Introducing the TYCHOS

[simonshack]

*

SWEDISH PRESENTATION OF THE TYCHOS MODEL


Dear all, here's the video of Patrik's presentation of the Tychos model (with English subtitles) in Sweden this summer.

Patrik is of course our forum member "Patrix" and my closest partner-in-crime in this enthralling TYCHOS research. Without Patrik, there would be no Tychosium (the wondrous 3D simulator of the TYCHOS model) and I would still be struggling with plain text, graphics and diagrams trying to illustrate my working solar system...

I dearly hope some of you English-speakers will sit through this most excellent 51-min presentation by Patrik - in spite of the extra effort reading the subtitles.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYaqxiNocy0

[simonshack]

*

THE SUN'S "MYSTERIOUS" 6°OR 7°AXIAL TILT

Dear friends,

As mentioned in Chapter12 of my "Tychos" book (2018), astronomers are still today totally baffled as to why the Sun's axis appears to be tilted at 6° or 7°degrees. You may wonder why there's still no firm consensus among academics about this tilt (is it 6° or 7°?), but then again, the science of astronomy is what it is: a big mess. Hence, allow me henceforth use primarily the higher figure of 7°for the purposes of this short exposé - and in the interest of clarity.

Make no mistake: the observable fact that the Sun's axis is tilted at an angle (with respect to the entire Solar System's plane) is no petty matter. For why would this be? Isn't the Sun supposed to be the "central driveshaft" of our system? Shouldn't therefore all our planets (including Earth) be neatly revolving around the plane of the Sun's equator? Well, they don't. And this fact is an absolute mystery for academic astronomy or, in other words, a still unresolved quandary which - all by itself - falsifies Newton's sacrosanct gravitational "laws". As recently as 2016, an academic study admitted that it's "such a deep-rooted mystery and so difficult to explain that people just don't talk about it". The study went on bizarelly speculating that this tilt of our Sun's axis might be caused by what they call "Planet Nine" (a hitherto unseen / entirely hypothetical celestial body...) :

"All of the planets orbit in a flat plane with respect to the sun, roughly within a couple degrees of each other. That plane, however, rotates at a six-degree tilt with respect to the sun—giving the appearance that the sun itself is cocked off at an angle. Until now, no one had found a compelling explanation to produce such an effect. "It's such a deep-rooted mystery and so difficult to explain that people just don't talk about it," says Brown, the Richard and Barbara Rosenberg Professor of Planetary Astronomy.

Brown and Batygin's discovery of evidence that the sun is orbited by an as-yet-unseen planet—that is about 10 times the size of Earth with an orbit that is about 20 times farther from the sun on average than Neptune's—changes the physics. Planet Nine, based on their calculations, appears to orbit at about 30 degrees off from the other planets' orbital plane—in the process, influencing the orbit of a large population of objects in the Kuiper Belt, which is how Brown and Batygin came to suspect a planet existed there in the first place."
Source: https://phys.org/news/2016-10-curious-t ... t.html#jCp

It bears mentioning that this "deep-rooted mystery" has been around for about 400 years - ever since Cristoph Scheiner published (back in 1630) his massive treatise "Rosa Ursina", where he described and illustrated his meticulous observations of the sunspots. Here's one of Scheiner's drawings showing how (a pair of) sunspots could be seen moving around the solar sphere in the month of March:



Now, please realize that what I have marked as a 23°tilt is just due to our own Earth's axial tilt. What concerns us here - in this particular analysis - is the tilt marked by my yellow arrows (and blue arcs). It's hard to make out exactly what amount of tilt they show, but they certainly indicate that the Sun's South Pole (in the month of March) tilts TOWARDS us earthly observers. And, in fact:

"The Sun's axis tilts almost 7.5 degrees out of perpendicular to Earth's orbital plane. (The orbital plane of Earth is commonly called the ecliptic.) Therefore, as we orbit the Sun, there's one day out of the year when the Sun's North Pole tips most toward Earth. This happens at the end of the first week in September. Six months later, at the end of the first week in March, it's the Sun's South Pole that tilts maximumly towards Earth."
Source: https://www.tychos.info/citation/057B_T ... s-Axis.htm

So far so good. We know that the Sun's South pole tilts towards us in March - and away from us in September. We may now wonder how the Sun is tilted in the months of December and June. Well, we may once again use Cristoph Scheiner's old observations to answer this question. Here's how Scheiner saw and graphically documented the sunspots' angular motions in January and July:



(Note that if Scheiner had observed those sunspots in December and June - rather than in January and July - he might have recorded a 7° tilt instead of a 6° tilt.)

Well, ladies and gents, here's when I will humbly - yet proudly - present the results of my own efforts at understanding this "mysterious" 7° tilt of the Sun's axis.

Firstly, you'll need to know about the perceived tilts (as seen from Earth) of the orbits of Venus and Mercury. Officially, their orbits are tilted as follows:

Orbital tilt of VENUS: 3.4°
Orbital tilt of MERCURY: 7°

In my Tychos book I stated that Venus and Mercury are the two moons of the Sun - rather than two "planets" (as they are currently called) revolving around the Sun - much like our own planet Earth is supposed to do. In fact, I had also (intuitively) envisioned that these tilts were correlated with the Sun's "mysterious 6° or 7°tilt that no one likes to talk about".

A diagram from Chapter 12 of my TYCHOS book showing how the Sun's axis always mantains a circa 6° tilt as illustrated:




Well, it is one thing to intuitively claim something - but is quite another matter to prove it. So here we go: in the last few weeks, I have been doggedly refining the settings (for Venus & Mercury) in the Tychosium3D simulator. As I finally achieved a satisfactory "balance" of their orbital motions (which proceed at constant speeds and around perfectly circular, non-elliptical orbits), I was marvelled to find - at the end of my toggling of the Tychosium's data settings - that their orbits are, in fact, tilted in similar fashion as the Sun's axial tilt! When viewed from a given angle, this common tilt (of the Sun's axis and its two moons, Venus & Mercury) remains almost perfectly constant, century after century.

Here's how the Sun's axis and its two moons (Venus & Mercury) are tilted in June and December:



And here's how the Sun's axis and its two moons (Venus & Mercury) are tilted in March and September:



As you can see, the orbital tilts of Venus & Mercury (the Sun's two moons, according to the Tychos model) are firmly "locked", at all times, to the Sun's axial tilt.
One could hardly wish for a better indication in support of the contention that Venus and Mercury are the two lunar satellites of the Sun.

You may now ask: "why is the orbit of Venus reckoned to be tilted at 3.4° whereas the orbit of Mercury is reckoned to be tilted at 7°? Well, the answer is simple. The astute observer perusing the Tychosium simulator will readily notice that Mercury's orbital tilt bobs "from side to side" (or "up and down") as it revolves around the Sun and returns to perigee (i.e.closest to Earth) in only 116.88 days, whereas Venus revolves around the Sun far slower, returning to perigee in 584.4 days. Consequently, the observed orbital tilts of Venus and Mercury are recorded as being 3.4°versus 7° - yet it has never occurred to anyone that these tilts are intimately correlated to the Sun's axial tilt of 7°.

As I like to say, the Tychos is here to stay.

[Peaker]

Hello All,

There is only one word to describe the feeling of following this section of the website and that is . . . Delight!

I have a question about The Tychosium for Patrix regarding retrograde motion and it's this: can the camera view be programmed to observe the Retrograde Motion of Mars from Earth?

It follows on from this that a mechanical model could also be built, a kind of orrery, to track the same relative motion of the two planets. Any clockmakers out there?

[simonshack]

Hello All,

There is only one word to describe the feeling of following this section of the website and that is . . . Delight!

I have a question about The Tychosium for Patrix regarding retrograde motion and it's this: can the camera view be programmed to observe the Retrograde Motion of Mars from Earth?

Dear Peaker - I'm delighted that you find it delightful !

As for your question about viewing the retrograde motion of Mars in the Tychosium, I can tell you that Patrik is still working at the "camera view" programming which will allow you to watch our solar system as if you were standing in your garden (I shudder at the complexity of the task!...). For now though, you can always imagine yourself flying behind Earth in a magic spacecraft ( ) by orienting the Tychosium 3D-view as shown in my below screenshot of the simulator (remember to activate the trace function for Mars in the "TRACE" menu). For the below screenshot, I chose the date 2003-08-28 which featured the closest Mars opposition of the last 60,000 years... a quite exceptional event: Mars passed as close to Earth as 0.37AU) :



The TYCHOSIUM 3D SIMULATOR: https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd

Yup, Mars truly retrogrades ... physically. And yes, it's high time to bring in the clockmakers!

[simonshack]

*

THE STRANGE SAGA OF "STELLAR ABERRATION"




Dear friends,

I'd like to share with you this strange yet hilarious (or perhaps tragicomical) tale behind the concoction of a supposed phenomenon that every good astronomer knows as "stellar aberration". With the laymen & laywomen readers in mind, I will recount this story in simple words - but perhaps the more technically-minded of you and/or those versed in scholarly astronomy, may wish to first have some fun reading the howlers to be found on the below-linked Wikipedia page. You may possibly never have read such lame, cringy and painful attempts to justify the unjustifiable.

"STELLAR ABERRATION": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_a ... ormation).

But let me get on narrating how the fanciful theory of "stellar aberration" came about, as promised, in a clear and concise manner. In fact, the tale of James Bradley's "discovery of stellar aberration" almost reads as a children's bedtime story. So here we go:

Once upon a time, back in 1725, the soon-to-become Astronomer Royal James Bradley was looking at a star called "Gamma Draconis" with his state-of-the-art telescope crafted by George Graham, London's leading instrument maker. The telescope was fitted into his chimney, for this northern star he chose to observe happened to regularly transit just above London where he lived. At 33 years of age, Bradley was already an experienced astronomer and he had duly calculated just how his chosen star should move against the more distant stars. He looked and looked, for several weeks - but the star didn't seem to move much in relation to the background stars. However, after a month or so, he finally saw that the star had moved a tiddly weeny bit. As he checked his calculations however, he realized - to his great dismay and astonishment - that the star had moved in the very opposite direction that he had predicted! Together with his assistant Molyneux (a very wealthy man who had financed their ambitious star-watching project), they feverishly checked and re-checked their equipment - but couldn't find anything wrong with it. The two inquisitive men were vexed and baffled. So they decided to undertake a massive survey of the skies, over several years. In all, they eventually looked at the motions of 200 other nearby stars and, to their growing consternation and distress, they found that ALL those stars were moving in the very opposite direction that they'd expected! Sadly, Molyneux soon passed away - stepping into his grave without an answer to the upsetting mystery. The task to resolve the pesky puzzle was thus left to Bradley. As the story goes, the solution to the riddle came to him during a boat trip on the river Thames.

Here's how the astronomy historian, Thony Christie - a.k.a. "thonyc" - recounts Bradley's "Eureka Moment" (in a blogpost dated 23-09-2020, that is, only two days ago):

"Molyneux died in 1728 before Bradley solved the puzzle. The solution is said to have come to Bradley during a boat trip on the Thames. When the boat changed direction, he noticed that the windvane on the mast also changed direction. This appeared to Bradley to be irrational, as the direction of the wind had not changed. He discussed the phenomenon with one of the sailors, who confirmed that this was always the case. The explanation is that the direction of the wind vane is a combination of the prevailing wind and the headwind created by the movement of the boat, so when the direction of the headwind changes the direction of the windvane also changes. Bradley realised that the direction of the light coming from the stars was affected in the same way by the movement of the Earth orbiting the Sun. He and Molyneux had discovered stellar aberration and the first empirical evidence of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun."
https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2020/09/23 ... -part-xlv/

To make a long saga short, Bradley (who was later promoted to Astronomer Royal) then concocted a fantastic theory which goes a bit like this: the stars are seen to move in the "wrong" direction (i.e. opposite to what we might expect if Earth revolves around the Sun) because the "light particles" they emit are just like raindrops slanting at an angle towards the face of a walking man. But let me quote again from the recent blogpost by the "Renaissance Mathematicus" Thony Christie :

"Bradley realised that the direction of the light coming from the stars was affected in the same way by the movement of the Earth orbiting the Sun. He and Molyneux had discovered stellar aberration and the first empirical evidence of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. The more common phenomenon used to explain aberration uses rain. When one is standing still the rain appears to fall vertically but when one in walking the rain appears to slant into one’s face at an angle. The same happens to starlight falling onto the moving Earth."

Fantastic, huh? Believe it or not, ladies & gents, but Bradley's "stellar aberration" poppycock theory is still today held by academia as one of the strongest empirical proofs in support of the heliocentric model which, of course, stipulates that Earth revolves at hypersonic speed around the Sun - along with the (utterly failed) Michelson-Morley and Dayton Miller interferometer experiments expressively meant to detect Earth's supposed 107,000 km/h orbital velocity (see my Appendix 40 titled "The many attempts to measure earth’s orbital speed and how they support earth’s velocity of 1.6 km/h as of the Tychos model").


Alright, so my bedtime story is now over. Sweet dreams. As you wake up tomorrow morning, you may wish to take a good look at this graphic I made today. Hopefully, with a good cup of tea or coffee in your hand, you'll readily see why the 18th-century Astronomer Royal James Bradley saw the stars moving in the "wrong" direction...




It never ceases to amaze me how the purported "definitive proofs" of the heliocentric theory have been based on empirical observations that contradict the same.

As I always like to say, dear friends, the TYCHOS won't go away. This said, you are free to keep hurtling around the Sun at 90X the speed of sound - if that's your thing.

***************************************************************************************************************************************************
For more detail about what James Bradley actually observed, please read my Tychos Appendix 5:
WHY THE STARS MOVE IN TROCHOIDAL LOOPS: http://septclues.com/TYCHOS%20Appendix% ... x%2005.pdf

[simonshack]

*

The other day, Patrik and I were interviewed by Nigel Howitt of the Lawful Rebel website.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V09MasmKxOY

Click here for full link to the video.

Please give a thumbs up on that video if you have a Youtube account.

[SacredCowSlayer]

*

The other day, Patrik and I were interviewed by Nigel Howitt of the Lawful Rebel website.
. . .
Please give a thumbs up on that video if you have a Youtube account.

Nice job my dear friends. I think the host did his homework and was able to get his head around the TYCHOS very quickly. Kudos to him for having each of you on his show.

I covered one eye as I scrolled to the comment section—not really sure what to expect. Clearly the plan of attack was to completely derail the topic, and start a “flat earth” war by placing the onus on you to explain things (e.g., “gas pressure without physical containment”) that are outside the scope of the TYCHOS model.

Then there was the dutiful troll who showed up to claim that Simon is a (yawn . . . you guessed it ) “9/11 gatekeeper,” and that this is his version of “flat earth.” As the host of the channel rightfully noted, it was a pure ad hominem attack. At this point, I’m truly not sure what we could possibly do to demonstrate the intellectual honesty and diligence that we are committed to on this forum.

There were also some thoughtful replies, and people that seemed open to actual thought and consideration—which was a hopeful sign. I see the challenge of trying to stick to what’s objectively verifiable, and stay away from collateral (though predictable) challenges (e.g., what about satellites?) to the research.

Keep up the excellent work my friends.

[patrix]

The TYCHOS year 3 in review

On Saturday the 20th of Mars at the Vernal Equinox, Simon's model of the planetary movements – The TYCHOS had its third birthday (of official release).

The work with Tychos the year 2020 has been slightly hampered by the Nutwork's latest circus called Corona. Nonetheless, tremendeous progress has been made. I recommend everyone to read the Appendices that Simon has produced and that will be used when writing the next edition of the Tychos book: http://septclues.com/TYCHOS%20Appendix%20folder/

There are also some video presentations and interviews available now. See below.

The TYCHOS model still stands unchallenged. Nothing has been put forward that disproves its geometrics as opposed to the current Helocentric model which requires both absurd geometry and physics.

Happy birthday TYCHOS!



full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyrNmOmJbEE

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V09MasmKxOY

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4QRCn_Ny1Q

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYaqxiNocy0

[simonshack]

The TYCHOS year 3 in review

On Saturday the 20th of Mars at the Vernal Equinox, Simon's model of the planetary movements – The TYCHOS had its third birthday (of official release).
Happy birthday TYCHOS!

By Jove, Patrik - you're right - the Sun has already revolved around us thrice since the TYCHOS book was released! Time flies!

But as I like to say, the TYCHOS is here to stay.

Stay tuned for my upcoming study of the wondrous Antikythera mechanism - which turns out to be an ancient Tychos-supporter!

[patrix]

Stay tuned for my upcoming study of the wondrous Antikythera mechanism - which turns out to be an ancient Tychos-supporter!

Can't wait Simon!

I've become interested in starwatching because of this gentlemans work https://www.starmythworld.com/
So I bought this book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stars ... o_See_Them
What's interesting with it is that the author gives us a new way to draw the constellations which makes them look like what they are called. And it's very strange that "modern astronomy" does not prefer these outlines since they make it so much easier to find and remember constellations. And as David Mathisen has discovered, with these outlines we can see that ancient art and stories depicts star constellations. As the author hints in the book: "It may even turn out that this new way [of drawing the constellations] is not so new after all"

And to relate to Antikythera mechanism and the TYCHOS. It may turn out that this model isn't so new after all... Not to take away any of the fact that you have discovered this model during almost a decade of hard and brilliant work Simon. This is the most significant astronomical discovery in 400 years. But that doesn't mean that thousands or even tens of thousands of years ago there wasn't perhaps an ancient civilization that had discovered this too.

[simonshack]

And to relate to Antikythera mechanism and the TYCHOS. It may turn out that this model isn't so new after all... Not to take away any of the fact that you have discovered this model during almost a decade of hard and brilliant work Simon. This is the most significant astronomical discovery in 400 years. But that doesn't mean that thousands or even tens of thousands of years ago there wasn't perhaps an ancient civilization that had discovered this too.

Dear Patrik,

It may well be that, thousands or tens of thousands of years ago, they had figured out our solar system to the same degree of accuracy as the TYCHOS model has (what with Earth's orbital speed of 1.6km/h). However, we have unfortunately no evidence (from antiquity) of this being the case. Yes, the Antikythera is a most stunning piece of engineering - but it would appear to be more like a precursor to Tycho Brahe's model (with a central, immobile Earth). Of course, it's hard to tell for sure, yet not even the sophisticated Antikythera mechanism could have possibly simulated the actual / physical motion of Earth around its PVP orbit - like the digital Tychosium simulator does... So let me take this occasion to thank YOU once more, Patrik, for your crucial and invaluable help in building the wondrous Tychosium 3D simulator - which may possibly deserve to be re-named as "The Modernythera"! Skål, min venn!

[glg]

Dear Simon, dear Patrix (if Patrix equals Patrick) and dear All

As still a short time clues member, I have ventured for the first time into the fascinating topic of the TYCHOS.
And WOW!
Yes I do have a certain pronounced bias towards, or rather against, contemporary scientific consensus and for the last year I saw myself drifting more and more and more towards the explanations of Stefan Lanka, in view of and confronted by, the germ-theory.
I admit, it took me almost a whole year, to not merely be subject to my bias in that respect but rather to become comfortable enough with those particular heretical concepts and consequently to argue quite freely along those lines and to discover on my own their absolute admissability.
Therefore I will withhold, at this for myself premature moment, undo praise towards the Tychos concept, but nevertheless I don't consider myself lazy or mentally corrupted in respect to trying to get towards the truth or at least towards the most relevant and elegant update to my outlook on life as it may be liable to intersect with society in general.
And therefore I am confident that this shall not be my last entry here on this thread, but then again... I noticed, that once so much thought and energy has gone into something relevant and has proven to be seemingly empirically transparent, that then there is really nothing much more to go on about quickly...
Unfortunately ¨silence¨ can be misinterpreted by those, who put their lifeblood into better and potentially lifesaving concepts and models of understanding, as an undue neglect on part of their peers.
Is it not advisable therefore for peers who are overwhelmed by a sudden onslaught of potentially very important subject matter, to continue to use another tried concept, namely common decency and show by hat tip, that the tried and tested thoughts of contemporaries are not in vain? I think Cluesforum is not much in danger of forgetting this common decency even adding a little more then a hat tip usually, but I think society at large may have a bit of a problem in that respect...
Anyway,
that said, I look forward into probing the Tychos a great deal more and what follows is just a small curiosity simply proving my dedication - my hat tip to you who must have been working very commitedly on this.
Now the following may look like a negative gesture towards the work here, but it is not, cannot be, it is really just a curiosity, just my chance at a hat tip.

Let me begin this little gesture with a quote:

In 1563, at the age of 17, Tycho observed a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn using a simple pair of compasses held close to his eye to measure the angle between the two planets on successive nights as the conjunction approached. On the morning of the 4th September they were so close together that no angle was discernible between them. Tycho was dismayed to find that the old Alphonsine Tables were a whole month in error regarding the timing of the conjunction and even the Prutentic Tables were wrong by several days. This was the beginning of his lifelong devotion to precise observation.

What a neat introduction to Tycho Brahes quest for precise and empirical observation - isn't it?
Except, the TYCHOS proves him WRONG!
Now before I continue, I am not in posession of historical data here , this claim to historical legend, I found here:
http://skyscript.co.uk/brahe.html

So, just fooling aroud with the TYCHOS and aware that purportedly Galilei around half a century later observed with the help of a telescope, the second to last ¨great conjunction¨ of Jupiter and Saturn before December 2020, I typed the date 1563-09-04 into the TYCHOS as suggested by the above quote.
The results looked good on first glance, but I decided to draw a line between Earth and Saturn hopefully intersecting Jupiter and I missed Jupiter by what has to be considered a long shot.
Now I went back to the quote, remembering either the Alphonsine Tables or the Prutentic Tables spoken about there as guides for Brahes purportedly more accurate observation.
It was not explained if I had to go one month or mere days beyond September 4th or preceding that date to test those tables against Brahe, so I tried both, one moths backwards, one month forwards - showing you, how unfamiliar and therefore lacking in good spontaneity I still am about those movements.
Anyway, on the 4th of August, maybe a few days less or more, the conjunction showed way more pronounced and Earth, Jupiter and Saturn could be neatly traced along a line.
I found that fascinating and I asked myself what the f.ck are those Alphonsine Tables ?
Yet it doesn't really matter here at this point except that according to the TYCHOS those tables were accurate and Brahe according to the above quote, off.
Obviously Brahe's system is not to be considered under such happenstace scrutiny and if anything, this little forray into the TYCHOS and Brahe should only accelerate curiosity beyond our current dogmas taught in school.

Oh, and a perhaps quite interesting Edit:
On around the 10. of August 1563 Venus would additionally have been in conjunction with Jupiter and Saturn according to the TYCHOS.. albeit making the 10. of August that year in respect to the Jupiter Saturn conjunction the most likely candidate and perhaps Venus obstructing or bothering Brahes eyesight made him unsure - but perhaps i'm reading the TYCHOS wrong and have been talking out my ass for all of this...?

I would not be curious enough if also I did't add this Edit:
Seems I didn't post enough of the quote above, which, read carefully, may suggest that the copernican modell is more correct, but only if one checks, like it did, by way of the TYCHOSIUM or perhaps a heliocetric Stellarium.
Let me post the whole paragraph from which I took above quote and consider therewith my argument or rather my little discovery as pertains to Brahes alleged dismay.

Tycho's awe at astronomers' predictions of celestial events turned to disillusion as his own observational skills developed. The standard Alphonsine Tables, based upon Ptolemy's theory of planetary motion, had been computed in the mid-13th century by Arabic and Jewish astronomers working for King Alphonso the Wise of Castile. With the invention of the printing press they became the first set of planetary tables widely available in Europe. More recently they had been superseded by the Prutentic Tables (1551) compiled by Erasmus Rheinhold and the Ephemerides Novae (1556) of Johannes Stadius, both of which were based upon the new heliocentric theory of Copernicus. In 1563, at the age of 17, Tycho observed a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn using a simple pair of compasses held close to his eye to measure the angle between the two planets on successive nights as the conjunction approached. On the morning of the 4th September they were so close together that no angle was discernible between them. Tycho was dismayed to find that the old Alphonsine Tables were a whole month in error regarding the timing of the conjunction and even the Prutentic Tables were wrong by several days. This was the beginning of his lifelong devotion to precise observation.

Could it be, that this is a trick in discounting Brahes computational faculties? Computational faculties nevertheless which he supposedly was only to evolve after this incident. If Brahe is made to look like a bad observer from the onset, then this certainly helps in throwing into question his theory, his modell.
That's why I said, the link which I quote has no historical reference cited, yet now I am also curious if I am doing Brahe injustice by misreading the data on the Tychosium...

[glg]

Sorry for this lengthy babble upstairs - a bit much for a mere hat tip I know.
But I was getting excited using the TYCHOSIUM 3.

I presume things are very different viewing celestial occurences from earth through a telescope then viewing same occurence by way of the TYCHOSIUM.
The problem that got me started in writing the above, is that I used the date of the last ¨great conjunction¨ i.e. 2020-12-21 and then traced a line from Earth through to Saturn which happened to perfectly intersect Jupiter. This made me assume, that to find a ¨great conjunction¨ I would merely need to repeat that perfect intersect for any presumed date of a ¨great cojunction¨.
As so happens the date 2020-12-21 seems to be an exception rather then the rule for that perfect intersect, because if I try other dates, say the one for the presumed (according to wiki) next gc 2040-11-04, there is no perfect intersect I can trace on the TYCHOSIUM and Jupiter is still rather far off the line. If I use SCOPE on the other hand the intersect does occur on that presumed next gc even if slightly off kilter.
So my question is, what does this tell me? ... Since I would like to test the TYCHOSIUM a bit on its predictive qualities.

Edit: as I come to understand, the TYCHOSIUM may not be exact as to the movement of Jupiter and Saturn. Of course this is also not the initial purpose of the TYCHOSIUM which is a visual tool in support of the TYCHOS.
As the movement of Jupiter and Saturn doesn't realy pertain to understanding the worth of the TYCHOS, I am sorry to have written my initial post here and would like to propose it derailed. Nevertheless, if I am right, that the movements of Jupiter and Saturn are slightly off in the TYCHOSIUM , perhaps that detail can be fixed?

[simonshack]

Dear glg,

Thanks for your most welcome verifications of the Tychosium simulator - your time & effort is much appreciated! In fact, ANY help towards refining the Tychosium 3D simulator is very much welcome. Please know however that the Tychosium simulator is still a work in progress and that I'm by no means claiming to have completed its fine-tuning process - or the secular motions of each and every planet. I should probably / ideally keep a diary of the ongoing progress - but please bear with us (Patrik and I) as we gradually refine and update it. I am, for instance, well aware of the extant inaccuracies regarding Jupiter and Saturn; my last update of the two goes back several months ago and, in the meantime, I've been working on other aspects of the Tychos model. In due time though, I will get back to them - and I'm confident that I'll be able to adjust / improve their relative orbital motions and conjunctions; it really is all about finding their exact, relative eccentricities in relation to Earth and, as crazy as it may sound, this can only be achieved by a trial & error process. After all, Patrik and I are just two individuals trying our best to piece together a puzzle (the actual geometric configuration of our Solar System) that has defied the ingenuity and computational skills of scores of thinkers over the centuries. So far though, I think we've made some excellent headway - particularly with Mars, Venus, Mercury and the Moon.

Note regarding that Jupiter-Saturn conjunction of "1563-09-04" witnessed by Tycho Brahe: please know that this date actually corresponds (on all existing modern planetariums) to 1563-08-25. This, because 10 days "vanished" between October 4 and October 15, 1582 as the Gregorian calendar correction was implemented.

"The pope who “disappeared” 10 calendar days" : https://aleteia.org/2017/04/12/the-pope ... ndar-days/

Also, regarding the 2040 JUP-SAT conjunction, there seems to be some debate among astronomers as to when exactly it will take place:

On Wikipedia, we can read that : "The most recent great conjunction occurred on 21 December 2020, and the next will occur on 4 November 2040."

Whereas on (for instance) the EarthSky website we can read that: "Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions happen every 20 years. The last one took place on May 28, 2000. The next one after 2020 will come on October 31, 2040."

As you can see, even 'officialdom' has its problems when it comes to predict the JUP-SAT conjunctions.

[simonshack]

Edit: as I come to understand, the TYCHOSIUM may not be exact as to the movement of Jupiter and Saturn. Of course this is also not the initial purpose of the TYCHOSIUM which is a visual tool in support of the TYCHOS.
As the movement of Jupiter and Saturn doesn't realy pertain to understanding the worth of the TYCHOS, I am sorry to have written my initial post here and would like to propose it derailed. Nevertheless, if I am right, that the movements of Jupiter and Saturn are slightly off in the TYCHOSIUM , perhaps that detail can be fixed?

Dear glg,

No need to be sorry ! On the contrary, I sincerely thank you for inspiring me to spend some more time fine-tuning the secular motions of Jupiter & Saturn in the Tychosium 3D simulator. I've made some good progress -as you may now verify for yourself. https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd

For instance, the two JUP-SAT conjunctions of 1563 and 2040 that you mentioned (which admittedly were slightly "off" in the Tychosium up until last week) are now fixed - and so are most of the JUP-SAT conjunctions over the centuries. (Keep in mind that even official astronomy data occasionally disagree regarding the dates of JUP-SAT conjunctions - such as is the case with the predicted conjunction of 2040 ).

1563-08-25 at 17:48UTC (as notoriously observed by Tycho Brahe. Remember that some history books report this date as "1563-09-04", but this is due them failing to account for the 10 days that 'disappeared' in 1582 due to the Gregorian calendar reform).
2040-10-31 at 11:14UTC (as predicted by the EarthSky website - in contrast with Wikipedia which has it occurring on 2040-11-04)

The work is in progress - and it IS progressing.