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

That's a good idea Kham, I have started doing that. But in order to accomplish this I still need to understand exactly how the parallax numbers are calculated in the Copernican system. For them to make sense in the Copernican model the observations should be made all in a standard timeframe, for example between december 21 and june 21. Or else you would have to use the predicted displacement of the earth to calculate the parallax, which seems to be the case. I could use your help in figuring out these calculations to see exactly under which conditions they turn out negative.

What is measured is the offset of the position of a star in two different images.
Then a set of calculations are applied which factor in various angles and distances and corrections for all sorts of motions and variables in the viewing environment. That is repeated several times, and the average value of the result is the distance in parsecs.

Actually Kham, I could use your mathematical help for something else. I am challenging Simon's assumption from his book, in chapter 8 that in the Copernican model the sun's declination should change in a linear fashion during the course of a year. Since the sun's declination is important for the placement of solar panels or the prediction of shadows, I found a lot of sites where you can calculate this and it is definitely not linear. Interestingly, on this site where they show how this is calculated, I think they use a model exactly like Simon's.

To understand how the declination angle varies with time, geometricians define a celestial sphere, of infinite radius, that rotates around the earth, the center point of the sphere. The intersection between the equatorial plane of the earth with the celestial sphere defines the celestial equator. From the point of view of the celestial sphere, the sun follows an orbit over the course of a year on the ecliptic. It is tilted 23.5 with respect to the celestial equator.

As far as I can tell, in deriving the formula for the sun's declination they never use the earths elliptical motion, it is all circular. I am trying to understand if the movement of the sun relative to the earth is perhaps the same in both models. Would you be able to mathematically prove or disprove that? Would you perhaps be able to derive the equations for the sun's declination for both models, so we could compare them? There is a formula on the page I linked to, but I think this is based on Simon's model.
Last edited by Seneca on April 22nd, 2018, 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seneca
Member

Posts: 443
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

I could use your help in figuring out these calculations to see exactly under which conditions they turn out negative.

Dearest Seneca,

For the information you require go straight to the source: the organizations that collected the Hipparchus and Tycho catalogues.

I could use your mathematical help for something else. ... Would you perhaps be able to derive the equations for the sun's declination for both models, so we could compare them? There is a formula on the page I linked to, but I actually think this is based on Simon's model.

For the information you require on the Copernican model I suggest you contact the Astronomy Department of any community college or university. In fact, contact several in case there might be competing information.

Kham
Member

Posts: 105
Joined: June 25th, 2015, 10:30 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Seneca wrote: I am challenging Simon's assumption from his book, in chapter 8 that in the Copernican model the sun's declination should change in a linear fashion during the course of a year. Since the sun's declination is important for the placement of solar panels or the prediction of shadows, I found a lot of sites where you can calculate this and it is definitely not linear. Interestingly, on this site where they show how this is calculated, I think they use a model exactly like Simon's.

Dear Seneca,

Here's how the Sun descends (and ascends) in our skies during the course of the year - according to the TYCHOS model :
(Note that the Sun is shown descending by as many as 22.8° between Aug 21 and Oct 21 - just as is observed from Earth) :

I showed my above illustration to a 10-year-old kid the other day (who asked me about the reasons for our seasons) - and he soon replied : "oh, well that makes total sense!..." I then showed him the below graphic I made (based on the Copernican model):

The kid just shaked his head and asked me : "Hmm, Simon: can you make a drawing that explains this a little better? If Earth is tilted like that, why would the Sun drop so much in our sky between August and October?"

I told him: "No, I can't. But I will ask other people to try and make such a drawing."

So... anyone out there willing to give it a go?
simonshack

Posts: 6510
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

*

PROXIMA - our nearmost “star” - agrees with the TYCHOS

Perhaps the 'boldest' contention that I put forth in my book is that the stars are MUCH closer than currently believed. This was, of course, also Tycho Brahe's strongly-asserted (and well-informed!) opinion – and the MAIN reason why he vehemently rejected the Copernican model. In astronomy literature, it is often condescendingly claimed that his rejection was due to him being unable to detect any stellar parallaxes (since this can only be done with modern telescopes). This is not exactly true: he rejected the Copernican model on terms of pure logic: WHY, he asked, would there be such an enormous void between the furthest planet of our solar system (at the time, Saturn) – and our nearmost star? To be sure, we are told that our nearmost “star” (PROXIMA Centauri), is about 28000 X further away from us than Saturn ! So, between Saturn and PROXIMA, there would only be a handful of other celestial bodies (such as Neptune, Uranus, Pluto and little more!) Now, how bizarre is that?

Those who have read my TYCHOS book will be familiar with the simple calculation I made to propound the possibility that the stars are considerably closer than we are told: since Earth - in the TYCHOS - moves (around its PVP orbit) by only 7018 km every six months (as opposed to 299.2 Mkm, or 2AU, as of the Copernican theory), ALL the stellar parallax calculations performed to this day are “inflated” by a factor of (approx) 42633.

299,200,000 / 7018 ≈ 42633 (i.e. the stars are 42633 X closer than currently believed)

I do of course realize that this is a rather “wild contention” of mine – yet if my (and Tycho Brahe's) inklings about stellar distances turn out to be dead wrong, I will have no problem retracting them in the 2nd edition of my book. After all, it isn't the main point of the TYCHOS model – which deals primarily with the geometry of our inner solar system.

In my book, however, I do propose this idea (of the stars being 42633 X closer) - and consequently submit that:

“This means that, in the TYCHOS, the distance unit known as “1 Light Year” corresponds to less than 1.5 AU.”

9,460,730,472,580.8 km (i.e. ONE “light year”) / 42633 = 226,133,053.5 km = 1.48366 AU

So let's see if we can find any clues in support of those “outrageous” contentions of mine (which, predictably, have already been derided and scoffed at by some silly clowns pretending to 'help out' with my TYCHOS research... Seems like history indeed repeats itself!).

We will first have to look at some basic physics pertaining to the empirical domain of visuals / and observed angular diameters :

On Wikipedia's “Angular diameter” entry, we can read:

“In astronomy, the sizes of celestial objects are often given in terms of their angular diameter as seen from Earth, rather than their actual sizes. Since these angular diameters are typically small, it is common to present them in arcseconds.
(...)
“An object of diameter 725.27 km at a distance of 1 AU [average Earth > Sun distance] will have an angular diameter of 1 arcsecond”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter

Now, to follow my reasoning, you will have to know that 1,296,000 arc seconds = 360° (a full circle). Not many people know about "arc seconds".
Well, it so happens that 725.27 km X 1,296,000 = 939,949,920 km, i.e. almost exactly the Sun's orbital circumference – as of the TYCHOS ! (Oh well, in my book I have the Sun's orbital circumference at 939,943,910 km – a mere 0.00063939 % discrepancy, so you may hopefully not hold me up on that ! ).

In other words, if you were looking at a 725.27km-wide sunspot, it would subtend 1 arcsecond in your 360° celestial field of vision (as defined by the Earth-Sun distance of 1 AU - the so-called Astronomical Unit).

So let us now take a close look at our nearmost “stellar” object, namely, PROXIMA Centauri.

According to my TYCHOS model, PROXIMA (our nearmost “star”) would be 42633 X closer than currently believed.
As of official data, PROXIMA is said to be as far as 4.25 Light Years away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri

Under the TYCHOS (which propounds that 1 LY = 1,48366 AU) this would translate into : 4.25 X 1.48366 ≈ 6.3 AU

As we saw earlier, 1 arcsecond of an object at 1 AU represent 725.27 km.

Therefore, 1 arcsecond at a distance of 6.3 AU (my proposed distance for PROXIMA – as of the TYCHOS reduction factor of 42633) would represent : 725.27 X 6.3 ≈ 4569 km

However, the observed parallax for PROXIMA is not 1 arc second. It is 0.76813 arc seconds:
“The nearest star to Earth, Proxima Centauri (a member of the triple system of Alpha Centauri), has a parallax of 0.76813″. https://www.britannica.com/place/Proxima-Centauri

Ok, so this means that PROXIMA's parallax would represent a displacement of :

0.76813 X 4569 km ≈ 3509.5 km

Well, that is most interesting indeed: see, when astronomers go about determining stellar parallaxes, they assume that Earth revolves around the Sun around a 299.2 Mkm-wide (or 2 AU) orbit. Like so:

"As indicated in the figure, a star’s parallactic angle—or, more commonly, just its “parallax”
—is conventionally defined to be half its apparent shift relative to the background as we move from one side of Earth’s orbit to the other."
http://astronomy.nju.edu.cn/~lixd/GA/AT ... T41701.htm

Now, please note that they determine the parallactic angle considering a baseline of 1 AU (and not of 2 AU). This means that the 0.76813" parallax of PROXIMA (our nearmost "stellar object") was determined using a trigonometric baseline of 1 AU - corresponding to Earth's 'transverse' displacement over HALF of a six month period.

