The TYCHOS ... made easy

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.

The TYCHOS ... made easy

Postby simonshack on April 4th, 2018, 9:25 pm

This is a locked thread - the purpose of which is to illustrate to the laymen & laywomen the plain and simple logic of the TYCHOS, i.e. the true model of our solar system (as I unabashedly dare call it). I fully realize that astronomy has, alas, become a most unpopular field of study for most people - for a number of reasons which I won't get into here. It is my heartfelt hope that the sheer beauty & simplicity of the TYCHOS model will turn things around. If our academic institutions will choose to ignore it (for as long as they can), so be it - and no one should be surprised about that. In my earnest opinion though, solid and verifiable scientific facts cannot possibly be controlled / or suppressed forever - by any entity on this planet. We all have eyes to see - and brains to think.
To comment and submit questions, please use this open Cluesforum thread : introducing the TYCHOS

The TYCHOS website:


THE TYCHOS ... made easy

PART 1: The "Precession of the Equinoxes" = Earth's motion around its PVP orbit

Dear Ladies & Gents,

You will probably all have heard of (at some stage of your life) about the "precession of the equinoxes". In short, it is simply the observable fact that the entire star field seems to move 'laterally', from one year to the next, by a tiny bit more than our (supposed) 360° annual orbit around the Sun. In the long run, this will make our pole stars alternate around a circular, celestial pattern. In our epoch (J2000), the star Polaris is our pole star. In about 10,800 years, the star Vega will be our pole star. A full "precession of the equinoxes" is currently believed to last for somewhere in the range between 25,000 / 26,000 years.

Here follows a classic depiction of what is currently believed to be going on. Astronomers learn at school that Earth - in spite of rotating anti-clockwise around its polar axis every day - Earth also 'wobbles' clockwise (completing one 360° "counter-revolution" every 25,000 / 26,000 years or so) ! If that were the case, one can only wonder what sort of peculiar / otherwordly physics regulate our terrestrial motions :

Image < The so-called "Lunisolar wooble" - or "Third motion of Earth".

The current "explanation" for Earth's apparent / so-called axial precession:

Yet, this is the sort of science now peddled by our world's scientific community - and the sort of (fallacious) assumptions on which their 'established knowledge' is founded. I find it almost surreal that no one has questioned this 'established knowledge' - for centuries - nor has anyone come forward with a more credible & logical explanation for this FUNDAMENTAL, empirically-verifiable annual stellar drift (currently about 50.3" arc seconds per year): "the precession of the equinoxes".

You may wish to know that this so-called "Third motion of Earth" (as postulated by Copernicus and Isaac Newton) is also called the "Lunisolar wobble theory". This wobbling of Earth, according to academia, is caused by "gravitational forces emitted by our Moon and Sun" (hence, "Luni" - "Solar").

The problem is, the very existence of this presumed wobbling motion of Earth's axis has been, in later years, thoroughly disproved by a number of independent astronomical studies - for various / different yet concurrent reasons. Now, Ladies & Gents : since I called this thread "TYCHOS...made easy", I will not elaborate on just how these fine researchers have ruled out the existence of Earth's wobbling motion. But for those of you who have the will and patience to look further into it, here follow a few links I can recommend. Among other things, it is shown that Earth does NOT 'wobble' (i.e. oscillate) in relation to Venus and our Moon (or any of our nearby bodies) - but only in relation to the stars. Keep in mind that those researchers are still 'stuck' with the idea that Earth revolves around the Sun. They have therefore never envisaged Mars as a candidate to be the binary companion of our Sun; some speculate about (the binary star system) Sirius being our Sun's binary companion - but this (misguided) belief is also addressed in my book. In any case, their studies all conclude that the so-called "Third motion" of Earth does not exist :

Walter Cruttenden : ... nPaper.pdf
"In summary, a number of independent groups, all studying the same problem of lunisolar
mechanics have concluded that precession is most likely caused by something other than
a local wobbling of the Earth."

Carlo Santagata: ... 7cb4fa.pdf
"But should the explanation of Newton about the precession be completely excluded ?
A first fact is certain. The whole 50’’ per year cannot be attributed completely to the equatorial
bulge of the Earth. This item is sure and undisputable."

William Brown:
"Certain celestial movements could not be explained by the [Copernican] model however, such as the precession of the zodiacal constellations, whereby the stars associated with the constellations of the zodiac move retro-progressively across the sky over long epochs of time."

Uwe Homann:
Based on the theory of "the precession of Earth", the equinoctial points retrograde around the sun by about 3.34 s per rotation of the
Earth. In other words, due to precession the mean solar day would have to be 9.12 ms longer and also 3.34 s shorter. However, a
difference of 3.34 s per rotation - between the moving origin and the non-moving frame of reference - is not being measured in

Imagine that ! The Copernican theory cannot even account for the all-important and undeniable "precession of the equinoxes"!

