## 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

Simon, I have bought the book and I am trying to understand it. Your model does look much more elegant than the competing Copernican one. You don't need things like the "aberration of light", elliptical orbits, axial precession, speeding up and slowing down, relativity.... to explain the data.

I have a few questions:

1)You argue in the first chapters that the sun and Mars form a binary system. This means that they orbit a common center, the barycenter. In chapter 4 you compare them to Sirius A and B. But in the Tychosium 2-D, I don't see that. I see the sun orbiting around a center that is near the earth. Mars is not orbiting that same center. It looks to me like Mars is orbiting the sun, just like Venus and Mercury do. This looks to me nothing at all like the orbits of Sirius A and B around a common centre that we see here. So maybe I don't understand what a binary system is. If I had to choose a planet as candidate for forming a binary system with the sun I would choose the earth because it has an orbit that seems to be independent of the sun (the PVP orbit of 1 mile/hour).

2)I understood that in your model the orbits are mostly perfect circles, like for example the orbit of the sun around the earth. But then I would expect its orbit in the Tychosium 2-D to be elliptical because its orbit is at an angle of 23.3° with the equatorial plane and we are viewing everything from a direction perpendicular to this plane. But as far I can see they are all perfect circles. What am I missing here?

3)In the Tychosium 2-D, the center that the sun is orbiting is moving very slowly compared to the stars (Polaris, Vega, Thuban). You can see this if you enter a date that is a few thousand years in the future. I have no problem with that but do you mention this movement in the book? Is it perhaps the same as the PVP orbit?

4) I was a bit confused how your model, that seems so radically different from the Copernican model, could have so much similarities when calculating the relative distances and positions of the planets and the sun. The biggest differences lie in the positions of the planets and the sun relative to the stars.
It took a while until it dawned on me that this is easily explained. If you ignore the position of the stars it makes no difference if the sun moves around a stationary earth or if the earth moves around a stationary earth. As long as the radius and speed are the same, their movement relative to each other is exactly the same in each case. The same is true for the relative positions of the other planets compared to the earth, because they are orbiting the sun.
You already explained that the difference of the shape of the orbits in the Copernican system (and the speeding up and slowing down) can be explained by them being at an angle compared to the equatorial plane.

Together this can explain why the 2 systems give similar results for the relative positions in the solar system and radically different results for the positions relative to the stars. Am I understanding this correctly? For you it is probably obvious but for people new to this I think it would help to point this out from the beginning.
Seneca
Member

Posts: 441
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Please forgive my interjection. I believe I can answer most of your inquiry but Simon and Patrik will certainly correct us if we're on the wrong track here, according to their best understandings of Simon's discoveries.

Seneca wrote:1)You argue in the first chapters that the sun and Mars form a binary system. This means that they orbit a common center, the barycenter. In chapter 4 you compare them to Sirius A and B. But in the Tychosium 2-D, I don't see that. I see the sun orbiting around a center that is near the earth. Mars is not orbiting that same center. It looks to me like Mars is orbiting the sun, just like Venus and Mercury do. This looks to me nothing at all like the orbits of Sirius A and B around a common centre that we see here.Image So maybe I don't understand what a binary system is. If I had to choose a planet as candidate for forming a binary system with the sun I would choose the earth because it has an orbit that seems to be independent of the sun (the PVP orbit of 1 mile/hour).

I have had this same reaction to the opening of the book. I felt that it was a bit of a "bending of the sword" (e.g.; sending us further down a new strange path of "binary stars" so that we are more amenable to a return to the relatively familiar TYCHOS) to suggest that most star systems are binary, only to present a system that — on its surface — does not appear to be binary in the way the most shocking and confusing speculations about distant stars have been modeled.

"Geoxial", yes, this makes sense. But "binary" — not in the sense that the Sun and Mars are on their own independent orbits.

However, I think it's important to bring up binary systems because what Simon suggests is that we should also reexamine our understanding of so-called "binary" systems and how they operate. If our system is any indication of what kinds of systems may exist, we might consider that future understandings of "binary star" systems will be changed. We are, after all, in the closest view to a system we can get.