Well, in the TYCHOS, Earth moves by 7018 km in six months. In HALF that period, it moves by 3509 km.

So, basically, PROXIMA's observed parallax may well be, quite simply, caused by Earth's 1-mph-motion! To be sure, astronomers take into account (and subtract) any given star's assumed proper motion and, of course, the circa 50" (arc seconds) of annual precession. Hence, the little "parallax" value they are left with (the observed transverse / lateral drift of a nearby star in relation to distant stars) - probably just reflects Earth's 1-mph-motion around its PVP orbit.

If you've followed my logical reasoning this far, I trust that you will now envisage the definite possibility that PROXIMA, our nearmost "star", is only about 6.3 AU away from Earth, roughly halfway between Jupiter and Saturn. Yet PROXIMA is certainly NOT part of our system, since it's location is observed to be at a steep -62° declination vis-à-vis Earth's equatorial plane (while our own system's bodies' orbits are inclined at about 23.3°with the same). Note that PROXIMA is also well clear of the Main Asteroid belt (with its millions of small objects ejected by the Sun-Mars binary system, located between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter). Funnily enough, PROXIMA is known to be an "extremely faint star"... in spite of being our nearmost "star"! Its so-called "apparent magnitude" is a dull 11.3 (invisible to the naked eye), i.e. only slightly brighter than Phobos (Mars's largest moon - a tiny "rock" of circa 25 km in diameter and a dull 11.8 of "apparent magnitude"). Well, this would certainly appear to suggest that PROXIMA is a MUCH smaller object than currently believed (my TYCHOS calculations have it at about 32 km of diameter). Here's how I would illustrate PROXIMA's location within the TYCHOS model, as it slowly revolves around the Alpha Centauri A & B binary system :

I think I'm on to something - regarding stellar distances. Only time will tell though. In the meanwhile, let the naysayers sneer and scorn to their heart's content.
simonshack

Posts: 6510
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

simonshack wrote:In the meanwhile, let the naysayers sneer and scorn to their heart's content.

Aand - just as predicted... http://fakeologist.com/blog/2018/04/10/ ... ment-19127

I think it's pretty "fitting" (and - uh - probably not coincidental) that the chosen moniker of the entity which initially "hugged up" enthusiastically to my plucky TYCHOS research (only to soon flip-flop and start backstabbing it) is "GAIA". As Cluesforum 'veterans' may know, Gaia (the Fakeologist) is none other than 'Selene' - aka 'Vera Obscurata' - who signed up twice (under those two monikers) at Cluesforum back around 2015 as I was developing the TYCHOS, and was banned twice from our valiant forum - due to his silly & childish behavior. Back then, he once called me by phone and, in his shrill and petulant voice, told me that he was a Dutch geologist living somewhere in South America. Today, the Gaia Clown (as I will henceforth call him) is huddling at the Fakeologist blog, throwing pebbles at my ongoing cosmological research on a daily basis. It wouldn't surprise me for a minute if it turns out that the Gaia Clown is, in fact, employed by ESA to pooh-pooh the TYCHOS model.

Of course, "GAIA" is the name of the European Space Agency's current, monstrously ambitious mission to measure the parallax / celestial positions of one billion stars:

Gaia is an ambitious mission to chart a three-dimensional map of our Galaxy, the Milky Way, in the process revealing the composition, formation and evolution of the Galaxy. Gaia will provide unprecedented positional and radial velocity measurements with the accuracies needed to produce a stereoscopic and kinematic census of about one billion stars in our Galaxy and throughout the Local Group. This amounts to about 1 per cent of the Galactic stellar population.
http://sci.esa.int/gaia/

And yes - believe it or not - THIS is the flying contraption supposed to perform these incredibly accurate stellar measurements of one billion stars...
< The "GAIA" satellite

The funniest thing about all this - is that the Gaia Clown is actually providing me great input and inspiration to forward my research. For instance, his last rant against my work (where he calls me "a real good mainstream bullpsientist") includes a list of 8 of our nearmost stars. Well, since our grassroot, zero-budget investigation about the legitimacy of ESA's stellar parallax data (already questioned years ago by eminent astronomers such as Vittorio Goretti) ideally needs to focus on only a few of our nearmost stars (we cannot pretend to compete with the billion stars allegedly measured by the "Gaia satellite"!), I now wish to thank the Gaia Clown for his efforts. I will now look at the FULL set of data concerning these 8 nearmost stars - and see if they may provide any useful / revealing information. Stay tuned.

What must be crystal clear by now, is that the Gaia Clown presents the official ESA data as "gospel". He certainly is no investigator worthy of the name.
simonshack

Posts: 6510
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

simonshack » 24 Apr 2018, 14:12 wrote:can you make a drawing that explains this a little better? If Earth is tilted like that, why would the Sun drop so much in our sky between August and October?"

I told him: "No, I can't. But I will ask other people to try and make such a drawing."

So... anyone out there willing to give it a go?

I am working on it Simon
Seneca
Member

Posts: 443
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

*
Fun factoid: On March 21, 2018 (the date of my TYCHOS model's release), an apparent malfunction of the GAIA satellite was reported ...

GAIA STATUS UPDATE: SAFE MODE AND RECOVERY - 21 March 2018

"Last month, ESA's Gaia satellite experienced a technical anomaly followed by a 'safe mode' event. After thorough examination, the spacecraft was successfully recovered and resumed normal scientific operations, while the mission team keeps investigating the exact cause of the anomaly."
http://sci.esa.int/gaia/60098-gaia-stat ... -recovery/

I guess they perform these satellite 'repair & maintenance jobs' by remote control.

PLEASE EVERYONE : Read this ridiculous article published on the official ESA website - in order to understand what an utterly silly joke this "Gaia satellite" is : http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2015 ... -for-gaia/
simonshack

Posts: 6510
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

*
I have saved - for posterity - this priceless CGI animation (meant to illustrate how the GAIA satellite works) published on ESA's website :

http://septclues.com/TYCHOS/555_Gaia_sky-scan_768.mp4 (click on link and view !)

simonshack

Posts: 6510
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

They sure love their baco-foil!
pov603
Member

Posts: 766
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

It looks just like a Korean top knot hat! Why did they do that? Is this some attempt to attract Korean partners? Does this have to do with the recent North Korean "softening" going on in the media?

Such a hat is called a "gat" ... Gat for Gaia? In any case, the article you linked to is written in such a typically weird passive voice for NASA/ESA that I cannot be surprised it contains almost no confirmable information whatsoever — save maybe someone you might contact and ask if it went as "reported".

That conversation might go something like this:

- So is it true, everything written about in the article?
- Yes
- Okay, I guess I'll have to trust you on all that. Thanks!
end
hoi.polloi

Posts: 4987
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Introducing the Tychosium 3D

So here we are. On May Day, an ancient northern hemisphere spring festival (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day), Tychosium 3D was released. Not planned, but I'm glad it turned out like that since the Tychos model itself was released on a special date - The Vernal Equinox.of 2018.

This is to me as a developer, the most interesting and important project I've ever have had the fortune to work with. The reason for that is of course that the model - Tychos, that this digital planetarium simulates, seems to be the best representation of our solar system ever conceived. And the evidence for that only gets stronger as its creator Simon Shack, continues to work with it and find more data and observations that supports that assumption.

I hope everyone will find the user interface pretty straight forward and self explanatory, there is a screen-cast I've made previously that explains it and I will make more in the future.
https://youtu.be/zkwaGvTm_tY

One of the things I find so appealing with this model and developing this simulator, is that it contains absolutely no magic or trickery whatsoever. Nature speaks in simple terms. All planets and the Sun move at constant speeds in circular orbits, and this creates a representation of our system that is in perfect accordance with actual observations. I have looked into Keplerian/Newtonian orbital mechanics, and from my understanding it contains quite a few "magical" constants and adjustments. The Copernican model does however work with respect to the planets and the Sun, which is understandable when it assumes planets can move in ellipses at variable speeds, since all parameters then can be adjusted. But where the Copernican model fail as opposed to Tychos (as Tychosium 2D already demonstrates), is when the stars are brought into the picture. The Copernican model does not account for the planets movements in relation to the stars. So expect a new release pretty soon where Tychosium 3D features stars and reference lines to illustrate this.

I hope everyone will enjoy Tychosium 3D by buying access to it on Tychos.info, and support Simons work at this early stage when its needed the most. When you buy access you of course also get access to future updates of the Tychosium 3D.

Please be aware however that it may take little more time for Hoi to get the link to Tychosium 3D in place on the Tychos website.

All the best /Patrik
patrix
Member

Posts: 244
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

I assume the simulation still does not allow one to view the model from an Earthly position, thus making it impossible to compare the model with easily-made observations...? If so, when might we expect such a feature to be implemented? When will it truly be a “planetarium”?
PianoRacer
Member

Posts: 24
Joined: November 10th, 2016, 2:13 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Okay, Tychosium 3-D (version 1 ) has been added to Tychos.info now!
hoi.polloi

Posts: 4987
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Thanks Hoi.