Well, my TYCHOS model offers the simplest explanation imaginable: the "precession of the equinoxes" is just a natural consequence of our Earth's very slow, 1.6-km/h-motion around its "PVP" orbit - located at/or near the barycenter of the Sun-Mars binary system ("PVP" stands for "Polaris-Vega-Polaris"). Please know that, in my TYCHOS book, I provide all the details about how I was able to estimate, compute and cross-verify my posited circumference of the PVP orbit :

Please know that the above image is a screenshot from the upcoming 3D Tychosium - which will faithfully simulate what our solar system looks like - and its secular motions.

It should be obvious that, as Earth moves at 1.6 km/h around its PVP orbit, the stars will appear to move each year by a little bit more than 360°.

In other words, one could say that Earth's motion around its PVP orbit is the "precession of the equinoxes".

In short, we can draw this logical conclusion :

Since the Copernican model cannot account for the "precession of the equinoxes" (in any rational / scientifically-verifiable manner), it must be in error - and has to be immediately abandoned as a plausible configuration of our 'solar system'.

At this moment in our world's history, the TYCHOS model is the most realistic geometric configuration of our nearby cosmos. This is not just a matter of opinion : it is a demonstrable fact - and one that I invite all Copernican astronomers on this planet to try and counter-argue in open debate.
Posts: 6494
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The TYCHOS ... made easy

Postby simonshack on April 5th, 2018, 1:46 pm


Part 2: The Sun-Mars binary system

It has emerged only in the last few decades that the vast majority of the stars in our skies (that we see as a single point of light) are, in fact, binary systems (or triple / multiple). Of course, the prefix "bi" means "two" : a binary system is more often than not - and quite simply - a pair of bodies revolving around a common barycenter.


"In fact, 85% of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy are not single stars, like the Sun, but multiple star systems, binaries or triplets."

As it is, 'new' binary systems are continuously being detected - thanks to modern technologies (e.g. "Adaptive Optics"). The main difficulty in detecting them resides in the fact that binary systems are usually composed of a large star and a far smaller body - the latter being often too small to be visible in the glare of its large 'host' star.

For instance, the diameter of the tiny Sirius B is only 0.4888% that of its host SIRIUS A (the brightest star in our skies).
Now, the diameter of Mars is only 0.4881% that of our Sun. That's right: the relative sizes of Sirius A & Sirius B are near-identical to the Sun & Mars! Thus, one cannot reasonably argue that the very idea of Sun & Mars being binary companions is "untenable" or "preposterous" - since our very brightest star system (Sirius) is a testimony to the existence of such highly-unequal bodies orbiting around each other.

The TYCHOS model submits not only the most (statistically) plausible configuration of our so-called "Solar System": it also explains a host of other long-standing - and still unresolved - cosmological enigmas (which will be listed later on in this "TYCHOS made easy" thread). Firstly though, it should now become very clear why Kepler spent five harrowing years trying to make sense of the bewildering motions of MARS - and almost lost his marbles over it! As Kepler famously stated:

“By the study of the orbit of Mars, we must either arrive at the secrets of astronomy or forever remain in ignorance of them.”

Well, it so happens that yours truly has also spent five 'harrowing years' trying to make sense of our cosmos - but at least I have a reached a more sensible solution than Kepler's, what with his strange elliptical orbits and accelerating / decelerating orbital speeds of our system's bodies. Yes, the orbits of our system's bodies are all somewhat off-center (especially Mercury) with respect to the body they revolve around - but the orbits are all uniformly circular (and all orbital velocities are constant / unchanging) :

_______________________________Here's a screenshot from the TYCHOS 2D Planetarium (aka "the Tychosium 2D") :______________________________

(Please know that the Tychosium 2D is today the most accurate planetarium in existence - as its geometry correctly predicts the celestial positions of our system's bodies over the centuries, without any otherworldly 'laws' of perspective, optics and physics needed to "explain" them. This is certainly not the case for the geometric configuration proposed by the Copernican / Keplerian heliocentric model - as demonstrated in Chapter 7 in my Tychos book).

Note that the TYCHOS is practically identical to Tycho Brahe's proposed model of our system - the main difference being that the TYCHOS assigns an orbit - and a daily rotation - to Earth (Brahe believed that Earth was totally motionless). I call it Earth's "PVP" orbit, because it brings us from (underneath) Polaris to Vega and back to Polaris - in 25344 years. In my TYCHOS book, I explain how the circumference (355,724,597 km) of the PVP orbit was determined - and how this propounded dimension of our orbit is supported by a series of concurring factors and considerations. The orbital speed of our tranquil Mother Earth is thus computed / estimated as follows:

There are 8766 hours in 365.25 days. Therefore, 25344 years will add up to: 25344 X 8766 hours = 222,165,504 hours

Earth's orbital speed is therefore: 355,724,597 km / 222,165,504 hours ≈ 1.601169 km/h or approximately 1 mph !

Well, 1.6 km/h (or 1mph) is how 'fast' Earth travels in the TYCHOS model - as opposed to the hypersonic "107,226km/h" orbital speed proposed by the Copernican model. You may judge & decide by yourself which of these two orbital speeds of Earth sounds more likely / plausible / realistic to you.

For more info about the TYCHOS model, please go to:
Posts: 6494
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The TYCHOS ... made easy

Postby simonshack on April 9th, 2018, 11:00 pm


Part 3: The TYCHOS explains the observed stellar parallaxes

Image Read about Stellar Parallax :

The concept of parallax is fairly simple : it is the effect of (apparent) lateral displacement of a nearby object in relation to a more distant one - as you are moving past the two objects. For instance, imagine driving down a highway in your car and looking at the scenery through your righthand window. As you drive by a nearby flagpole, it will seem to drift from left to right in relation to a distant building located behind the flagpole. Of course, the flagpole is not moving in relation to the distant building - it is just an optical effect caused by your own motion.

Similarly, stellar parallax deals with the (apparent) displacement of a nearby star in relation to more distant stars. As Earth moves along, nearby stars can be seen to move (by extremely small amounts) in relation to far more distant stars / or star clusters. As it is, for a couple of centuries following the onset of the so-called "Copernican Revolution", the failure to detect any stellar parallax (by any observational astronomer) remained a serious problem for the Copernican heliocentric theory. It was justly thought that, if Earth travels around a 300 million-km-wide orbit around the Sun, at least some stellar parallax had to be observed. Yet, it wasn't until 1838 that Bessel detected some minuscule parallax for "61 Cygni", one of our closer stars (actually a binary system - like the vast majority of our visible stars). This was triumphantly hailed as a solid confirmation of the Copernican model.

Today, the two official stellar parallax catalogues - named "Hipparcos" and "Tycho" - published by ESA (the European Space Agency) contain the parallax values for a few million stars. Indeed, ESA proudly proclaims that their current "Gaia" enterprise will determine the parallaxes / celestial positions & distances for a billion stars.

Now, here is the problem: in later years, a number of independent researchers have pointed out some seemingly inexplicable aberrations, as they patiently scoured ESA's largest database (their curiously-named "Tycho" catalogue of about 1 million stars): they have found that roughly 25% of the stellar parallaxes are "negative" (while 29% are "positive" - and 46% are "assumed zero", i.e. almost HALF of the stars listed in the Tycho catalogue exhibit no observable parallax at all !). To illustrate why one may justly call the so-called "negative" stellar parallax an aberration (that is, a physical impossibility under the Copernican model), I have made the below graphic.

Imagine yourself travelling in a car orbiting (at hypersonic speed) around the Sun - as Earth supposedly does (as of Copernican / Keplerian theory). As you look out from your lefthand window, you will see the Sun - at all times. In order to measure any stellar parallax (of a 'nearby' star against more distant ones), you will have to look out of your righthand window - at all times. Since stellar parallax is meant to be caused by our Earthly motion around the Sun (and not by any proper motion of the measured stars themselves / nor by annual precession - both of which are, we are told, duly accounted for), only "positive" parallax could possibly be observed - at all times :


Yet, about 1/4 (or 25%) of all the stellar parallaxes listed in ESA's Tycho catalogue have negative values. How can this possibly be?

You may now rightly wonder: HOW are those negative parallax values "officially explained"?
Well, let me quote Mike Dworetsky, senior lecturer in astronomy at UCL / London:

"If you have a list of parallaxes of very distant objects, so that their parallaxes are on average much smaller than your limit of detection, then the errors of parallax are distributed normally, with a bell-shaped curve plotting the likely distribution of values around a mean of nearly zero. Hence we expect there to be approximately half of those published parallaxes with values less than zero and half with values more.(...) All that is happening is that very distant objects have parallaxes so small that they cannot be determined with accuracy, so half are going to be negative and half positive."

In other words, we are told that - since most stellar parallax angular measurements are so very minuscule (“even smaller than the optical limits of detection”) - the fact that half of them are negative is just a matter of statistical error! Now, if that were the case, why should the other half (i.e. the positive parallax values) be any more accurate & trustworthy ? Moreover, why would almost 50% of the stars exhibit NO parallax at all ?

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 :


Depending on which time of year Joe (or Jim) will choose to measure the parallax of a given star (located in a given quadrant of our skies), he will see it drift laterally in either one direction or the other (say, from June to December or vice versa). And if he chooses to measure a star located "in front" or "behind" Earth's direction of travel (say, from March to September or vice versa), he will detect no parallax at all - since he is moving either away or towards that star (and the distant stars behind it). Simple as that. Of course, in the TYCHOS, Earth only moves at about 1.6 km/h (covering only about 7018 km every six months), something which would seem to nicely explain why those stellar parallaxes (which are usually measured within a six-month timeframe) are so incredibly minuscule / microscopic!

The TYCHOS model thus explains just why the distribution of the observed stellar parallaxes is roughly 25% positive / 25% negative / and 50% zero.

That's right: the TYCHOS actually validates and provides a no-nonsense, physically-sound and (I dare say) incontestable explanation for the observed stellar parallaxes. If someone has a better explanation for the same, please submit it here at Cluesforum. In the meantime, I will be quite happy to say that the TYCHOS is, today, the only existing model of our solar system that fully agrees with astronomical observations.

In my world, if a given cosmological theory (such as the Copernican) cannot account for astronomical observation - it has to be, quite simply, discarded.

For more info about the TYCHOS model, please go to:
Posts: 6494
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Return to The TYCHOS model

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest