Help with explaining Mars traces

CuriousityC

New Member
Hello everyone,

I’m a student of aeronautics & precision and I have been busy in the recent weeks gathering information from 700 BC till now, on how did we conclude the shape of earth. I have gathered so much information for debunking the flat earth lie, in a new way and extra evidences.

But while I was conducting researches on the 16th and 17th centuries, specifically on Tycho Braha, I saw a community forum that believes in global earth but proposes a conspiracy theory that NASA hides the truth of geocentrism.

The proposer of the idea doesn't come from an academic background, and his writings are not on professional level, but while checking his writings, I found that their community forum believes that the actual location of Mars during its apparent retrograde motion throughout 9 years of observation, does not match with what we see in the Copernican system simulations.

He must be wrong and doesn’t understand the phenomena. So I am not here to promote his idea, but I seek your help for finding an explanation.

He claims that the two images below show the traces of Mars in 2003 and 2012 during its apparent retrograde motion, and claims that the Copernican simulations don’t show the same trace in 2012, on the other hands, the Tycho’s model simulation matches with the traces in both dates (2003 and 2012)

Mars traces 2003 and 2012

Photographs of Mars traces, claimed to be taken by a turkish-American photographer (Tunc Tezel), and I can't verify that.

I checked his claim through a simulation named (SolarSystemScope), and it showed that his claim seems to be weirdly correct. The motion of Mars from Earth did not match with the trace of 2012. On the other hands, I tried it on Tycho's simulation and it matched with the photographs.

Could this be because the Copernican simulation apps that we use, aren't considering Kepler equations of motion? Is there a simulation that is verified to be accurately matching the actual planets motion?

Or could this be because the Tycho's simulation program code is written in a way to show that motion?

Any thoughts guys to debunk him? Thank you in advance for your time to look into it.
 
Last edited:
Extra side note: I did not include the guy name because I'm not willing to promote for him, especially that I disagree and dislike what he claims. He even interprets the motion of binary stars in wrong way, which is sufficient to believe that he does not understand astronomy. Furthermore we are sure the geocentrism is incorrect due to several reasons including the stellar parallx phenomena. The only claim of them that I search an answer for is of the Mars traces (question of this thread).

I already feel bad that I am writing about it here which could be promotion for it. Thus I didn't ask my question in general astronomy forums.

I'm prioritising debunking it because I find his claim to be dangerous, through a deep revision of Kepler’s observations and 3 laws of planetary motion, with purpose of finding an answer.

I was about to want to contact the photographer to check if he has really taken those images in 2003 and 2012, but still have not. There is a chance that the photographer himself could be dishonest.

In case we don’t find a reasoning for it in this thread, I’m going to delete my question, but I will come back in the future with the explanation.

Again thanks for your time!
 
Last edited:
I checked his claim through a simulation named (SolarSystemScope), and it showed that his claim seems to be weirdly correct. The motion of Mars from Earth did not match with the trace of 2012. On the other hands, I tried it on Tycho's simulation and it matched with the photographs.
SolarSystemScope shows Mars moving in retrograde, although the line indicating its orbit doesn't reflect this; it seems like a bug.

I installed the SolarSystemScope android app, set some options to label planets and constellations (and omit moons and satellites), chose night sky view, found Mars using the search button (this shows an icon "exploring Mars" and keeps Mars centered on the display), used the play button to call up the animation UI, set the time to February 2012, slowly forwarded to about 02:00 a.m. to make Mars visible well above the horizon, then activated the button to keep the time of day (to keep the camera from panning into the ground). Animating from about November 2011 to June 2012 clearly shows Mars moving in its retrograde loop.

I don't understand what you feel is wrong with it.

Which software did you use for "Tycho's simulation"?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230425-142822_Solar System Scope.jpg
    Screenshot_20230425-142822_Solar System Scope.jpg
    212.9 KB · Views: 103
  • Screenshot_20230425-142736_Solar System Scope.jpg
    Screenshot_20230425-142736_Solar System Scope.jpg
    222 KB · Views: 95
I'm unsure what differences you'd expect between Tycho's model's predictions and those of Copernicus. Tycho's model is basically the Copernican model, but with the Earth arbitrarily set as the stationary point instead of the Sun. But the relative movements as seen from Earth should be the same.

Capture.JPG
 
I'm unsure what differences you'd expect between Tycho's model's predictions and those of Copernicus. Tycho's model is basically the Copernican model, but with the Earth arbitrarily set as the stationary point instead of the Sun. But the relative movements as seen from Earth should be the same.

View attachment 58815

Hmm...but surely the retrograde motion of Mars is largely due to the motion of Earth itself...the Earth overtaking Mars. I don't see how any model with Earth stationary could ever replicate retrograde motion.
 
Hmm...but surely the retrograde motion of Mars is largely due to the motion of Earth itself...the Earth overtaking Mars. I don't see how any model with Earth stationary could ever replicate retrograde motion.
It is hard to visualize, but note that in Tycho's model the moon and Sun are going around the Earth (and do not exhibit retrograde motion), everything else goes around the Sun (just like in the real world) and can exhibit retrograde motion.

Maybe this is a useful way to visualize it -- assume a video of the solar system was submitted in a thread here, with the Sun centered properly, and Mick or somebody did an image-stabilized version that arbitrarily kept Earth stable in the Center. The new video would mimic Tycho's model, but the relative motions of everything remain unchanged.
 
In spaceflight and astronomy sometimes a model more like Tycho's than reality is actually used, treating either the earth-sun or earth-moon relationship (or another like Jupiter-sun when looking at the Trojan asteroids) as fixed with everything else moving around them. Not because it's *correct* mind, but because it gives the same results but in a way that illustrates data that doesn't readily appear in a more correct view.

For example:

Horseshoe_orbit_of_Cruithne_from_the_perspective_of_Earth.gif

This map of the relationship between earth and an asteroid in 1:1 orbital resonance treats the earth as fixed and the sun as almost fixed (you can see it's distance oscillates slightly but it stays on the same line) to illustrate how the asteroid moves in relation to Earth. And if I were to attempt to launch a craft to that asteroid, this plot can be used to more cleanly visualize its transit. This will give the same relative angles between given objects as having the sun fixed and everything freely orbiting, but orbital relationships are difficult to visually follow in that frame of reference.

This is more detailed than Tycho's model but works much the same in that earth and the sun are static and everything moves around them.

Compare:
Orbits_of_Cruithne_and_Earth.gif


This plot is physically more correct, but the orbital relationship between Earth and 3753 Cruithne is not as readily apparent. But if you look at the actual relative angles, distances, and velocities, they're the same.
 
Last edited:
It is hard to visualize, but note that in Tycho's model the moon and Sun are going around the Earth (and do not exhibit retrograde motion), everything else goes around the Sun (just like in the real world) and can exhibit retrograde motion.

Maybe this is a useful way to visualize it -- assume a video of the solar system was submitted in a thread here, with the Sun centered properly, and Mick or somebody did an image-stabilized version that arbitrarily kept Earth stable in the Center. The new video would mimic Tycho's model, but the relative motions of everything remain unchanged.

The Tycho model would have a hard job explaining that the Earth actually orbit's the Earth/Sun barycentre....a phenomenon almost impossible to explain unless the Earth goes round the Sun. It's hard to believe Ptolemy's epicycles are still alive and well in this day and age...but nothing surprises me any more.
 
Not really... But at the same time not in any context a geocentric theorist is likely to embrace.

The solar system viewed from the earth's inertial frame of reference is effectively a refined Tychonic system incorporating all those little "imperfections" Tycho himself sought to remove from the Copernican system. Calculating the maneuvers to go from earth to Mars with a starting velocity of zero ends up the same as switching the coordinates to the sun with a starting velocity of 29.78 km/s.

But like I said, not an argument you'll ever find from somebody like the speaker referenced in the OP. Anyone saying the Tychonic system is correct and the Copernican system is incorrect is not speaking in relativistic terms.
 
Anyone saying the Tychonic system is correct and the Copernican system is incorrect is not speaking in relativistic terms.
As long as the predictions based on either system are equally correct, both systems are equally valid. However, we do tend to like the simpler systems better.
 
Back
Top