I agree with Hoi's decision to move your last post to the Derailing Room - however, here's the link
to it for anyone interested. The thing is, I found those two videos you embedded about Tycho Brahe rather silly - and I'd rather not 'promote' them here on this thread. To be sure, all that really matters to me are Tycho's legacy of impressively accurate, empirical observations - and the geometrical
soundness and logic of his basic, celestial model. I really couldn't care less about Tycho's personality / partying / or whether or not he shagged the royal mother.
of course fine about the videos, but I also posted an updated scheme which was treated equally where the effort of cutting the post in two and move the videos to the 'Derailing' Room was minimal.But in the grand scheme of things, that's a microscopically unimportant point.
The point is, and that is also the idea behind the scheme and timeline, is that you are honest in your arguments, keep them the same for all points you address
If your argument is "NASA or Church/TPTB-supported" or "the personal life and attitude of the main scientist", then all the systems (within their own time perspective; we cannot hold the Babylonians responsible for not having discovered Uranus) have to confront these same arguments.
The first three systems in revolving Renaissance Europa, chronologically Ptolemean geocentrism, Tychonian geo-heliocentrism and Copernican-Kepler elliptic-gravity-driven heliocentrism all
have been supported by The Powers That Were of the times. So if your argument is "spoilt by power structures", then they all are "guilty".
They may still differ in guiltiness (hence all the boxes to compare these systems), and that is something to investigate. If
you make that argument part of your these.
The same for "private life of the founding father" of a system. If your argument against Kepler and Copernicus is "they were crooks, basterds and worse, here look at these facts from private lives", then Mr. Brahe cannot escape that same scrutiny, can he?
Position him in the present:
- born in noble family
- wealthy as a Carlos Slim/Bill Gates/Steve Job heritage
- all the time for his experiments
- deeply involved (pun intended, but Simon, we can both look beyond the format and juicy stories of this spoonfeeding cherrypicking videos, right?, it's the warm connection with the powers that counts -if you make that your argument-)
- got his own island, free to do what he wanted to
- lived like a rock star, FIFA praeses or king
- had a "fake nose" (of whatever material, Hg-rich or not)??
He fell pretty beyond the normal and would fall the same way now.
So, either it's "I don't care he was banging the queen
intimately involved in the power structures of the time" and Keplers crookedness, Copernicus' morning moodiness, Averroes' drinking problems in muslim world* and Aristotle's love for virgin boys are also not of importance, or they all do.
*fiction, but you get the idea
It does not discredit any of his no doubt scientific discoveries and work, Simon. If you'd produce a band song I don't like and I'd comment on it, it would not in any way discredit your work on September Clues, the thousands other topics here or the Semi-Tycho-SSSS (is there a better name to come up with? No songtext of yours that contains a betgettter name/acronym/etc.?)...
On the other hand, I thank you for reminding me of a few important things / details / caveats I should probably clarify regarding my general stance towards Brahe and my choice of calling my upcoming, personal variant of his 'geoheliocentric' model the "TYCHO-SSSS".
Well spotted. That is indeed my intention.
And in any case with whatever you publish under the so bold (litterally) words you spoke, please double, triple, quadruple check everything.
Reading between the lines of nonhocapito, I see that he fears a bit that you can get haunted by your publication
and I think he has a very fair point (or me, seeing it in his words).
You don't want to be the fallen rockstar exposing all the media fakery and getting f(r)amed
for a system that cannot stand the tests against the main stream view (but not only
held amongst "MSM-loving people").
You experience a world filled with more shills than me, but be aware about what you publish on this. You know best, but don't get haunted by it.
And again, I admire you doing it and going through all the effort.
As it is, it would probably be more correct to call it the "SEMI-TYCHO-SSSS" - or even the "LONGOMONTANUS-SSSS". Let me explain: the term 'semi-tycho' is often used to describe a variant tychonian model which includes a daily (a.k.a. 'diurnal') rotating earth - as opposed to the whole star field rotating around us - as Tycho apparently believed until his death. In fact, I suspect that this may have been Tycho's most unfortunate error - and one of the prime reasons for his model to be met with skepticism by many of his contemporaries
I try to understand what you're saying about the basic celestial objects:Tychonian - Titan Tycho/Badass Brahe - "geo-heliocentrism":
- Earth is static
(does not rotate, nor orbit?)
- Moon moves around** Earth
- Sun moves around Earth
- Planets move around Sun
- Stars/firmament move around Earth (and all the other celestial objects)
- Distance to and sizes of Sun and stars are considerably less than in Copernican model"Semi-Tychonian-Longomotanus" - you - "geo-heliocentrism":
- Earth is dynamic
(rotates, but not orbits?)
- Moon moves around Earth
- Sun moves around Earth
- Planets move around Sun
- Stars/firmament are/seem static with respect to us
- Distance to and sizes of Sun and stars are considerably less than in Copernican model
**I used the words "moves around" and not "orbits" as to me the latter gives a "Copernican feel", how did Brahe describe it himself?
Both these systems would be called "geo-heliocentric" (the Earth is the center of 1 part of the objects and the Sun another) yet are completely different. I am not arguing with an "official" term as "semi-Tychonian", but such a drastic difference, I wouldn't call "semi-", but ok.
It's the differences that matter and so the difference between the columns in the updated sheet below. Based on the simple stuff I found until now, only the Arabic scientist Alhazen in the 11th (!) century proposed a non-rotating Earth, apart from Brahe who lived 500 years later.
That would make Tychonian unique and your Celestial More Bad Ass Than Tychonian-model less unique but more firm I'd say.
- along with their utter misunderstanding of Tycho's Mars trajectory (which intersects the sun's orbit), which they thought would "make Mars and the Sun collide". As I will amply / mathematically demonstrate - such a collision cannot possibly occur, luckily so for us earthlings !
Great, looking forward to it, but again: please take all the time you need. And more.
Let it be said that Tycho Brahe was the last great astronomer of this world who observed the "full picture" of our skies (and spent his entire life doing so, in the most ideal / comfortable conditions - and with the aid of most ingenious measuring apparels) - before the advent of the telescope which, for some aspects may have improved the astronomers' 'performance', yet - for other aspects - may have "narrowed" their vision and understanding of the cosmos.
Definitely. And I share the same amazement and interest.
Your system would be the first proposed working celestial system after the invention of the telescope.
- Does it (still) stand the scrutiny of all
Earth-based (non-NASA-spoilt) (amateur) astronomical observations?
- Would you be able to predict next solar and lunar eclipses***?
- How does your SSSSemiTycho system see the origin of the Earth, being in a geo-heliocentric setting, unique as the (other) -sorry, heliocentric speak- planets move around the Sun, while he does that around the Earth****?
***not now, in any future, I mean, is your model suitable for it in the long term? The unaided by telescope geocentrists of China, maya and Babylonian world could do it, as well as the Copernican heliocentrists and the geo-heliocentrists of India and Brahe himself.
****I realise it's a reverse argument because our views about Earths origin are derived from the celestial model, not the other way around, but for a geologist to accept a non-heliocentric view of the skies would be a hard nut to crack...
As for Longomontanus, let me lazily / conveniently just quote this brief paragraph from the oft useful / time-saving W-pedia:
"However, it was Longomontanus who really developed Tycho's geoheliocentric model empirically and publicly to common acceptance in the 17th century in his 1622 astronomical tables. When Tycho died in 1601, his program for the restoration of astronomy was unfinished. The observational aspects were complete, but two important tasks remained, namely the selection and integration of the data into accounts of the motions of the planets, and the presentation of the results on the entire program in the form of a systematic treatise. Longomontanus, Tycho's sole disciple, assumed the responsibility and fulfilled both tasks in his voluminous Astronomia Danica (1622). Regarded as the testament of Tycho, the work was eagerly received in seventeenth-century astronomical literature. But unlike Tycho's, his geoheliocentric model gave the Earth a daily rotation
as in the models of Ursus and Roslin, and which is sometimes called the 'semi-Tychonic' system."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christen_S
Thanks Simon. The Lengthy Longomontanus-Brahe Badass System... hmmm, a better name is needed again.
As a last note, I will just cite / acknowledge in a few words the various proponents of model's similar to Tycho's (anyone interested can thus look them up for themselves). Firstly, it is said that Tycho was inspired by the North African Martianus Capella
(ca-.365-ca.340), who first described a system in which Mercury and Venus are placed on epicycles around the Sun, which circles the Earth (Btw, a little-known fact: Copernicus, who actually cited Capella's theory, even mentioned the possibility of an extension in which the other three known planets would also circle the Sun). Other proponents of tychonian variants were Paul Wittich, Nicolaus Reimers (aka "Ursus"), Helisaeus Roeslin, Valentin Naboth and Simon Marius.
Great, will dive into it.
Do you know how the link with the Indian astronomers was? Did Tycho Brahe take his geo-heliocentrism from the Kerala School, did he find the confirmation of his own views there or were they 2 congruently yet diachronously evolved ideas?
The most perplexing / almost absurd aspect of the whole heliocentric-vs-geocentric debate throughout the times is that the serious / decently objective / 'academic' (for lack of better terms, sorry...) literature on the subject seems to be - by and large - in full agreement about the fact that the geocentric observational data was far superior (to the heliocentric) both in sheer accuracy - and in predicting the various, related celestial models of the kind. Yet today, the afore-mentioned (and many more) thinkers / astronomers are all but forgotten - and have been confined to the dustbin of history...
Again here, the same benchmarks.
At the first glance I gave the systems, it keeps amazing me that with all different types Geocentric, geo-heliocentric and heliocentric predictions
could be made.
Predicting solar and lunar eclipses can only be done with confidence with a working model. It is essentially the test for it; the predictive behaviour of a hypothesis turning into theory.
Contrary to my former world view and the one still shared by the majority that it is a "very sensitive complex system, can only be explained with 1 celestial model" all three types seem to have these capacities.
I couldn't imagine a geological analogue where the foundational model can be so different and still explain and predict all
observations. It's like there were 2 other models for plate tectonics and all three would stand the test in explaining the obvious South America-Africa puzzle and all related geophysics, geology and biology. And all scientific, no creationistic crap... Hmm...
If there are holes in the Copernican-Kepler-Newtonian (non-Einstein relativity religion spoilt, just the relation between the solar system, the stars and us) system that is already big big news. If there are impossibilities
as you stated, even more.
More and more questions will come, not only from me but you get butchered by the people who know you, Simon Shack, as the serious researcher on 9/11 and all the other hoaxes here, who proposes a sky turning tuned Tycho model... Be prepared for that.
I've put the discovery of the moons of Jupiter by Galileo as a stronghold of both the Copernican and the Tychonian models around in the early 17th century. Do you know what influence Tycho had on the model Galileo used to discover these moons, a pretty amazing change in view of the skies...?
Can it be attributed to Tycho or has that to be Copernicus and Kepler and are there other moons discovered which rely on Tychonian/geo-heliocentric models? The outer moons of the big planets Jupiter
, discovered long after the deaths of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Longmontanus, Newton and Capella, appear to have different behaviour around their planets than the inner moons...
From the end of the 19th century, dozens of much smaller Jovian moons have been discovered and have received the names of lovers, conquests, or daughters of the Roman god Jupiter, or his Greek equivalent, Zeus. The Galilean moons are by far the largest and most massive objects in orbit around Jupiter, with the remaining 63 moons and the rings together comprising just 0.003% of the total orbiting mass.
Of Jupiter's moons, eight are regular satellites, with prograde and nearly circular orbits that are not greatly inclined with respect to Jupiter's equatorial plane. The Galilean satellites are nearly spherical in shape, due to having planetary mass, and so would be considered dwarf planets if they were in direct orbit about the Sun. The other four regular satellites are much smaller and closer to Jupiter; these serve as sources of the dust that makes up Jupiter's rings.The remainder of Jupiter's moons are irregular satellites, whose prograde and retrograde orbits are much farther from Jupiter and have high inclinations and eccentricities.
Iapetus is the third-largest of Saturn's moons. Orbiting the planet at 3.5 million km, it is by far the most distant of Saturn's large moons, and also possesses the greatest orbital inclination, at 15.47°
This predictive behaviour of planet moons again is a good test of the system.
I've coloured reddish the cells for Calendar for Copernican and Ptolemean and as a stronghold for Tychonian, something you explained earlier in this topic.
In the end, all cells for the "SSSS-Semi-Tychonian Model" (SSSSSTM is too much, Simon...) should be convincingly considerably greener than those for not only the Copernican but also all other columns of interest, in particular the Indian and one of the geocentric (Ptolemean?) models... Selene
PS: I consider the Tycho Brahe "rock star" life an admirable one.