It was only a matter of time before my explanation found it into wider circulation but, because they have little feel for the topic which goes back over a decade, they lack the integrity and discipline to explain it properly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXQh1xFce7s&t=563s

The Sun was not considered a planet in terms of direct/retrograde motion-

"Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times, and stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun
always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various
ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that
is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. Copernicus

The hypothesis for a moving Earth in a Sun-centred system was based on the Ptolemaic framework where the background stars were stationary while the motion of the planets was gauged against that stationary framework-

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the Earth, entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils, leading the individual planets into their respective orbits, quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time shown
in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the 'garlands' you see looped towards the centre, with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time, the Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Kepler Astronomia Nova 1609

The direct/retrogrades of Mercury and Venus cannot be processed under the same conditions and the same framework. The observation is so exquisite as it involves setting up the Sun as a central and stationary reference while accounting for the Earth's
orbital motion through the annual change in the position of the stars relative to the Sun and parallel to the orbital plane of the Earth-

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

Like Copernicus who did not fear Church censure, he cared only that those who lack the competence and confidence to handle the perspectives of a moving Earth and the same is true here.

The first Sun-centred astronomers did not make the distinction, in terms of direct/retrograde motion, between the faster and slower-moving planets seen from a moving Earth yet the celebrity guy announces it in a botched way while observers here, after a
decade, can easily go through the procedures.

"Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter's, so that the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In
Mars they are rarer, its motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and retrograde motions appear in
them also, due not to any motion that really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is acutely demonstrated by Copernicus" Galileo


I don't mind the hirelings who now mangle the insight, but I do mind that it is not explained properly even though I have appealed to the use of graphics and imaging for as long as I can remember. As the perspective comes into wider circulation, how will
you people justify yourselves.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)