Clever. Not wise, but clever. Using a slow and deliberate speaking style, flattering his audience a little with assuming their understanding of science, promising not to hit them with too much detail, and acknowledging that one of the few scientists they've heard of — Newton — was "right".
Here's the gist of his argument: Newton did not say that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Newton said that the Earth and the Sun both revolve around a common point: the centre of mass of the two of them. (So far so good.)
He then asks, "But what if there are more than two bodies?" A perfectly valid question.
He then says that you need to calculate a single centre of mass for all of the bodies, and that they all revolve around that.
Yes, in a sense, he is right. The Sun, 8 planets, their moons, Pluto, the asteroids and the comets all revolve around the centre of mass of the solar system; all of the solar systems of the galaxy revolve around the centre of mass of the galaxy; and so on. Within these big revolutions, there are smaller sub systems: moons revolve around planets, planets around stars, stars within galaxies and so on.
He then says, "So
by assuming that the Earth is at the centre of mass of the universe, we then use Newton's laws (
i.e. indisputable science!) to "prove" that everything revolves around the Earth.
Good try, but no, because he is making a massive assumption
on the basis of faith and convenience alone, that the Earth is the centre of mass of the universe.
He simply ignores the more complex scientific evidence about the distribution of mass in the universe shows that Earth is an
utterly insignificant blue green planet orbiting a small unregarded yellow sun far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy.
This is around 6 minutes in, by which time I got bored!