Don't worry, a switching power supply still has a transformer at its core. A small but very efficient one thanks to working at a much higher frequency than 50/60 Hz.
@@Stroheim333 I think one of videos about general relativity on this channel gives the answers that there is no one point of view and every observer is right, you'll just need to enhance your equations like with electrodynamic in that video.
@@vyacheslavgordievsky7216 You forget that acceleration and inertia are basic concepts in special and general relativity. Every observer is right, as long as they agree on the basic concepts.
You are the center of your universe, the outside universe happens elsewhere till it gets to you, when it gets to you, you also get to there, it makes an intersection between your universe and the outside one You're not part of the universe that's your age in light years, just like you're not yet part of your own future, because it hasn't reached you yet. Light cones can be applied to every single bit of the universe, with ER=EPR+AdS-CFT I find it valid to say that interactions are equivalent to entanglement, like you becoming part of the quantum system of schroedinger's cat. As in the information reaching you makes you connected to the system where you're observing, when you didn't measure it's in a ""superposition"" because it's in a part of the universe that hasn't reached you yet, it might as well be inside a black hole in that sense. I also think it's important to note that information is abstract, not real. With Pierce's semiotics (which is where the uncertainty principle comes from) we understand that there's something "physical" that we give a symbol(name/abstract concept to model it) and how we interpret it is what we call information. I completely support an epistemological approach to quantum mechanics, where superposition means merely lack of knowledge about it, not a real state of non-defined properties, we just don't know what they are. Most of quantum mechanics is statistics/probability, it's not about a single quanta, but what many quanta behave like after enough of them are measured, but I also don't believe in particles, just regions of spacetime where that kind of energy is concentrated, highly entangled to the spacetime immediately around it and less entangled to the spacetime further from it, yet still entangled, which is why it's also there, not just at the point where it's more concentrated thus is the part that has enough energy to "collapse" it into a single point, which is not the only place the quanta hit, but it's where there was enough of it to be measured, and when it interacts with the detector the entanglement is broken, but because the energy was absorbed and transformed into something else completely different which "carries the information"(not the original one, but the result from a chain reaction through the physical system that constitutes the measurement device that converts it into readable information (which again, it's purely abstract and not directly a property of the thing, it refers to it, but it isn't it just like the name we call it isn't the thing we're naming). I honestly think this is close to the most reasonable interpretation of quantum mechanics, I'd even go as far as saying that the uncertainty principle at its latest stage(unpublished and unfinished but which Bohr and others contributed too) is the theory of everything, at least regarding the philosophy of physics and information. Not a final model for all of physics, but about what model is possibly knowable. There's probably incongruences, contradictions, and other mistakes, but the corrected version of it, imho, is not only a completely valid interpretation just like the other ones, but one that is philosophically enlightening and gives us insight as to why in physics we actually must shut up and calculate to understand our models, because the "true nature of reality" is both unknowable and platonic, we only see what we're able to, and it's a matter for the philosophy of physics, not """real""" physics, which is about models based upon something real, and yet only indirectly through the physical path it takes(in the form it takes, e.g: a photon). It's like what we see it's what our brains project outwards, not the "real" outside, but an interpreted and limited version of it, like, colors aren't a real physical property of stuff, but an emergent phenomena that depends on a brain to exist as an abstract subjective perspective. I really hope this makes sense to others as well as it does for me. As a final note, quoting the poem at the end of Minecraft: "And the universe said you are not separate from it And the universe said you are the universe experiencing itself, tasting itself." Our subjective perspectives are an illusion, the chair you sit on is as much part of your local system as is your body, it's just not a constant part of it. (How this relates to everything else is both trivial and too complex to explain, specially since it must emerge from within your brain/processing system, information from outside when interpreted adds noise, as Penrose conjectures(albeit about "real" quantum information): information can't be transmitted perfectly without losses and added noise.)
Every interpretation that works is equally valid. We just pick our favorites because it makes our models easier to work with. The world does revolve around you from your perspective as does the outside world move when you're in a car. The only objective "perspective" is the ethereal/platonic physical universe in of itself as it happens(when and where it happens AND the sum of all of those), it can't be simplified down to a model, it is what it is. But our models are extremely effective and useful still, just not "the real thing" itself, but an abstract "symbol" for it
Yep, although, if I wanted to say, "dammit!", and just choose a point as center and run with it, I'd immediately run into a huge problem: I can't even define what my point is without referring, and thus "locking" my whole model to an existing object. And since in the universe, everything is moving, I would soon find that every thing else except that single point is actually moving on a PCF (stands for "Ptolemian Carousel Fractal"). I find this nauseating in a very strange way. (Don't do drugs, they said, don't eat random plants and mushrooms, they said, don't spin on your chair after your 30th birthday, they said, but nobody warned me about this!)
I always thought that it's valid to se the earth as the center of the solar system but could not imagine in my head how all the sun/planets movement would look like, interesting video, thanks.
Yeah it's about as valid as saying the signs are the ones moving past you as you drive down the road. Mathematically it can be modeled that way, but reality states another story.
@@Mike__B . There is a word for that where for example, a train going through a cutting, any calculations concerning the two, do not rely on either one being the one that is actually in motion.
@@Mike__B Here is the thing though, those signs are attached to the Earth so they are in fact moving in a whole bunch of reference frames not only the reference frame of the car. In fact there is only one reference frame where they are not moving that being the reference frame of the surface of the Earth immediately near the sign. From anywhere else on the surface it seems to be moving extremely slowly as the crust of the earth gradually drifts and deforms creating relative motion over distance, let alone from anywhere that is not standing on the surface of the Earth at all. So yeah everything is moving and the only things that appear to be stationary are those in a co-moving reference frame with yourself as when your motion is in sync the object appears to be at rest relative to you but everything not in the same reference frame seems to be moving.
Nick, you're on a roll with absolute bangers man! Such good stuff!! I especially like the "as long as the Sun still controls everything, you can make the center of the Solar System anywhere you'd like" part.
I knew earth can be a center for the universe if looked from a perspective, just couldn't do the math and imagination of what the orbitals would looked like, thanks for the nice demonstration.
@@ScienceAsylumthere is a a defender of the geocentric model by the name of Robert sungenis , I would like you to organize a debate at channel called standing for truth
@@pyropulseIXXIWhat evidence is there against the geocentric model called the Neo-Tychonic model in which the planets revolve around the sun, but the sun revolves around the earth in the center and the whole universe rotates around the earth?
This is a really important thing to realize about reference frames. Nice video! Also, the orbits _do_ have a certain beauty from different reference frames if we track them long enough. (if we ignore certain messinesses). Venus makes a very nice 5 petal shape.
@@ScienceAsylum A suggestion: An interesting followup to this could be "if gravity has a speed, why is earth attracted to where the sun is 'now'"? How static fields are Lorentz invariant. Because it is actually true that orbits would not be stable if the gravitational signal was delayed, it's just that this delay doesn't apply to objects moving together due to relative velocity to the observer.
@@narfwhals7843 ... Is that the case, though? Not an expert on this but I think that gravity's speed actually plays a factor when you consider that the Sun actually orbits a point that is not its center, and also in interactions between planets. Even if it was just the Earth and the Sun, it would still have a tiny effect do to the offset between the center of the Sun and the common center of gravity around which both would orbit. Taking it to an extreme, if the Earth orbited the Sun making 1/2 an orbit in the time that it takes light (or gravity) to reach Earth, the Earth would perceive the gravity from the Sun as if the Sun was in the near side of its orbit around the common center, rather than the far end. I don't know if that would lead to a stable or unstable orbit, but it would not have the same radius and speed than the expected one from Newtonian physics. Of course that at the end of the day all orbits are unstable when you take into account relativistic effects and bodies always end up spiraling into each other (even if at a negligible rate). (and let's not even start talking about the n-bodies problem with the objects moving not in a common plane, which in the long term is almost always chaotic and unstable). Either that, or I am totally wrong (which is totally possible).
