren't prefect at all, but the best way to simplify it is a circle
So much simpler! I totally get why they moved to this model for explaining how the movement works.
Well... We didn't accept this model because it's simpler but because it's true. For example Newton's gravity laws are much simpler than Einstein's but the latter is much closer to the actual nature of the universe
@@Chisito23 In the end we did accept it because it was simpler and as such easier to analyze and make theories about. Both models are equally valid ways to look at the universe and in fact the latter is still used in astronomy today because for certain applications using the Ptolemaic model with Kepler corrections is actually less computationally heavy than starting with the Kepler system from the get go.
@@joshs5577 in terms of reality, all of the planets orbit the sun (or a barycenter slightly outside of the sun) but yes technically you can describe movement from any system bc movement is relative
@@Chisito23 its also simpler. The reason why the orbits in the geocentric model looks like that is to account for the planet’s apparent retrograde motion and also the fact that Venus and mercury can only be seen close to the sun. And its a good example of Occam’s Razor. The geocentric model adds more complicated stuff than it addresses like why planets loop regularly around their orbit and why different planets have different looping patterns
@@joshs5577es it was simpler, but also wrong, yes, you can calculate everything having the Earth as the centre, but the planets (and all the universe) don't orbit around it, neither it is the actual centre of the universe.
For calculations? Way simple. For reality? Not even close, functional, but the theory just isn't real.
All it takes is a shift in perspective and a little scepticism and the chaos of the old way becomes beautiful order.
There are various versions of the geocentric model that do not require the above planetary motions. The modified tycho brahe model has the planets orbit the sun and the sun orbit the earth. The interferometer results and George Airies telescope experiment are consistent with a stationary Earth.
We still use both models in astronomy. The Earth observational Ptolemy model tells us where Jupiter, the Sun, Mars, etc will be any given observational moment.
Both models are correct from different chosen centers. Our sun is not the center of our universe either....but it is from our observations. Nothing is the center of anything as what we observed isn't where it was where we now observe it.
With hand calculations the heleocentric model of Copurnicus was much easier for Kepler to plot for his planetary movement laws. Physics is often about picking the best mathematical point and relating vectors and curved formulas to it.
Kepler found that the planets orbit in an ellipse, so the sun is not the center either...but one of two foci....a center point is between the sun and that other foci...in empty space.
Someone gets it
And as we are on Earth we should us Tycho Brahes model
Even that's not right, as Jupiter is massive enough to move the centre of mass of the Solar System outside of the Sun, so we all orbit the empty space between the Sun and Jupiter.
@@drunkenhobo8020 but you're never in the same space again, as the entire system is progressing in the galaxy and the galaxies are progressing...
All physics is choosing a convenient spot for relational math and observational analysis. Locally the surface of the Earth is flat, as tabletop freshman physics equations assume.
@@walleras well said 🙌
Gees, it's been hundreds of years, there was no need to diss it that hard
Just sent this to my physics teacher. we're currently talking about orbits and stuff. So this could come in handy
If I didn't know I was the center of everything already, I'd be pretty convinced by the heliocentric one.
What
😂😂😂
However, both models are correct in a way. For example: the Sun and the Earth both revolve around one another but we say the Earth orbits the Sun because the Sun is far more massive and play a much bigger role in that interaction than Earth does. And, as this video shows, it makes predicting orbits of other objects in the solar system much easier (though not as simple as this video makes it seem).
Who tf told you the Sun revolves around the Earth?
The Sun only barely wobble because of the mass of the entire Solar System pulling against it, and most of that is caused by Jupiter anyway
@@SimonSenaviev What revolves around what is simply a matter of perspective after all the basis behind relativity is that each observer is stationary within their own reference frame. We choose heliocentricity because it is easier to calculate and lends itself better to obtaining testable predictions about the solar system.
@@joshs5577 you're just spreading your own ignorant bias around comment that's like saying someone is right for thinking the universe is all about them because they're the protagonist of their own story, complete nonsense
@@SimonSenaviev You seem to be conflating center with importance when I never said that. If percentage of the solar system’s mass (and thus its gravity) the measure of importance then the sun is undoubtedly the most important celestial body in it. How it moves has a greater effect on the other bodies than any other. That does not mean however that the most important thing needs to be at the center. To use your story analogy just because the Sun is Superman doesn’t make Superman the immediately preferred protagonist of the story. Maybe the story from Jimmy’s POV offers a better insight into the messages I want to convey.
@@SimonSenaviev motion is relative, so a system can be defined from really any point
heliocentric is the most useful be the sun has the most mass and everything orbits around it, but for things such as earth orbits it is easier to define a geocentric system (same for all of the other planets)
I wish there were an easy way to display the orbits in three dimensions.
What about egocentrism?
flower: pretty, cool, fun!
circle: boring, lame, round
Occam's razor for the win
Nice animation, I will use it in class, thank you!!!
Neither of them is wrong, but one is _so_ much easier to work with than the other. It's amazing that a simple change in perspective can make such a difference.
I mean, looking at the geocentric model you can see how each planet is the same distance from the sun at all times. They all move relative to the sun's position, is almost like they revolve around the sun WAIT
Yeah and this video disproves the geocentric possibility only to people ready to disregard a whole bunch of unknown physical properties to our celestial bodies.
@Tokyo-go2du like what?
Imagine someone from ancient times trying to remember how the planets 'n stuff orbit
"...so this one goes woop, weeeeeee and then woop, this is only wee, the other's weee woop weee and the other goes woawoawoawoa..."
What’s even more impressive is the Antikythera Machine which shows the motion of the planets, including that small wiggle they do. Insane that it was made so long ago.
and it showed where the olympics would be
Geocentrism fails in the momment we found out other planets had their own moons.
the entire idea on Geocentrism is that earth is the literal center of the universe and everything that mattered happened here or was related to earth.
Moons were found in the 1600s, heliocentrism wasn't proven until the 1700s
Aka bible people
Actually, there is a Hybrid Model proposed to combine the two models...
The virgin heliocentric fan VS the Chad geocentric enjoyer.
Look at the sun please
(I am not a geocentrist)
But fun fact: the reason culture was uneasy to switch to heliocentricity was not because 'they thought they were the center of the universe' (I mean, literally they did, but not in a prideful way) in fact, quite the opposite. They believed anything higher than the moon to be divine/eternal, and thus placing the earth as 'just another planet' basically defiled that divinity.
Good boy goy, declare you're following the mainstream so we have the only thing important stated
Orb Anime brought me here. 🙌
Same bro
" I don't want to live in a universe that isn't beautiful "
We can agree that Geocentrism is absurd but let's not pretend that orbital mechanics are always so obvious...
Yeah, as with many cool mathematical/physical things, Keplers Laws are super obvious in hindsight but it still took ages of research and a flash of inspiration to find them. Very similar for stuff like special relativity.
Excuse me sir may I use your video for my content materia? l. I will include your channel link.
Imagine if earth was the sun and the sun was earth
Precisely!
The virgin heliocentric solar system vs. the chad geocentric system.
Shoe size IQ globe Propaganda vs Chadpilled True Earth Reality.💪🏻
@@ThatShitGoodbrother pls this is frying ny brain
@@rachardok uncle stalin
Chi .: Chikyuu no Undou Ni Suite Fucking Peak Anime
Unpredictable hyperbolical motions of the planets as they are visible from Earth is the reason why the planets in the ancientry were depicted as horses, randomly throwing itself forward and then coming to a dead stop. In 1907 Nikolai Morozov, understanding this symbolism, used it for astronomical interpretation of the Book of Revelation.
Nice. Would be better if you show Ptolemy's epicycles too.
Oh NO, Don't confuse their stupid ( ignorant on purpose ) bliss.
Can you do the animation using the Tychonic model?
Anime got me here
Centered on the sun : 👍
Centered on the earth : 💀
I'm so glad that the heliocentric model was accepted
Oh boy, you'd love to meet a flerf.
I love how Neptune and Uranus are having the blast of their lives
Could you make one but make the pivot point right beside the Sun or spaced out from the Sun because I believe our solar systems pivot point and it isn't the Sun or any planet it's invisible right next to the Sun. Thanks 🙏
There is no singular objective pivot point. All movement is relative and depending on what scale you are looking at, different points appear to be the pivot point.
You're kind of right, the pivot point is the center of the solar system's mass, which right now isn't in our Sun, but right next to it. But to show it acurately the planets and Sun on this model must be in more realistic scale, which would make planets hard to see
If there was a “pivot point”, well that’s not exactly how it would work, because as the planets move, so does the barycenter, so things would be slightly more complicated.
If the pivot were in the Solar System's Barycenter and you could watch the video in a screen big enough that Neptune's orbit would measure 1 meter, the whole thing would wobble by 1/10th of a millimeter due to the Barycenter oscilation.
So I belive it is fair to say that this video already has the Barycenter as it's pivot.
@@raptorwhite6468 Isn't that due to it's rotation around the center of the milky way though?
Geocentrism is harder to explain with this spinning model? In the example of geocentrism I see how everything's spinning beautifully around the sun, following it's sort of magnetic orbit. Looks more alive than the Heliocentric.
doesn't matter
I'm so stoned I can see a 🐻
this video has converted me to believe in geocentrism just because the swivels are cooler
I wonder what sort of crazy implications geocentrism would have on physics it it where real.
It would destroy physics in general
There would be no physics.
Its the same model. Just different points of reference
Geocentrism as in revolve around the earth and not the sun, not as in earth is the reference frame
Like someone else said the physics would be the exact same the only difference is that rather than the sun (or rather the solar system’s barycenter) being considered stationary the earth would instead and the barycenter would instead move around making the complex pattern seen on the right.
Which model actually makes more sense...? 🤔🤔🤔
Thanks. If two models can be said to be equally efficient, why did the ideas change? What made Copernicus say that the Earth revolves around the sun? What did Copernicus find that people haven't found for 1500 years?
Simplicity. Just that. Geocentric model is more complicated (mathematically) than the heliocentric. That was one of the main reasons.
Marvellous answer.
You actually looked at these two models and thought "they're equally efficient"?
The more you learn about creation, the more you understand that literally nothing created is “that simple”.. that geocentric model seems follow a continuous theme in basic geo-metry of life
In heliocentric model all planets follow the same rules
The heliocentric model is relatively less realistic in this model, as all of the orbits are elliptical and not a perfect circle.
Ngl while geocentric looks like everything is about to crash
It does draw a nice flower :)
Wow, Neptune's geocentric orbit makes a flower!
People during the middle ages trying to figure out how other planets orbit:
what is the song?
Neptune and Uranus orbit for geocentrism is bonkers 😆 It's like they have separate laws of physics.
Tycho Brahe was a Danish man whose family was extremely wealthy. He built an island observatory and kept very detailed records of the positions of the planets in the sky over time. He wasn't quite sure how to interpret the data himself, but he was dedicated to making accurate records in case they could someday advance our understanding of the cosmos. In the final year of his life, he was assisted in his work by Germany's Johannes Kepler. Kepler eventually interpreted Tycho Brahe's data to develop his three laws of planetary motion. These laws recognized that the planets move in elliptical paths with Earth as one of the foci, changes in the planets' speed along this ellipse have a consistent mathematical relationship to changes in their distance from the Sun, and the time it takes for a planet to complete a single orbit has a mathematical relationship to the semi-major axis of the path. This was all accurate enough for its time, but the scientific community still didn't know _why_ the planets move in this way. England's Isaac Newton then developed his theory of gravity to explain the basis for Kepler's laws. All of these advancements happened over the course of about 110 years, from the time that Brahe was given the island and the research money to the time Newton published his theory.
Geocentric Neptune is gonna throw up
To be fair, if you were looking from the ground, the planets do seem to rotate around unpredictably
But it's not completely unpredictable, it's actually very regular and elegant (if we treat all the orbits as circular, elliptical orbits make everything complicated). Each planet orbits circularly about a point which orbits circularly about the earth. Once it's compared with a heliocentric view yeah all of a sudden it seems nonsensical, but only given the original data you can see why people naturally assumed that's just how it worked, as it was still a regular and fairly elegant pattern. Also I think people had a hard time accepting that that the earth moves because intuitively you think that you would be able to feel it if it was moving.
Not accurate in terms of their orbital periods
But srill gives you a clarity of how complex the geocentric system is
do you want a year long video lol
@@clayel1 Nah, I mean orbital periods compared to earth:
Mercury is 0.2 years, Venus is 0.6 years and Jupiter is 12 years!
And in this video they have periods really close to each other
But yeah, that way it won't be so smooth and cool
(sorry I said revolutionary speed xD)
@@andrewsemenenko8826 ah ok lol, think thats called an orbital ratio or something
@@clayel1 Well it sounds pretty reasonable as a name xD
Though google excessively tries to correct it into "orbital resonance" (which is btw what is illustrated in tge video)
So I guess "orbital period ratio" is the best to use here to be clear
@@andrewsemenenko8826 orbital resonance does also work, yea
Se adotarmos a visão relativista, podemos dizer que os dois conceitos são verdadeiros. Pois nada impede de tomarmos a Terra como referência. Ou não é assim?
