Image 2 Caption:
An animation
where "The red
curve
is an epicycloid
traced as the small circle
(radius
r = 1) rolls around the outside of the large
circle
(radius
R = 3)."
This animation
does NOT depict an actual
planet
epicycle model since
there are 3
apparent retrograde motions
and actual
planet
epicycle models
had only 1
apparent retrograde motions
when in
inferior conjunction
(for inferior planets)
or in opposition
(for superior planets).
Image 1 Caption Continued:
The ratio of inner object to outer object
orbital periods in both
cases is 1:2.
The 1:2 ratio was chosen to give the systems an simple cycling behavior.
In the heliocentric case,
the apparent retrograde motion
happens when the Earth
passes the outer planet
on the inside track.
This necessarily means that the
outer planet is in
opposition
during its apparent retrograde motion.
In the geocentric case,
spatial retrograde motion
gives rise to
apparent retrograde motion.
The spatial retrograde motion
is a result of the epicycle motion
superimposed on the deferent motion.
The initial conditions are chosen such that
the outer planet is in
opposition
during its spatial retrograde motion.
As we believe that correlated motions require physical causes, it is clear that
the heliocentric case
is easier to explain.
Two relatively small planets are
somehow forced to orbit the large Sun in
circular orbits.
The relatively small planets
do NOT affect each other to 1st order and their motions are
circular orbits
around the relatively large Sun.
The geocentric case is harder
to explain by physical causes.
Somehow the small Earth makes the
Sun orbit it in a
circular orbit
and the outer planet
orbit it in a complex
deferent-epicycle
orbit.
Also the Sun and
outer planet motions are
somehow correlated.
It is easy to see why those people in the
16th century and
17th century who
were trying to understand the Solar System
in terms of physical causes were led to favor
the heliocentric solar system model
over the geocentric solar system model.