Heliocentrism and Geocentrism

A simple animation at which is easily to observe how different and difficult is to describe a planetary motion according to Geocentric point of view, in relation to a Heliocentrism.

[@bakayarou023]

I remember reading that the ancient Greeks couldn't make sense of the movement of the planets until they considered a heliocentric model

[@eddiehill3466]

That’s because the earth is flat

[@kenzo2909]

@@eddiehill3466 u still believe it?

[@Guy_guy321]

​@@eddiehill3466 bro u still believe in that shit 💀☠️💀

[@secretman7605]

​@@eddiehill3466 flat earth only makes it worse

[@melody._.3251]

​@@eddiehill3466Still believing bullsh*t?

[@DukeEastway]

Great animation. Shows why the geocentric concept became too complex as more planets were discovered.

[@Wmafateh]

Solar system😊

[@MagicCookieGaming]

If you use a globe, but flat Earth explains it just fine 🙄

[@mrsupremegascon]

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.

[@ok.6539]

​@@MagicCookieGaming Unfortunately the Earth isn't flat 🫨

[@drg8687]

​@@MagicCookieGaming then explain it

[@xdragon2k]

I wonder if we have an animation for Lunacentrism.

[@Chicken_Little_Syndrome]

You could make one.

[@windowsxpmemesandstufflol]

Its basically the same except earth "orbits* it the closest

[@narrativeless404]

The Moon wasn't even in this animation duh

[@balijosu]

​@@narrativeless404 Nor did he suggest it was.

[@davidwuhrer6704]

@@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.)

[@prasoonjha1816]

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.

[@MacSmithVideo]

it's not untrue, it's just a more needlessly complicated model.

[@aldebenevmg]

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

[@celavetex]

​@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)

[@KennethDu]

@@celavetex it's true if you add gravity as well. It's just a messy truth

[@KennethDu]

Not untrue. Just more complicated ( needlessly)

[@jonathanaarhus224]

Fun fact: the ancient greeks were basically doing Fourier series without realizing it. Any arbitrary orbit can be modeled with the right epicycles.

[@penndragyn3728]

Oh my gosh, I never thought of it like that

[@M419.99]

Dong…

[@pressaltf4forfreevbucks179]

Or fourier was basically doing ancient greek series or something without realising it😂

[@aidenconway9087]

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 ☠️

[@speedcat9984]

Both Jupiter and Saturn do that, though I think Saturn's is better as it pauses for a little longer.

[@zwenkwiel816]

yeah geocentrism is way cooler, I choose to believe in that now XD

[@paulcoy9060]

It's easy to pause an online game.

[@user-gn1cl9ix7p]

can you give a time stamp for what you're talking about?

[@Tyler-bp4md]

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

[@whoiam5838]

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.

[@stevennelson8479]

It's a simplified model. Considering we have to deal with flerthers. Basic concepts need to be introduced at the crayon level

[@whoiam5838]

@@stevennelson8479 Good point. I just saw a lot of people in the comments asking why people were resistant to switch to the heliocentric model.

[@Mick_92]

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.

[@arnavranka4510]

Yes. Keppler's laws of planetary motion.

[@deleteduser121]

Exactly this is completely inaccurate

[@poopoofart.]

Geocentrism: the solar system but on drugs

[@_mikolaj_]

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?

[@daniser87]

Then it’s no more solar, more like Tellurian.

[@Shoteaux2]

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

[@juanargento3978]

Tychosium prove helicentrism is wrong

[@EasternRomanOrthodox.]

Ooh how clever & smart you are...No, actually our model is perfect & Sungenis destroyed your heretical one lol

[@chiechie9090]

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.

[@wdeltag]

This doesn't work every time though Consider Quantum Mechanics - there's probably no way to describe it without "extremely elaborate and confusing interactions"

[@chiechie9090]

@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.

[@metachirality]

​@@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

[@xero2715]

@@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.

[@DavidMcCoul]

Occam’s Razor

[@ThisIsTopTier]

The pattern with the geocentric model actually looks cool btw

[@ShadowFoxSF]

Galactic spirograph

[@beforethelightning9465]

@@ShadowFoxSF except it's not a galaxy. It's a stellar system, one of many billions in the Milkyway galaxy.

[@ShadowFoxSF]

@@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...

[@user-zj9cp2yg9h]

Thanks, Galileo, for saving us from this

[@komnennos]

You mean Copernicus.

[@user-zj9cp2yg9h]

@@komnennos both of them are cool

[@pedrolmlkzk]

Kepler proved it so you should thank him

[@user-zj9cp2yg9h]

@@pedrolmlkzk I thank every person that have anything to do with this

[@Fortaker]

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.

[@mr.markofski4267]

Bro, the idea heliocentrism must’ve been one of the greatest plot twists in history Imagine the first guy to ever suggest the idea

[@spector3881]

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

[@megabuster3940]

Ace Attorney Pursuit Theme Starts Playing

[@helast3916]

@@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.

[@killianmotto2684]

Nicole Oresme and Nicholas of cusa bishop and Cardinal discussed the idea during the middle age.

[@vko7059]

@@helast3916 thank you! Galileo really is the most misunderstood and overrated person in history.

[@johnnygizmo4733]

"The big yellow one is the sun"

[@narrativeless404]

No, it's your mum

[@johngavin1175]

Many moosen and boxen.

[@Helperbot-2000]

Nah its actually ya mum! Ha gottem *laughter track*

[@hakeemharun8177]

This is what ive been searching for. Geocentric animation. Thank you!

[@infidelcastrato1844]

I'm convinced. Geocentrism is true in purely aesthetic grounds, no other justification needed

[@warrix8312]

This is how I make every decision

[@aaronTGP_3756]

Occam's Razor. The explanation with the fewest assumptions (in favor of observations) is usually the best one.

[@sector_dgaming3936]

This shows how frame of reference works, and the newer models reference was just chosen because the sun is the center of gravity

[@davidwuhrer6704]

Also, it makes the maths a lot easier, plus it makes it more intuitive to understand what is going on.

[@sankang9425]

@@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.

[@davidwuhrer6704]

@@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.

[@walleras]

It isnt

[@mrprongles9510]

It's like the metric system and what the Americans use, both work but one is regarded! The visualisation is amazing thanks for that!

[@t_c5266]

Yes. Imperial is indeed highly regarded. Especially by nasa scientists

[@drunkenhobo8020]

​@@t_c5266 And recently-formed Martian craters.

[@jakesthebeast1497]

​@@t_c5266nasa requires it's scientists to use metric, but nice try

[@alcidedragon]

​@@irenaeusoflyons378Nonsense like using "foot" when the lenght of a feet only depends on ppl ?

[@fridge9514]

@Irenaeus of Lyons murica hell yeah 🇺🇲🦅🔫

[@Oliver_DaNinja]

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.

[@schlydops6352]

Yeah, orbits aren't prefect at all, but the best way to simplify it is a circle

[@heycheckthisout2565]

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?

[@davidphy]

Yes, your idea is completly correct. In this specific case we say in physics that distance is invariant over this kind of transformation.

[@moonkey2712]

The sun sure looks like it's hitting the first two planets

[@Swiftninjatrev]

The lamp picture 💀

[@derrekrjohnson]

You are correct - that is why it cannot be proven if the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Universe revolves around the Earth.

[@Swiftninjatrev]

@@derrekrjohnson It's really simple.... Track the other planets.... you saw the video.

[@chrisbolland5634]

So much simpler! I totally get why they moved to this model for explaining how the movement works.

[@Chisito23]

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

[@joshs5577]

@@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.

[@clayel1]

@@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

[@takakocaesar579]

@@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

[@mrapple2544]

​​@@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.

[@iissacc]

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

[@dogyX3]

I'm so glad that the heliocentric model was accepted

[@cardboard_is_not_edible]

Oh boy, you'd love to meet a flerf.

[@picivyvortac2641]

All it takes is a shift in perspective and a little scepticism and the chaos of the old way becomes beautiful order.

[@Morec0]

If I didn't know I was the center of everything already, I'd be pretty convinced by the heliocentric one.

[@q12aw50]

What

[@DawnDavidson]

😂😂😂

[@DJHastingsFeverPitch]

Occam's razor for the win

[@user-yj7ks9mb1e]

Gees, it's been hundreds of years, there was no need to diss it that hard

[@genesis209_gd]

Just sent this to my physics teacher. we're currently talking about orbits and stuff. So this could come in handy

[@STho205]

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.

[@walleras]

Someone gets it And as we are on Earth we should us Tycho Brahes model

[@drunkenhobo8020]

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.

[@STho205]

@@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.

[@fr126]

@@walleras well said 🙌

[@Tletna]

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).

[@SimonSenaviev]

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

[@joshs5577]

@@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.

[@SimonSenaviev]

@@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

[@joshs5577]

@@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.

[@clayel1]

@@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)

[@91jmixes40]

(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.

[@jerotoro2021]

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

[@martinb.3997]

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..."

[@Aranimda]

What about egocentrism?

[@kottonmouthhero8153]

Geocentrism still makes sense if you consider the planets are following the torus field. It's actually kinda beautiful

[@vpvnsf]

Nope.

[@ForumArcade]

I wish there were an easy way to display the orbits in three dimensions.

[@racionador]

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.

[@pedrolmlkzk]

Moons were found in the 1600s, heliocentrism wasn't proven until the 1700s

[@stevennelson8479]

Aka bible people

[@skybattler2624]

Actually, there is a Hybrid Model proposed to combine the two models...

[@EpicBenjo]

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.

[@HarryBrielmann]

and it showed where the olympics would be

[@fully0p]

flower: pretty, cool, fun! circle: boring, lame, round

[@yanbingwang6913]

what program did you use to generate this animation?

[@GermanyballYT]

Imagine if earth was the sun and the sun was earth

[@HypercatZ]

Precisely!

[@brianowens9060]

Don't even get me started with the moons!

[@BeeBaux]

What ratio you put in?

[@truthwatcher2096]

Geocentric Neptune is gonna throw up

[@denissav1033]

Nice. Would be better if you show Ptolemy's epicycles too.

[@MachianDebater]

Oh NO, Don't confuse their stupid ( ignorant on purpose ) bliss.

[@ohno2256]

Centered on the sun : 👍 Centered on the earth : 💀

[@FahrulSandyOK]

what is the song?

[@ehtresih9540]

I wonder what sort of crazy implications geocentrism would have on physics it it where real.

[@narrativeless404]

It would destroy physics in general

[@bboi1489]

There would be no physics.

[@pressaltf4forfreevbucks179]

Its the same model. Just different points of reference

[@ERBEpic]

Geocentrism as in revolve around the earth and not the sun, not as in earth is the reference frame

[@joshs5577]

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.

[@weaponizedcropduster]

The virgin heliocentric fan VS the Chad geocentric enjoyer.

[@God74689]

True

[@mjbaricua7403]

Look at the sun please

[@BayGamerTV]

I just watched one of these videos and now KZbin is like: YO THIS GUY LOVES THESE VIDS When they are just interesting

[@jambon2730]

I love how Neptune and Uranus are having the blast of their lives

[@dogol284]

We can agree that Geocentrism is absurd but let's not pretend that orbital mechanics are always so obvious...

[@maxireigl1919]

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.

[@martin6123]

Neptune and Uranus orbit for geocentrism is bonkers 😆 It's like they have separate laws of physics.

[@kuklama0706]

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.

[@MrJohnmartin2009]

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.

[@_mikolaj_]

Ngl while geocentric looks like everything is about to crash It does draw a nice flower :)

[@mr.austin8007]

Newton is gonna have a hard time with this.

[@JonNargodian]

Einstein won't though :P

[@bradleyhenderson1198]

But if you can describe the shapes and lighting required to create what appears to be the geocentric model... I'd be impressed.

[@Gamesaucer]

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.

[@andrewsemenenko8826]

Not accurate in terms of their orbital periods But srill gives you a clarity of how complex the geocentric system is

[@clayel1]

do you want a year long video lol

[@andrewsemenenko8826]

​@@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]

@@andrewsemenenko8826 ah ok lol, think thats called an orbital ratio or something

[@andrewsemenenko8826]

@@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

[@clayel1]

@@andrewsemenenko8826 orbital resonance does also work, yea

[@4_nikk_attor]

I'm so stoned I can see a 🐻

[@revinhatol]

Wow, Neptune's geocentric orbit makes a flower!

[@urphakeandgey6308]

All the science wank aside, these graphics are just cool. Even if it's just an extreme "what if," it's cool to see.

[@RideAcrossTheRiver]

"Wank"--?

[@BoBoN4Uto]

Ancient scientists: "See, geocentrism makes perfect sense!"

[@imbadatediting911]

Left: planets orbit Meanwhile right: e x o p l a n e t s o r b i t .

[@ultrio325]

To be fair, if you were looking from the ground, the planets do seem to rotate around unpredictably

[@hadhamalnam]

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.

[@celsopereiratouceira344]

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?

[@SubjectSigma18]

The planet movement in real life doesnt match the geocentric one

[@thelostone6981]

Heliocentric wins, but geocentric sure is more purdy….(don’t know why I slipped into a hillbilly accent, but I did)

[@user-hf8zy6rv4c]

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?

[@FalandoOQueQuiser]

Simplicity. Just that. Geocentric model is more complicated (mathematically) than the heliocentric. That was one of the main reasons.

[@davidphy]

Marvellous answer.

[@CSXRobert]

You actually looked at these two models and thought "they're equally efficient"?

[@jaun74]

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

[@dgsf9444]

In heliocentric model all planets follow the same rules

[@warmachineuk]

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.

[@fadhilyudistira8819]

this video has converted me to believe in geocentrism just because the swivels are cooler

[@NickAndriadze]

People during the middle ages trying to figure out how other planets orbit:

[@ewdini]

That makes a lot of sense, they go for geocentrism because they like flowers

[@boRegah]

Good music to play _Transport Tycoon Definitive Edition_ to

[@jasoncola6071]

Things is they didnt even need to change it for so long because once they actually calculated them the geocentric almanacs worked just as well for predicting where the planets were.

[@TimeSpaceU]

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 🙏

[@aliendroid8174]

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.

[@raptorwhite6468]

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

[@EngineerST]

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.

[@brenorocha6687]

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.

[@thunderspark1536]

@@raptorwhite6468 Isn't that due to it's rotation around the center of the milky way though?

[@wedgewizard5429]

Fun fact: The earth is the only flat celestial body, the rest are spherical for some reason.

[@fridge9514]

That's cool, mind giving us the source of that sacred knowledge? Facebook, perhaps?

[@daviddanis6385]

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.

[@kirbed9486]

Tbh it’s a shame we don’t have a geocentric system, cuz it look cool. Like the start of a really cool Mandela or sumthin

[@jeffdege4786]

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.

[@AbuMaia01]

Heliocentrism is indeed "right", as the math used to describe it has been used successfully to send spacecraft to the other planets and beyond.

[@jeffdege4786]

@@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.

[@nickelbutt]

@@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.

[@JonNargodian]

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.

[@maxireigl1919]

@@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.

[@superpatchemario]

The sun is a weird planet

[@brianarbenz1329]

Pretty!

[@adventist123]

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.

[@dr.fjoer_the_crazy_scienti5841]

..... And there are still people out there (ALOT) who believes in Geocentric system 🤦‍♂️

[@narrativeless404]

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

[@dr.fjoer_the_crazy_scienti5841]

@@narrativeless404 Wait until they start threatening you, no joke i had that kind of experience few months ago

[@narrativeless404]

@@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

[@dr.fjoer_the_crazy_scienti5841]

@@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)

[@narrativeless404]

@@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*

[@joshuabarrick5468]

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.

[@davidphy]

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 [e-mail]. ¡Thanks!

[@MajorasWrath1]

@@davidphy did you ever get that email

[@notmichaelmccormick]

Traitor, earth is flat, quit selling out your species

[@2NDFLB-CLERK]

@@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. 🟥

[@Z.O.M.G]

@@notmichaelmccormick no, just no

[@mathildaleina4771]

that's how solar system moves in earth's perspective huh... pretty cool

[@AndreaLauri]

What's the blue, stable point for?

[@Ml-hj6yw]

That's the earth in the geocentric model, it's stable in a perspective in which the earth is orbited by everything else. Same with the sun in the heliocentric model.

[@AndreaLauri]

​@@Ml-hj6ywso, in the right motion the sun is in blue, is it??

[@edufurzao8849]

@@AndreaLauri No, the heliocentric model has the yellow circle (sun) being in the center not moving

[@AndreaLauri]

@@edufurzao8849 so the eliocentric model is the one on the left side? The one on the right side has a blue stable point and a moving yellow sun. The blue point is really undefined. The heliocentric model has not a known center.

[@edufurzao8849]

@@AndreaLauri yeah, the blue point is the earth 👍

[@KyuuDesperation]

Geocentric: Flat Earthers

[@lagartino5093]

Not necessarily

[@rileydurrer2497]

Technically both are correct it just depends on the focal point

[@Psalm1101]

Cool that's why I know believe the entropic principal a priveleged planet solar system sun moon magneticsphere etc

[@Zorro33313]

One on the right is modern particle physics in a nutshell

[@anamatamala4717]

En la primera muestra la perfecta alineacion de los planetas en la segunda el caos y la posible autodestruccion de los mismos

[@misaelm1701]

Técnicamente es lo mismo solo que visto desde la tierra, y como no somos el centro parece un caos, pero en realidad, sí uno se fija bien los planetas giran alrededor del sol

[@EyeSmiteThee]

Isn’t that the flower of life……. A pattern that exists everywhere? 🤔

[@user-zz3sn8ky7z]

It looks nothing like the flower of life

[@RevealingDaniel]

Usted tiene una cuenta de Twitter?

[@Bobsteperous]

I like how the geocentric orbits look like a flower, just because its dumb doesnt mean its not pretty ❤

[@angelamonk716]

It's geometry which one can see in all nature. Literally common sense

[@andisaidhey9088]

The flower of life died when globe-ism was introduced?

[@angelamonk716]

Introduced by those in charge , the globalist

[@tardissins7512]

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.

[@spaghettiisyummy.3623]

The geocentric one makes a Flower, lel!

[@jamon283]

That's what I've been saying. Geocentrism isn't wrong... It's just way harder to explain

[@Chicken_Little_Syndrome]

No. The current Big-Banged model is more difficult and fundamentally flawed.

[@raptorwhite6468]

​@@Chicken_Little_Syndrome Yes, it is difficult, but not flawed

[@raoulduke7668]

@@Chicken_Little_Syndrome how is it flawed?

[@theendlessvoid7124]

Geocentrism is most definitely incorrect

[@narrativeless404]

Geocentrism is a dumb idea, because it contradics the gravity Like, how can a larger object orbit a smaller one, unless the smaller one is more massive More mass = stronger gravity