The planet movement in real life doesnt match the geocentric one
Newton is gonna have a hard time with this.
Einstein won't though :P
I just watched one of these videos and now RUclips is like: YO THIS GUY LOVES THESE VIDS
When they are just interesting
Left: planets orbit
Meanwhile right: e x o p l a n e t s o r b i t .
Heliocentrism (simplicity) v geocentricism (YIKES!)
Occam's razor: the simplest explanation for any given phenomenon is most likely the correct one.
Thus, the heliocentric model of the solar system should be chosen over the geocentric model.
Either frame of reference is equally valid, it's just that one makes for much simpler math. Heliocentrism isn't "right", it's just convenient.
Heliocentrism is indeed "right", as the math used to describe it has been used successfully to send spacecraft to the other planets and beyond.
@@AbuMaia01 It's a fundamental principle of relativity that all frames of reference are equally valid.
Calculating orbits in a geocentric model is far more complicated than in a heliocentric model, but they always give the same results.
@@AbuMaia01 What this person is basically saying, is that the image on the right is the orbits from your perspective on Earth. Both reference frames (as it’s called in physics) are valid, they are just different.
The model on the right is only wrong if you say that is what the orbits look like from space, when it is only what it looks like from the surface of the Earth.
YES exactly the irony is that both of those are valid and from our point of view Geocentrism is kind of more correct but a pain in the ass to use practically. Personally subscribe Galactocentrism where all our orbits are just wavy lines.
@@AbuMaia01 When you want to shoot stuff at other planets you use multiple reference frames. Any interplanetary mission starts of geocentric for the launch and transfer preparation stage, because that time is spent in orbit around earth, so geocentric descriptions (specifically ECI coordinates) make everything more pleasant.
As you accelerate to escape velocity and begin your transfer, you leave the gravitational influence of earth behind and transition to heliocentric coordinates. Calculating the transfer this way is by far the easiest way to do it.
As you approach the target planet, you switch coordinate systems again, this time centering on that planet to make orbital calculations there easier again.
But if you can describe the shapes and lighting required to create what appears to be the geocentric model... I'd be impressed.
Heliocentric wins, but geocentric sure is more purdy….(don’t know why I slipped into a hillbilly accent, but I did)
Hold up though, the left model isn't one anyone ever used since a heliocentric model with circular orbits doesn't work.
To make circular orbits work the center of the system has to actually be near the sun not inside it. Copernicus also used epicycles (causing weird orbits like the one on the right) to make circular orbits work.
Ancient scientists: "See, geocentrism makes perfect sense!"
what program did you use to generate this animation?
Hi David, my name is Josh and I am a TV Assistant Producer for a NASA-approved documentary series. Do you have an email address I can contact you to enquire about asking for permission to use your animation for our show? Many thanks.
Hello Joshua, first of all, I would like to tell you that share this short animation shall be a great pleasure. Actually I spend my free time making these short animations as a didactical support to help my students to keep their motivation at my physics classes at university level.
To me will be a great satisfaction share to you and to your workteem my permission of using it.
My e-mail is david.velasco.v@gmail.com.
¡Thanks!
@@davidphy did you ever get that email
Traitor, earth is flat, quit selling out your species
@@notmichaelmccormick
▪️
Nasa themselves *helped* proliferate the flat world astroturf movement.
You either
1] already know of this, and are playing dumb.
2] are trolling trying to be humorous.
Or
3] one of the 0.001 percent ree-rees that fell for the FE shiII operation.
🟥
@@notmichaelmccormick no, just no
Both models are correct 👍🏻
@@LaVioletTran inertial reference frames
We can consider both reference frames, that's correct. Just going to add because I have seen some people confuse it, just because you can describe everything in Earth's reference frame does not make saying planets and stars orbit Earth valid.
@@alocsx actually the barycenter is the relationship between all bodies in a system which means actually yes, all bodies, including the sun, rotate around one another. Sorry!
@@victorkenrick2088 The planets and stars do not orbit Earth because they are not dominated by Earth's gravity. Even if you can describe everything rotating Earth this does not relate to the actual orbit of the planet; that is what I was trying to say in, what I believe, better words.
Barycenter is also a concept that depends of gravitational influence of both the bodies. Calculating barycenter actually helps understanding the true orbits in play. The barycenter of, for example, Earth-Sun system would locate closer to Sun than to Earth, showing which body has more influence in the system.
@@alocsx the heliocentric model is correct, and the geocentric model is correct. What matters is what you want to do. If you launch shit from earth at other celestial spheres orbiting around the sun, you need to use the geocentric model. You need to know what inertia you already have and how to leverage that toward a goal. If you want to stroke the heliocentric model off, come find me when you live on the surface of the sun. Until then, I’ll be on earth as god intended
..... And there are still people out there (ALOT) who believes in Geocentric system 🤦♂️
Just ignore them i guess
They are the ballast for progress if they screw with it tho
So better to keep them away as far as possible
@@narrativeless404 Wait until they start threatening you, no joke i had that kind of experience few months ago
@@dr.fjoer_the_crazy_scienti5841 Ok and?
Do i look like i care
It's not like they'd come to me and try to kill me
Because i might kill them in defense
@@narrativeless404 It's just a, warning that these people and Religious Extremists are dangerous now days... and their growing
(i didn't mean to be hostile or anything)
@@dr.fjoer_the_crazy_scienti5841 They are only dangerous if you meet face to face
And government exists, so you can just call the police and they'll do the job
Religion is bullshit, just to say
And those who are ready to kill for it, are just cavemen and must *extinct*
But planetary orbits can be appreciably elliptical, there is no obvious parallax of the fixed stars, we didn’t have spectroscopes, no theory of gravity, no concept of inertial frames, and so on. Even today many people believe that the motion of a Trojan round a Lagrangian point L4 or L5 is an orbit, so this is unfinished business. It’s actually a nutation like a spinning top. I’ve written the computer simulations and I can see the similarity.
Fun fact: The earth is the only flat celestial body, the rest are spherical for some reason.
That's cool, mind giving us the source of that sacred knowledge? Facebook, perhaps?
Don't even get me started with the moons!
Geocentric is what you actually OBSERVE. So the one on the right is the right one. Tycho Brahe's model solved this and matches what we observe.
Just because it looks like that doesn't mean it is the case. By that logic ships sink in the ocean because they disappear bottom up when going over the horizon.
Do you seriously think the whole f_cking universe goes around us every day? Also why is earth magically the only thing stationery?
CoolHardLogic along with countless others debunked geo bs.
you can observe plenty of things that do not align with what reality is
Shoe size IQ heliocentrism vs Chadpilled beautiful Geocentrism.
How about make earth a flat motionless enclosed dome with a sun moon and stars revolving around its center?
because that does not explain anything.
¿Y porque un planeta estaría completamente inmmobil a pesar de tener un sol a su lado?
Put it on the back of a huge ass turtle and I'm sold!
The sun is a weird planet
If you pay attention, they're both the same, the difference is that in heliocentrism the camera is pointed towards the sun, and in geocentrism the camera is pointed towards earth
That makes a lot of sense, they go for geocentrism because they like flowers
What’s neat here is that the sun is seen to follow a perfect orbit around the earth if the geocentric model is to be believed, but every other celestial body must make wild deviations to fit the retrogrades. In the mind of an empirically-focused geocentrist, this should propose the suspicion that, since the only two possibilities to explain it are that the earth is in orbit around the sun or the sun is in orbit around the earth, and since the latter explanation produces a far sloppier system, the earth might orbit the Sun. They would do the math and realize their explanation doesn’t make nearly as much sense as the heliocentric model.
The point being that there are not really any empirically-minded geocentrists.
The Heliocentric models are more elliptical than circular though.
Saturn also isn't lodged half way into Jupiter. Duh
@@mathiasrryba I didn’t notice that lol.
All the science wank aside, these graphics are just cool. Even if it's just an extreme "what if," it's cool to see.
"Wank"--?
Technically both are correct it just depends on the focal point
I prefer the neo-Tychonic model. Not only does it require stars and galaxies orbiting at insane speeds, pulled by forces of mind melting magnitude, it’s a geocentric model that’s more heliocentric than the heliocentric model.
I'd like to point out that the left side is also inaccurate due to the lack of elliptical orbits.
That's your issue? What do you Imagine the eccentricity of the planets' orbits to be?
It's obviously not an accurate representation of the solar system simply because the distances between the planets is not a geometric progression. But the orbits are elliptic enough.
Technically circles are still ellipses, no? Not accurate to real life but theoretically possible to have perfectly circular orbits for planets.
True, but before discovering that it was essential to discover the heliocentric model first