Proving the TYCHOS model with 3D modelling

Simon Shack's (Tycho Brahe-inspired) geoaxial binary system. Discuss the book and website for the most accurate configuration of our solar system ever devised - which soundly puts to rest the geometrically impossible Copernican-Keplerian model.

Re: Proving the TYCHOS model with 3D modelling

Postby PianoRacer on May 29th, 2018, 6:51 am

After my last post, I was curious so I did some googling to see if the data I was interested in was available in the format I wanted it (CSV or similar). Turns out it is, and it also turns out, somewhat to my surprise, that NASA is useful for something besides bad sci-fi theater after all! They make data of all of the stellar objects available for download for free with a myriad of options here:

I was able to get the exact data I was looking for in CSV format, specifically the longitude, latitude and diameter of all of the planets, the Sun and the Moon for the dates 2000-2100.

Wanting to investigate the data graphically, I imported the CSV data into a database and used a graphing tool to put it all on a time-series graph. Here are the results:

All planets: Image
Sun & Moon: Image
Tychos Planets: Image
Tychos Planets Zoomed In: Image
Sun & Moon Zoomed In: Image

I was very happy with the results. I've had a lot of fun playing around with the data and visualizing it in different ways, comparing orbits, diameters, etc. It helps me understand what's happening up there a bit better.

Next, I modified the Tychosium 2D code to output the longitude of each available planet (plus the Sun) in CSV format. This was surprisingly easy - all the points were already there, and a JavaScript funtion to calculate an angle was a cut & paste job. You can see the code I used on my CodePen project (it's currently commented out - it was a bit of a hack job.)

I imported the Tychosium data into my database and added it to the same graphs as the JPL data. I was delighted to see that the data matched up very closely. The results of each object (Sun, Mercury, Venus and Mars) are below.

Tychos Sun Comparison: Image

The Sun longitude given in Tychos is very close to reality, with an error range compared to the JPL data between +2.5 and -4 degrees for a total error range of 6.5 degrees.

Tychos Mars Comparison: Image

Mars also matched very closely, including hitting all of the retrogrades on the correct dates, although the retrogrades are when Tychos deviated the most from JPL. Error ranged from +15 degrees to -6 degrees for a total error range of 21 degrees.

Tychos Mercury Comparison: Image

Mercury also lines up well but has problems with some of the retrogrades, missing some entirely (retrogrades occur when the longitude line goes down). Range was +25 to -25 for a total error range of 50 degrees, again with the biggest discrepancies occuring during the retrogrades.

Tychos Venus Comparison: Image

Venus once again lines up fairly well. Range was +7.5 to -7.5 for a total error range of 15 degrees.

All series combined: Image

I do notice that the average error is very close to zero across all four objects, which shows how close to the JPL data the Tychos data is.

I hope that this analysis was somewhat useful. Unless I am missing something, it appears that Tychosium 2d lines up extremely well with JPL data, with some possible tweaking needing to happen with some of the Mercury retrogrades. If I am somehow misinterpreting or misrepresenting the data - please let me know. The fact that the data matched up so very closely, and the process was relatively straightforward, leaves me fairly confident that the graphs (and the data behind them) are accurate, but please point out where I may have gone astray.

Once again I appreciate the work Simon and Patrix have put into Tychosium 2d - that I was so easily able to extract the data I needed is a testament to the quality of the software they have written, and making it available for all to see and tinker with helps keep things transparent and my analysis would not have been possible without it. I would love to see the remaining planets added so that I can perform a similar analysis.

All the best,
Posts: 50
Joined: November 10th, 2016, 2:13 am

Re: Proving the TYCHOS model with 3D modelling

Postby patrix on May 29th, 2018, 12:10 pm

Thank you PR. This is just great. So valuable. Yes I believe most data we find on NASA and other official sources is correct. If it weren’t independent astronomers would complain that their own observations don’t match it. And even an Copernican orrery can be correct in terms of the planets positions in respect to each other if I’m not mistaken. But as Simon has discovered - when star positions and declinations are verified against the Copernican model there are big problems.

