*
HALLEY’S HOLLOW HISTORY
Dear friends,
I say, Good Heavens again! The history of Halley’s comet is full of deep, gaping "black holes"!
This is, in any case, the preliminary - yet incontestable - conclusion of my current, ongoing research. For the last few weeks I have been looking into the available data and literature concerning our most famous comet. Quite frankly, I never thought this would be such a fascinating (and ultimately quite fruitful) discovery journey. And this, in spite of the most frustrating nature of this investigation - what with the pervasive, starkly contradictory information concerning the past appearnces of Halley’s comet in our skies. In fact, I'd venture to say that the utter chaos surrounding the historical record of Halley's comet is an archetypal example of the sort of unsettled cosmological issues which have precipitated astronomy into its current state of limbo. What I am about to expound should be, at the very least, a matter for further investigation by astronomy historians - were it only to alert our world's astronomers as to the shaky ground on which their assumptions and calculations are based upon.
Before we get on looking into the comet’s incredibly warped historical record, please know that the current / modern-day academic consensus regarding Halley is that its orbital motions are
"in a chaotic state" and therefore, its recurrence in our skies cannot be exactly calculated / predicted :
"The prevailing view among astronomers is that the orbit of Halley’s Comet cannot be calculated exactly because the orbit would be chaotic on a time scale of only seventy years. "
https://astronomynow.com/2016/07/01/cha ... explained/
“In a chaotic state”? "On a time scale of only
seventy years?" This is a quite hilarious contention / state of affairs (as we soon shall see, Halley regularly returns every
75.6 years or so): if its orbit truly is
"chaotic on a time scale of only seventy years" (as officially claimed), we might as well give up ANY efforts aimed at predicting its periodicity. Astronomers studying Halley's comet would just be a bunch of fools wasting our time and money! As it is, the "chaotic nature" of Halley might well just reside in the minds of the Copernican/Keplerian disciples. Here follows an example of how those mainstream academics will simply discard and "forget" any inconvenient (yet historically-documented) empirical observations which won't “fit” with their proposed heliocentric calculations (based on assorted "planetary perturbations" which would haphazardly speed up or slow down Halley's comet, sometimes by a couple of years or more !).
THE "FORGOTTEN" 1305 HALLEY TRANSIT
According to modern mainstream astronomy, Halley's transit of 130
5 ... never took place! Instead, modern official tables report that Halley's comet flew across our Solar System in 130
1(i.e. about 4 years earlier!). However, there appears to be solid evidence that this 1305 passage
truly occurred : in fact, Edmond Halley himself used it in his original calculations - and one may find several texts mentioning this 1305 passage, such as this :
EXTRACT 1:
Source:
https://books.google.it/books?id=RE0EAA ... &q&f=false
Here's another example mentioning the
1305 passage of Halley's comet (from a 1986 paper):
EXTRACT 2:
Curiously, in more recent Halley literature we may actually find "denials" of the very occurence of Halley's
1305 transit, such as in this 2003 paper which bluntly asserts (without any supportive evidence) that the observed
1305 transit "was proved not to be correct":
EXTRACT 3:
Source:
https://books.google.it/books?id=6Hpi20 ... &q&f=false
To this day, I have not been able to find (in the available literature) any explanations / justifications as to why the 1305 passage would be “incorrect”. Au contraire, I have found several writings corroborating the same, whereas - oddly enough - the modern, official listing of Halley’s passages now report a “1301” transit :
THE OFFICIAL LIST OF HALLEY'S HISTORICAL TRANSITS
(as generally-accepted by modern-day astronomers)
Now, and here's when it gets truly astonishing, this "1305 versus 1301" discrepancy
is by no means the ONLY such instance of inexplicable contradictory historical records of Halley's passages: as I delved deeper into the extant literature on the subject, I found a French astronomy paper published in the Revue BRITANNIQUE (dated 1835) which lists a number of Halley's transits (duly supported by detailed historical accounts) which were observed in these years :
-130(BC) / 323 / 399 / 550 / 930 / 1005 / 1230 / 1305 / 1380
As you can see,
NONE of these dates are listed in the modern official tables of Halley's historical transits! We must ask ourselves: what's going on here? Did the French know more about Halley's comet than the rest of the world? Is this French 1835 paper a hoax? Well, if it's a hoax, I myself certainly played no part in it. To be sure, this French account of the historical passages of Halley's comet is strongly supportive of Halley's behavior in the TYCHOSIUM simulator - as I shall presently illustrate.
Revue BRITANNIQUE (1835): https://books.google.it/books?id=Y9EaAQ ... e&q&f=true
EXTRACT of same paper saved for posterity:
http://septclues.com/TYCHOS%20SLIDESHOW ... cle_01.jpg
Note that the French paper justly points out
the regular 75.5-year periodicity of Halley's comet (or the 151-year period intercurring between any three transit dates). It appears that, back in the days, no one was conjecturing about any sort of imponderable, random irregularity (or "chaotic state") of Hallley's periodicity!...
I was obviously curious to check just how the above dates (from 130BC to 1380AD) would be displayed in the TYCHOSIUM simulator. Well, here are the results:
Last week I also performed this other TYCHOSIUM test - using the more recent Halley transits (1456 through 2137) which official astronomy generally agrees with:
The TYCHOSIUM : https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd
(NOTE: In the TYCHOSIUM, you will have to activate Halley's comet by clicking on the "planets" drop-down menu - and checking the "Halleys" box. You may also wish to activate the "trace" function for Halleys - and enjoy the charming looping path traced by the comet - much like all the other bodies in our Solar System).
As you can see, the current version of the TYCHOSIUM, with its (still experimental) orbital path of Halley's comet, does a pretty fair job simulating Halley's ancient transits as listed and documented in that 1835 paper from the Revue BRITANNIQUE (all the way back to 130BC!), as well as the more recent transits that officialdom generally agrees with. Keep in mind that Halley does not return in an integer number of years
* - as its mean orbital period appears to be somewhere between 75.5 and 75.7 years : thus, it will not always return on May 20 - which is just a "control day" of sorts that I picked to compose my above graphics of superimposed Halley transits (
spanning from 130BC to 2137AD). Hence, my above graphics are only meant to show that the TYCHOSIUM does at least place the comet
in the vicinity of our Solar System at each given date - which is more than can be said about any other existing simulator of our Solar System. I would encourage everyone to verify for themselves that all the above dates shown in my above graphics are separated by a fairly constant & regular average period of ca.
75.6 years (or multiples thereof). For instance, between the first date (130BC) and the last date (2137AD), we have a timespan of 2267 years. We see that 2267/30= 75.56 years.
* According to my best estimates, Halley's comet has a long-term cycle of (an integer number of)
227 years.
In any event, that French paper goes to show that something fishy is at play with the historical records of Halley's comet. What to make of this? Evidently, someone has been fiddling with the historical records of Halley's comet. The question is: WHY ?
Surely, NO modern data concerning Halley's comet can possibly be trusted - least of all those released by NASA through their JPLHorizons website.
ELUCIDATING THE CURIOUS "TWO-COMET THEORY"
Now, if you have read the above
EXTRACTS 2 & 3 carefully, you'll have noticed that there was a peculiar "two-comet" theory being speculated back in the days. Huh? TWO Halley comets? One at perihelion and the other at aphelion? What could possibly have spawned such a bizarre theory? Well, according to the TYCHOSIUM, whenever time Halley's comet returns in Earth's neighborhood, it will actually make TWO fly-bys of Earth (within less than a year): due to its looping motion, it will always transit both in conjunction with - and in opposition to the Sun. This conjunction/opposition sequence alternates (from one transit to another) as described in my below list of "TYCHOSIUM observations" :
SOLAR CONJUNCTIONS AND OPPOSITIONS OF HALLEY’S COMET - according to the TYCHOSIUM:
1304-06-17 Halley in conjunction / 1305-04-08 Halley in opposition
1379-07-24 Halley in opposition / 1380-05-23 Halley in conjunction
1455-07-11 Halley in opposition / 1456-04-28 Halley in conjunction
1531-06-21 Halley in conjunction / 1532-04-09 Halley in opposition
1606-08-03 Halley in opposition / 1607-06-07 Halley in conjunction
1682-07-22 Halley in opposition / 1683-05-12 Halley in conjunction
1758-07-05 Halley in conjunction / 1759-04-23 Halley in opposition
1834-06-13 Halley in conjunction / 1835-04-09 Halley in opposition
1909-07-26 Halley in opposition / 1910-05-19 Halley in conjunction
1985-07-11 Halley in conjunction / 1986-04-27 Halley “below” Earth
Now, consider this: whenever the comet passes in
conjunction with the Sun (i.e. swamped in the Sun's glare), it will more often than not be totally invisible by earthly observers. Similarly, whenever the comet passes in
opposition to the Sun, it may ALSO be fairly hard to detect : this, because the comet's tail will then be directed AWAY from the earthly observer. Notoriously, what we can see is the comet's tail (which is always directed AWAY from the Sun) - since the comet itself (its so-called "nucleus") is very dark and reflects almost no sunlight at all:
"[Halley's] nucleus is an irregular object about 16 x 8 x 8 kilometers and very dark, with an albedo of about 0.03." https://www.planetary.org/multimedia/sp ... comet.html
In fact, all comets (not only Halley's) are at their brightest when they transit in "quadrature", i.e. neither in conjunction or in opposition. However, some acute observers of yesteryear may have noticed this "double-passage" of Halley's comet - and this goes some way to explain why that "two-comet" theory was speculated back in the days.
Far more importantly though, we may now clearly envision that the reason why Halley's comet is believed to have an IRREGULAR orbital period is due to this alternation of its passages (in solar conjunction and in solar opposition). Astronomers have thus had to come up with some explanation for these apparent fluctuations of its return in our skies - thence, the "perturbation" theory.
In reality, Halley's comet has a fairly regular & constant period of about 75.6 years - although its actual appearance in our skies will fluctuate due to the irregular alternation of its passages in solar conjunction or in solar opposition.
ABOUT HALLEY'S 1910 TRANSIT
The 1910 passage of Halley's comet appears to be a well-documented and fairly spectacular event which left a memorable impression. In 1910, it passed quite close to Earth (only 0.15AU or so) - and there are many accounts as to how Earth may "perhaps have passed through its tail" - although this was successively refuted / disproved. In any case, there is no doubt about the actual occurrence of the famed 1910 transit of Halley's comet. As I searched for historical documentations of the 1910 passage, I found this extremely interesting diagram that plots the approach of Halley'scomet - as observed (telescopically) between October 1908 and December 1909 :
Source:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_ ... %27s_Comet
Here is the reason why I find the above diagram extremely interesting: in the TYCHOSIUM simulator, the "flattened S-shaped" approach of Halley's comet between October 1908 and December 1909 (as viewed from an earthly perspective) appears to be very much similar in form and shape. Judge for yourselves :
Although it still needs some further fine-tuning, the TYCHOSIUM simulator already appears to be the only existing 3-D simulator capable of visualizing ACTUAL ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS of a comet's path (as well as planetary retrograde motions) as viewed and documented from planet Earth throughout the ages.
Here is another example of the TYCHOSIUM's ability to reproduce actual observations. The below graphic compares the 1986 transit of Halley's comet -
as featured on WIKIPEDIA - with a TYCHOSIUM screenshot of the same 1986 transit of Halley's comet:
The same Wikipedia graphic compared with the TYCHOSIUM (of the April 1986 passage of Halley's) - from another viewing angle:
ABOUT HALLEY'S 1985/1986 TRANSIT
Let me now illustrate what the TYCHOSIUM simulator can tell us about the very latest transit of Halley's comet (in 1985/1986).
In 1985 (
between February 20 and August 20), Halley's comet would have made a fly-by as it transited (perhaps unseen?) in solar
conjunction, as illustrated here:
In 1986 (
between January 20 and May 9), Halley's comet would have made a fly-by as it transited (more visibly) in solar
opposition, as illustrated here:
Note that, during this particular transit, Halley probably passed "below" Earth. In fact, there are many testimonies to the fact that scores of eager comet-watchers travelled to remote locations in the Southern Hemisphere in order to witness its passage (although they were all dreadfully disappointed by what they saw: just a tiny speck of light in the sky). As it is, the last passage of Halley's comet is widely known to have been a "flop". Halley has been, in fact, slowly fizzling out over the years.
Now, you may ask yourselves why I chose to illustrate
the two above / particular time periods of Halley's 1985/1986 passages. The reason for this choice goes as follows: as I tried to find any PROFESSIONAL OBSERVATIONAL DATA of these 1985/1986 passages, the only relevant data I could find (it was actually sent to me by an Australian astronomy student who questions my TYCHOS model) was this observational data - now published on NASA's Astrophysics Data System - which was apparently gathered by a few Italian observatories:
Source:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full ... 5.000.html
As you can see, this Italian observational data of Halley's 1985/1986 passages feature "big black holes"
precisely during the crucial / closest transits of the comet !
Incidentally, on January 28,1986 - just as the comet re-emerged from behind the Sun - the infamous "Space Shuttle Challenger disaster" played out on TV.
"Among the prescribed duties of the five astronauts and two payload specialists (represented by the seven stars of the U.S. flag) was observation and photography of Halley's Comet, backdropped against the U.S. flag in the insignia." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-L
In conclusion... I do not pretend to formulate any sort of firm conclusion regarding Halley's comet. However, it is painfully evident that the historical records surrounding our most famous comet are totally unreliable and have, for some reason, been grossly distorted. Why this has happened is a matter open to speculation - yet it is beyond the scope of the present writeup to hypothesize about the possible motives or circumstances that may have caused this utter mess. Suffice to say that, as the author of the TYCHOS model, I will henceforth ignore any objections (as to my proposed secular motions of Halley's comet) based on the official timeline of the comet's (supposedly "chaotic") recurrence in our skies.
**********************************************************************
EPILOGUE
Of course, dear ladies and gents, modern-day astronomers will tell you that comet Halley actually makes a "U-turn" as it flies across our inner Solar System, like so:
THE SUPPOSED "CIGAR-SHAPED" ORBIT OF HALLEY'S COMET:
That's right, folks: as current theory has it, all comets would be travelling around cigar-shaped trajectories - as illustrated above! Not only that, but comets are also believed to violently accelerate as they enter our inner Solar System, making a sharp U-turn around it - and to gradually slow down as they recede from it. Then, about 38 years later (in comet Halley's case), the comet would - for some unfathomable reason - decide to make another sharp U-turn (this time at a very slow rate of speed) and start its return-journey towards our Solar System... And all of this while our little Solar System would be moving around our galaxy at the speed of 800,000 km/h !!! Quite frankly, I have no idea how any sane brain on this planet can fail to question such utterly grotesque, "long-established scientific theories". I must suspect that most people are blinded by the towering "authority" of a few Untouchable Gods of Science (e.g. Sir Isaac Newton) who, some hundreds of years ago, decided for all of us that
"hey, that's the way it is, folks! You gotta believe it - because I say so: comets move around EXTREMELY ELONGATED, ELLIPTICAL, cigar-shaped orbits! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?" Well I, for one, certainly cannot see what sort of forces of nature would cause comets to fly around cigar-shaped paths. Sorry, Isaac - but no cigar from me.
Let us never forget that Edmond Halley was the man who financed the publication of Isaac Newton's "Principia"(a world-changing text if there ever was one) - and that Halley's own discoveries concerning the comet that took his name were universally hailed as a
"glorious confirmation of Newton's theories". Science has truly become a far more dogmatic cult than any form of religion. Religious creeds are, at least, still multiple and diverse (although I don't subscribe to any). Official scientific "truths", on the other hand, are almost unanimously embraced by academic circles worldwide - and by many billions of inhabitants of this planet. Let's hope that this infrangible dogmatism soon comes to an end - lest we become the laughing stock of the entire universe.
image source: https://www.tychos.info/citation/017B_Pacal-Dogon.htm
image source: https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/univ ... irio07.htm
.