Pianoracer,
Say what? Impossible? Tychosium was literally made by comparing Earthly observations with the planetariums behavior, using Neave and other resources.

Of course Earthly view is a great feature that will be implemented eventually but in no way does the absence of it make it "impossible" to confirm the model. Let me explain - You look at say the Sun in Neave at a particular date and note where the planets are. The easiest thing is to look for conjunctions. Both Tychosiums start at a Sun, Mars, Venus conjunction that occurred year 2000. And then you mentally switch between a birds eye and an earth view.

I can get fed up with the type of attitude I think you are displaying. You want "knowledge" spoon fed. And if it's not served in the way you want it, you blatantly voice discontent.

Sometimes you actually have to buy and read a real book to learn something you know. I suggest you do that in this case if you're genuinely interested in learning about the solar system and then come back with a somewhat more informed criticism.
patrix
Member

Posts: 244
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

PianoRacer » May 2nd, 2018, 1:34 am wrote:I assume the simulation still does not allow one to view the model from an Earthly position, thus making it impossible to compare the model with easily-made observations...? If so, when might we expect such a feature to be implemented? When will it truly be a “planetarium”?

Dear PianoRacer,

I would say that both the Tychosium 2D and the Tychosium 3D may already be called "planetariums" in their own right (but not yet "stellariums"), although they currently only include the planets (and moons) of our so-called "inner" solar system. They allow you to view the interaction between the bodies comprised in our 'immediate cosmic neighborhood' to a high level of accuracy and, as Patrix rightly stated, without the need for any magical, otherwordly laws of optics and perspective (as opposed to the Copernican model's proposed geometry).

Keep in mind that what the two Tychosiums are showing is a system based on uniform circular motion (all orbits are quite simply, and as nature would 'prefer', circular) - something which our ancient astronomers attempted to attain for, well, centuries galore. That is, until Mr Kepler came along and, by mathematically squeezing and stretching those pesky planetary orbits, "made it work" (to a certain, abstract extent). However, and as I thoroughly expound and illustrate in my TYCHOS book, the Copernican / Keplerian is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons - some of which should be, I dare say, clear as day (to anyone spending a modicum of time and effort to assess them).

HOW TO VERIFY THE CURRENT TYCHOSIUM ACCURACY

Regarding my stated 'high level accuracy' of the Tychosium planetariums, I would suggest everyone to verify this for themselves - and here is how you can do it. The below-linked resources contain various tables listing (past & future) conjunctions between the Sun & Earth - and Mars, Mercury, Venus and the Moon. What you will need to do is to compare any given event listed in these tables with the Tychosium planetariums (you may wish to start with the Tychosium 2D (< open in separate window), for simplicity's sake - since it is easier to learn and control). Just dial into the "Go to date" box any given date of a Mars opposition, a Mercury or a Venus transit, or a Solar eclipse - and see if they 'pan out' (geometrically) with the Tychosium 2D simulator :

Venus transits (from 1631 AD to 2498 AD) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus [please ignore transits prior to 1582, year of the Gregorian calendar reform]

Solar eclipses in the 21st century : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... st_century

******************************************************
As for the Tychosium's unarguable superiority to any Copernican planetarium (with regards to our system's orientation towards the stars) here's an example that you may test for yourself - using Venus as a "reference marker" :

Go to 2018-07-10. Take note of the position of Venus which, on that date, will conjunct with star Regulus.
Then go to 2020-10-03. This is also a date in which Venus will conjunct with star Regulus.

What you will see (in the Tychosium 2D and 3D) is this:

As you can see, the TYCHOS model correctly shows Venus conjuncting with star Regulus on both of those dates.

In stark contrast, if you go to the (Copernican) SCOPE PLANETARIUM, what you will see is this :

Of course, Copernican advocates will tell you that this is because "the stars or sooo very far away - and therefore star Regulus will always line up with Venus in that general celestial direction"... (I'm loosely quoting the answer I got from a young Italian astronomy sub-graduate whom I submitted this question to a few months ago).

So yes, the Tychosium 2D and 3D simulators truly deserve to be called "planetariums" - since they are today the only existing planetariums which agree / conform with empirical observation. The onus is now on all Copernican / Keplerian advocates to defend their long-held convictions. I wish them the best of luck.
simonshack