Yes I could add the outer planets to Tychosium 2D and will do eventually, but if you’d like to beat me to it by all means go ahead PR. Maybe you can find the correct values for orbit size and such as well. Otherwise I believe Simon can help you. One thing that I’m not clear about however is that if it’s according to Tychos is the Sun that is the orbit center of the outer planets or the Earth or the virtual orbit center/barycenter that Earth orbits. Perhaps Simon can straighten this out?
Posts: 292
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: Proving the TYCHOS model with 3D modelling

Postby simonshack on June 3rd, 2018, 10:47 pm

Pianoracer wrote: I would love to see the remaining planets added so that I can perform a similar analysis.

Dear Pianoracer and Patrik,

The question of our so-called "outer / or superior planets" (from Jupiter outwards) is something I'm still working on. In my TYCHOS book, I call them "P-type planets" - because this is how modern-day astrophysicists have named such circumbinary objects (which revolve around binary systems). As you know, the VAST MAJORITY (up to 85% and counting) of the single points of light (that we see in our skies) that we call "a star" are, in fact double stars / binary systems. Now, here's how the "P-type" planets are described at this Austrian astronomy website (please disregard those highly-elliptical shapes of the orbits depicted in their diagram!):

"P-Type: A planet stays in an orbit around both stars."
Image (In the TYCHOS, "Star 1" would be Mars and "Star 2" would be the Sun. Jupiter would be a "P-type" object.) ... orbin.html

The question is: if Jupiter passes MUCH closer to Earth at opposition (as it does according to the Copernican model), why doesn't it appear MUCH larger?

"In practice, however, Jupiter orbits much further out in the solar system than the Earth – at an average distance from the Sun of 5.20 that of the Earth, and so its angular size does not vary much as it cycles between opposition and solar conjunction."

Hmm... Jupiter's angular size "doesn't vary much as it cycles between opposition and solar conjunction?" Well, that's very strange. Consider this: according to current theory, Jupiter is meant to be about as much as 380 Mkm (or 2.54 AU) closer to Earth as it transits in opposition - than when it is in conjunction with the Sun. Whereas Mars is meant to be about 342.6 Mkm (or 2.29 AU) closer to Earth as it transits in opposition - than when it is in conjunction with the Sun (i.e. "in apogee").

In other words, Jupiter's apparent size should vary by roughly about as much as Mars (or more). Yet, here's what we could read not so long ago (back in the early 19th century), in the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"A superior planet is in apogee when in conjunction with the sun, and in perigee when in opposition; and every one of the superior planets is at its least possible distance from the earth where it is in perigee and perihelion at the same time. Their apparent diameters are variable, according to their distances, like those of the inferior planets; and this, as might naturally be expected, is most remarkable in the planet Mars, who is nearest us. In his nearest approach, this planet is 25 times larger than when farthest off, Jupiter twice and a half, and Saturn once and a half."

Evidently, something doesn't add up here: if Mars can appear to be 25 X larger as it transits in opposition, how could Jupiter possibly appear to be only 2.5 X larger (than when it is in conjunction with the Sun)? To be sure, modern astronomy has concocted a series of ad hoc "explanations" for these optical aberrations which, once more, challenge the limits of our natural senses.

In the TYCHOS, of course, Mars (our Sun's binary companion) truly transits far closer to Earth at opposition than when it is in conjunction with the Sun (circa 56.6 Mkm versus 400Mkm). My best guess at this moment is that Jupiter orbits much like all known "P-type planets" (observed to revolve around other binary star systems) - and circles around an orbit which is only slightly off-center from our Sun-Mars binary system's barycenter (same goes for our other "P-type" planets, i.e. Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto), and this is why Jupiter doesn't look much larger when it transits in so-called "opposition" - i.e. closest to Earth.
Posts: 6549
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy


Return to The TYCHOS model

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests