<p>From <a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/30184/7982">this answer</a> here are views of the inner and outer planets. I used the python package Skyfield which uses the NASA JPL ephemerides to generate positions of all the planets, then I subtracted the Earth's position to generate the geocentric positions.</p>
<p>I agree with your guess that the first image is too perfect.</p>
<p>The paths will not be closed, because there is not a rational number relationship (e.g. 5:9, 2:3, 1:1) between the periods of the planets.</p>
<p>The ones in the image are <em>reminiscent of</em> the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirograph" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Spirograph</a> drawings I used to make a very long time ago.</p>
<hr />
<blockquote>
<p>...plotting using the Python package <a href="https://rhodesmill.org/skyfield/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Skyfield</a>.</p>
<p>The &quot;inner&quot; plotted bodies (from outer to inner) are Mars, (Earth), Moon, Venus, Mercury, The Sun. The data is for <strong>2000 days</strong>.</p>
<p>The &quot;outer&quot; plotted bodies are Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter, Earth, and The Sun. The data is for <strong>2000 months</strong>.</p>
<p>Distances are in AU.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/0bT3U.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/0bT3U.png" alt="inner and outer planets, heliocentric and geocentric" /></a></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-11T14:09:40.463Z
Are those "heliocentric" plots actually heliocentric, or barycentric? Although I do suspect one wouldn't be able to tell the difference at this scale...
John Dvorak
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-11T14:20:29.680Z
@JohnDvorak yep good point they are barycentric, I'd meant to subtract the Sun's position but it seems I forgot. I think the difference is probably less than 1 pixel, but accuracy is important, so I will regenerate the plots in the morning, and see if the difference is a pixel or not. Thanks!
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-11T23:51:44.950Z
@JohnDvorak updated here and [there](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/30184/7982) The difference is roughly 1 vs 150 million km. It looks like more than 1 pixel when I plot them as much larger images and do the RGB subtraction, but then again so do the titles, so I don't think I'll pursue that further. Thanks again! https://i.sstatic.net/rcMcp.png
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-11T13:56:41.463Z
2019-05-11T23:48:30.290Z
2020-06-17T09:47:40.653Z
uhoh
<p>Few days a go, I came across these two pictures of paths of planets as observed from Earth. They have a perfect geometric shapes.  Actually, to me they look so beautiful and perfect, that they appear fake or made by a pseudo-scientist or some propaganda society (e.g. flat Earth like community people) who talks about divine geometry etc. </p>

<p>Auxiliary questions: Is this the reason, why Earth was consider to be in the center of the solar system?</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/zWljc.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/zWljc.png" alt="enter image description here"></a> </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/z2ae0.gif" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/z2ae0.gif" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-11T11:52:08.500Z
Related: ['Geocentric' view of orbits](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30176)
Mike G
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-11T13:38:30.577Z
@MikeG sure I'll go through this link.
Ubi.B
<planet><solar-system><earth><rotation><planetary-transits>
Are these real paths of planets as traced from Earth?
Ubi.B
# Are these real paths of planets as traced from Earth?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-05-11)

Few days a go, I came across these two pictures of paths of planets as observed from Earth. They have a perfect geometric shapes. Actually, to me they look so beautiful and perfect, that they appear fake or made by a pseudo-scientist or some propaganda society (e.g. flat Earth like community people) who talks about divine geometry etc.

Auxiliary questions: Is this the reason, why Earth was consider to be in the center of the solar system?

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/zWljc.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/zWljc.png)

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/z2ae0.gif)](https://i.sstatic.net/z2ae0.gif)

**Tags:** planet, solar-system, earth, rotation, planetary-transits

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Related: ['Geocentric' view of orbits](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30176)  
> **username_0**: @username_1 sure I'll go through this link.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-05-11. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

From [this answer](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/30184/7982) here are views of the inner and outer planets. I used the python package Skyfield which uses the NASA JPL ephemerides to generate positions of all the planets, then I subtracted the Earth's position to generate the geocentric positions.

I agree with your guess that the first image is too perfect.

The paths will not be closed, because there is not a rational number relationship (e.g. 5:9, 2:3, 1:1) between the periods of the planets.

The ones in the image are *reminiscent of* the [Spirograph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirograph) drawings I used to make a very long time ago.

---

> ...plotting using the Python package [Skyfield](https://rhodesmill.org/skyfield/).
>
> The "inner" plotted bodies (from outer to inner) are Mars, (Earth), Moon, Venus, Mercury, The Sun. The data is for **2000 days**.
>
> The "outer" plotted bodies are Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter, Earth, and The Sun. The data is for **2000 months**.
>
> Distances are in AU.
>
> [![inner and outer planets, heliocentric and geocentric](https://i.sstatic.net/0bT3U.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/0bT3U.png)

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Are those "heliocentric" plots actually heliocentric, or barycentric? Although I do suspect one wouldn't be able to tell the difference at this scale...  
> **username_2**: @username_3 yep good point they are barycentric, I'd meant to subtract the Sun's position but it seems I forgot. I think the difference is probably less than 1 pixel, but accuracy is important, so I will regenerate the plots in the morning, and see if the difference is a pixel or not. Thanks!  
> **username_2**: @username_3 updated here and [there](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/30184/7982) The difference is roughly 1 vs 150 million km. It looks like more than 1 pixel when I plot them as much larger images and do the RGB subtraction, but then again so do the titles, so I don't think I'll pursue that further. Thanks again! https://i.sstatic.net/rcMcp.png  

---