But besides any "redefining" (if that's what's happening) of "binary systems" as systems that may also resemble our own (in addition to the more complex relationships suggested, of bodies orbiting empty spaces) it's also an important subject at the start of the book because it introduces us to the common understanding in astronomy that larger bodies can orbit smaller bodies, and vice versa, and it may not be a question of Newtonian mass. It suggests that we must reexamine the possibility that some kind of magnetic and/or tidal locking is occurring that has more to do with an electromagnetic relationship rather than a fantastical (even more religious) matter of barely balanced billiard balls orbiting based purely on the "good fortune" of lucky, mass-based attraction without disastrously degrading orbits.

The early "Earth at the barycenter" illustration suggests "balance" but it does not actually indicate the orbits ultimately revealed by observation of our system (that the TYCHOS correctly models). Only Simon can say why he decided to call it a "binary" system since that is not explained in the book.

2)I understood that in your model the orbits are mostly perfect circles, like for example the orbit of the sun around the earth. But then I would expect its orbit in the Tychosium 2-D to be elliptical because its orbit is at an angle of 23.3° with the equatorial plane and we are viewing everything from a direction perpendicular to this plane. But as far I can see they are all perfect circles. What am I missing here?

The Tychosium 2-D is an abstraction of the overhead view. The tilt of the Sun and its bodies has been removed for purposes of the illustration of orbital relationships. However, the Tychosium 3-D will not remove the tilt and you will be able to fully view the 3-D orbital relationships including the tilts of all planets, moons and so on.

3)In the Tychosium 2-D, the center that the sun is orbiting is moving very slowly compared to the stars (Polaris, Vega, Thuben). You can see this if you enter a date that is a few thousand years in the future. I have no problem with that but do you mention this movement in the book? Is it perhaps the same as the PVP orbit?

Now this I could be wrong about (Simon and Patrik had many more discussions about the model than myself) but if I'm not mistaken the Tychosium 2-D was forced to speculate about certain matters that needed better exploration to model the distant past and distant future, and this might be one of them. Obviously we need to pay closer attention to the heavens now to determine the new best figures for precession of certain orbits but as it is this system is already far more accurate and reliable than the Copernican system, and that is a very important consideration given NASA's claims of achievements with their broken old model. For the time being, it's safe to place Earth at or near the geoxial center of the Sun orbit (and hence Mars's orbit around the Sun) since that fits with every most-sensitive observation of the daily and yearly positional differences of the bodies.
hoi.polloi

Posts: 4977
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

On the question if Sun and Mars are binary I fail to see the argument that they aren't since they have intersecting orbits.
patrix
Member

Posts: 232
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

On the question if Sun and Mars are binary I fail to see the argument that they aren't since they have intersecting orbits.

Aha. So is that the present definition? Intersecting orbits? That makes sense! If I weren't so tired of adding tiny little changes here and there that seem better to have discussions about, I would suggest the book gains just one more clarifying sentence about why the TYCHOS is considered "binary" to be added into one of the opening passages about the subject. (It seems every time I suggest we ought to be done with editing the manuscript Simon pulls out three more changes out of some unspoken spite and/or unneeded test of my patience and endurance).

(I love him though. Mainly teasing.)

However, if the implication is that intersecting orbits (of non-moons) makes a system binary, there we have it. No need for exegesis.
hoi.polloi

Posts: 4977
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

@hoi.poloi: Thanks for answering my first 3 questions so quickly, this really helps me understand it.

patrix » 29 Mar 2018, 20:57 wrote:On the question if Sun and Mars are binary I fail to see the argument that they aren't since they have intersecting orbits.

@patrix To be clear I wasn't arguing that they are not a binary system. I was trying to understand what a binary system is and what is special about the orbit of Mars.

I seem to agree with hoi that there is possibly some broadening of the definition going on about what a (non-classic) binary system is. Nothing wrong with that.
The definition I used earlier wasn't used by Simon but it was in one of his quotes in chapter 1: "A binary system is simply one in which two stars orbit around a common centre of mass, that is they are gravitationally bound to each other. " Thanks to your comment I see that Simon doesn't use this definition but consistently talks about "intersecting orbits" only.
Thanks for clearing that up, I can see now that the orbits of the sun and Mars are intersecting in Tychos and not in Copernicus' model. I can also see that the idea that this makes it possible for them to collide is preposterous.
And thanks hoi.poloi for pointing out the difference between Mars and the other objects with orbits that are intersecting with the sun's orbit (Mercury and Venus)

Seneca
Member

Posts: 441
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

*
Dear Seneca,

I'm not sure if I understand your question(s).

Here's a screenshot of the upcoming and magnificent 3D Tychosium which Patrik (aka our forum member "Patrix") is working at right now. Sure, it's still a work in progress, but the actual orbital dynamics (as of my Tychos model) are already pretty much correct. I personally see a classic binary system at play here, don't you?

Yellow = Sun
Red = Mars
Blue = our lovely Mother Earth
simonshack

Posts: 6495
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

hoi.polloi » March 29th, 2018, 10:06 pm wrote:
On the question if Sun and Mars are binary I fail to see the argument that they aren't since they have intersecting orbits.

Aha. So is that the present definition? Intersecting orbits? That makes sense! If I weren't so tired of adding tiny little changes here and there that seem better to have discussions about, I would suggest the book gains just one more clarifying sentence about why the TYCHOS is considered "binary" to be added into one of the opening passages about the subject. (It seems every time I suggest we ought to be done with editing the manuscript Simon pulls out three more changes out of some unspoken spite and/or unneeded test of my patience and endurance).
(I love him though. Mainly teasing.)
However, if the implication is that intersecting orbits (of non-moons) makes a system binary, there we have it. No need for exegesis.

On the book editing I feel you Hoi. Programming can be pretty boring as well to be honest, and research too I presume since you have to constantly stop your thought process, find references, explain and document. But what drives me and I believe us, is the end result. And boy do we have something here :-)

On the definition of binary I'm not sure how it's formally defined but the motion described in Tychos between Mars and the Sun fulfils both intersecting orbits and orbiting each other. It's just that Mars moves in a wider orbit so it takes longer for it to orbit the Sun and it's hard to see that it does in Tychosium since the (magnetically?) stronger Sun "tugs" Mars around.
patrix
Member

Posts: 232
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

simonshack » 30 Mar 2018, 01:03 wrote:*
Dear Seneca,

I'm not sure if I understand your question(s).

Here's a screenshot of the upcoming and magnificent 3D Tychosium which Patrik (aka our forum member "Patrix") is working at right now. Sure, it's still a work in progress, but the actual orbital dynamics (as of my Tychos model) are already pretty much correct. I personally see a classic binary system at play here, don't you?

Yellow = Sun
Red = Mars
Blue = our lovely Mother Earth

Yes, I see it now. It looks a lot like the Sirius system. So I take back what I wrote earlier. I was a bit confused by the drawings of the orbits of the Sirius system, which seem to suggest that Sirius B has an orbit that is permanent. While the 2D Tychosium shows that the orbit of Mars moves with the position of the Sun. But that is because the drawings of the Sirius system show only one revolution.

Thanks, it is really an honor to witness the birth of such an elegant model that can have an enormous influence on future generations.
Seneca
Member

Posts: 441
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

On the book editing I feel you Hoi. Programming can be pretty boring as well to be honest, and research too I presume since you have to constantly stop your thought process, find references, explain and document. But what drives me and I believe us, is the end result. And boy do we have something here :-)

Absolutely! After all, I think the best thing we are going for is to release a sort of "definitive" intro to the PVP here just so we can release the amazing information that the discovery entails. Then, after some time of course (and hopefully after feedback from inspired astronomers) humanity can work on an even better sequel, and so on. As kham recently commented, this should hopefully help us re-learn about what real science looks like.

What's amazing is that Simon managed to complete as much as he did in such a short time. It's really important stuff and the journey into these new understandings is just now beginning ...
hoi.polloi

Posts: 4977
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Absolutely! After all, I think the best thing we are going for is to release a sort of "definitive" intro to the PVP here

I agree. This is the bacon :-) Simon has not only beyond any doubt disproven Copernicus, but also arguably added the most significant scientific discovery ever to the annals of astronomy - Earths PVP orbit.
Last edited by patrix on March 31st, 2018, 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
patrix
Member

Posts: 232
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

I think this is an easy way to see which model explains the data best:
Measure the position of a not too distant star. Measure it again 6 months later and 1 year later.

The exact hours of the measurements have to be chosen carefully so that the rotation of earth around its axis doesn't interfere. The earth must face the same direction.*

The predicted difference of the measurements (parallax):
Copernicus: very small at 1-year interval. Much larger parallax at 6-month interval because of huge displacement of earth around the sun.
Tychos: very small at 1-year interval. Exactly half of that at 6-month interval (displacement of earth 1 mile/h on PVP orbit)

*I am not sure if this is possible because the light of the sun may interfere with the visibility of the stars. But something very similar could be done with for example a 3-month and 1-year interval.

I have tried to find parallax data to verify this. But it seems that the parallax data already incorporates the assumed movement of the earth. It seems date and time are not even recorded in the catalogues, only the year.
(I did find negative parallaxes in the Hipparcos catalogue much greater than the estimate of the error and no decent explanation for this)

Is my reasoning correct? Have you tried this?
Last edited by Seneca on March 31st, 2018, 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seneca
Member

Posts: 441
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Interesting idea Seneca

Perhaps some small enthusiast observatories could become interested and do some independent measurements. If parallax measurements are not that difficult to do these days, which I would guess they aren't

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/que ... -telescope
patrix
Member

Posts: 232
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

I am trying to understand Chapter 34 — The stellar sophistry known as the “Aberration of Light”

Especially this illustration:

Some questions:

What are the brown "pie slices", indicated with "3 h" (meaning 3 hours)
Their position seems to be significant because they are where length "B" starts and ends?

My thoughts on this: In Tychos, could the apparent orbit of these stars be explained by the movement of the observer, which would be a combination of the PVP orbit and the rotation of the earth around its axis? Is it that what is shown here?

In the Copernican model, the displacement due to rotation can possibly be neglected but in Tychos not. For an observer at the equator, the maximum displacement because of rotation is about 12756 km in half a day. This is of the same order of magnitude of the displacement of the earth on the PVP orbit in one year,14035.84 km.
Seneca
Member

Posts: 441
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Dear Seneca,

Your question 1: those two 'pie slices' of 3h each (total: 6h, or 1/4 of a day) represent the extra quarter-day in the 365.25 year count. For more clarification regarding this quarter-day, you may wish to study my graphic in Chapter 25, titled "WHY 365.25?" .

Your question 2: That's right, the observed 'looping paths' of the stars (as of below graphic, showing three years of Vega) is simply a reflection of the trochoidal movement of the observer (over one year). It is caused by a combination of Earth's slow forward motion along its PVP orbit (ca. 14036km per year) and Earth's rotational motion as it follows the Sun's annual revolution. In other words, if you snap a picture of a given star, say, every night at midnight for one year, the resulting 'path' of the star on your photographic plate will exhibit this trochoidal shape.

source: http://www.tychos.info/citation/114A_Vega.htm

Your comment N°3 : Yes indeed, it is of the same order of magnitude. It would be what astronomers call "diurnal parallax". Yet another thing that needs to be tested - in addition to your good suggestions mentioned in your previous post today: do nearby stars exhibit any parallax between 6am and 6pm - for an observer at the equator?
simonshack

Posts: 6495
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

In other words, if you snap a picture of a given star, say, every night at midnight for one year, the resulting 'path' of the star on your photographic plate will exhibit this trochoidal shape.

Thanks, that makes sense. Is there a link where this kind of trochoidal movement of a star is shown? How is this "explained" in the Copernican model?
Seneca
Member

Posts: 441
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

PreviousNext

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests