Introducing the TYCHOS

[nokidding]

The period correlation is awe inspiring, I think there may be a further explanation. My first thought was that if no stars are involved then the geo-helio system should not be showing anything within its own frame of reference.

But it clearly is, so what is the PVP orbit doing to observed conjunctions within the frame?

What comes to mind is our old friend - epicyclical or trochoidal motion. Here we have two bodies both orbiting a third point: the centre of the PVP orbit. The sun orbits the PVP centre, and the combined Earth / Moon orbits the PVP centre.

Take one point on the Moons orbital circumference (the point at which the eclipse occurs) and rotate that point once every 54 years. From the sun’s point of view that point describes an epicylic motion, with a period of 54 years.

Note that the Earth goes round the PVP orbit in 25344 yrs, but in that time the sun goes round the Earth 25,355 times which is another aspect of same thing.

I hope this helps, it’s just a suggestion, (ie to find a Moon / Earth / Sun relation that only repeats each 54 years).

nokidding

[Altair]

I'm still intrigued by the Moon's orbital path and its anomalies, in particular the evection. In this post the position of solar system bodies are plotted according to JPL's data, which I think it can be assumed to be according to real observations.
If we look at the Moon/Sun graph, we can see (maybe it's just an optical effect, however) that the 'dots' for the Moon's longitude are somewhat closer around 180º ecliptic longitude. That would mean that our satellite is 'slowing down' around that point. With the Newtonian hypothesis and assuming the orbit is an ellipse, that could match with the perigee, but it would be utterly strange that it is ALWAYS in the celestial 'south', 180º. Let's remember that celestial 'north', 0º, is defined by the point where the Sun is (relative to Earth) in the vernal equinox.
Or it could be the mentioned evection perturbation, that would also happen always towards the 180º (that would be the point of max. 'slowing') and while in the graph is not easy to see, it would be offset by an acceleration in the 'north' of the orbit.
Well, just some musings... Some serious number crunching would be needed to analyse this issue, of course, but my guess is that in fact is the very concept of ecliptical coordinate system that could be flawed to begin with.

[simonshack]

*
This is a follow-up to my earlier writeup titled "ARE ALL STARS PART OF "BINARY" / "DOUBLE" (or multiple) SYSTEMS?"


DOUBLE TROUBLE for Copernicus

Dear friends,

Having delved in more depth into the literature concerned with double/binary stars, I wish to share with you my thoughts and assessments regarding this crucial (yet scarcely-debated) cosmological subject matter - and its underlying, "world-shattering" implications. To clarify at once what I am referring to, allow me to cite a short passage from Chapter1 of my TYCHOS book which succintly outlines the "philosophical" issue at hand:

"Needless to say, if it eventually emerges that 100% of our visible stars are locked in binary systems, our 'lonely' single-star system (as per the Copernican model), would increasingly stand out as a uniquely exceptional, one-of-a-kind cosmic anomaly. It therefore stands to reason, from a purely statistical perspective, that our own star [the sun] is likely to be part of a binary system."

To wit, if it should turn out that ALL the stars in our skies are double / binary stars, the current Copernican heliocentric theory (which holds that our Sun is a single / companionless star) would have to be definitively abandoned - beyond appeal. That is, unless we'd be willing to accept the truly astronomical odds of our nearest star being the one-and-only "bachelor" in the entire universe - a most irrational, exceptionalistic notion if there ever was one! So without further philosophical ado, let me presently submit a brief history of double / binary stars.

< A "binary star system": two bodies revolving around their common barycenter.

In Tycho Brahe's times (16th century), NO double stars were known - or had ever been determined. Only about 50 years after Brahe's death, the Italian (tychonic) astronomer Giovanni Battista Riccioli, using a telescope, discovered that Mizar was a double star. However, it wasn't until about a century later that William Herschel formally announced his discovery of what he described as "binary sidereal systems" :

"In 1797, Herschel measured many of the systems again, and discovered changes in their relative positions that could not be attributed to the parallax caused by the Earth's orbit. He waited until 1802 to announce the hypothesis that the two stars might be "binary sidereal systems" orbiting under mutual gravitational attraction, a hypothesis he confirmed in 1803 in his Account of the Changes that have happened, during the last Twenty-five Years, in the relative Situation of Double-stars; with an Investigation of the Cause to which they are owing. In all, Herschel discovered over 800 confirmed double or multiple star systems, almost all of them physical rather than optical pairs. His theoretical and observational work provided the foundation for modern binary star astronomy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herschel

At the start of the 20th century, astronomers were debating whether so-called "variable" stars (stars which change in brightness over regular time periods) were, quite simply, nothing but binary systems in which the companion star periodically transited in front of its brighter binary partner - thus temporarily reducing its brightness. Here are a couple of relevant extracts from ASTRONOMY OF TO-DAY", by Cecil G. Dolmage (1910) :

"It was at one time considered that a variable star was in all probability a body, a portion of whose surface had been relatively darkened in some manner akin to that in which sun spots mar the face of the sun; and that when its axial rotation brought the less illuminated portions in turn towards us, we witnessed a consequent diminution in the star's general brightness. (...) The scale on which it varies in brightness is very great, for it changes from the second to the ninth magnitude. For the other leading type of variable star, Algol, of which mention has already been made, is the best instance. The shortness of the period in which the changes of brightness in such stars go their round, is the chief characteristic of this latter class. The period of Algol is a little under three days. This star when at its brightest is of about the second magnitude, and when least bright is reduced to below the third magnitude; from which it follows that its light, when at the minimum, is only about one-third of what it is when at the maximum. It seems definitely proved by means of the spectroscope that variables of this kind are merely binary stars, too close to be separated by the telescope, which, as a consequence of their orbits chancing to be edgewise towards us, eclipse each other in turn time after time."
(...)
"Since the companion of Algol is often spoken of as a dark body, it were well here to point out that we have no evidence at all that it is entirely devoid of light. We have already found, in dealing with spectroscopic binaries, that when one of the component stars is below a certain magnitude its spectrum will not be seen; so one is left in the glorious uncertainty as to whether the body in question is absolutely dark, or darkish, or faint, or indeed only just out of range of the spectroscope." (my bolds)

As it is, a little-known fact (among lay people) is that many so-called "stars" do NOT shine with their own light. For instance, red dwarfs (by far the most common type of "star" in our universe) can be so faint, dim and darkish as to be invisible / undetectable by even our largest modern telescopes. In the TYCHOS model, of course, this would be the case for Mars (the Sun's binary companion) which in fact exhibits the characteristic orange hue associated with red dwarfs. It bears reminding the reader here that Mars is only about 0.5% the size of the Sun - and that Sirius B (the small companion of our very brightest star in the skies, SIRIUS) is also about 0.5% the size of its far larger partner, Sirius A. In fact, the discovery of the tiny Sirius B (by Alvan Clark, in 1862) caused a stir among the science community of the times, since it was totally unexpected - under Newton's gravitational theories - that such a small body (Sirius B is reckoned to be slightly smaller than Earth) could possibly be gravitationally bound to such a large body as Sirius A. Incredibly enough, this major riddle was eventually "resolved" by our world's top astrophysicists who (in what must be one of the crudest instances of ad hoc argumentation in science history) simply decided - in spite of the lack of any conceivable experimental verification - that the mass /or density of Sirius B must be quite exceptional (i.e. about "400,000 X larger than the mass of Earth", as we are told!). But let's return to the history of double/binary stars:

In the 1980's, one of the world's top experts in double / binary stars, Wulff Heintz, announced at the end of his illustrious career that at least 85% of all the stars in our skies must be double / binary stars (leaving us to wonder whether the remaining 15% are single, "bachelor" stars - like our Sun is believed to be). Now, this announcement was made almost 40 years ago; since then, there has been a continuous and uninterrupted flow of new detections of binary companions revolving around larger host stars (formerly believed to be single stars), thanks to technological advancements such as Adaptive Optics. In fact, in later years we have all heard in the news media about new so-called "exoplanets" being discovered - almost on a weekly basis. Rarely though, if at all, do such announcements mention that some of those so-called "exoplanets" might be (formerly unseen) binary companions of larger stars. The reason for this may be - in my humble yet fairly informed opinion - that the growing realization that perhaps ALL stars (without exception) are "locked" in double/binary systems is kept under wraps. Obviously, there could be no more horrifying prospect for Copernican /mainstream astronomers than having to admit that ALL the stars in our skies are, in fact, double stars revolving around their common center of mass (i.e. around nothing - in most cases! As of the TYCHOS, Earth has been captured in the middle of that "nothing". After all, planet Earth does have SOMETHING special to it, does it not?). If critics of my work can argue that I could be blinded by confirmation bias (when proposing that ALL the stars are double / binary systems), the very same can be said of mainstream astronomers who appear to keep classifying stars into diverse categories - presumably to distract (subconsciously?) our attention to the "abhorrent" notion that ALL stars are double/binary, as this would spell the end of the heliocentric theory.



Critics of my proposed TYCHOS model often bring up the objection that "the TYCHOS violates Newton's (and Kepler's and Einstein's) laws". Well, Newton (who died many years before Herschel's formal identification of "binary sidereal systems") never had a chance to even study them! I will thus ask my critics to at least acknowledge this simple fact - and to give me a break about Newton and his laws. Having said that, I am sure that Sir Isaac was an exceptionally smart fellow, but none of his studies addressed the physics or celestial mechanics of binary star systems - for the simple reason that, in his time, little or nothing was known about them. As for "semi-God" Einstein, here's what Tom Van Flandern had to say about his theories - in relation to binary stars:

“If the general relativity method is correct, it ought to apply everywhere, not just in the solar system. But Van Flandern points to a conflict outside it: binary stars with highly unequal masses. Their orbits behave in ways that the Einstein formula did not predict. ‘Physicists know about it and shrug their shoulders,’ Van Flandern says. They say there must be ‘something peculiar about these stars, such as an oblateness, or tidal effects.’ Another possibility is that Einstein saw to it that he got the result needed to ‘explain’ Mercury’s orbit, but that it doesn’t apply elsewhere.” http://ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/

To note: in modern times, neither Newton's nor Kepler's theories have met confirmation in the "galactic" studies of of our Milky Way. Here are a couple of quotes from Wikipedia's "Milky Way" page - so as to succintly substantiate these "shocking" assertions of mine :

"Toward the center of the Milky Way the orbit speeds are too low, whereas beyond 7 kpcs the speeds are too high to match what would be expected from the universal law of gravitation." (...)
"Stars and gases at a wide range of distances from the Galactic Center orbit at approximately 220 kilometers per second. The constant rotation speed contradicts the laws of Keplerian dynamics and suggests that much (about 90%) of the mass of the Milky Way is invisible to telescopes, neither emitting nor absorbing electromagnetic radiation. This conjectural mass has been termed "dark matter". The rotational period is about 240 million years at the radius of the Sun." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

In other words - and once again - if their laws only apply to our Solar System, our Solar System would indeed be a bizarre exception to the "universal rules of nature". I don't know about you, but I would personally rather conclude that "something's rotten in the state of astronomy"... By the way, I will soon address the question of "dark matter" (mentioned in the above-linked Wiki page), so please stay with me. For now, I shall once more return to my brief history of double/binary stars.

In 2016 (yes, only three years ago!), it was announced that a binary companion of Proxima Centauri - our NEARMOST star! - had been discovered. The newly-detected body is now called "Proxima B". This very recent discovery effectively goes to show just how difficult it is, even for our most advanced 21st century instruments, to detect a binary companion to any given star. (Note: please do not confuse Proxima Centauri with Alpha Centauri [A & B], which is the long-known and much bigger binary system located slightly further away than the Proxima binary system).

Then, in 2018 (yes, only last year!!), it was announced that a companion of the Barnard's star - our 2nd NEARMOST star! - had been discovered. The Barnard's star is the fastest-moving star in our skies and, as you can read in my earlier writeup (linked at the top of this post), it was the subject of a bitter controversy between Peter Van de Kamp and Wulff Heintz back in the 1980's. Van de Kamp was convinced he had seen the (recently confirmed) Barnard's star companion - but Wulff Heintz would have nothing of it. Vigorous efforts were spent to discredit Van de Kamp's discovery (claiming that it had to do with the improper cleaning of his telescope lenses!), yet Van de Kamp's observational work has now finally been vindicated. In my earlier writeup, you may also read how both ESA and NASA (in 2007 and 2010) decided to shut down (???) their search programs for Barnard's companion, due to ..."lack of funding". Yeah, right.

In light of all this, wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable to assume that the remaining 15% of NON-binary stars (as estimated by Wulff Heintz back in the 1980's, as he concluded that 85% of our stars must be double/binary systems) are just "still-to-be-detected" binary stars? That the reason for this remaining 15% is only due to the difficulty of detecting these smaller and dimmer companions? And that we will, in due time - and thanks to improved future technology - discover one fine day that ALL the stars in our skies, bar none, have a binary companion?

In any case, here is the situation we have today, ladies and gents: practically ALL of our nearmost stars (or "neighborhood stars") are now known to have a binary companion. However, astronomers are still classifying many stars (those not yet officially recognized as Binary Stars) as "Variable Stars" or as "Flare Stars". So what exactly, you may ask, are Variable Stars and Flare Stars? Well, let's see what Wikipedia can tell us about them:

VARIABLE STARS
A variable star is a star whose brightness as seen from Earth (its apparent magnitude) fluctuates.
This variation may be caused by a change in emitted light or by something partly blocking the light, so variable stars are classified as either:

- Intrinsic variables, whose luminosity actually changes; for example, because the star periodically swells and shrinks.

- Extrinsic variables, whose apparent changes in brightness are due to changes in the amount of their light that can reach Earth; for example, because the star has an orbiting companion that sometimes eclipses it.

Many, possibly most, stars have at least some variation in luminosity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_star

(I have to say that the first option - stars that "periodically swell and shrink" - sounds terribly outlandish to me!)

FLARE STARS
A flare star is a variable star that becomes very much brighter unpredictably for a few minutes at a time.
Most flare stars are dim red dwarfs, although less massive (lighter) brown dwarfs might also be able to flare. The more massive (heavier) RS Canum Venaticorum variables (RS CVn) are also known to flare, but scientists understand that a companion star in a binary system causes these flares. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flare_star

Thus, in both cases (Variable and Flare stars) we see that the best / or least bizarre explanation is that these stars are, quite simply, binary star systems whose brightness periodically dips due to one of them obscuring the other. There is no need to classify them as anything else but double/binary stars. And this is where we reach the underlying gist of my present dissertation:

If ALL the stars in our skies have a binary companion that revolves around them, why would our Sun NOT have a binary companion?

Indeed, the vast majority of the stars in our skies (as of current knowledge) have LOCAL orbits of their own. By "LOCAL orbits", I refer to the observed fact that they all revolve around each other (around their common barycenter) in relatively short orbital periods - ranging from a few hours, days, months or up to a few dozen years, at the most. That's right, this means that if you gaze at any given star at night, you can be practically certain that it revolves around a smaller companion in a relatively short amount of time (e.g. our current "North star" binary system composed of Polaris A and Polaris B revolve around each other in 29.6 years). The core question (dictated by plain logic) therefore becomes:

WHY WOULD OUR SUN NOT HAVE SUCH A LOCAL ORBIT - BUT IS INSTEAD BELIEVED TO ONLY HAVE A HUGE, 240-MILLION-YEAR ORBIT?

(I hope you will forgive my all caps in the above sentence. I'm only human - and sometimes feel the need to "shout out my sense of logic".)

And this brings us to what I consider as the most fascinating statement ever made by any astronomer - ever. Jacobus Kapteyn, perhaps the greatest expert of stellar statistics that this world has ever hosted, is on record stating what follows:

<<If all stars were binaries there would be no need to invoke ‘dark matter'.>>
For the full story behind Kapteyn's above conclusion, please go to: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... n_Universe

Could "dark matter" just be what currently obscures our modern astronomers' minds - due to their "Copernican upbringing"?



***********************
For those interested, here's a link to a most thorough and comprehensive website concerned with Double Star Astronomy:
https://www.handprint.com/ASTRO/bineye5.html

[simonshack]

*


THE COPERNICAN MODEL'S MOST MOMENTOUS INCONGRUITY

Dear friends,

If there is one regret that I have concerning my TYCHOS book - released in the spring of 2018 - is that, for some unfathomable reason (sheer brainfade, I guess?) I simply forgot to include a chapter about perhaps THE most catastrophic problem (as far as physics are concerned) afflicting the Copernican / Keplerian heliocentric theory! Anyhow, I will certainly make sure to include it in my 2nd edition of the book - along with the numerous additional findings in support of my TYCHOS model that I have shared with the Cluesforum readers during this fruitful past year and a half.

Come to think of it, this issue probably slipped out of my mind as it relates to the "universally-accepted" laws of physics - whereas my TYCHOS research has intentionally focused on observable and empirically-verifiable issues such as the geometry and kinematics of our Solar System. Nonetheless, and since the most common objection I get from critics & naysayers is, basically, that "the TYCHOS violates Newton's infrangible Laws", it is now my turn to ask them what explanation they may possibly have for what follows.

This most "momentous" problem (pun intended) concerns the missing angular momentum of our Sun. As it is, the Sun is believed to make up 99% of our Solar System - yet it is calculated (under the heliocentric model's paradigm) that it only has 1% of our system's total Angular Momentum! Now, I wish to make it clear that this is by no means one of my own findings / realizations; it has been debated for decades by numerous astrophysicists, since it constitutes a glaring contradiction of the most established and all-important laws of conservation of momentum - as defined and unanimously accepted in academic circles.

"The angular momentum problem is a problem in astrophysics identified by Leon Mestel in 1965."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_problem

Perhaps the most compelling research ever made around this subject matter is that of the Binary Research Institute. I will therefore link to (and quote in its entirety) a fine page of their website which succintly describes and illustrates their findings:

Angular Momentum
Evidence

The most widely accepted explanation for how the solar system formed is the Nebular Hypothesis. In this theory, the whole Solar System starts as a large cloud of gas that contracts under self-gravity. Conservation of angular momentum requires that a rotating disk form with a large concentration at the center (the proto-Sun). The centifugal force balances the gravitational forces and the disk coagulates into planets. Most people accept this theory, but there is one big unresolved problem – the angular momentum should be proportional to mass (as every physics student knows) but it’s not in our solar system.

The angular momentum issue is a well documented problem that has baffled solar system formation theorists for many years.The Sun contains 99.9 % mass, but only 1% of the total Angular Momentum. Most of the remainder is typically associated with the Jovian Planets. Theoretical Physicists developing Formation Theories are thwarted by this anomalous distribution. The Binary Model provides allocations of Angular Momentum to Mass for Planets and Stars in line with common expectations.

An object in Rotational motion has an Angular Momentum L equal to its moment of inertia S (mi r2i) times its angular velocity w. If there is no external Torque, then L = Constant (Conservation of Angular Momentum).

Our proof here is rather compelling. We first looked at the angular momentum distribution charts (see here 60 percent of angular momentum lies with Jupiter). We then ran the formulas ourselves with existing inputs to make sure the textbook data was correct. Everything checked out.



Next, is the same chart in an “Angular Momentum to Mass ratio” formula.
You can see all the bodies in our solar system have ratios in line with their mass except for the Sun.



We then added one input into the existing formula: we assumed the Sun was moving in a binary orbit with a period of 24,000 years.



As you can see, the Sun came right into line.

This indicates the Sun may indeed have it’s proper angular momentum (proportional to its mass) providing another indication our sun is part of a binary or multiple star system.

http://binaryresearchinstitute.com/bri/ ... -momentum/

Note that one of the Binary Research Institute's working theories has been that star Sirius might be our Sun's binary companion. Although I do not subscribe to this thesis, it is nonetheless an interesting one. This, because (as I've pointed out in my TYCHOS book) when comparing the respective diameters of the Sun and Mars with those of Sirius A and its tiny companion Sirius B, the four of them turn out to be proportionally identical. One should thus perhaps not exclude offhand the (however remote, yet fascinating) possibility that the Sirius A-B and the Sun-Mars binary systems are akin to other so-called "double-double" binary systems (revolving around each other) to be found in our skies.

As computed by the Binary Research Institute, the mystery of the Sun's missing angular momentum would vanish "if the Sun were moving in a binary orbit with a period of 24,000 years." In the TYCHOS of course, the Sun does have a similar cycle (of 25,344 years) although, and most interestingly, this precessional cycle is reflected at a 2:1 ratio ... with none other than Mars!

“As a combined effect of the precession of the spin axis and the advance of the perihelion, alternate poles of Mars tilt towards the Sun at perihelion every 25,500 years – that is, on a 51,000-year cycle.”
"The Planet Mars: A History of Observation & Discovery" - by William Sheehan (1996)

In conclusion, the "vexing" issue of the Sun's missing angular momentum appears to be, once more, neatly resolved by the TYCHOS model. It remains, on the other hand, a devastating incongruity which brutally undermines heliocentrism and Newtonian physics.

[simonshack]

*

OUR POOR SINGLE SUN GETS LONELIER BY THE DAY

Dear all, as I have mentioned in recent writings, our own beloved lady star (the Sun) who keeps us all warm around the year as best as she can, is supposed (according to mainstream science) to be a lonely, companionless bachelor: No dance partner and no cosy little local orbit; she's just hurtling haplessly around the galaxy at 800,000km/h - needing as many as 250 million years just to complete ONE spin "around the block". All this while somehow dragging along our planet (and,of course, all our Solar System's family members) around the center of the Galaxy... My gosh. How sad, if this were true!

Here follows a list of our Sun's twenty "closest friends in her neighborhood" (all located within about 12 "light years" of the Sun, as we are told). As you can see, ALL of the Sun's closest friends have companions to dance around with. Please also note that, remarkably enough, many of these "B" companions in the Sun's closest neighborhood have been discovered only in the very last few years (2016 - 2019), thanks to our most advanced modern-day technology. In fact, these new detections of double stars have involved some of our very closests stars ... which are, however, so faint as to be invisible with our naked eyes! This goes to show just how difficult it is just to detect such tiny companions - let alone determining just what sort of orbital relationship they have with their "host star":

1 Proxima Centauri A / Proxima Centauri B (companion discovered in 2016!)
2 Alpha Centauri / Alpha Centauri B (companion discovered long ago)
3 Barnard’s Star A / Barnard's star B (companion discovered in 2018!)
4 Luhman A / Luhman B (companion discovered long ago)
5 WISE 0855−0714 A / WISE 0855−0714 B (companion discovered in 2018!)
6 Wolf 359 A / Wolf 359 B / Wolf 359 C (companions discovered in 2019!)
7 Lalande 21185 A / Lalande 21185 B (companion discovered in 2017!)
8 Sirius A /Sirius B (companion discovered long ago)- proportionally identical to Mars vs Sun!
9 Luyten 726-8 A / Luyten 726-8 B (companion discovered long ago)
10 Ross 154 ("flare star" -Wikipedia) (flare stars are suspected double stars)
11 Ross 248 ("flare star" -Wikipedia) (flare stars are suspected double stars)
12 Epsilon Eridani A / Epsilon Eridani B (companion discovered long ago)
13 Lacaille 935 ("has 3 known planets" - Wikipedia)
14 Ross 128 A / Ross 128 B (companion discovered in 2017!)
15 EZ Aquarii A / EZ Aquarii B /EZ Aquarii C (companions discovered long ago)
16 61 Cygni A / 61 Cygni B (companion discovered long ago)
17 Procyon A / Procyon B (companion discovered long ago)
18 Struve A / Struve B (two more companions discovered in 2019!)
19 Groombridge A / Groombridge B (companion discovered long ago)
20 DX Cancri ("flare star" -Wikipedia) (flare stars are suspected double stars)

Now, I know what naysayers will have to say : "But hey...not all of the above-listed pairs are officially claimed to be binary systems! Some of those newly-discovered companions are supposed to be just planets, just like Earth and Jupiter (in fact, they're called "exoplanets")." Hmm. Well, if their very existence was only detected in these last few years, how exactly would we know whether those (very faint / or even invisible) recently-discovered celestial bodies are "just planets" - and not some intimate binary companion, just like the tiny Sirius B is to the big Sirius A ?

Believe it or not, but a veteran astronomer (who seems to hate the TYCHOS model with all his soul ) recently assured me that, NO, the Sun has no companion (and no local orbit of its own). Yet, he said, our Solar System speeds around the Galaxy at 800,000 km/h, and so do all these binary star systems - along with us. To underline his words he actually "hollered" (in ALL CAPS) :"DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT??"

I have to admit that, no - I don't understand how that would work out. Here's a cartoon of mine which I hope can picture my profound perplexity :



Quite frankly, I don't see why our Sun would be such a formidable "exception to the rule". It simply doesn't make sense.

Nor can I fathom just how all our surrounding stars could possibly move at hypersonic speeds in all imaginable directions (towards us / away from us, / up & down - etc) while still moving around the centre of our Galaxy along with (i.e. "in sympathy with") our Solar System. Can you?

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that the Sun ALSO has a binary companion (i.e. Mars) - just like pretty much ALL of our surrounding stars ? My humble opinion is (for what it's worth) that there's no more sensible, rational or logical conclusion (three words that most people love to hate!) to this matter.

***************************************************************

Fortunately however, it would appear that some people out there are starting to "get it" :


https://www.quora.com/Do-we-live-in-a-b ... lar-system

[simonshack]

*

WHY MARS ?

One of the more recurring questions I am getting these days (from people getting introduced to the TYCHOS model) is the following:

"Hmmm... WHY MARS? Why would Mars be the Sun's binary companion - instead of, say, Jupiter - which is far larger and therefore must be a far better candidate?"

Indeed, this "knee-jerk" seems to be an almost instinctive "Newtonian reaction/objection" that gets triggered by the TYCHOS model's Sun/Mars binary theorem : "Jupiter is much bigger, so it's much more likely to be the Sun's binary companion". Now, before proceeding, let me make it clear that my TYCHOS model has no pretense to replace Isaac Newton's Laws with some other Laws of my own fancy. Let us, for now - and for the sake of argument - stand by Newton's gravitational theories and ask ourselves the following (very basic) questions:

Isn't Jupiter supposed to be a "gas planet"? And isn't Mars, on the other hand, supposed to be mostly composed of iron (and rock)? Has anyone ever put Mars and Jupiter on a bathroom scale and compared their WEIGHTS? Of course not. Now, I trust we can all agree that the density (and hence, relative weight) of iron and rock are, several orders of magnitude larger than the density of any known gases existing in nature! Furthermore, don't we "all know" that the Sun is mostly composed of hydrogen (70%) and helium (28%) + a negligible 2% of other, denser elements? In this light, how hard would it be to imagine that Mars might, perhaps, be just as heavy as the Sun in spite of their "David-and-Goliath" proportions (i.e. their observed, respective diameters) and would thus nicely accomodate, as it were, Newton's gravitational Laws?

Having said that, I will once more remind my readers that my TYCHOS research has, ever since day one, intentionally "left Newtonian (and Einsteinian) physics at the door", so to speak, as it has preferred to focus at a number of (mostly geometric) empirically-testable and readily-verifiable aspects of astronomy as rigorously documented by our planet's greatest observational astronomers (e.g. Brahe, Riccioli - both "forgotten" giants of astronomy) whose work I consider to be not only of superior significance (scientifically speaking) but also far less abstract than any sort of (strictly) mathematical/algebraic approach at deciphering the physical reality of our cosmos (e.g. Kepler, Einstein - both proven plagiarists, thieves and fraudsters).

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I will hereby list and comment, point by point, the numerous findings of my TYCHOS research which all concur to indicate that Mars IS (beyond rational doubt) the Sun's binary companion.

1: As Tycho Brahe determined, the orbits of the Sun and Mars INTERSECT. Of course, NO other orbits (of our Solar System's planets and moons) intersect with the Sun's orbit. Brahe was much ridiculed by many of his (lesser) contemporaries - who loudly scoffed at this very notion (of the intersecting orbits of the Sun and Mars). Their fallacious argument (formulated out of lack of attention or sheer laziness?) was that "sooner or later, the Sun and Mars must crash into each other!"

2: The simple reason why this crash will never happen, is because the Sun and Mars are a pair of binary companions "locked" in an orbital 2:1 ratio, in the sense that our Sun completes 2 of its orbits while Mars completes 1 of its orbits. Please note that the simple reason why this 2:1 relationship has gone unnoticed (by Earthly observers - for millennia on end) is illustrated in my below diagram (as published in my TYCHOS book):


As you can see, Mars will NOT realign every 2 years (i.e. 730.5 days) with the Sun - in relation to the background stars. This, due to the "spirographic" geometry of Mars's orbital motion which regularly causes it to retrograde (i.e. "to move backwards" in relation to the Earthly observer) for a number of days - and thus, it reconjuncts with the Sun later than one might expect. This retrograde period lasts for an average of 72 days; and in fact, Mars is usually observed to re-conjunct with any given star in 707.5 days*, yet it reconjuncts with the Sun in 779.5 days (on average), that is, about 72 days later .
* Further on, we shall see why Mars can sometimes reconjuct with a given star in only 546 days - a totally inexplicable fact within the geometric configuration of the heliocentric model.

3: Mars is the ONLY body of our Solar System whose farthest-to-closest transits from Earth exhibit a whopping 7:1 ratio (mean apogee: 400Mkm / mean perigee: 56.6Mkm), a clear indication that Mars - and no other body in our solar system - is the Sun's binary companion:


Incidentally, the TYCHOS also resolves the age-old mystery of Mercury's and Venus' lack of moons: they have no moons... because they ARE (the Sun's) moons!

4: Mars is the ONLY body of our Solar System who exhibits an IRREGULAR (79-year) opposition cycle. Whereas the outer planets (from Jupiter to Pluto) all have regular / equally-long orbital periods, Mars exhibits this most peculiar opposition pattern:

15 years/17 years/15years/15years/17 years (full cycle: 79years). NONE of our other planetary "family members" (from Jupiter to Pluto) exhibit such an irregular pattern - they all return "in opposition" in the same number of years (Jupiter: 12 years, Saturn: 30 years, Uranus: 84 years, Neptune: 165 years, Pluto: 248 years). Thus, Mars is clearly a special case. It is a unique body in our Solar System - since it is the Sun's very special binary companion.

5: Most remarkably, Mars's peculiar 79-year cycle can be shown to be connected (at a 2:1 ratio) with the Sun's peculiar cycle of oscillations around its nucleus. Since the Sun/Mars binary system is "locked" in a 2:1 ratio, it is to be expected that the Sun oscillates around its nucleus in half of Mars's 79-year cycle (i.e. 39.5 years). This is, in fact, precisely what is observed! The below, well-known diagram (as can be found in various astronomy papers) is commonly described as "the barycentric motion of the Sun" over a number of years. Although this isn't mentioned in the literature, a close look at this diagram reveals that the Sun returns "to the same place" in precisely 39.5 years (of course, the Martian 79-year period has Mars also returning "to the same place") :

In other words, the famous 79-year cycle of Mars is "reflected" by the Sun's 39.5-year barycentric wobble - just as would be expected in the TYCHOS model.

6: Another remarkable aspect of the TYCHOS model is that the closest Mars oppositions (as Mars passes closest to Earth) occur when it finds itself at (an average) distance of 56.6 Mkm from Earth. Well, this distance "just happens" to correspond to half the diameter of the PVP orbit (113.2Mkm) - as propounded by the TYCHOS model!


7: In the TYCHOS, the duration of one "Great Year" is estimated to be 25344 solar years (i.e. the time needed for Earth to complete one revolution around its PVP orbit - from Polaris to Vega and back to Polaris). This period is commonly-known as "the precession of the equinoxes" (believed to be caused by Earth slowly "wobbling clockwise" - i.e. in the opposite direction of its rotation!...). Most interestingly, we may find in astronomy literature that Mars is believed to have a ca.51000-year precession cycle of its own equinoxes (which, of course, would be just about 2 X 25344):
“The Martian equinoxes also precess, returning to an initial position over a period of about 51,000 years.”
https://books.google.it/books?id=MnrrLH ... rs&f=false
Now, remember: in the TYCHOS, Mars and the Sun are "locked" at a 2:1 ratio. Under this paradigm, it would therefore make sound sense that the estimated equinoctial precession of Mars is twice as long as the estimated equinoctial precession of Earth. And this is precisely what is observed.

8: As mentioned earlier, Mars can sometimes return facing a same given star in 546 days (instead of the "usual" 707 days). The full 15-year opposition cycle of Mars unfolds in this peculiar 8-period sequence: 707/707/707/707/707/707/707/546(!). Huh? How could this possibly occur in the Copernican model, where Mars is just meant to revolve around an "outer lane" with respect to Earth's supposed orbit around the Sun? Well, here's how Kepler's mathemagics "made it work". The below image is a (multiple) screenshot from the "JS Orrery", a Copernican solar system simulator, showing how such an 8-period sequence is meant to unfold under the heliocentric model's geometry:


In the TYCHOS model, on the other hand, this 8-period sequence (707/707/707/707/707/707/707/546) has Mars returning, each and every time (including the shorter 546-day period), on the exact same line of sight joining Earth>Mars>Deneb Algedi. Could it get any clearer than THIS? :

All this can of course be independently verified by anyone - by perusing the TYCHOSIUM simulator: https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd

It goes without saying that, if the TYCHOS model were a complete fantasy (i.e. a mere figment of my imagination) you would essentially be left to conclude that the fact that the TYCHOSIUM simulator reliably shows Mars re-conjuncting each and every time in our line of sight to that star (located at the celestial longitude 21h47m of RA) , in full agreement with what is observed in reality - must be nothing but "a matter of chance" and/or some "fascinating coincidence".

At the end of the day, it is really up to anyone of us to decide for ourselves which theorized solar system model best satisfies our rational minds.

9: The very existence of our so-called Main Asteroid Belt is yet another indication that the Sun and Mars are a binary system - featuring intersecting orbits, just as Tycho Brahe and Pathani Samanta (arguably the greatest naked-eye astronomers of all times) had concluded.*

The Main Asteroid Belt is located in the celestial region between Mars and Jupiter or - in fact - just beyond the orbit of Mars. Here’s how it is conventionally illustrated:

*The advent of the telescope may have allowed astronomers to magnify their view of the stars and get a closer look at them - yet it certainly did nothing to advance their understanding of the "big picture" of our cosmos, au contraire! Imagine if your children started looking at life through a long, dark tube all day long: wouldn't you fear that they might become terribly narrow-minded?


To be sure, no one really knows (i.e. there exists no general concensus as to) just why and how this belt of dust and debris came to be - or much less why it is located just beyond the orbit of Mars. However, astrophysicists specialized in double/binary systems (who study similar asteroid belts to be found around numerous binary systems) have a sensible explanation as to their formation:

As two binary companions periodically cross paths along their intersecting orbits, fields of rocks, particles and debris will be ejected as they collide, to be flung into a wider, circumbinary orbit. In the case of our Sun-Mars binary system, it should therefore be naturally expected that our main asteroid belt should be located as is observed: just outside Mars’s orbit, in the celestial region between Mars and Jupiter.

10: Perhaps the best evidence we have that Mars is indeed a unique & very special case (among our solar system's family members) is the fact that Kepler formulated his entire set of "Laws" around the bewildering motions of Mars. As astronomy historians have duly documented, Kepler (who was recruited by Tycho Brahe for the sole purpose of helping figuring out Mars's "inexplicable behavior") spent over half a decade (in what he called "his War on Mars") obsessively trying to solve the Martian riddle. In all likelihood, it was out of sheer desperation that he eventually resorted to fudge Tycho Brahe's data so as to make them fit with his (ad hoc) algebraic "solution": that is, that Mars had to revolve around an ELLIPTICAL orbit and to periodically speed up ... and slow down. And yes, Kepler's fancy theories were indeed founded exclusively around Mars and its baffling motions - as we can read all over historical astronomy literature. Here's but one example documenting this fact:

https://books.google.it/books?id=WboPRe ... ce&f=false

As you can see, the evidence that the Sun and Mars are a binary pair locked in a 2:1 ratio is truly overwhelming. And no, Mars is not "too small of an object to be the Sun's companion" - as most people may think. For instance, the very brightest star in our skies, Sirius, is a binary system composed of (at least) two objects, SIRIUS A and Sirius B. The latter is only about 0.5% the size of the larger one. Well, as it happens, Mars is also 0.5% the size of the Sun. Yes, I know: astrophysicists will start sweating and shaking as you point this out to them. After catching their breath and rolling their eyes, they will let you know how dreadfully ignorant you are, "because according to our Newtonian computations, we have LONG established that Sirius B has to be an extrueeeeemely dense little star!!! Don't you know that the pull of gravity on Sirius B is 400,000X stronger than that on Earth? Now go read some good books of astrophysics, Junior!"

Who knows, perhaps astrophysicists really DO weigh the stars and planets on their bathroom scales - and can therefore be DEAD CERTAIN of their respective - ehrm - "densities"...

[simonshack]

*

KEPLER'S ELLIPTIC ILLUSION
and why his ad hoc "mathemagic equant" needs to go

Dear friends,

I think it is now time for me to share with you my latest, more deep-seated realizations regarding Johannes Kepler's proposed "Laws of Planetary Motion". I trust that all Cluesforum readers will be fairly familiar with them. In short, Kepler is the man responsible for having implanted in our minds that our planets travel around elliptical orbits - while also periodically accelerating and decelerating (as they approach or recede from the Sun). We shall now see how these (spurious) notions can be thoroughly deconstructed - and shown to have been (in all probability) mere figments of Kepler's fervid imagination, ardent ambition and blinding confirmation bias.

I will not dwell here on the fact that Kepler was ultimately exposed as a science fraudster, as revealed (in 1988) by William H. Donahue, the highly-qualified translator of Kepler's famous Astronomia Nova, a book still regarded as the “Bible of the Copernican Revolution”. If you wish, you can read about it here. However, the fact that Donahue's findings never caused any sort of reaction among our world's scientific community is quite telling: it goes to show the extent to which the sacrosanct "established scientific truths" proclaimed a few centuries ago by a handful of privileged scholars (elevated to God-like stature) have reached an almost divine status of "untouchability". To be sure, no single existing religious group can even dream to attain the sort of mass consensus enjoyed by the almost universally-accepted Copernican /Keplerian heliocentric creed - what with its billions of converts spread all over our planet.

But let's get back to our present / specific topic - Kepler's elliptical orbits. Flavia Marcacci, an Italian astronomy historian (whom I hope to meet in person very soon), is the author of "Cieli in Contraddizione" ("Skies in Contradiction") - a book that I promptly ordered as it was released in 2018. Her thorough and rigorously-researched treatises focus on the monumental work of Giovanni Battista Riccioli and his "Almagestum Novum". Here's an extract from an earlier academic paper of hers:

"Many astronomers, such as Galileo, did not like the elliptical orbits of Kepler, that seemed an artful reworking of the Ptolemaic punti aequantes. All these problems have to be inserted in an astronomical context where the alternative was not strictly between the Ptolemaic and the Copernican systems. The alternative was between the Copernican solution and the Tychonic one, and we would make a mistake if we forget this. Therefore, their first attempts were to try to explain these questions in the context of the astrometrical techniques: Riccioli’s solution is one of these and he succeeds in embedding these items in his system."
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... nd_Mercury

That's right: even the "Great Galileo Galilei" disliked the elliptical orbits proposed by Kepler! And with good reason: Galileo quickly realized that what Kepler had done was no more than a "mathemagical sleight-of-hand" which, as it were, amounted to nothing but a clever algebraic formulation of the dreaded (and much-ridiculed) EQUANT- as proposed by Ptolemy. Before proceeding, I must clarify to the reader what Prolemy's EQUANT was all about. Let me use Wikipedia to help me summarize this "equant issue" in a succint manner:

"Equant (or punctum aequans) is a mathematical concept developed by Claudius Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD to account for the observed motion of the planets. The equant is used to explain the observed speed change in planetary orbit during different stages of the orbit. This planetary concept allowed Ptolemy to keep the theory of uniform circular motion alive by stating that the path of heavenly bodies was uniform around one point and circular around another point.

The equant model has a body in motion on a circular path that does not share a center with Earth. The moving object's speed will actually vary during its orbit around the outer circle (dashed line), faster in the bottom half and slower in the top half. The motion is considered uniform only because the planet sweeps around equal angles in equal times from the equant point. The speed of the object is non-uniform when viewed from any other point within the orbit."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equant

In simpler words, the EQUANT was Ptolemy's geometric attempt to account for our planets' apparent accelerations and decelerations - whereas Kepler's attempt was the algebraic equivalent of the same. Kepler's theory was (and remains) in stark contradiction with the Newtonian "Laws" which stipulate that the gravitational constant "G"... is a constant! Since the speed of a free-falling body will remain constant, there is no explanation whatsoever as to why our planets would be alternately accelerating and decelerating - nor why they would have elliptical orbits!

In the TYCHOS model - let this be clear - Ptolemy's "EQUANT" and Kepler's "ELLIPTICITY " are accounted for, quite simply, by Earth's 1.6km/h-motion around its PVP orbit. The TYCHOS explains (both qualitatively and quantitavely) the observed - yet illusory - accelerations/decelerations of our surrounding celestial bodies.

And yes, we DO observe our planets speeding up and slowing down over the course of their respective orbits. The reason for this, however, is a plain "space-time" illusion that we can readily understand - without the need for any sort of intricate (Ptolemaic) geometry - nor any kind of (Keplerian) mathemagics.

Under the TYCHOS model, both of Ptolemy's intricate "equant" theory and Kepler's "elliptic" theory are elucidated via a much simpler explanation: an earthly observer (moving "in a straight line" at 1.6km/h - and by 14036km every year) will perceive the motions of our planets as "accelerating and decelerating" - simply because the planets will appear to speed up and slow down depending on where they find themselves - that is, either in the "top half" or the "bottom half" of their 360° revolutions around the slow-moving Earth.

One basic reason for our planets to appear to accelerate and decelerate (as they revolve around us in ECCENTRIC orbits) can be illustrated as follows:



Yet, in spite of this quite obvious perspective effect, we may find (on Wikipedia and all sorts of "scientific" websites) ludicrously animated gifs such as the one below - meant to depict the Halley comet's orbital motion. I think that even a child can see how silly it is: the comet appears to briskly accelerate as it transits close to Earth - and to slow down as it recedes from us. This 2D animation has obviously no relation with reality : it is nothing but a 2D animation which cannot possibly represent the true (constant) orbital speed of the Halley's comet : it only simulates the perceived - yet illusory - accelerations and decelerations of the comet as seen from Earth :



Eccentricity versus Ellipticity

It is absolutely essential NOT to confuse eccentricity with ellipticity:

Eccentricity is the off-center displacement of a planetary orbit (in relation to the Sun). Yes, all of our solar system's planets have eccentric / off-centered orbits - and even Kepler accepted this undeniable fact. And so does the TYCHOS model. However, the TYCHOS model needs NO elliptical orbits - NOR does it require accelerating / decelerating orbital speeds - as demonstrated by the TYCHOSIUM 3D solar system simulator.

Ellipticity, on the other hand, is just the proposed Keplerian "explanation" for the (VERY small - yet VIGOROUSLY debated, for centuries!) observed periodic inequalities (accelerations / decelerations) of our planets' secular motions. The TYCHOS model accounts for the supposed "ellipticity" of the planetary orbits (and the observed accelerations / decelerations of our planets) in the simplest imaginable manner: Earth moves very slowly (at 1.6km/h) along its PVP orbit - and has thus been moving virtually "in a straight line" for the last (say) 2000 years or so. ALL of our solar system's family members (revolving around us at high speeds) will therefore appear to move slightly faster or slightly slower - depending on which "side" of Earth they find themselves: at times they will be moving in the same direction of Earth's "straight line" motion - and at times in the opposite direction of Earth's "straight line" motion. These fluctuating (yet illusory) observed orbital speeds will cause an earthly observer to conclude that planets move in elliptical orbits. I know, this may seem to be an almost incredible & breathtakingly simple demolition of Kepler's "elliptical" Laws of Planetary Motions - but here it is.

A funny aspect of all this eccentricity/ellipticity question is that NASA, on their very own official "Planetary Fact Sheets" (see example) of our Solar System's bodies, do not feature any "ELLIPTICITY" data - at all. Instead, they use the (completely different) term "ECCENTRICITY" to define our planets' orbital offsets in relation to the Sun. If Kepler were still alive, he would immediately call some NASA operators and tell them to correct the terminology used in their Planetary Fact Sheets! In any case, the fact that NASA (or their supposedly highly-trained data editors) would confuse "eccentricity" with "ellipticity" is just another tidbit of supportive confirmation that NASA isn't - and has never been - any reliable source of scientific knowledge. We may hope that ALL of the truly thoughtful, earnest and intelligent people of this planet have, by now, figured out what NASA is all about.

As for Kepler's idea that the orbital trajectories of our solar system's planets have elliptical shapes, all the available historical astronomy literature on this subject will tell you that he reached this conclusions SOLELY on the basis of his obsessive, half-decade-long study of Mars's motions (as observed and documented by his master Tycho Brahe). It was Mars - and Mars only - that caused Kepler to theorize about elliptical orbits. Here's just one testimony of this fact :


https://books.google.it/books?id=WboPRe ... ce&f=false

In hindsight, we can now clearly see how Kepler went about his "scientific" endeavors. Since he couldn't make any sense out of Tycho Brahe's precise and rigorous observations of the motions of Mars (which, in the TYCHOS model, are plainly demonstrated and enacted in the TYCHOSIUM simulator), Kepler simply decided - out of thin air (or out of sheer ambition?) to stipulate what follows:

1: The planets do NOT revolve around uniform circles - they revolve around elliptical orbits.
2: The planets do NOT move at constant speeds, they accelerate and decelerate depending on their distance from the Sun.

I don't know about you, dear friends - but as far as I can see, Kepler's "Laws" belong to the most egregious cases of AD HOC "solutions" ever concocted in the history of science. No wonder that Galileo (and many astronomers of his time) disliked Kepler's elliptical theories. It remains a mystery why Kepler ultimately became one of the most acclaimed "Gods" of astronomy - in spite of having subverted and crudely sabotaged the work of his master, Tycho Brahe.

"AD HOC :In science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

[Peaker]

Hello Everyone, I have a question..

I just heard about the 'Three Body Problem' listening to a podcast this afternoon and I immediately thought that the Tychos might have something to say about it.

Does the Tychos predict the future locations of three planets?...it seems so.

How does the Three Body Problem relate to the Tychos?

[simonshack]

Hello Everyone, I have a question.. I just heard about the 'Three Body Problem' listening to a podcast this afternoon and I immediately thought that the Tychos might have something to say about it.

Does the Tychos predict the future locations of three planets?...it seems so. How does the Three Body Problem relate to the Tychos?

Dear Peaker, in chapter 4 of my TYCHOS book (titled "Sirius A and B — “Living proof” in support of the TYCHOS model") I show the below diagram that I found on this website. Your question is quite relevant and timely, since I have been planning to make the following post for the last month or so...


IS THE SIRIUS SYSTEM OUR SOLAR SYSTEM'S "TWIN FAMILY" ?

image source: https://www.tychos.info/citation/017B_Pacal-Dogon.htm

"Emme Tolo" is the name given by the Dogon tribe to a third hypothetical body in the Sirius system (which other researchers refer to as "Sirius C") - an elusive / invisible body that may nonetheless exist: in 1994, a French academic study concluded that "Sirius C" may, in fact, quite possibly exist:

"Is Sirius a triple star?" (by Benest & Duvent/ 1994) : http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995A%26A...299..621B

Now, if "Sirius C" is, say, an Earth-like planet covered in dark-blue oceans ("captured" in the barycenter of the Sirius A & B binary system) - it should be easily understandable why it isn't visible even in the best telescopes. Of course, my TYCHOS model proposes that the Sun & Mars are the "equivalents" of Sirius A & B (in fact, the relative diameters of these four bodies are practically IDENTICAL) - and that Earth has been "captured" in the barycenter of the Sun-Mars binary pair.

Even more curious are the allegations that the Dogon tribe somehow knew about a small satellite revolving around Emme Ya Tolo (a.k.a. "Sirius C") which they named Nyan Tolo (i.e. "the Women's star" in their language). Here's a diagram from another website which illustrates how Nyan Tolo (a small satellite which would be the equivalent to our Moon - whose 27-day sidereal period closely matches the women's average menstrual cycle) should be revolving around Emme Ya Tolo :

image source: https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/univ ... irio07.htm

Sigi Tolo = SIRIUS A____Po Tolo = SIRIUS B____Emme Ya Tolo = SIRIUS C_____Nyan Tolo: a small satellite revolving around Emme Ya Tolo
(Note: that diagram has Emme Ya Tolo and Nyan Tolo revolving around SIRIUS A - unlike the TYCHOS configuration. Nevertheless, I find it quite interesting).

Now, get this, ladies and gents: the other day I bumped into some speculative computations by one Troy Jason regarding the existence of Sirius C - and more specifically - regarding the possible sizes of the two elusive yet long-debated, hypothetical bodies hosted within the Sirius binary system: that is, "Sirius C" (Emme Tolo) - and its lunar satellite "Nyan Tolo":

Does the star Sirius C exist?

"According to modern astronomy, there are no known planets in the Sirius star system. However, according to the Dogon tribe in West Africa, the people that described the existence of the star Sirius B; and the DNA pattern of the stars Sirius A and B through space, claims there is indeed an unknown planet in the Sirius system. They call it 'Nyan tolo'. Furthermore, they claim that Nyan tolo is a 'satellite' of a hypothetical star called Sirius C. In addition to the Dogon's claims the Mayan 260 day calendar may mark the orbital period of that same planet (satellite) around the theoretical star Sirius C. The Dogons claim that the Sirius system is not only a binary star system, they believe it's a 'Triple Star System'. They state there's a '3rd Star' that's more voluminous (larger), and four times lighter (less dense) than Sirius B. But, that's not all. They tell us that the Third Star has a satellite ( like Earth's satellite - the Moon).

Now, since the Big Bang theory is one of the most accepted scientific theories in history, even though it's based on 'pure' extrapolations, let's also use 'pure' extrapolations to verify the Sudanese story of "Three Stars and a Satellite" as follows:

Let's use what we know about our solar system, to make some assumptions about the proposed star Sirius C and the planet that orbits as follows:
We know: (365.2425 days - solar year) / (27.3 days - the orbital period of the moon around Earth) = 13.3788 to 1 or orbital period of moon around Earth per solar year.
We can assume: (260 - Sirius year from Mayan calendar) / (20 days - orbital period of satellite around Sirius C from Mayan calendar) = 13 to 1 or orbital period of satellite around Sirius C per Sirius year.
We know: 16 x (6.96 x 10^8m radius of Sun) x (365.2435 days) / 27.29 days = 1.49 x 10^11m or solar system AU.
We can assume: 16 x (1.19 x 10^9m - radius of Sirius A) x (260 days) / 20 days = 2.4752 x 10^11m - Sirius system 'AU'.
We know: 2 x (6.9 x 10^8m)^2 / 1.52069 x 10^11m - Earth's Aphelion = 6.371 x 10^6m - Earth's mean radius.
We can assume: 2 x (1.19 x 10^9m)^2 / 2.4752 x 10^11m = 1.14423 x 10^7m - mean radius of Sirius C.
We know: [(13.3788)] SQRT x (27.29 days) x (6.365 x 10^6m - radius of Earth) / 365.2425 days = 1.737059 x 10^6m - radius of moon or Earth's satellite.
We can assume: [(13)] SQRT x (20 days) x (1.14423 x 10^7m) / 260 days = 3.17352 x 10^6m - radius of Sirius C satellite.
So, from what we know about our solar system, we can predict the approximate radius of Sirius C; the radius of a planet around the Star Sirius; and the Sirius C / planet distance."
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-star-Sirius-C-exist

As you can see (and easily extrapolate / verify for yourself), Troy Jason basically concludes that:

The hypothetical Sirius C may have a diameter of 22,884.6 km.

We see that 22,884.6km is 179.4% larger than 12,756km (Earth's diameter) and that...

...The hypothetical Nyan Tolo (a satellite of Sirius C) may have a diameter of 6347 km.

We see that 6347km is 182.6% larger than 3476.2km (our Moon's diameter)

All this is of course mightily interesting for the TYCHOS model, since (as I have pointed out in my book) the "known" diameters of SIRIUS A and SIRIUS B - or, in any case, their RELATIVE dimensions - are as follows :

SIRIUS A : 2,390,000 km - or 171.77 % larger than the Sun (1,391,400 km)

SIRIUS B: 11,684.4 km - or 172 % larger than Mars (6792.4 km)


In other words, IF it turns out one fine day that Sirius C and its satellite "Nyan Tolo" truly exist (and exhibit the above proportions), we will have to conclude - beyond reasonable doubt - that the Sirius binary system is "the Twin Family" of our binary Solar System :

Sirius A = the twin of our Sun
Sirius B = the twin of Mars
Sirius C = the twin of Earth
Nyan Tolo = the twin of our Moon


image source: the TYCHOSIUM simulator: https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd

A pretty fascinating possibility, isn't it?

Furthermore: since almost all (or quite probably ALL) of the stars in our galaxy are double/binary stars, we may perhaps start (very cautiously) speculating that some (or many?) of them harbor a third body (similar to Earth) at their barycenter - which would be invisible to even our best telescopes due to them being hidden in the glare of their binary hosts. Yooohoo - we may not be alone in this big dark Universe after all! And we might even hope that some (truly) intelligent life is to be found on these "twin sisters" of Earth. Now, how about THAT?

[Peaker]

Hello All,

I hope I can add this here, if there is a better place let me know.

My early introduction to astronomy came through my interest in the stone-cirlce sites in Britain. I've since found out that this is called naked-eye astronomy and I like that term. So,over thirty years or so, I got used to many of the terms that Simon uses and many of the 'situations' that arise in the heavens such as the analemma. I didn't know that these situations were not at all settled by modern astronomy because even the most radical thinkers seemed to take Copernicanism very seriously.

People like John Michell, author of 'The Dimensions of Paradise' subtitled Sacred Geometry, Ancient Science and the Heavenly Order on Earth, should have seen through Copernicus quite easily. I have been thumbing my way through this book this morning, after many years on a dusty shelf because he said something about the orbits of the planets I remember. This could be it:

"The conclusion that emerges from these studies is that the ancient philosophers took the key 'New Jerusalem' numbers, 12 and 7, put them together in the form of twelve to the seventh power, established that number in feet as the measure of the moon's circumference, and made it the astronomical standard of measure of the universe."

Here is a clear example of the moon as the central point of the solar system.

Regards,

[simonshack]

*

SIDEREAL vs SOLAR DAY - IN THE TYCHOS MODEL

Dear friends,

One of the most basic issues debated by astronomers (ever since the dawn of times) is the observed difference between a sidereal day - and a solar day.

A SIDEREAL DAY is completed when Earth, having spun around its axis approximately once, lines up again with a given star:

"A sidereal day is approximately 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.0905 SI seconds (24 hours - 4 minutes + 4 seconds = 86164.0905 s = 23.9344696 h".
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

A SOLAR DAY (as Earth lines up again with the Sun) takes about 3.93 minutes longer (on average) - i.e. a period that we all agree* to call "24 hours".

* "Conceptually, Mean solar time is based on a fictional Sun that is considered to move at a constant rate of 360° in 24 hours along the celestial meridian. One mean day is 24 hours in length, each hour consisting of 60 minutes, and each minute consisting of 60 seconds. Though the amount of daylight varies significantly throughout the year, the length of a mean solar day is kept constant, unlike that of an apparent solar day." https://www.universetoday.com/78107/solar-day/

Note for now that a solar day is therefore just about 0.27379% LONGER than a sidereal day (24 hours versus 23.9344696 hours).

Well, the other day it just dawned upon me (pun very much intended) that the difference between the two is very neatly accounted for by Earth's 1.6km/h motion around its PVP orbit! Those who have read my TYCHOS book will be familiar with the following two figures concerning Earth's motion in the TYCHOS model:

DAILY distance covered by Earth : 38.428km
YEARLY distance covered by Earth: 14036km (or more precisely 14035.847km)

And in fact, 38.428km is 0.27379% of 14035.847km. In other words, the difference between the sidereal and solar day is explained in the simplest imaginable manner: it is (demonstrably) caused by the daily motion of Earth (38.428km) around its PVP orbit!

Note also that the Sun (travelling at 107.226km/h) covers 2,573,424km in 24 hours - which amounts to 0.27379 % of its orbital circumference of 939,943,910km.

Similarly, the number "1" (as in "ONE DAY"), amounts to 0.27379% of 365.2425 days (the average solar year).

In Chapter 23 of my TYCHOS book you may find the below graphic I made to illustrate the difference between a sidereal and solar day:



As I made the above graphic a couple of years ago, I had not yet realized all of this remarkably exact mathematical consistency of Earth's 1.6km/h-motion (as proposed by the TYCHOS model) with the observed difference between the sidereal and the solar day. The TYCHOS model is truly a "gift that never stops giving"!

[patrix]

TYCHOS model is truly a "gift that never stops giving

Indeed Simon

But am I understanding correctly that the difference between the solar and sidereal day will vary during the year since the sun and earth is moving in the same direction during winter?

[simonshack]

*

Dear Patrix, I shall address your question in a minute. Let me first point out that my above post was just to show how both Earth and the Sun move around their orbits each day by the same percentage (0.27379%) of their yearly motions. This neatly explains the 3.93-min difference between the sidereal and the solar day - something that the Copernican model cannot rationally explain. If Earth were to orbit around the Sun (covering more than 2.5million km daily) it would make no conceivable sense that Earth would first line up with a given star (sidereal day) - and would then line up with the Sun (solar day) roughly 4 minutes later, on average.

Here's a diagram from Chapter 23 of my TYCHOS book illustrating the problematic Copernican sidereal-day :


To think that Earth would be moving by over 2.5 Million km each day without the background stars drifting by any noticeable amount (besides those last 4 minutes of earthly rotation) has to be among the most surreal aspects of the Copernican model.

To put this problem into due perspective, let´s see how the sidereal and solar day unfold in the below 3-frame sequence:



The above animation describes what is observed, in reality, from one day to the next: in 23h56m, an earthly observer will line up again with the same given star. At such a point and time, the Sun will have moved Eastwards by approx. 4 minutes of RA (Right Ascension). Four minutes later, we see the stars drifting by 4 min of RA Westwards. Ergo, the entire amount of our daily, Westward stellar drift will appear (to an earthly observer) to occur in the last 4 minutes of earthly rotation. In other words, Earth might just as well be stationary while only rotating around its axis. Many astronomers in ancient times understandably believed this to be true. This wasn’t because they were stupid, but because this is what matches careful and patient observation of the behavior of the heavens.

Of course, the TYCHOS model submits that Earth moves by a mere 38.4 km per day, which is hardly a noticeable amount of lateral displacement to the naked eye! Those 4 min. of RA are the consequence of Earth having rotated by 360° in 23 hours 56 minutes, thus needing another 4 minutes to line up again with the Sun which, in the meantime, has moved Eastwards by approx. 4 minutes of RA.

*************************
In answer to your question : yes, there will be throughout the year some (ever-so-small) variations of the length of the solar/sidereal days due to Earth moving alternately in the same or in the opposite spatial direction as the Sun - six months at a time. The Sun will thus appear to "accelerate and decelerate" in relation to our (uniformly-ticking) clocks - and this is precisely the reason why, in order to "compensate for this problem", our elders had to implement the "Equation of Time":

"Apparent time, and the sundial, can be ahead (fast) by as much as 16 min 33 s (around 3 November), or behind (slow) by as much as 14 min 6 s (around 11 February)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time

As thoroughly expounded and illustrated in Chapter 26 of my book, this is what causes the small lateral East/West component of the Analemma (the far larger vertical North/South component being caused, of course, by Earth's axial tilt). The Analemma is the name given to the pretty "8"-shaped pattern that the Sun traces in our skies over a year. The below timelapse-composite is the work of a patient photographer who snapped pictures of the Sun for a full year (at the same time of day):


Author: Anthony Ayiomamitis http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Solar-Analemma-102816.htm

As you know, I like to call the Analemma "Earth's speedometer" - since it can be calculated that the mean annual amplitude of its lateral East/West component (as distributed over our four seasons / celestial quadrants) amounts to 7.86min. This 7.86 value is about 0.00149% of 525,948 minutes (the number of minutes in a solar year); this neatly reflects my proposed 1.6km/h orbital speed of Earth - since 1.6km/h is just about 0.00149% of 107,226km/h (the Sun's orbital speed).

As it is, unlike the Copernican model, the TYCHOS model can neatly demonstrate / account for our Earth's daily & yearly motions both qualitatively and quantitavely.

[fbenario]

Anyone identify this location?

Beautiful picture of the Temple of Poseidon at Sounion, Greece, Simon. Made my day.

[Peaker]

Hello All, I have a question regarding this most recent post by Simon. I’m on my second reading of The Tychos and am getting a good grip on most but not all of its topics.

This is one I’m not ‘getting’.

I guess what is baffling to me is when you say that the movement all takes place in the last four minutes. I can’t see that . . . I see the star moving incrementally over the whole 24 hr period. Do Copernicans say that the movement takes place in the last four minutes of the day?

Is there another way of you putting this?

On a practical level I’ve another question. How are these observations taking place when the stars are not visible throughout the day when the Sun is at its zenith?

Regards,