@@narfwhals7843 The "if gravity has a speed, why is earth attracted to where the sun is 'now'" video has been on my list for almost two years now. I'm hoping that my schedule adjustments for 2023 will give me the time I need to get the tiny insight I'm missing. Like, I understand it, but not quite well enough to _explain_ it yet.
I believe the shift from geocentrism to heliocentrism is one of the most instructive lessons there is for teaching the philosophy of science. Both are equally valid centers. And yet neither is, because the same is true of every other point in the universe. "Truth" and "knowledge" become such interesting and nuanced concepts, radically unmoored from the idea of a singular objective perspective naively implied by those words, and yet that intractable subjectivity makes the human accomplishment that is science so much more impressive. Just because our reference frame is subjective doesn't mean that anything goes. It just means there are many angles from which to approach reality.
I want to see an animation for the geocentric orbit for all the planets at once and see what crazy shape it draws, i thought that is what we were gonna get
Gotta admit the heliocentric view of the sky as the ground moves is awesome. Imagine falling up off the earth as it rotated like there was no gravity 😅
You might want to go back and learn what so called gravity defines as now. It's not what hold things to the ground. Hasn't been that way according to these so-called scientists ever since Einstein came up with the theory of a special relativity because even Einstein could see how ridiculous gravity was and how far off the formula was so he had to fix it with another theory
As someone who has made a bunch of relativity videos, the phrase "the sun is the center of the solar system" has often made me nervous. I guess it's a fine thing to say in casual conversation. But as you say, you can put the "center" of your reference frame wherever you like!
Right?!? Are the orbits ellipses? Yes, if the Sun is treated as stationary. If not, then they're slanted spirals. Both are valid statements in relativity.
True, but usually it's correct to tell that the Sun is the center of the solar system. If you take all the mass and compute the center of mass, it's inside the Sun, so technically, the center of the solar system IS the Sun. But when you talk about the reference frames, yes, you can choose, but even in that case, the barycentre will not change.
I'm not sure he does. Or at least he completely ignored that reference frames are arbitrary only if they aren't rotating. While you can't sense/measure the constant motion of something like the earth, but you can measure its rotation. So even if earth was considered the center of the solar system you'd still be able to measure the fact that it's rotating. So at least the sun isn't rotating around the earth on a daily frequency, but rather yearly if any.
What is interesting in the retrograde animation is that if you defocus on the earth and instead follow the sun, everything still moves in a elliptical orbit, while drawing a funny squiggly line.
The historic argument against heliocentrism is the apparent lack of parallax of the stars. Once we started looking at the Sun and the stars with a spectroscope, we might guess that the Sun is in fact just another star. Knowing this, we can estimate the distance to at least some of the brighter stars. Armed with an estimate of distance, we then have an idea of how much parallax to look for. It is tiny, but now it can actually be measured with enough effort, and this favours the heliocentric model after all. It takes time, like a couple of centuries, to work it all out.
that's pretty neato. i appreciate validating the processes people go through to reach wrong conclusions. sometimes they're wrong but that's still as right as they can possibly be with the information at hand!
Hi Nick....the new Almagest... ( The greatest...).this was as mind-blowing as super clear .. I really cannot figure out how you can come up with these masterpieces, really... Astonishing... And thank you so much for the simulation!! I'd love to know how to do them by myself! Lol from Italy!
I remember messing with the perspective in a gravity simulator program. You could center it on any of the planets (or ones of your own creation) and just sit back and enjoy the spirographs it would create The "center" of my universe was born a few months before me so if the Universe sees fit to have me depart before she does, then I will have been blessed via my lifetime's limited perspective that she - like the stars, galaxies, sun, moon, and Earth - is eternal
Apart from the topic... These animations have much better quality than a year ago. It's a lot of work. You made all of them, didn't you? My absolute respect for the level of production you are achieving. Still far from the asyntote, way to go, Doctor! 🤓🖖
@@ScienceAsylumWhat evidence is there against the geocentric model called the Neo-Tychonic model in which the planets revolve around the sun, but the sun revolves around the earth in the center and the whole universe rotates around the earth?
First of all: I love your Kurzgesagt shirt. Second. This is really good as all your videos, but I thought you were going to say that we move in a spiral motion through the galaxy.
love the video... but left me feeling like one of those series that end on a cliffhanger ... would love another episode detailing the last part ... just to see in more detail the complicated but acurate geocentic view.
The who at the center of my universe is a Fourier series with my immediate family at the center. The fundamental object at the center is my wristwatch. This question should be easy but started to overload my mind when I started to think of just how many components are in my Fourier series! 🤯
There is much talk that heliocentrism and geocentrism are simply a matter of "frames of reference" or "points of view." But there is a "detail" that is often overlooked: geocentrism contains objects that revolve around nothing on epicycles. That is INCORRECT, regardless of the point of view or whether we apply the mechanics of Newton or Einstein.
What? Rotate around nothing? The world works electromagnetically. You have some serious researching to do how the actual world works not how you tube tells you it does
Great video, just one note. At 2:06, the order of the wanderers had nothing to do with distance. It wasn't to denote their order of furthest to closest from earth, but rather it was an order of hierarchy based on the god/goddess each one represented. Saturn (or Cronus) was the highest or top god, Jupiter (or Zeus) was number 2, then Mars/Ares), the Sun (Sol/Helios), Venus/Aphrodite, Mercury/Hermes, and finally, at the bottom of the hierarchy, was the Moon (Luna/Selene). Fun fact for anyone curious; the Greek and Roman names for the sun god Sol and Helios (respectively) is where we get the words solar (as in solar system) and heliocentric. The Moon goddess Luna is where we get lunar.
As someone with a more mathematical background than a science background, I enjoyed saying the earth being the center of the universe is just a matter of changing some coordinates. OK, the math is more complicated, but that is just a bonus!
Everything in the universe is relative. I remember saying the sun is not stationary in school, but my teacher thought I was saying that it rotates around the earth, while what I actually meant was that sun itself is rotating about its axis and the whole solar system moves around the Milky way, and then further Milky way isn't stationary as well.
Been thinking for a while now , that the Sun is also in an orbit around the center ; or could the Sun and Earth be orbiting each other , like two square-dance partners Dosey-doeing ?
The Sun does revolve around the Earth in an Earth centric frame. Do you not know what reference frames are? In a Mars centered frame, everything revolves around Mars. If you make your reference frame the Sun, then no, the solar system does not move through the Milky Way; the Milky Way would rotate around the solar system. This is what 'everything being relative' actually means
@@seanspartan2023 The Sun only rotates around the barycenter if you choose the barycenter to be the frame of reference. FFS, did you people not watch the video or take physics in college? All humans observe from Earth, so literally everything revolves around Earth. This is just an observational fact. The Sun does not revolve around a 'barycenter.' It revolves around Earth. Any observations we make must be with reference to this Earth-centric frame. Now, you can do math in a sun centered frame, or a barycenter centered frame, but you have to convert to the Earth centric frame when you make observations. it is inescapable. The earth centered frame is the only inescapable frame (with respect to observation )
The part about the inception of the heliocentric model omits a very important detail... Until Kepler came along, all those including Copernicus himself considered circular orbits, which flew in the face of the astronomical data in such observatories as Herat and Maragha. As such, the heliocentric model was not adopted overnight, it was gradually refined up until Kepler after which it replaced the Ptolemaic system. Also, you should have mentioned the Tusi couples as a better more refined version of Ptolemy's epicycles.
This is a great vid, and changing which object orbits reference really helped me make sense of the 'weird' trajectories/orbits of the Orion capsule recently. If you make it earth centric, its a totally bizarre set of moves that don't make sense, but if you make it moon centric it does make a lot more sense (to be at least).
If I recall correctly I think it was Scott Manley who did a vid on Orion's orbit and included a load of visualisations where it all 'clicked'. The maths to do it didn't look all that complex (relative) as well which is cool too.
This reminds me of the really good science fiction short story “Epicycle,” published in Analog Magazine, November 1973. The author was P.J. Plauger, the same guy who had/has a brilliant career as a computer scientist.
Ptolemei isn't responsible for epicycles and equants, Appolonius is responsible for equants, which means Appolonius knew how to construct nearly perfect epicycles. Appolonius is a contemporary of Archimedes, who, from the sand reckoner, followed Aristarchus of Samos in believing the Earth goes around the sun. The epicycles and equants are therefore most likely constructed from off-center circular orbits around the sun, the same way we think of it today. Ptolmei's job is to retrofit all the Astronomy to get rid of the Earth going around the sun business, and then all the heliocentric stuff was burned and buried, including all of Appolonius's work, except for one surviving volume which was an in depth study of conic sections. The fact that he was an astronomer, and that he ended up studying conics, means to me that it is likely he figured out the correct heliocentric orbits were conic sections, but this is not at all certain. The history here is not a triumph of progress, but of progress followed by regress followed by more progress.
1:25 In Holland we say "neesh" instead of "nitch", which i think makes more sense, because of the e at the end. Besides, it's also how the French pronounce it, and it is a French word to begin with.
@@Secret_Moon Really? It's pretty common among Americans, but i have always found it pretty odd. PBS also does it from time to time, depending on which presenter is doing the video.
@@ScienceAsylum Ah yeah, i've accepted the linguistic handicaps and impediments of Americans by now, i wouldn't ask you to pronounce Van Gogh correctly :P haha
Hey can you do a video on what a Voltage Drop actually is & how that is different from Power loss? If would help so many people because many people struggle to understand what a Voltage drop actually is. 😎👍
Actually people knew earth is round already in antique times by comparing the shadow the sun is casting at different locations. So no need to go by ship around the globe.
_"At issue in the 1490s was not the shape but the circumference of the earth. His sailors were not worried about sailing "off the edge" of the world; they were concerned about starving in the vastness of the uncharted ocean._ _"The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. But it gained currency in the 19th century, thanks to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896)."_ -Dr. James Hannam Colombus's sailors didn't starve to death because the Bahamas were exactly where he though Japan would be.
Actually this experiment is reproducible on your home dinner table with a local light source and in fact is evidence of nothing. If it was proven in antiquity, then why was Galileo persecuted for his heliocentric beliefs... which he renounced on his death bed.
It is useful to think about what solar system looks like from the perspective of any other star in the universe. All controversy disappears and it becomes clear why it is "wrong" to say that Earth is in the center.
Already working on a "To the Timeline!" shirt 👍. It's being designed by the same person that designed my logo. (We've been friends since we were small kids.)
I watched a video that talked about coordinate systems, and how if we really wanted to, could make a working system where the Earth IS the center of the universe (motion being relative, and all that). That doesn't mean it would be intuitive, easy to use, or reflect the reality we observe. But it's possible. That's what this video reminded me of!
Yep! Although, I'd disagree with it "not reflecting the reality we observe." Those coordinates would match the universe as humans on Earth observe it. Our point of view just isn't very useful in the grand scheme.
@@ScienceAsylum You're right. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of "If we were the center of everything, nearly all non local objects in the night sky would be moving faster than the speed of light in order to be "orbiting" us as we observe.
I hate when people say the old geocentric model isn't right, because it is; it is just as valid as a sun centered frame. They literally teach reference frames in basic physics, then go on to say that geocentric frames are wrong; contradictory teaching So why describe from the Sun? Because, the math is easier, but you still have to convert back to an Earth frame when making observations, because all observations are made in this frame
How can Earth be the center of the solar system - all the planets, moons and other matter in the system is not even close to the mass of the Sun and gravity is mass x velocity so based on that alone it is impossible for anything less massive than the Sun to be the center.
@@muninrob Not according to Einstein - The Space Time Continuum is flat until you introduce mass in motion into it creating a Gravity Well which is just a funnel of free fall motion of mass on the surface of the continuum.
Just look up and see yourself. Your eyes see exactly this behavior while your intelect uses helioscentric science. Both are correct because of different perspectives.Just don't try to imagine all the movement in space with the earth as the center of observation. I tried during the vídeo and ran out of imagination buffer :D
@@edgarplummer6750 Could you quote me your source please? I'd like to know what you misunderstood to make gravity reliant on motion, none of the space time diagrams I'm familiar with require the mass to be in motion to "create" gravity.
From our perspective, yes. Is that how things actually are? No. 'Apparent' is the key word in the term apparent retrograde motion. Ie: it seems to be, but not necessarily so.
According to relativity, there's not such thing as "how things actually are." Almost all statements require a reference. Does Earth orbit the Sun? Yes, if the Sun is treated as stationary. Does the Sun orbit the Earth? Yes, if Earth is treated as stationary. Both physical perspectives are valid.
10:08 Yes and no. Phone chargers are required to have isolation between their inputs and outputs. So they must have a transformer to add that isolation. Switch mode power supply transformers operate in the 10's, or 100's of kilohertz range depending on the design. Because of the higher operating frequency, they can be much smaller than a 60Hz transformers. The most common isolated switch mode power supply is a flyback converter which uses a flyback "transformer" to add galvanic isolation between the input and output. I put air quotes around transformer because it acts more like two coupled inductors instead of a normal transformer. Normal transformers do not store energy. As energy comes into the primary side it is sent out to the secondary side. Flyback transformers on the other hand store energy in the primary side inductor for a duration of time by turning on a switch and then transfer the energy over to the secondary side when that switch is turned off. Even though the operation of a flyback transformer is different than a typical transformer, the relationship between the input and output voltage is still dependent on the turns ratio between the two sides so you can reduce the 120/240VAC input to a much lower level. Flyback converters are popular because they only require one switching element (a mosfet typically) and the secondary side inductor can be used in conjunction with a capacitor to form an LC lowpass filter. This filter is required to smooth out the output waveform and make it more DC. Switch mode power supply designs that use normal transformers have to add an additional inductor on the secondary side to be able to filter the output ripple voltage, increasing cost. So yes, wall plugs do not have bulky 60Hz transformers to reduce the voltage, but they do have high frequency transformers to add isolation between the input and output.
Pluto was mentioned, what is your opinion of this paper: Philip T. Metzger, et al The reclassification of asteroids from planets to non-planets, Icarus, Volume 319, 2019, Pages 21-32, ISSN 0019-1035, Arguing for a broader definition of planet that would bring Pluto and many other objects under that term?
I love the fact that you put things in context. So far, when people talk about Ptolemee, they forget that he made those calculations based on the knowledge of the time (and it worked for so long). What I don't respect is the fact that the church mixed Ptolemee work with religion, so that no new improvement could be added to his work.
Another factor to consider is that based on the knowledge and tools of the time, a non-geocentric model is actually less accurate. If Earth is moving, then there should be a stellar parallax and none was ever observed. Today we know that's because even the nearest star is more than one parsec away and at one parsec, a star would have a parallax of one arcsecond. For Ptolemy or anyone else in the next 1500 years until telescopes were invented, a heliocentric model would have had to explain the lack of stellar parallax as the Earth movies. It actually was considered that maybe the stars were so far away that any parallax would be too small to see but that results in ludicrously big numbers for the distance to the stars. Not only that, but based on the observed size of the stars they'd have to be ridiculously huge. Today we know that for sufficiently distant objects, because light is a wave the observed size is a result of diffraction and aperture size so people are actually only seeing the Airy disk and the stars really are incredibly distant and incredibly big. So until the invention of the telescope and highly accurate clocks that allowed better observations and further developments of physics such as Newton's Universal Gravitation, the Ptolemaic model was the one that made the fewest assumptions.
@@lunatickoala that's why, I think the guy deserves a lot of credit (particularly based on this video). I didn't see it that way until I watched the video. Many videos present things with zero or not enough context.
Kerbal Space Program plus the mods "Real Solar System" and "Principia" can display exactly what that looks like if you select the earth as the center. actually i think you can choose any planet you are orbiting/landed on. i only tested it for fun, too jank to use in normal playing... (lag, too many lines and no orbits plus plotting trajectories are rather limited in range.)
Hope your holidays are going well, and you, your wife, and clones are keeping warm. We just learned a new word today "permittivity". Maybe a recommendation for a video? and touch on Coulomb's law?(if you haven't made one yet) Just a thought.
I never thought I'd hear Nick say "sus" but great video anyways 💀👍I love looking at night sky timelapses, bc you can always see and imagine yourself spinning with earth with a "stationary" sky.
It's kind of like looking at our solar system as a stationary "flat disc" with all the planets orbiting neatly around the sun. When in reality the sun is rocketing through the milky way with itself orbiting the center of our galaxy while all our planets are orbiting around it WHILE being dragged along behind it. Different points of reference, same effect.
One important thing to realize is that the sun is _not_ dragging the planets around the milky way. The planets are in orbit around the milky way just like the sun. They are just also in orbit around the sun. The planets could orbit without the sun perfectly fine. Just like the moon isn't being dragged around the sun by the earth. It is orbiting the sun _and_ the earth. The moon would also orbit the sun without the earth, just in a less wobbly way.
The confusion lies in how we define 'the center of the solar system.' If 'center' means the origin of a reference frame, then it can be anywhere, even Earth. However, in terms of the solar system's center of mass or geometric center, Earth is definitely not at the center. This actual center, largely influenced by the Sun's mass, can shift within or occasionally outside the Sun, depending on the planets' positions. Therefore, the term 'center' can be ambiguous and has historically led to misunderstandings about the solar system's structure.
What evidence is there against the geocentric model called the Neo-Tychonic model in which the planets revolve around the sun, but the sun revolves around the earth in the center and the whole universe rotates around the earth?
Ptolemy predicted planetary motion (in some cases) even better than Copernicus. Copernicus's model had some VERY powerful attractions (pun), simplicity, elegance, absence of ad hoc "fixes". Sometimes simplicity and elegance actually BEAT accuracy.
![[UNCUT]“ฅนตื่นธรรม”ปะทะ“หมอปลา-ปู่มหามุนี-อั๋นโอกิ”สะเทือนกระทรวงเวทมนตร์ Iคนดังนั่งเคลียร์I10 ตค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/peMD_SAkwNc/mqdefault.jpg)
If you want to play around with the simulation near the end of the video: github.com/ScienceAsylum/Orbital-Transformation
Yes, of course! I always want to play with the solar system
Would accept a PR?
Don't worry, a switching power supply still has a transformer at its core. A small but very efficient one thanks to working at a much higher frequency than 50/60 Hz.
@@Stroheim333 I think one of videos about general relativity on this channel gives the answers that there is no one point of view and every observer is right, you'll just need to enhance your equations like with electrodynamic in that video.
@@vyacheslavgordievsky7216 You forget that acceleration and inertia are basic concepts in special and general relativity. Every observer is right, as long as they agree on the basic concepts.
Every point is the center of the universe. The math can always be made to work. It's just that some assumptions make it a bit less complicated.
Yep! That's the take-away I'm hoping people get from this video.
You are the center of your universe, the outside universe happens elsewhere till it gets to you, when it gets to you, you also get to there, it makes an intersection between your universe and the outside one
You're not part of the universe that's your age in light years, just like you're not yet part of your own future, because it hasn't reached you yet.
Light cones can be applied to every single bit of the universe, with ER=EPR+AdS-CFT I find it valid to say that interactions are equivalent to entanglement, like you becoming part of the quantum system of schroedinger's cat.
As in the information reaching you makes you connected to the system where you're observing, when you didn't measure it's in a ""superposition"" because it's in a part of the universe that hasn't reached you yet, it might as well be inside a black hole in that sense.
I also think it's important to note that information is abstract, not real.
With Pierce's semiotics (which is where the uncertainty principle comes from) we understand that there's something "physical" that we give a symbol(name/abstract concept to model it) and how we interpret it is what we call information.
I completely support an epistemological approach to quantum mechanics, where superposition means merely lack of knowledge about it, not a real state of non-defined properties, we just don't know what they are.
Most of quantum mechanics is statistics/probability, it's not about a single quanta, but what many quanta behave like after enough of them are measured, but I also don't believe in particles, just regions of spacetime where that kind of energy is concentrated, highly entangled to the spacetime immediately around it and less entangled to the spacetime further from it, yet still entangled, which is why it's also there, not just at the point where it's more concentrated thus is the part that has enough energy to "collapse" it into a single point, which is not the only place the quanta hit, but it's where there was enough of it to be measured, and when it interacts with the detector the entanglement is broken, but because the energy was absorbed and transformed into something else completely different which "carries the information"(not the original one, but the result from a chain reaction through the physical system that constitutes the measurement device that converts it into readable information (which again, it's purely abstract and not directly a property of the thing, it refers to it, but it isn't it just like the name we call it isn't the thing we're naming).
I honestly think this is close to the most reasonable interpretation of quantum mechanics, I'd even go as far as saying that the uncertainty principle at its latest stage(unpublished and unfinished but which Bohr and others contributed too) is the theory of everything, at least regarding the philosophy of physics and information. Not a final model for all of physics, but about what model is possibly knowable.
There's probably incongruences, contradictions, and other mistakes, but the corrected version of it, imho, is not only a completely valid interpretation just like the other ones, but one that is philosophically enlightening and gives us insight as to why in physics we actually must shut up and calculate to understand our models, because the "true nature of reality" is both unknowable and platonic, we only see what we're able to, and it's a matter for the philosophy of physics, not """real""" physics, which is about models based upon something real, and yet only indirectly through the physical path it takes(in the form it takes, e.g: a photon).
It's like what we see it's what our brains project outwards, not the "real" outside, but an interpreted and limited version of it, like, colors aren't a real physical property of stuff, but an emergent phenomena that depends on a brain to exist as an abstract subjective perspective.
I really hope this makes sense to others as well as it does for me.
As a final note, quoting the poem at the end of Minecraft:
"And the universe said you are not separate from it
And the universe said you are the universe experiencing itself, tasting itself."
Our subjective perspectives are an illusion, the chair you sit on is as much part of your local system as is your body, it's just not a constant part of it.
(How this relates to everything else is both trivial and too complex to explain, specially since it must emerge from within your brain/processing system, information from outside when interpreted adds noise, as Penrose conjectures(albeit about "real" quantum information): information can't be transmitted perfectly without losses and added noise.)
Every interpretation that works is equally valid. We just pick our favorites because it makes our models easier to work with.
The world does revolve around you from your perspective as does the outside world move when you're in a car.
The only objective "perspective" is the ethereal/platonic physical universe in of itself as it happens(when and where it happens AND the sum of all of those), it can't be simplified down to a model, it is what it is.
But our models are extremely effective and useful still, just not "the real thing" itself, but an abstract "symbol" for it
Yep, although, if I wanted to say, "dammit!", and just choose a point as center and run with it, I'd immediately run into a huge problem: I can't even define what my point is without referring, and thus "locking" my whole model to an existing object. And since in the universe, everything is moving, I would soon find that every thing else except that single point is actually moving on a PCF (stands for "Ptolemian Carousel Fractal").
I find this nauseating in a very strange way. (Don't do drugs, they said, don't eat random plants and mushrooms, they said, don't spin on your chair after your 30th birthday, they said, but nobody warned me about this!)
That makes me wonder, whether complicated stuff becomes simpler if we just change our POV🤔
I always thought that it's valid to se the earth as the center of the solar system but could not imagine in my head how all the sun/planets movement would look like, interesting video, thanks.
Glad I could give you a visual 🤓
Did ye aye
Yeah it's about as valid as saying the signs are the ones moving past you as you drive down the road. Mathematically it can be modeled that way, but reality states another story.
@@Mike__B .
There is a word for that where for example, a train going through a cutting, any calculations concerning the two, do not rely on either one being the one that is actually in motion.
@@Mike__B Here is the thing though, those signs are attached to the Earth so they are in fact moving in a whole bunch of reference frames not only the reference frame of the car. In fact there is only one reference frame where they are not moving that being the reference frame of the surface of the Earth immediately near the sign. From anywhere else on the surface it seems to be moving extremely slowly as the crust of the earth gradually drifts and deforms creating relative motion over distance, let alone from anywhere that is not standing on the surface of the Earth at all. So yeah everything is moving and the only things that appear to be stationary are those in a co-moving reference frame with yourself as when your motion is in sync the object appears to be at rest relative to you but everything not in the same reference frame seems to be moving.
Nick, you're on a roll with absolute bangers man! Such good stuff!!
I especially like the "as long as the Sun still controls everything, you can make the center of the Solar System anywhere you'd like" part.
Now the center of my Universe is my cup of tea. Thank you very much for your work.
And the biscuits orbit around it?
If you're English, it would nicely combine with the Milkyway.
Mine is coffee, but I still agree with your statement.
This is my cup of tea as well, but I am more of a coffee guy. So basically an alternate universe.
Hello World.
oooh tea! I love tea.
This discussion went flat very fast 😱🤭
I knew earth can be a center for the universe if looked from a perspective, just couldn't do the math and imagination of what the orbitals would looked like, thanks for the nice demonstration.
It's a tricky calculation. Thank goodness for computers.
You are the center for all observations, not the Earth
@@ScienceAsylumthere is a a defender of the geocentric model by the name of Robert sungenis , I would like you to organize a debate at channel called standing for truth
@@pyropulseIXXIWhat evidence is there against the geocentric model called the Neo-Tychonic model in which the planets revolve around the sun, but the sun revolves around the earth in the center and the whole universe rotates around the earth?
This is a really important thing to realize about reference frames. Nice video!
Also, the orbits _do_ have a certain beauty from different reference frames if we track them long enough. (if we ignore certain messinesses). Venus makes a very nice 5 petal shape.
Yeah, something I learned from my simulation was that the pattern doesn't _quite_ close up.
@@ScienceAsylum A suggestion: An interesting followup to this could be "if gravity has a speed, why is earth attracted to where the sun is 'now'"? How static fields are Lorentz invariant.
Because it is actually true that orbits would not be stable if the gravitational signal was delayed, it's just that this delay doesn't apply to objects moving together due to relative velocity to the observer.
@@narfwhals7843 ... Is that the case, though? Not an expert on this but I think that gravity's speed actually plays a factor when you consider that the Sun actually orbits a point that is not its center, and also in interactions between planets. Even if it was just the Earth and the Sun, it would still have a tiny effect do to the offset between the center of the Sun and the common center of gravity around which both would orbit. Taking it to an extreme, if the Earth orbited the Sun making 1/2 an orbit in the time that it takes light (or gravity) to reach Earth, the Earth would perceive the gravity from the Sun as if the Sun was in the near side of its orbit around the common center, rather than the far end. I don't know if that would lead to a stable or unstable orbit, but it would not have the same radius and speed than the expected one from Newtonian physics. Of course that at the end of the day all orbits are unstable when you take into account relativistic effects and bodies always end up spiraling into each other (even if at a negligible rate). (and let's not even start talking about the n-bodies problem with the objects moving not in a common plane, which in the long term is almost always chaotic and unstable). Either that, or I am totally wrong (which is totally possible).
Orbital resonance.
@@narfwhals7843 The "if gravity has a speed, why is earth attracted to where the sun is 'now'" video has been on my list for almost two years now. I'm hoping that my schedule adjustments for 2023 will give me the time I need to get the tiny insight I'm missing. Like, I understand it, but not quite well enough to _explain_ it yet.
I believe the shift from geocentrism to heliocentrism is one of the most instructive lessons there is for teaching the philosophy of science. Both are equally valid centers. And yet neither is, because the same is true of every other point in the universe. "Truth" and "knowledge" become such interesting and nuanced concepts, radically unmoored from the idea of a singular objective perspective naively implied by those words, and yet that intractable subjectivity makes the human accomplishment that is science so much more impressive. Just because our reference frame is subjective doesn't mean that anything goes. It just means there are many angles from which to approach reality.
I want to see an animation for the geocentric orbit for all the planets at once and see what crazy shape it draws, i thought that is what we were gonna get
i wanted to see that too but for what it's worth, numberphile has a video about that
It looks beautiful
"Where were you going with this??" I ask this about myself when I open up my mouth, daily
“The moon and the sun were re-classified and we don’t think less of them” 🙌 Words to live by. Knowledge is ever growing and so are people.
you know what? Pluto is not only still a planet, it is now also the center of the solar system
Gotta admit the heliocentric view of the sky as the ground moves is awesome. Imagine falling up off the earth as it rotated like there was no gravity 😅
You wouldn't fall because you'd be in a heliocentric frame.... ffs dude, do you even know what you are saying?
Gravity is so important to us Gravity is keeping us in the ground instead of fly off into deep space.
You might want to go back and learn what so called gravity defines as now. It's not what hold things to the ground. Hasn't been that way according to these so-called scientists ever since Einstein came up with the theory of a special relativity because even Einstein could see how ridiculous gravity was and how far off the formula was so he had to fix it with another theory
As someone who has made a bunch of relativity videos, the phrase "the sun is the center of the solar system" has often made me nervous. I guess it's a fine thing to say in casual conversation. But as you say, you can put the "center" of your reference frame wherever you like!
Right?!? Are the orbits ellipses? Yes, if the Sun is treated as stationary. If not, then they're slanted spirals. Both are valid statements in relativity.
True, but usually it's correct to tell that the Sun is the center of the solar system. If you take all the mass and compute the center of mass, it's inside the Sun, so technically, the center of the solar system IS the Sun.
But when you talk about the reference frames, yes, you can choose, but even in that case, the barycentre will not change.
Finally, someone who understands frame of reference when it comes to "center." No one ever understood the nuance of this position.
I'm not sure he does. Or at least he completely ignored that reference frames are arbitrary only if they aren't rotating. While you can't sense/measure the constant motion of something like the earth, but you can measure its rotation. So even if earth was considered the center of the solar system you'd still be able to measure the fact that it's rotating. So at least the sun isn't rotating around the earth on a daily frequency, but rather yearly if any.
What is interesting in the retrograde animation is that if you defocus on the earth and instead follow the sun, everything still moves in a elliptical orbit, while drawing a funny squiggly line.
Due to the observational event horizon, I am literally the center of my own universe 😊
8:15 so cool, man
5:12 also very cool
The last time I was this early, I had a clever comment to post...
No you didn't
How can your comment be older than the video itself?
Last time I was this early, she was disappointed.....
@@prashantbharti2650 I'm timeshifter.
fun fact, the plural of surgeon general is sergeons general, the past tense of sergeon general is sergeoned general
Not to forget that the heliocentric models had wrong predictions until Kepler fixed them with ellipsis.
To my knowledge the geocentric models actually were very precise. Kepler didn't provide precision, but simplicity.
Nevertheless, they could describe planetary motion very accurately back then. People should not talk down on that achievement.
This is great. It feels like this was specially created for me. Thank you very very much. Geo to Helio was the beginning of science and logic.
Lol wut. That's not how history went.
The historic argument against heliocentrism is the apparent lack of parallax of the stars. Once we started looking at the Sun and the stars with a spectroscope, we might guess that the Sun is in fact just another star. Knowing this, we can estimate the distance to at least some of the brighter stars. Armed with an estimate of distance, we then have an idea of how much parallax to look for. It is tiny, but now it can actually be measured with enough effort, and this favours the heliocentric model after all. It takes time, like a couple of centuries, to work it all out.
What a terrific channel. I'd watch television again if they had shows like this.
that's pretty neato. i appreciate validating the processes people go through to reach wrong conclusions. sometimes they're wrong but that's still as right as they can possibly be with the information at hand!
Nice 😊. Merry Christmas Nick (and everybody, of course...😊).
Thank you. I have always wanted to see that Earth centric animation. I haven't seen it anywhere else.
Glad I could deliver 🤓. I had fun making it. It actually taught me things about orbits I didn't know before.
Great Video! Love the fact you made the simulation available. Really interesting and simpler then I expected it to be.
The fixed stars rotating ground was something I saw for the first time on this channel. Great idea!
Hi Nick....the new Almagest... ( The greatest...).this was as mind-blowing as super clear .. I really cannot figure out how you can come up with these masterpieces, really... Astonishing... And thank you so much for the simulation!! I'd love to know how to do them by myself! Lol from Italy!
See the pinned comment for the GitHub link. You can see the code if you want.
@@ScienceAsylum thank you!
Happy New Year for you! And thanks for what you are doing for us!
You're welcome. And happy new year to you too!
Nuance is my favorite things. Thank you for providing it.
AND YOUR PRONUNCIATION OF NICHE AS "Nitch" HEALED MY SOUL! THANK YOU!
("Nitch" is the original pronunciation. It only got turned into "neesh" by people that were either mistaken or pretentious.)
I remember messing with the perspective in a gravity simulator program. You could center it on any of the planets (or ones of your own creation) and just sit back and enjoy the spirographs it would create
The "center" of my universe was born a few months before me so if the Universe sees fit to have me depart before she does, then I will have been blessed via my lifetime's limited perspective that she - like the stars, galaxies, sun, moon, and Earth - is eternal
I was literally thinking about how orbits of planets looked relative to earth last week. Nice timing with the vid haha
Nick You are Rocking the Kurzgesagt Merch and Vsauce References 🤣
Apart from the topic... These animations have much better quality than a year ago. It's a lot of work. You made all of them, didn't you?
My absolute respect for the level of production you are achieving. Still far from the asyntote, way to go, Doctor! 🤓🖖
Thanks! Yes, I made them all. I'm always trying to improve.
@@ScienceAsylum What do you use to make your animations ? I'm working on ptolemy system and it could be vers usefull ! Thx a lot !
@@ScienceAsylumWhat evidence is there against the geocentric model called the Neo-Tychonic model in which the planets revolve around the sun, but the sun revolves around the earth in the center and the whole universe rotates around the earth?
I really like your shirt, classic kurzgesagt style!
Great videos, love them
First of all: I love your Kurzgesagt shirt. Second. This is really good as all your videos, but I thought you were going to say that we move in a spiral motion through the galaxy.
love the video... but left me feeling like one of those series that end on a cliffhanger ... would love another episode detailing the last part ... just to see in more detail the complicated but acurate geocentic view.
The orbits with Earth in the center look crazy and yet they are completely accurate. Crazy stuff :D
The who at the center of my universe is a Fourier series with my immediate family at the center. The fundamental object at the center is my wristwatch.
This question should be easy but started to overload my mind when I started to think of just how many components are in my Fourier series! 🤯
There is much talk that heliocentrism and geocentrism are simply a matter of "frames of reference" or "points of view." But there is a "detail" that is often overlooked: geocentrism contains objects that revolve around nothing on epicycles. That is INCORRECT, regardless of the point of view or whether we apply the mechanics of Newton or Einstein.
What? Rotate around nothing? The world works electromagnetically. You have some serious researching to do how the actual world works not how you tube tells you it does
That heliocentric timewarp of the sky was so cool I wanna see more stuff like that lol
Great video, just one note. At 2:06, the order of the wanderers had nothing to do with distance. It wasn't to denote their order of furthest to closest from earth, but rather it was an order of hierarchy based on the god/goddess each one represented. Saturn (or Cronus) was the highest or top god, Jupiter (or Zeus) was number 2, then Mars/Ares), the Sun (Sol/Helios), Venus/Aphrodite, Mercury/Hermes, and finally, at the bottom of the hierarchy, was the Moon (Luna/Selene).
Fun fact for anyone curious; the Greek and Roman names for the sun god Sol and Helios (respectively) is where we get the words solar (as in solar system) and heliocentric. The Moon goddess Luna is where we get lunar.
As someone with a more mathematical background than a science background, I enjoyed saying the earth being the center of the universe is just a matter of changing some coordinates. OK, the math is more complicated, but that is just a bonus!
great video! I like the idea of "reference frames". Both theories could work, depending on the reference/point of view.
Everything in the universe is relative. I remember saying the sun is not stationary in school, but my teacher thought I was saying that it rotates around the earth, while what I actually meant was that sun itself is rotating about its axis and the whole solar system moves around the Milky way, and then further Milky way isn't stationary as well.
Actually the sun rotates around the barycenter - the center of mass of the solar system, which lies just outside the sun's surface.
@@seanspartan2023 the milky way - andromeda barycenter must have an interesting perspective over a suitable time frame.
Been thinking for a while now , that the Sun is also in an orbit around the center ; or could the Sun and Earth be orbiting each other , like two square-dance partners Dosey-doeing ?
The Sun does revolve around the Earth in an Earth centric frame. Do you not know what reference frames are? In a Mars centered frame, everything revolves around Mars. If you make your reference frame the Sun, then no, the solar system does not move through the Milky Way; the Milky Way would rotate around the solar system. This is what 'everything being relative' actually means
@@seanspartan2023 The Sun only rotates around the barycenter if you choose the barycenter to be the frame of reference. FFS, did you people not watch the video or take physics in college?
All humans observe from Earth, so literally everything revolves around Earth. This is just an observational fact. The Sun does not revolve around a 'barycenter.' It revolves around Earth. Any observations we make must be with reference to this Earth-centric frame.
Now, you can do math in a sun centered frame, or a barycenter centered frame, but you have to convert to the Earth centric frame when you make observations. it is inescapable. The earth centered frame is the only inescapable frame (with respect to observation )
The part about the inception of the heliocentric model omits a very important detail... Until Kepler came along, all those including Copernicus himself considered circular orbits, which flew in the face of the astronomical data in such observatories as Herat and Maragha. As such, the heliocentric model was not adopted overnight, it was gradually refined up until Kepler after which it replaced the Ptolemaic system. Also, you should have mentioned the Tusi couples as a better more refined version of Ptolemy's epicycles.
Had a similar discussion with someone a few weeks ago. I feel so relieved.
This is a great vid, and changing which object orbits reference really helped me make sense of the 'weird' trajectories/orbits of the Orion capsule recently.
If you make it earth centric, its a totally bizarre set of moves that don't make sense, but if you make it moon centric it does make a lot more sense (to be at least).
Reference changes are extremely useful.
If I recall correctly I think it was Scott Manley who did a vid on Orion's orbit and included a load of visualisations where it all 'clicked'.
The maths to do it didn't look all that complex (relative) as well which is cool too.
8:15 watching the shadows grow from the mountains in this clip is kinda trippy to be honest.
Earth revolves around the Sun.
*...or does it?*
* Vsauce theme begins *
This reminds me of the really good science fiction short story “Epicycle,” published in Analog Magazine, November 1973. The author was P.J. Plauger, the same guy who had/has a brilliant career as a computer scientist.
I always love your work.
Ptolemei isn't responsible for epicycles and equants, Appolonius is responsible for equants, which means Appolonius knew how to construct nearly perfect epicycles. Appolonius is a contemporary of Archimedes, who, from the sand reckoner, followed Aristarchus of Samos in believing the Earth goes around the sun. The epicycles and equants are therefore most likely constructed from off-center circular orbits around the sun, the same way we think of it today. Ptolmei's job is to retrofit all the Astronomy to get rid of the Earth going around the sun business, and then all the heliocentric stuff was burned and buried, including all of Appolonius's work, except for one surviving volume which was an in depth study of conic sections. The fact that he was an astronomer, and that he ended up studying conics, means to me that it is likely he figured out the correct heliocentric orbits were conic sections, but this is not at all certain.
The history here is not a triumph of progress, but of progress followed by regress followed by more progress.
1:25 In Holland we say "neesh" instead of "nitch", which i think makes more sense, because of the e at the end.
Besides, it's also how the French pronounce it, and it is a French word to begin with.
This is the first time I know people actually say niche as "nitch". I've always said it as "neesh".
@@Secret_Moon Really?
It's pretty common among Americans, but i have always found it pretty odd.
PBS also does it from time to time, depending on which presenter is doing the video.
I have always pronounced it "nitch." In (American) English, both pronunciations are valid.
@@ScienceAsylum Ah yeah, i've accepted the linguistic handicaps and impediments of Americans by now, i wouldn't ask you to pronounce Van Gogh correctly :P haha
Hey can you do a video on what a Voltage Drop actually is & how that is different from Power loss? If would help so many people because many people struggle to understand what a Voltage drop actually is. 😎👍
The ancient Greeks didn't know that it is OK to be a little crazy. Modern ones do.
Your videos are always educational and give me a good chuckle!
Actually people knew earth is round already in antique times by comparing the shadow the sun is casting at different locations. So no need to go by ship around the globe.
_"At issue in the 1490s was not the shape but the circumference of the earth. His sailors were not worried about sailing "off the edge" of the world; they were concerned about starving in the vastness of the uncharted ocean._
_"The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. But it gained currency in the 19th century, thanks to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896)."_ -Dr. James Hannam
Colombus's sailors didn't starve to death because the Bahamas were exactly where he though Japan would be.
Actually this experiment is reproducible on your home dinner table with a local light source and in fact is evidence of nothing. If it was proven in antiquity, then why was Galileo persecuted for his heliocentric beliefs... which he renounced on his death bed.
Look up "kinematic equivalence"
Thanks, I always enjoy your videos, especially the astronomy ones.
I like the Kurzgesagt tee shirt
Came here to say that :-)
I love understanding different perspectives. Excellent video!
Thanks!
Did you know that Earth is the center of the observable universe?
Indeed!
love the kurzgesagt merch
I’m still trying to figure out if you have a twin brother.
Your incorporation of humor is brilliant
Thanks! 🙂
No. But with these holidays I might just get enough mass to do it myself.
😂
It is useful to think about what solar system looks like from the perspective of any other star in the universe. All controversy disappears and it becomes clear why it is "wrong" to say that Earth is in the center.
You should sell a T-shirt that says "To the Timeline!" Also, who is the center of my universe? I wish I would meet her. ;-)
Already working on a "To the Timeline!" shirt 👍. It's being designed by the same person that designed my logo. (We've been friends since we were small kids.)
He already sells those shirts, i'm wearing one from the future.
Hey Nick, is that a "Kurzgesagt" shirt you're wearing? Interesting perspective btw, that's a really good one 🙂.
Yep. It's a Kurzgesagt shirt.
Is he wearing a kuzgersat t-shirt?
Yep.
@@ScienceAsylum Eagerly waiting for a nice collaboration between you two top content creators in scientific field😊😊
I watched a video that talked about coordinate systems, and how if we really wanted to, could make a working system where the Earth IS the center of the universe (motion being relative, and all that). That doesn't mean it would be intuitive, easy to use, or reflect the reality we observe. But it's possible. That's what this video reminded me of!
Yep! Although, I'd disagree with it "not reflecting the reality we observe." Those coordinates would match the universe as humans on Earth observe it. Our point of view just isn't very useful in the grand scheme.
@@ScienceAsylum You're right. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of "If we were the center of everything, nearly all non local objects in the night sky would be moving faster than the speed of light in order to be "orbiting" us as we observe.
I hate when people say the old geocentric model isn't right, because it is; it is just as valid as a sun centered frame. They literally teach reference frames in basic physics, then go on to say that geocentric frames are wrong; contradictory teaching
So why describe from the Sun? Because, the math is easier, but you still have to convert back to an Earth frame when making observations, because all observations are made in this frame
Yep! Exactly.
Top notch relativity! I appreciate all your hard work! Merry Christmas from me and all the crazies
Thanks! Merry Christmas to you too.
How can Earth be the center of the solar system - all the planets, moons and other matter in the system is not even close to the mass of the Sun and gravity is mass x velocity so based on that alone it is impossible for anything less massive than the Sun to be the center.
You confused momentum with gravity - it's momentum that's mass X velocity. Gravity is a mass over distance equation.
@@muninrob Not according to Einstein - The Space Time Continuum is flat until you introduce mass in motion into it creating a Gravity Well which is just a funnel of free fall motion of mass on the surface of the continuum.
Just look up and see yourself. Your eyes see exactly this behavior while your intelect uses helioscentric science. Both are correct because of different perspectives.Just don't try to imagine all the movement in space with the earth as the center of observation. I tried during the vídeo and ran out of imagination buffer :D
when the dude comment before actually watching the video.... 🤦♀
@@edgarplummer6750 Could you quote me your source please?
I'd like to know what you misunderstood to make gravity reliant on motion, none of the space time diagrams I'm familiar with require the mass to be in motion to "create" gravity.
Loved the fixed sky and moving Earth image video!
Your model for the stationary sky is so freaky! It’s crazy to see the world turning and not the sky
From our perspective, yes. Is that how things actually are? No. 'Apparent' is the key word in the term apparent retrograde motion. Ie: it seems to be, but not necessarily so.
According to relativity, there's not such thing as "how things actually are." Almost all statements require a reference. Does Earth orbit the Sun? Yes, if the Sun is treated as stationary. Does the Sun orbit the Earth? Yes, if Earth is treated as stationary. Both physical perspectives are valid.
These videos are so interesting!! Also nice rockin the kurzgesagt shirt :P
Thanks! 🙂
I really like the fixed sky earth rotating short clip
I loved the Ancient Aliens guy pupup at the Stonehenge part
I'm so glad you did this. You know I once tried to imagine this (thumbnail diagram) thing, but my mind needed RTX 8080 to render it😅
😆 Humans minds can be so limited. Thank goodness for computers.
10:08 Yes and no.
Phone chargers are required to have isolation between their inputs and outputs. So they must have a transformer to add that isolation.
Switch mode power supply transformers operate in the 10's, or 100's of kilohertz range depending on the design. Because of the higher operating frequency, they can be much smaller than a 60Hz transformers.
The most common isolated switch mode power supply is a flyback converter which uses a flyback "transformer" to add galvanic isolation between the input and output.
I put air quotes around transformer because it acts more like two coupled inductors instead of a normal transformer.
Normal transformers do not store energy. As energy comes into the primary side it is sent out to the secondary side.
Flyback transformers on the other hand store energy in the primary side inductor for a duration of time by turning on a switch and then transfer the energy over to the secondary side when that switch is turned off.
Even though the operation of a flyback transformer is different than a typical transformer, the relationship between the input and output voltage is still dependent on the turns ratio between the two sides so you can reduce the 120/240VAC input to a much lower level.
Flyback converters are popular because they only require one switching element (a mosfet typically) and the secondary side inductor can be used in conjunction with a capacitor to form an LC lowpass filter. This filter is required to smooth out the output waveform and make it more DC.
Switch mode power supply designs that use normal transformers have to add an additional inductor on the secondary side to be able to filter the output ripple voltage, increasing cost.
So yes, wall plugs do not have bulky 60Hz transformers to reduce the voltage, but they do have high frequency transformers to add isolation between the input and output.
The helio centric geocentric side by side picture of the night sky was nice
8:26
Hey, saying spirographs aren't particularly beautiful is fightin' words.
Pluto was mentioned, what is your opinion of this paper: Philip T. Metzger, et al
The reclassification of asteroids from planets to non-planets,
Icarus, Volume 319, 2019, Pages 21-32, ISSN 0019-1035,
Arguing for a broader definition of planet that would bring Pluto and many other objects under that term?
I love the fact that you put things in context. So far, when people talk about Ptolemee, they forget that he made those calculations based on the knowledge of the time (and it worked for so long).
What I don't respect is the fact that the church mixed Ptolemee work with religion, so that no new improvement could be added to his work.
Another factor to consider is that based on the knowledge and tools of the time, a non-geocentric model is actually less accurate. If Earth is moving, then there should be a stellar parallax and none was ever observed. Today we know that's because even the nearest star is more than one parsec away and at one parsec, a star would have a parallax of one arcsecond.
For Ptolemy or anyone else in the next 1500 years until telescopes were invented, a heliocentric model would have had to explain the lack of stellar parallax as the Earth movies. It actually was considered that maybe the stars were so far away that any parallax would be too small to see but that results in ludicrously big numbers for the distance to the stars. Not only that, but based on the observed size of the stars they'd have to be ridiculously huge. Today we know that for sufficiently distant objects, because light is a wave the observed size is a result of diffraction and aperture size so people are actually only seeing the Airy disk and the stars really are incredibly distant and incredibly big. So until the invention of the telescope and highly accurate clocks that allowed better observations and further developments of physics such as Newton's Universal Gravitation, the Ptolemaic model was the one that made the fewest assumptions.
@@lunatickoala that's why, I think the guy deserves a lot of credit (particularly based on this video). I didn't see it that way until I watched the video. Many videos present things with zero or not enough context.
Kerbal Space Program plus the mods "Real Solar System" and "Principia" can display exactly what that looks like if you select the earth as the center. actually i think you can choose any planet you are orbiting/landed on. i only tested it for fun, too jank to use in normal playing... (lag, too many lines and no orbits plus plotting trajectories are rather limited in range.)
1:07 I would love to sit in some of the planning meetings for Stonehenge. Can you imagine a Gantt Chart going out 500 years?
😂
Hope your holidays are going well, and you, your wife, and clones are keeping warm. We just learned a new word today "permittivity". Maybe a recommendation for a video? and touch on Coulomb's law?(if you haven't made one yet) Just a thought.
I've always liked the word "permittivity."
I never thought I'd hear Nick say "sus" but great video anyways 💀👍I love looking at night sky timelapses, bc you can always see and imagine yourself spinning with earth with a "stationary" sky.
Beautiful and elegant explanation
Thanks 🤓
Great episode Nick.
Rhe Science Asylum is brilliant!
No retrograde motion there! 😇
It's kind of like looking at our solar system as a stationary "flat disc" with all the planets orbiting neatly around the sun. When in reality the sun is rocketing through the milky way with itself orbiting the center of our galaxy while all our planets are orbiting around it WHILE being dragged along behind it. Different points of reference, same effect.
One important thing to realize is that the sun is _not_ dragging the planets around the milky way. The planets are in orbit around the milky way just like the sun. They are just also in orbit around the sun.
The planets could orbit without the sun perfectly fine.
Just like the moon isn't being dragged around the sun by the earth. It is orbiting the sun _and_ the earth.
The moon would also orbit the sun without the earth, just in a less wobbly way.
Thank you. Agree with everything you said there. You are one of the few who really gets it :) Superb explanation!
Great videos nick as always .
That clip of the night sky where the earth rotated was trippy af, can we have the whole thing please?
The confusion lies in how we define 'the center of the solar system.' If 'center' means the origin of a reference frame, then it can be anywhere, even Earth. However, in terms of the solar system's center of mass or geometric center, Earth is definitely not at the center. This actual center, largely influenced by the Sun's mass, can shift within or occasionally outside the Sun, depending on the planets' positions. Therefore, the term 'center' can be ambiguous and has historically led to misunderstandings about the solar system's structure.
What evidence is there against the geocentric model called the Neo-Tychonic model in which the planets revolve around the sun, but the sun revolves around the earth in the center and the whole universe rotates around the earth?
Ptolemy predicted planetary motion (in some cases) even better than Copernicus. Copernicus's model had some VERY powerful attractions (pun), simplicity, elegance, absence of ad hoc "fixes". Sometimes simplicity and elegance actually BEAT accuracy.
I'm kicking myself for forgetting to comment soon as I watched this, but I really appreciated Giorgio's cameo lol
ALIENS