Introducing the TYCHOS

Simon Shack's (Tycho Brahe-inspired) geoaxial binary system. Discuss the book and website for the most accurate configuration of our solar system ever devised - which soundly puts to rest the geometrically impossible Copernican-Keplerian model.

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby patrix on April 15th, 2018, 9:03 pm

PianoRacer,

These are exactly my thoughts. And from a technical viewpoint this is perfectly doable. But for the upcoming release I will focus on getting Simons values from Tychosium 2D transferred and if time allows, put some key stars and reference lines in place. The grunt of the work has been to redesign the time system from the lessons learned from T2D.

The camera system I use for Tychosium 3D is a generic one that only allows some rudimentary positioning, but it's perfectly doable to build a custom system that attaches the camera to a place on our rotating Earth and shows a view of the model as it would look in Stellarium or Neave.

I'm the only developer working on this currently, but my hope is that when this first release is out the door and people start to catch on we will soon reach a point where this can be a community developed software hosted on for example Github.

Working with Tychosium has been a way for me to understand Simons work and there is no doubt in my mind that Tychos will be the first model of the Solar system in history that can be displayed in the way you describe and that that will help put an end to the 400 years long Copernican delusion.

Simon shows with excellent detail and clarity why the Copernican model is impossible in his book. But it's a hard and abstract subject and sadly many people don't read books anymore. Most watch television or YouTube to learn about things. And that has it's problems as we know...

Edit:
Pianoracer wrote
Those objects, after all, are what Simon is proposing a new model for, not so much the stars (as far as I understand).

The key thing with Simons model is that it works both in respect to the stars and planets. And that is also the Achilles heel of the Copernican model. Planets line up with stars (confirmable in the sky, Neave or any other observation based planetariums) that is not possible if that model was correct.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 232
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby PianoRacer on April 16th, 2018, 5:20 am

Patrix,

I completely understand and am so pleased that you share my opinion that such a feature would truly elevate Tychosium 3D into something unprecedented, namely a 3D model of the cosmos that 100% accurately predicts the motions of the sun, moon, planets and stars in all places and at all times, is able to show the location, speed and path of those celestial objects, and reflects precisely that which can be observed from anywhere on Earth. Frankly I was shocked when I realized that despite the readily available technology, there seemed to be no implementation of the Heliocentric model that was able to do this. How on Earth (no pun intended) was NASA supposed to have been able to send spacecraft to our moon and other planets if they didn't know exactly where those destinations would be at any specific time? And if the knowledge was available half a century ago, surely someone had turned it into a web app and monetized it by now, right? Apparently not...

I look forward to observing your progress with the software, and my hat is off to you for what is clearly very fine work. Simon is very fortunate to have someone with your talents to collaborate with - a testament to the caliber of person who is drawn to his work, to be sure! If you are able to implement what you seem confident that you can, you will definitely add me to the list of converts to the Tychos model. No pressure Patrix! :D

-PR
PianoRacer
Member
 
Posts: 19
Joined: November 10th, 2016, 2:13 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby patrix on April 16th, 2018, 6:01 am

PianoRacer » April 16th, 2018, 5:20 am wrote:If you are able to implement what you seem confident that you can, you will definitely add me to the list of converts to the Tychos model. No pressure Patrix! :D
-PR


PR,

Thank you for the encouragement and kind words. This feature is only a matter of time. When Simons TYCHOS is implemented in a 3d model, it's possible to set a camera that shows it from any viewpoint, including a constantly rotating and slightly moving one such as Earth.

I feel, as I've said many times to Simon, as the luckiest guy alive to be able to help Simon with this, but technically it's not rocket science (meaning it's not impossible :) ).

We've all seen how far 3d tech has come. Games are constantly produced with breathtaking 3d visuals, and those creating ones enforcing the current Nutwork religion (that rockets and satellites fly around in a Copernican universe) gets awarded http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2014/06/16/elit ... warded-obe

But these days are numbered now I would say, and more will catch on, including skilled 3d programmers (as opposed to me) and they will be eager to help.

This is not the end of the Nutwork age, but definitely the beginning of that end :)
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 232
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby Seneca on April 16th, 2018, 2:09 pm

patrix » 16 Apr 2018, 07:01 wrote:This feature is only a matter of time. When Simons TYCHOS is implemented in a 3d model, it's possible to set a camera that shows it from any viewpoint, including a constantly rotating and slightly moving one such as Earth.


When you succeed in doing this, would it be a lot of work to do the same for the Copernican model, using official calculations?
This seems a good way for people all over the world to test this. Look at the night sky and see which model predicts best what can be seen.

Here you can find the calculations used by NASA "in the planning and design of spacecraft missions": https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/aprx_pos_planets.pdf
full quote:
Lower accuracy formulae for planetary positions have a number of important applications when one doesn't need the full accuracy of an integrated ephemeris. They are often used in observation scheduling, telescope pointing and prediction of certain phenomena as well as in the planning and design of spacecraft missions.
Approximate positions of the nine major planets may be found by using Keplerian formulae with their associated elements and rates. Such elements are not intended to represent any sort of mean; they are simply the result of being adjusted for a best fit. As such, it must be noted that the elements are not valid outside the given time-interval over which they were fit.


The time-interval is 1800 AD-2500 AD. BTW this looks a bit fishy to me, reminding me of climate modeling.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 440
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby ghostofpedro on April 16th, 2018, 8:07 pm

simonshack » March 27th, 2018, 4:26 pm wrote:
ghostofpedro wrote: But he's relying on media fakery as evidence of the heliocentric theory.


Indeed, dear Ghostofpedro.

And since I started to notice that media fakery and scientific matters are so intimately intertwined, I decided to embark in this astronomical research - about five years ago. It should be obvious to everyone that, if I believed in space travel (as peddled by NASA & co), my brain would never have envisaged the possibility that the Copernican model of our solar system (as we were all taught at school) was questionable - let alone impossible (as my TYCHOS model demonstrates).

As I see it, this is the beauty and power of Cluesforum. By bouncing ideas between each other, those ideas can 'snowball' into even larger discoveries.


Simon, I tried to get the same colleague to watch the Tychosium 3D preview on youtube. His response was "You need to stop listening to these people. This makes no sense."

The TYCHOS' explanation of Mars Retrograde makes perfect sense to me... So does Cognitive Dissonance.
ghostofpedro
Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: March 17th, 2015, 3:23 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby simonshack on April 17th, 2018, 9:50 pm

*
Dear Seneca, I have difficulty understanding what your point is. Perhaps we could just talk over Skype or Google Hangouts about it?
In medieval times it would have taken weeks for two minds like ours to communicate - but today we can do it almost instantly!

My Skype username is : simon.shack
My Google Hangout username is : Simon Shack

Please contact me by e-mail to let me know if / when you are available for a voice chat.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6492
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby Seneca on April 18th, 2018, 7:04 am

Thanks Simon, that's a good idea, I will do that. I edited my post in order to try to clarify my point.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 440
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby simonshack on April 20th, 2018, 11:12 am

ADMIN NOTICE (simon): This is a post by Seneca which I mistakenly overwrote last night. Fortunately, Seneca had saved it so he sent it back to me via e-mail this morning, Thanks Seneca - and sorry for the mishap!)


simonshack » 10 Apr 2018, 00:00 wrote:
Well, the TYCHOS model provides the simplest & most logical resolution imaginable to those seemingly unanswerable questions. Since Earth slowly orbits WITHIN the Sun's orbit, the distribution of the stellar parallaxes (positive / negative/ and zero) will indeed be expected to be as they are, in fact, observed :

Image

Hello Simon.
In order for your model to be able to predict this observed distribution of stellar parallaxes, there are some assumptions that have to apply.
1)in all directions shown in the figure, the number of observable stars is roughly similar.
2)the proportion of observable stars that are too distant to have a measurable parallax is not too high.

1) If most of the stars are concentrated in a disc (as according to mainstream science), the distribution of parallaxes would obviously be skewed. So I guess you don't agree with that shape?

2) For example, if we suppose that 50% of the observable stars were too distant to measure parallax, even under the best conditions (perpendicular to the PVP orbit), the proportion of stars with zero parallaxes would be much higher than is observed now (toward 75%). Even if only 10% of observable stars are too distant to measure parallax, the predicted distribution will probably be different.

regarding 1):In areas without light pollution it is possible to see the milky way. So it looks like the stars are not distributed evenly across space.

Image
Edit for further clarification:

Image

This is a cartoon representation of structure in our Milky Way galaxy. Open clusters of stars are formed in the galactic disc. As shown, there are two distinct components of this disc, the “thick” and “thin”, whose origins are still debated. Image Credit: Swinburne University of Technology.


Our solar system would be situated about halfway between the center and the edge. Suppose for example that the orientation of this disc is parallel to the blue arrow in your figure. Then the concentration of stars would be much less in the "up" and "down" quadrants. If this was the case then your model would predict that there would be much less stars with positive and negative parallax than there would be that have zero parallax. That is an extreme example to show that the orientation of the galaxy matters. The supposed orientation of the galaxy is actually at an angle of about 60° with the celestial equator. I think this means that there are more stars in the "up" and "down" quadrants, so proportionally less stars with zero parallax.

So my point is: no matter how good your model of the solar system is, you can't predict the distribution of the stellar parallaxes without taking into consideration the distribution of stars in space.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6492
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby simonshack on April 20th, 2018, 11:14 am

[Seneca wrote:So my point is: no matter how good your model of the solar system is, you can't predict the distribution of the stellar parallaxes without taking into consideration the distribution of stars in space.


Dear Seneca,

Let us stay focused on the primary problem - which ALL astronomers must know and be aware of (since it was discovered at least a century ago) :

About 25% of ALL the stars measured for their parallaxes (against the 'fixed', far more distant stars) are NEGATIVE.

Now, since roughly 50 % of the 100% of measured stars exhibit ZERO parallax, this means that the NEGATIVE PARALLAX STARS represent circa 50% of the stars that exhibit some parallax. Thus, we may very well formulate this general statement (neglecting the ZERO parallax stars, i.e. those who don't appear to move AT ALL) :

Roughly 50% of the stars in our skies are observed to move "from left to right" (against the 'fixed', very distant stars)
Roughly 50% of the stars in our skies are observed to move "from right to left" (against the 'fixed', very distant stars)


Here's an extract from a paper written almost one century ago. I have highlighted in red the most important sentence in that exctract :

"Recent Determinations Of Stellar Parallaxes By Photographic Methods" - by Robert G. Aitken, February 1921:

Image
http://www.tychos.info/citation/160A_Cl ... rallax.htm

So there you are, dear Seneca: astronomers have known about this for at least a century :
HALF of our (moving) stars seem to move one way - and HALF of our (moving) stars seem to move the other way.

I know, my writing style may seem overly-simplistic to you - but let us stay clear, focused & simple as we discuss about this. No need to stray into any "galactic considerations" - such as the distribution of stars in space. Observation tell us that 50% of the stars move one way - and 50% move the opposite way. Period. Can the Copernican model explain this? Nope. Can the TYCHOS model explain this? Yes.


So how is NEGATIVE STELLAR PARALLAX "explained" today? Well, if you can bear it, check out this laughable "explanation" over at the Celestia Forum:
https://celestia.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11381
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6492
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby Seneca on April 20th, 2018, 4:32 pm

Thanks for restoring my post. :)
simonshack » 19 Apr 2018, 23:13 wrote:I know, my writing style may seem overly-simplistic to you - but let us stay clear, focused & simple as we discuss about this. No need to stray into any "galactic considerations" - such as the distribution of stars in space. Observation tell us that 50% of the stars move one way - and 50% move the opposite way. Period. Can the Copernican model explain this? Nope. Can the TYCHOS model explain this? Yes.

I am aware that what I wrote doesn't disprove your model.
I think it is important to scrutinize everything you write in your book. As you know, people that don't like to question the ideas they learned will use any excuse to refrain from doing so. They will use any weakness in your book as an excuse to stop reading and dismiss the whole model. And your model deserves to be judged on its merits.
So I will continue to focus on everything.

To be clear, I don't find your writing style over-simplistic. You could call that statement I reacted to " the distribution of the stellar parallaxes (positive / negative/ and zero) will indeed be expected to be as they are, in fact, observed" over-simplistic. But I think it is probably an incorrect statement and I have shown why. It could even be seen as a result of confirmation bias. Much of conventional science shows where this leads to if you don't avoid that...

Your new post where you only explain the proportion the positive and negative parallaxes is better.

Regarding your quote from Robert G. Aitken:
You use this also in your book and compare the 26% figure that is mentioned there with the 25% of negative parallax values listed today in ESA’s Hipparcos catalogues.
But that is not a good comparison:
As is stated the 26% includes all stars with zero parallax, all the stars with negative parallax and all the stars with positive parallax less than or equal than their probable error.
While the 25% for the Hipparcos catalogue only include the stars with negative parallaxes. At least that is what I think because I don't know what is meant exactly by the "assumed zero parallax" category.

I followed the link you provided in your book to find the source of those percentages. I think it is this.

wd40
Established Member
Over 1 million objects are listed in the Tycho Main Catalogue, and they state: "The trigonometric
parallax is expressed in units of milliarcsec. The estimated parallax is given for every star, even if it
appears to be insignificant or negative (which may arise when the true parallax is smaller than its
error)."
25% have negative parallax, 29% positive parallax and 46% assumed zero parallax.
Tests were done to see if the stars moving across the instrument slit were directionally different in
the northern celestial hemisphere to what they were in the southern celestial hemisphere. Of the
non-zero-parallax stars in the northern celestial hemisphere, 45% of them had a negative parallax,
and in the southern celestial hemisphere, 46% of non-zero objects had a negative parallax.
Could this very symmetrical distribution be a naturally occurring phenomenon?

Didn't you predict that stars with positive parallax would mostly be situated in the southern celestial hemisphere and the stars with negative parallax in the northern celestial hemisphere?
BTW, the copernican model can't explain this either. But the old Tychosian model (without the PVP orbit) can: we would expect something like this if all the parallax was caused by the rotation of the earth.
However, I think this can't be explained properly without examining the individual parallax measurements in detail:
-How, where and when were the observations made exactly?
-How was the parallax calculated? Was the movement of the earth as predicted by the Copernican model used as a factor in the calculation?

I am looking forward to our talk on Skype.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 440
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby simonshack on April 20th, 2018, 6:35 pm

Seneca wrote:Didn't you predict that stars with positive parallax would mostly be situated in the southern celestial hemisphere and the stars with negative parallax in the northern celestial hemisphere?


Ah, I see what confuses you now. Well this quote from that forum is unfortunately / most probably just a typo / transcription error :

"Of the non-zero-parallax stars in the northern celestial hemisphere, 45% of them had a negative parallax,
and in the southern celestial hemisphere, 46% of non-zero objects had a negative parallax"
(it should read "had a positive parallax")

Here's a graphic I made using a screenshot from the wonderful 3D TYCHOSIUM - which should clear things up :

Image

Remember that when they talk about 45% and 46% of stellar parallaxes (listed on ESA's official catalogues) - they are referring only to the "100%" of stars which actually show some amount of parallax. The other half of our stars (roughly 50%) exhibit ZERO (or near-zero) parallax. Precisely as depicted in my above graphic.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6492
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby Seneca on April 20th, 2018, 8:12 pm

simonshack » 20 Apr 2018, 19:35 wrote:Remember that when they talk about 45% and 46% of stellar parallaxes (listed on ESA's official catalogues) - they are referring only to the "100%" of stars which actually show some amount of parallax. The other half of our stars (roughly 50%) exhibit ZERO (or near-zero) parallax. Precisely as depicted in my above graphic.

Like we discussed on skype, if we look at the first statement
"Of the non-zero-parallax stars in the northern celestial hemisphere, 45% of them had a negative parallax", this would probably mean that in that hemisphere 55% had a positive parallax.(because they are not negative and not zero). While in your drawing all non-zero parallax stars would have negative parallax.

So like I wrote earlier, I think we should look into these parallax calculations more closely before we can draw any conclusions, other than that the Copernican model can't explain this.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 440
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby simonshack on April 21st, 2018, 1:20 pm

Seneca wrote:So like I wrote earlier, I think we should look into these parallax calculations more closely before we can draw any conclusions, other than that the Copernican model can't explain this.


Yes, dear Seneca - we certainly should look into the available parallax data more closely. The problem with the official ESA data is that they claim that their measurements have been performed by some (fairly small) telescope placed aboard a satellite flying around Earth at breakneck speeds(!). As the esteemed Italian astronomer Vittorio Goretti wrote (in connection to the many questions he submitted to ESA, the European Space Agency) :

Vittorio Goretti wrote:The Hipparcos Catalogue stars, about 118,000 stars, are a choice from the over 2,000,000 stars of the Tycho Catalogue. As regards the data concerning the same stars, the main difference between the two catalogues lies in the measurement errors, which in the Hipparcos Catalogue are smaller by about fifty times. I cannot understand how it was possible to have such small errors (i. e. uncertainties of the order of one milliarcsecond) when the typical error of a telescope with a diameter of 20÷25 cm is comprised between 20 and 80 milliarcseconds (see the Tycho Catalogue). When averaging many parallax angles of a star, the measurement error of the average (root-mean-square error) cannot be smaller than the average of the errors (absolute values) of the single angles.

It would be important for the Hipparcos researchers to confirm their catalogue measurements with new ones performed from the ground, especially in the case of stars whose parallaxes were not known before the 1991÷1994 Hipparcos Mission.
http://www.vittoriogoretti-observatory610.org/2nd-research-2010-2012-pub-jan-2013/


Hence, what we need to find is a set of trustworthy stellar parallax data collected by large earthbound telescopes - complete with the exact dates / time-windows during which those measurements were made. Ideally of course - as Hoi Polloi has suggested - we should aim at performing such measurements ourselves one fine day... Now, I don't really like the concept of crowd funding but perhaps, in this case, it may be a worthwhile project to put up and see if it gathers public interest / support? I don't know. Thoughts, anyone?

To be sure, I would certainly encourage any willing pro / or semi-pro observational astronomers to perform a "TYCHOS-based" verification of our stellar parallaxes. I suggest that six relatively nearby stars could be chosen: four of them located in the four quadrants 'surrounding' Earth along our celestial equator - and the other two located above our North Pole and South Pole. The stakes are, of course, "sky high"!... If it turns out that their parallaxes negate (beyond any reasonable doubt) the TYCHOS paradigm, I will be happy to abandon my TYCHOS theory. But if it turns out that they confirm (beyond any reasonable doubt) what would be expected under the TYCHOS model's tenets, this would be 'game over' for the Copernican / Keplerian heliocentric model - and this world will end up being littered with Simon Shack statues for the foreseeable future! :lol:

For now, I submit the below graphic which illustrates what we need to keep in mind as to what stellar parallaxes should be expected (depending on the time-windows chosen to measure a given star) under the TYCHOS model's paradigm. As you can see, dear Seneca, I think this graphic might answer a few good questions that you brought up yesterday in our pleasant Skype conversation :

Image

Note that, if the TYCHOS model is correct, this would neatly explain why some independent astronomers (such as Vittorio Goretti) have lamented that their own stellar parallax observations are in dramatic conflict / and totally inconsistent with the official data published on ESA's Hipparcos and Tycho catalogues. It all depends on WHAT TIME-WINDOW is chosen to measure the parallax of any given star!
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6492
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby Seneca on April 21st, 2018, 4:19 pm

I like your graphic, it has a lot of information packed into it. Perhaps an indication of the north and south directions would make it even more understandable. And mentioning or indicating the rotation of the earth, because a lot of people won't get the importance of that movement immediately.

What I am still missing is the indication that under your model parallax also depends on the location of the measurement (both latitude and longitude) but perhaps this would overcomplicate it.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 440
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby Kham on April 21st, 2018, 7:40 pm

Seneca,

Perhaps you could make/add to the graphic and show us all what you mean?
Kham
Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: June 25th, 2015, 10:30 am

PreviousNext

Return to The TYCHOS model

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest