Introducing the TYCHOS

[simonshack]

*

WIKIPEDIA'S PROBLEM WITH EARTH'S SO-CALLED "LUNISOLAR WOBBLE"

Perhaps the most dramatic problem of the Copernican heliocentric theory is that - incredibly enough - it actually lacks an explanation for the most undeniable fact observed in our skies, namely, what is commonly-known as the "Precession of the Equinoxes".

Here's a brief (conventional) "explanation" of what has historically been referred to as "the Precession of the Equinoxes":
https://www.universetoday.com/77640/pre ... equinoxes/

In simple words, what is observed is that ALL THE STARS in our skies appear to slip "backwards" (i.e. from West to East) by about 50.3 arcseconds every year. This, in relation to any earthly observer - or, if you will, in relation to the Sun. To wit, this is also directly related to the fact that our Northern stars change over time (currently star Polaris is our North star - but about 4500 years ago, star Thuban was our North star).

Now, according to the Copernican theory, this would be caused by a slow, clockwise*, wobbling of Earth - a.k.a. "Earth's 3d motion". As the theory goes, Earth revolves counterclockwise around the Sun - and rotates counterclockwise around its axis... yet this axial rotation would also somehow have a (very slow) clockwise motion... That's right, we are told that "Earth is like a spinning top which, as it slows down, starts wobbling from side to side before it falls over". Well - but uh - common sense dictates that such a wobble cannot possibly gyrate in the opposite direction of a spinning top's rotation!

*(Please understand that, by convention, the terms "clockwise" and "counterclockwise" refer to the motions of our solar system as viewed from above our solar system - i.e. as if we were hovering above Earth's North Pole and looking down.)

A spinning top about to fall over:
(rotation: counterclockwise / wobble: counterclockwise).
source: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precessio ... i_equinozi

Now, here's an illustration from the Italian Wikipedia entry for "Precessione degli Equinozi" :


I trust that anyone can see the absurdity of this Copernican contention - or if not, please try and explain JUST HOW this clockwise wobble could physically occur. To be sure, the "Lunisolar wobble" theory is - still today - the official explanation for our Northern stars to slowly alternate (from Polaris to Vega and back to Polaris over a timespan of about 25,000 years).

I then had to laugh heartily when reading that Italian Wikipedia page. As you will know, Wikipedia allows editors to comment on any specific, questionable claims - and to "flag" the same with a request for clarification. Well, in this case - here's what some (smart) editor has complained about:

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precessio ... i_equinozi

My best translation of the above Wikipedia text:

Clockwise precession of the Earth's axis

The fact that the precession motion of the Earth is clockwise while that of rotation on itself is counterclockwise is not in contrast with the example of the spinning top. In fact, if the Earth were straight and a force tried to tilt it, then it would develop a motion of counterclockwise precession, in the same direction as the rotation on itself, just as in the case of the spinning top.

In this case, however, the opposite situation occurs: the Earth is inclined and a force tends to straighten it, giving rise to a clockwise precession motion, contrary to the counterclockwise direction of rotation of the Earth. [this lacks an explanation for the exact reason why the direction of rotation of the precession is opposite to that expected by common logic] < !!!.

Of course, in the TYCHOS model, the "Precession of the Equinoxes" is explained - in the simplest and most "economical" manner - by Earth's clockwise motion as it proceeds at 1mph (or 1.6 km/h) around its PVP orbit (Polaris-Vega-Polaris). An exemplary Occam's razor solution if there ever was one...
The TYCHOSIUM: https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd

"Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami); further known as the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae) is the problem-solving principle that essentially states that simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor


***********
Note: The Copernican "Lunisolar wobble" theory has, in later years, been definitively disproved by a number of proficient independent researchers - as described in Chapter 18 of my book. The supposed "wobble" of Earth cannot exist since this would, for instance (and among other problems), also affect the periodicity of the transits of Venus and Mercury across the Sun's disc - as well as the periodicity of our seasonal meteor showers, something which is NOT observed. https://www.tychos.info/chapter-18/

[simonshack]

*

The WONDROUS "SYNCHRONICITIES" of the Sun/Earth/Moon trio

A string of remarkable synchronicities (for lack of a better term) emerge when comparing the respective rotations and revolutions of Earth, the Sun and the Moon.

They are remarkable in the sense that, if viewed through the COPERNICAN "lens", it becomes extremely difficult to fathom why those multiple (and apparently "coincidental") synchronicities would exist. After all, if Earth is just one of several planets circling the Sun (along with our Moon), it would seem to be a quite quaint circumstance that these three separate celestial bodies would have such "commensurate" (or "resonant") gyrational periods - as I will henceforth illustrate.

Firstly, one has to wonder why the Sun rotates around its axis in the same amount of time (ca 27.3 days - see "Carrington number") that our Moon revolves around its orbit (ca 27.3 days). Did you know this, dear reader? In any case, it is an empirically-observable fact. We can see sunspots on the Sun - and they tell us how long it takes for the Sun to rotate around its axis (about 27.3 days). As for our Moon, we can easily observe it returning to the "same place" (in about 27.3 days).

Let's see how this would look like - under the TYCHOS model's configuration :

Figure 1: The Sun and Moon's 27.3-days synchronicity - as viewed in the TYCHOS model :

Source of Carrington quote: https://books.google.it/books?id=btOgDA ... am&f=false

Not that many people are aware of this fact, mind you: as far as I know (and after having read volumes of astronomy literature over the years) this has never been pointed out - nor much less debated - in any cosmological study! Incredibly enough, you might say...

Let's now see how this Sun-Moon relationship would look like - under the COPERNICAN model's configuration :

Figure 2: The Sun and Moon's 27.3-days synchronicity - as viewed in the COPERNICAN model :


The thing is, if our Moon were just one among dozens of moons (Jupiter's moons, Saturn's moons, etc) circling the Sun, why would only one of these (our own Moon) have such an "intimate relationship" with the Sun? Conversely, if our Moon were instead central to the Sun's orbit (as of the TYCHOS model - see Figure 1), you may agree that this observable fact would suddenly appear to make far more "intuitive sense"- and not only philosophically speaking.

Let us now cross-compare the respective rotational speeds of the Sun, Earth and the Moon.

Rotational speed of Sun: 6675 km/h

Rotational speed of Earth: 1670 km/h

Rotational speed of Moon: 16.68 km/h

We see that:

The Sun's rotational speed is near-exactly 4X Earth's rotational speed (6675/1670 ≈ 4)

The Sun's rotational speed is near-exactly 400X our Moon's rotational speed (6675/16.68 ≈ 400)

[Also, Earth's rotational speed is near-exactly 100X our Moon's rotational speed (1670/16.68 ≈ 100) - and the Moon's rotational speed is about 10X the orbital speed of Earth (16.68/1.601669 ≈ 10)]

One truly has to ask oneself : WHY would our little Moon have such an "intimate / synchronous gyrational relationship" with the Sun - if it were only one of many moons circling around the Sun?

On the other hand, if our Earth & Moon are circling in the middle of the Sun's orbit (as of the TYCHOS model), this all becomes a decidedly less mysterious affair: the Sun, Earth and the Moon share such "synchronicities" simply because they ALL share the same rotational center (unlike the Copernican heliocentric paradigm).

Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami); further known as the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae) is the problem-solving principle that essentially states that simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

The TYCHOS model is your Occam's razor explanation for the observed behavior of our surrounding cosmos. I can only hope that people will seriously consider this - before my allotted time on this wonderful planet runs out. I need no prizes or accolades as rewards for my efforts: a mere reviewing-process of my model among knowledgeable astronomers (or/and intellectually honest individuals) will suffice. As of today, it hasn't even started - yet, sorry to say, folks... the TYCHOS won't go away.

[simonshack]

*

IMPORTANT POSTILLA / CLARIFICATION

This is a due clarification of my latest post in a separate thread, "Is Betelgeuse roughly the same size as our Sun?"


Of course - and to clarify - I'm not adamant that my 42633 stellar-distance reduction factor is absolutely correct (I may be 'crazy' but I'm not a fool). My point is only that Tycho Brahe might well have been more correct than the Copernicans - as he argued for reasonably-sized stars and rejected the idea of "supergiant stars" dwarfing our Sun to a quite insignificant, teeny-weeny little star. Moreover, today we know that most (over 85% and counting) of our visible stars are 'locked' in double / binary systems, i.e. they revolve (in intersecting orbits and around their common center of mass) around a smaller companion in relatively short orbital periods (examples: Sirius A and B: 50.1 years / Alpha Centauri A and B : 79 years / Polaris A and B: 29 years / etc. etc.). Some even have far shorter orbital periods - of months, weeks, days or hours, but none are known to have a super-duper-gigantic orbit lasting anywhere near 240 MILLION years - as our Sun is claimed to have! According to Copernicans, the Sun would thus be the ONLY known star which lacks a "local" orbit of its own (while hurtling around our galaxy at 800,000 km/h!) - unlike the vast majority of (double) stars we see in our skies, a most unlikely proposition form a purely probabilistic viewpoint.


To wit, Tycho Brahe's own geoheliocentric model featured the Sun and Mars revolving around each other (in intersecting orbits - much like all known double/binary star systems. At the time (late 16th century), Brahe didn't know about the existence of double stars, since the first pair was only discovered about 50 years after his death by Giovanni Battista Riccioli. In our days, modern astronomers keep discovering new double / binary star systems almost on a daily basis - so it is not beyond possibility that the remaining 15% of "single stars" do, in fact, have a binary companion (which is simply too small & faint to be observed even with our best modern instruments). Of course, were this the case (and 100% of our visible stars eventually turn out to be members of double / or multiple systems), our Sun would then be the ONLY single star in our universe - a most absurd notion if there ever was one! The Copernican theory will then - hopefully - die a natural death and be logically discarded for good (unless human intelligence is a dead-born baby).


Here are the models of Tycho Brahe and Pathani Samanta (India's greatest naked-eye observational astronomer who also reached the same conclusion as Brahe):



And here is the TYCHOS, my proposed completion of their work - featuring the "missing piece of the puzzle", i.e. Earth's PVP orbit :



In later months, Patrik and I have been hard at work refining the TYCHOSIUM 3D, an interactive digital "planetarium" which simulates the TYCHOS geoheliocentric model 3-dimensionally. To our delight, it is (slowly but surely) turning out to be a most remarkably accurate machine - insofar as it correctly tracks the motions of our solar system's bodies to a high level of precision. Lately, I have spent days / weeks patiently testing it against numerous existing tables (i.e. observational data from about the mid-16th century and predictions thereof well beyond the year 2000) of planetary conjunctions / transits / oppositions / eclipses, etc. and the results have been extremely satisfactory (as it is, way beyond my expectations). In any event, we have proven beyond any doubt that the TYCHOS model is a totally feasible geometric / mechanical configuration of our solar system - something which cannot be said about the Copernican model (as demonstrated in Chapter 7 of my book).

The first "definitive" version of the TYCHOSIUM should hopefully be scheduled for release sometime this year, so stay tuned my dear friends... Soon however (on the 24th of February), Patrik and I will be presenting the TYCHOSIUM 3D at a public event in Gothenburg- for the first time. So please, dear fellow Swedes, try to make time for this event - which won't be televised nor youtubed (according to my perhaps objectionable wishes). Hopefully, I won't make a mess of the presentation - what with my rusty Swedish (and poor knowledge of Swedish astronomy terms...).That's all for now, dear readers and friends - wish us luck, if you will!

[simonshack]

*
Hey all,

I'm off to Sweden tomorrow (have packed my suitcase and given instructions to my friends about how to feed my dog). Will anyone wish me luck?

[michiganj]

Best of luck Simon to both you and Patrik! And kick some Copernican ass !

[patrix]

Best of luck Simon to both you and Patrik! And kick some Copernican ass !

Thank you! :-) And as I just said to a colleague who I invited to our presentation - Sometimes you get a crazy idea. Something that's completely unlikely. For example, that the Solar system model we currently hold as true can be incorrect.

What we do then (naturally) is to look for evidence that can dismiss it. I've done that the past year, and failed. What I've found during my investigation is instead that historic and current evidence supports Simon’s model.

Which in turn means that this is not just a crazy idea, but one of the most important discoveries in modern history. So, thank you Simon for keeping this “crazy” idea in your head . . . investigating it, and making this discovery.

The first "definitive" version of the TYCHOSIUM should hopefully be scheduled for release sometime this year, so stay tuned my dear friends...

I like deadlines sometimes. It gives you an aim, so let's make this official - The scheduled release for TYCHOSIUM 3D will be Wednesday the 20th of March. A fitting date since the TYCHOS was released on the vernal equinox last year.

[simonshack]

*

I've been asked on several occasions in the past months to compile a selection of the most salient aspects of the TYCHOS model that distinguishes it from the Copernican one - describing the principal / most compelling motives why the former should be preferred over the latter. I have promised to do so whenever I would feel fully confident & satisfied with the TYCHOS, with its core principles and overall soundness - as well as with a series of obligatory cross-verifications with observational realities, something which I can now happily say to be. So here we go.

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



ASTRONOMICAL PUZZLES RESOLVED BY THE TYCHOS MODEL
- and why the Copernican theory needs to be definitively discarded



Image: a screenshot from the TYCHOSIUM 3D Interactive Planetarium: https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd

It is a commonly-held misconception that the heliocentric theory (as proposed by Copernicus and Kepler many centuries ago) has, by now, been fully confirmed as the only true and correct system of our World. All honest astronomers and cosmologists will earnestly admit that many empirical / observational realities remain unaccounted for, or/and lack a solid and wholly satisfactory explanation.

A long series of longstanding (yet to this day unsettled) riddles & mysteries of astronomy are shown to be effectively resolved and / or elucidated by the core principles of the TYCHOS model. Here is a condensed compendium of its more significant argumentations, discoveries and logically-formulated conclusions - [each followed by indications of the Chapters of my TYCHOS book where they are more extensively expounded and illustrated].



- Why only Mercury and Venus have no moons. In the TYCHOS, Mercury and Venus are moonless simply because they ARE (the Sun’s) moons.“No "moons of moons" or subsatellites (natural satellites that orbit a natural satellite of a planet) are currently known as of 2019.“ (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_satellite). Also, it is hardly a coincidence that Mercury and Venus rotate around their axes at “walking paces”, respectively 3X and 6X slower than our Moon (that is 5.5 km/h and 2.7 km/h). None of our planets rotate anywhere near that slowly (e.g. Jupiter: 43000 km/h and Saturn: 35000 km/h). [see Chapter 3]

- Why our surrounding planets (and moons) retrograde periodically the way they do. Current explanations for those retrograde motions (and their irregular periods) are shown to be inadequate, implausible or outright impossible. The TYCHOS provides geometrically rigorous and empirically-supported demonstrations for these all-important observed phenomena which have puzzled our world’s astronomers for millennia. [see Chapters 8 and 9]

- The reason why Venus - and only Venus – may appear (to Copernican observers) to rotate around its axis in a clockwise direction (it does not: it rotates counterclockwise - just like all of its companions in our solar system). [see Chapter 11]

- Why our Moon appears to be the “central driveshaft” of our entire solar system (what with its 29.22-day mean synodic period) - a fact which would seem utterly mysterious under the Copernican model’s heliocentric configuration: why would our Moon’s period be reflected (in exact integer multiples) and thus be resonant with all of our system’s celestial bodies? In the TYCHOS, this becomes a far less mysterious affair - since our Moon revolves around Earth, located at the center of our Sun-Mars binary system. [see Chapter 15]

- Why our Moon regularly lines up with the same star every 27.3 days. If Earth and the Moon hurtled at 107226 km/h around the Sun (as of heliocentric theory), they would both travel by about 70 million km every 27.3 days. Yet, the Moon is observed to conjunct with the same star every 27.3 days! In the TYCHOS, this is no mystery - since Earth moves at "snail pace". (Note: 27.3 days is also, remarkably, the time employed by the Sun to rotate once around its own axis). [see Chapter 27]

- The reason for the “precession of the equinoxes”(the observed, annual ‘retrograde’ / eastward drift of the stars) - and why our North stars change over time (as well-documented ever since antiquity). As has been proven by a number of recent studies, Earth does not slowly “wobble” - as claimed - in the opposite direction of its axial rotation (a most bizarre and unphysical hypothesis). Hence, the Copernican theory is left - incredibly enough - without an explanation for the aforementioned, indisputable observations. In the TYCHOS, what is known today as the “General (or Stellar) Precession” is simply caused by Earth’s slow, clockwise motion around its 25344-year circular PVP orbit (Polaris-Vega-Polaris).[see Chapters 18 and 19]

- Why our Main asteroid belt is located between Mars and Jupiter (and why it came into existence) - and why we have another one about ten times more distant (the Kuiper belt). Modern astronomers have recently discovered that numerous binary star systems also have similar asteroid twin belts (also separated at an approximate 1:10 distance ratio!) [see Chapter 14]

- Why the solar day is longer than the sidereal day – and the solar year is shorter than the sidereal year (two facts that still lack a satisfactory explanation under the Copernican theory’s geometric layout). [see Chapter 23]

- The reasons for the curious 8-shaped analemma traced by the Sun (and the motives for our need of the “Equation of Time”). The analemma turns out to be Earth’s “speedometer”, since it reflects the orbital velocity of Earth (1.6km/h) - as mathematically demonstrated in the TYCHOS. To be sure, current theory lacks a scientific explanation for the apparent solar accelerations / decelerations: since the Sun is undeniably observed to “accelerate” (which, in the Copernican model, would be equivalent to Earth speeding up) between June and mid-July, i.e. when Earth is furthest from the Sun, the core principles of Kepler’s and Newton’s famous “laws” (of motion and gravitation) are categorically falsified – in one fell swoop. This, because their “laws” predict that Earth will slow down as it transits furthest from the Sun - i.e. the opposite of what is observed. [see Chapter 26]

- Why Kepler (erroneously) concluded that all planetary orbits must be elliptical – and that planets regularly speed up and slow down. In the TYCHOS, all orbits are uniformly circular – and all celestial bodies travel at constant speeds. Since they all revolve around Earth (which always slowly proceeds in roughly the “same direction”), they will alternately travel in the same or in the opposite direction of Earth’s motion. This creates the “space-time” illusion that Kepler fell for. [see Chapter 26]

- The failures of the Michelson-Morley experiments - and all other similar interferometer studies which vainly attempted to detect the supposed hypersonic motion of Earth through the ether and around the Sun. The near-null velocities (or even ‘negative’ speeds) recorded by all these advanced experiments would appear to support the notion of a “near-zero” (1mph) orbital speed of Earth – as proposed by the TYCHOS. Michelson is even quoted as saying that he “thought of the possibility that the solar system as a whole might have moved in the opposite direction to the Earth”. This is, of course, precisely what Earth does in the TYCHOS model: it moves (very slowly) in the opposite direction of the orbital motions of our Sun and planets! [see Chapter 19]

- James Bradley’s “aberration of light”(a convoluted theory subsequently falsified by “Airy’s failure”) was yet another attempt to rescue the Copernican theory from its looming demise. The peculiar annual motion of the stars (which were found to progress in wholly unexpected manner under the heliocentric theory) is simply due to the "tear-shaped" trochoidal curve - i.e. their moving frame of reference - around which earthly observers revolve every year. Bradley’s acclaimed “definitive proof of Earth’s revolution around the Sun” is thus roundly falsified. [see Chapter 34]

- The “anomalous precession of Mercury’s perihelion” (which purportedly corroborated Einstein’s theory of General Relativity - and made him a world-famous celebrity overnight). The TYCHOS shows that there is no such anomaly - and that the (seemingly inexplicable) extra 43”-per-century precession of Mercury’s perihelion is nothing but a natural and demonstrable corollary of the mercurial precession (in relation to the "fixed" starry background) caused by Earth’s 1-mph motion around its PVP orbit. [see end of Chapter 28]

- Why Ole Roemer’s famous observations of Jupiter’s moon “Io” were illusory. Roemer is credited of having first (roughly) estimated the speed of light. In the TYCHOS, it is shown that “Io” will logically employ a few more minutes transiting behind Jupiter when our largest planet proceeds in prograde motion - than when it moves in retrograde motion. Hence, Roemer’s famed estimate of the speed of light (a widely celebrated one in spite of being about 33% slower than the currently-held value) was spurious. [see end of Chapter 8]

- Why both Mars and the Sun exhibit peculiar 79-year cycles - a little-known fact which, under the Copernican model, could only be attributed to some bizarre “coincidence”. Under the TYCHOS paradigm, this is no random happenstance nor by any means an unexpected one, since the two bodies are a binary pair. [see Chapters 6 and 13]

- Why Mars is reckoned to have a “Great Cycle” of about 51000 years - or almost precisely 2X 25344 years, i.e. the duration of the “Great Year” as determined in the TYCHOS model. In the TYCHOS, the motions of the Sun and Mars are, of course, firmly “locked” at a 2:1 ratio (for every Martian revolution there are two solar revolutions); hence, it is fully expected that the "Great Cycle" of Mars would be twice as long as that of the Sun.[see Chapter 30]

- Why Mars can occasionally line up (as viewed from Earth) with the same star within a ca. 550-day period - in spite of such alignments occurring most frequently (7 out of 8 times) every 707 days or so. In the TYCHOS, this is shown to be a plain & natural geometric consequence of the peculiar, “spirographic” motion of Mars around our planet. As the Copernican theory has it, this 550-day alignment (with the very same star that habitually lines up with Mars every 707 days) can somehow occur in spite of Earth and Mars having both moved laterally by about 300 million kilometers! [see Chapter 7]

Mars can complete one full revolution around our celestial sphere – that is, whenever Mars skips its retrograde period - in 557.65 days on average (max 571.3d / min 544 d). Since Mars’s orbit is 1.5267 X larger than the Sun’s – and since Mars completes one revolution around our 360° celestial sphere in about 557.65 days (i.e. 365.25 X 1.5267), this means that Mars physically travels at the same speed as the Sun. Mars’s estimated orbital circumference is 1,435,079,524 km. We see that 557.65 days = 13,383.6 hours. Hence: 1,435,079,524 km / 13,383.6 h = 107,226.7 km/h (or near-exactly the Sun’s estimated speed of 107,226 km/h). One could hardly wish for better evidence that the Sun and Mars are a (magnetically-locked?) binary duo. [Note: this is a recent realization not included in my TYCHOS book].



- Why Earth's rotation appears / is believed to decelerate and its equinoctial precession to increase; [see Chapter 30]

- Why our Moon appears / is believed to accelerate (in relation to the “fixed” starry background); [see Chapter 30]

- Why we can see so many stars with our naked eyes (the closest being allegedly some 4.3 light years away - while the farthest being allegedly 16308 light years away!). Quote:“The farthest star we can see with our naked eye is V762 Cas in the constellation of Cassiopeia at 16308 light years.” This quite extraordinary claim becomes considerably less extraordinary in the TYCHOS model - which posits that the stars are about 42633X closer than currently believed. This, because star distances are estimated (using basic trigonometry) under the assumption that Earth moves laterally by 299.2 million km every six months. In the TYCHOS however, Earth only moves by 7018 km every six months (i.e. 42633X less than currently assumed). [see Chapters 35 and 36]

- The currently inexplicable and apparently absurd so-called negative(!) stellar parallax exhibited by a good 25% of our stars (as well as the baffling amount of stars - nearly 50%! - registering ZERO parallax) can be shown to be natural corollaries of the TYCHOS geometry. In other words, the “mysterious” existence of three types of observed stellar parallaxes (positive, negative and zero) is to be fully expected in the TYCHOS model. Conversely, the existence of negative stellar parallax is a physical impossibility under the heliocentric model. Important disclaimer: the TYCHOS doesn’t negate per se the vast amount of stellar parallax data gathered to this day - it only provides a logical explanation for its observed distribution, i.e. roughly 25% positive, 25% negative and 50% ZERO / NIL. [see Chapter 36]

- Why the perceived speed between our solar system and the “fixed stars” is estimated to be approximately 19.4 km/s. Once more, the TYCHOS has a plain explanation for this generally-agreed-upon relative / average speed: If we convert 19.4 km/s to km/h, we obtain 69840 km/h. As we divide 69840 by 42633 (the TYCHOS “reduction factor”), we obtain 1.638 km/h, or almost precisely 1.601169 km/h (the proposed orbital speed of Earth in the TYCHOS). As it is, the available evidence (from observational data) pointing to Earth’s 1.6 km/h orbital motion is overwhelming. [see end of Chapter 36]


In conclusion, all of the extant, above-listed astronomical “puzzles & mysteries” find sensible and forthright answers when assessed under the TYCHOS paradigm and its proposed 1.6 km/h (or 1-mph) motion of Earth around its PVP orbit. In light of this, the TYCHOS model stands on solid ground – whereas the Copernican model emerges as a wholly untenable proposition. It is often (and rightly) said that a scientific theory cannot be definitively proven as long as it can be falsified. I will now therefore humbly ask our world’s scientific community to spend a little time and endeavor to try and falsify the TYCHOS model’s tenets. In doing so, please observe the highest degree of intellectual honesty with regards to my rigorous interpretation of the vast volume of available observations gathered by our world's astronomers. I believe to have observed a fair and respectful approach throughout my own research with regards to their indefatigable efforts throughout the centuries. It is most unfortunate that Tycho Brahe's and Pathani Samanta's achievements have been all but obliterated from history in spite of their utmost excellence and validity. May reason prevail.

[simonshack]

*

THE "MISSING" ANGULAR MOMENTUM OF OUR SUN
(another historical riddle solved by the TYCHOS model)


Dear friends and fellow rational thinkers,

One may justly argue that the greatest unsolved mystery of our cosmos is that of the minuscule Angular Momentum (AM) that our Sun exhibits (only 0.3% of our solar system's combined angular momentum!) - that is, under the tenets & computations of current heliocentric theory. This is a formidable problem that keeps haunting this world's cosmologists & astrophysicists, as noone has ever put forth any plausible explanation to what amounts to a dramatic contradiction of the much-heralded newtonian laws of conservation of momentum. In fact, this issue is of fundamental importance to those studying the very formation of our universe.

As it is, this still-utterly-unsolved riddle is known in astronomy circles as the "Angular Momentum Problem". It is a widely recognized problem among cosmologists who study the so-called "formation theories" (i.e. the hypotheses of how our stars, planets, moons, etc were formed in the first place).

"Angular momentum problem : The fact that the Sun, which contains nearly all of the mass of the solar system, accounts for just 0.3 percent of the total angular momentum of the solar system. This is an aspect of the solar system that any acceptable formation theory must address." https://lifeng.lamost.org/courses/astro ... %20problem

That's right, folks: any theory of our Universe that doesn't address or/and fails to resolve the issue of the Sun's (0.3%!) AM is not acceptable.

Here are some descriptions of the thorny Angular Momentum Problem :

Solar System -The Angular Momentum Problem
"Perhaps the most important issue to be resolved in future versions of the solar nebula model is that of the distribution of angular momentum. The problem for the solar nebula theory is that it predicts that most of the mass and angular momentum should be in the Sun. In other words, the Sun should spin much more rapidly than it does. A mechanism is therefore required to transport angular momentum away from the central proto-sun and redistribute it in the outer planetary disk. One proposed transport mechanism invokes the presence of magnetic field in the nebula, while another mechanism proposed the existence of viscous stresses produced by turbulence in the nebular gas." https://science.jrank.org/pages/6266/So ... oblem.html

The Angular Momentum Problem
"A possible weak link in the condensation theory is sometimes known as the angular momentum problem. Although our Sun contains about 1000 times more mass than all the planets combined, it possesses a mere 0.3 percent of the total angular momentum of the solar system. Jupiter, for example, has a lot more angular momentum than does our Sun—in fact, about 60 percent of the solar system's angular momentum. All told, the four jovian planets account for well over 99 percent of the total angular momentum of the solar system. By comparison, the lighter (and closer) terrestrial planets have negligible angular momentum. The problem here is that all mathematical models predict that the Sun should have been spinning very rapidly during the earliest epochs of the solar system and should command most of the solar system's angular momentum, basically because it contains most of the mass. However, as we have just seen, the reverse is true. Indeed, if all the planets' orbital angular momentum were transferred to the Sun, it would spin on its axis about 100 times as fast as it does at present." https://lifeng.lamost.org/courses/astro ... T31505.HTM

The Planet-X and Angular Momentum Problem
"Many hypotheses have been formulated to justify the missing angular momentum, such as the loss of solar mass due to solar radiations, solar wind and solar magnetic field. However, as we will see below, the ejection mass due to these phenomena can not compensate for the missing angular momentum, which remains an unsolved problem to this day, as are the anomalies detected in the TNOs orbits. (...)The Sun only accounts for about 0.6% of the total angular momentum of the solar system! This result is really unexpected since nebular model predicts that most of the mass and angular momentum should be in the Sun. The problem is known as «angular momentum problem». Several hypotheses have been advanced to explain this problem, but there is still no convincing theory." https://www.academia.edu/32890375/The_P ... um_Problem

In other words, no one knows why the currently-computed angular momentum of our Sun (which contains 1000 X more mass than all the planets combined) could possibly amount to less than 1% of the combined angular momentum of our entire solar system!!! This humongous riddle is, believe it or not, still up for grabs!

Moreover, it makes no sense (under current theory) that our Sun would rotate around its axis as slowly as it does - at 6670km/h (incidentally, near-exactly 4X Earth's rotational speed) whereas Jupiter, for instance, rotates at about 43,000km/h. It is also believed that the Sun's rotational speed is gradually slowing down. Tentative attempts have been made (by 'mainstream' scientists) to explain this other puzzle, yet they appear to belong to the realm of wild speculation ; as one theory goes, "the Sun's spin rate is being slowed down by ... its own photons"! https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... n-photons/

But let's return to the Angular Momentum riddle - for which a bunch of assorted, wildly speculative theories have been proposed (if you're interested, please look them up for yourself - as I find them overly fanciful and unworthy of mention here). There exists however a quite sensible and rational explanation for this (heliocentrically-computed) absurdly small angular momentum of the Sun. It is the (well-researched) thesis put forth by the Binary Research Institute.

This short, illustrated article published at the Binary Research Institute website is a must read :
"ANGULAR MOMENTUM": http://binaryresearchinstitute.com/bri/ ... -momentum/

As you can see, the Binary Research Institute has basically determined that:

IF we assumed that the Sun was moving in a binary orbit with a period of ca. 24,000 years, the Sun would then turn out to have the proper & expected (or in any case, a far less disproportionate) angular momentum (AM) in accordance with its mass.

Well, as it happens, the TYCHOS model has the Sun moving in a binary orbit (with Mars) of approximately 24000 years (or more precisely 25344 years).

This is a short animated gif showing - in four 6336-year "time-lapse snapshots" - how the Sun's orbit precesses (or actually, how our entire Solar System precesses / as of the TYCHOS model) in 25344 years - and thus "dragging" Earth around its PVP orbit:

25344 SOLAR YEARS - IN THE TYCHOS

source> The TYCHOSIUM: https://tychos.space/ts
Note: In the TYCHOS, the Sun and all the other bodies of our system (except Earth, of course) revolve counterclockwise around Earth, yet their orbits slowly precess clockwise over time - thus "dragging" Earth in a clockwise direction around its 25344-year PVP orbit (blue circle in above animation).

Much like all the binary star systems surrounding us (more than 85% of all visible stars - and counting), our closest star (the Sun) has a "local" orbital path of its own and, of course, completes ONE such orbit every year. This may well go to resolve the historical riddle of the "missing" angular momentum of the Sun - as vividly debated for decades by our modern astronomers. (In stark contrast - as current theory has it - the Sun supposedly employs about 240 MILLION years to complete just one of its orbits!)

The TYCHOSIUM solar system simulator is a truly wondrous machine. Here is how it now traces the full path of our Sun over 25344 years:



A few years ago, as I was still calculating "by hand" my imagined path of the Sun's 25344-year path, here is what I managed to compose with my little GIMP software, a freely downloadable image-processing program (this diagram is included in Chapter 32 of my TYCHOS book):



All in all, I feel rather satisfied with the 'linear nature' of my ongoing TYCHOS research. The Tychosium (a simulator only 2 years young for which much credit goes to my fellow Swede, computer programmer Patrik Holmqvist) is proving the TYCHOS model's paradigm correct - every step of the way.

In conclusion, the pesky "mystery" of the missing Angular Momentum ofthe Sun is resolved by the Tychos model in the simplest imaginable manner : the Sun does indeed have a local (1-year-long) orbit, much like all the (binary) stars in our universe. Hence, there's no missing angular momentum of the Sun and, consequently, no mystery whatsoever. Yet, since this is not considered nor recognized by the proponents of the heliocentric model, they have become entrapped by their very own theory.

[simonshack]

*

THE BINARY RESEARCH INSTITUTE "AGREES" WITH THE TYCHOS !

Dear friends and cosmic free-thinkers,

As I bumped into the Binary Research Institute's website (several years ago) and its most interesting findings, I didn't fully realize at the time what a "treasure trove" I had found. Yes, I did mention - and quoted a few tidbits of - the commendable BRI research in my Tychos book, yet there is much more to it than I had realized back then.

What I am hereby sharing with you in more detail, is the hard evidence (as brilliantly researched, computed and expounded by the BRI) that Earth's supposed "Third Motion" simply does not - and cannot - exist. Earth's "Third Motion" is also known as the "Lunisolar wobble" (under current heliocentric theory, Earth's First and Second motions would be, respectively, Earth's rotation around its axis and its supposed revolution around the Sun).

Earth's "wobble", on the other hand, was (crucially) meant to account for the all-important precession of the equinoxes. It was believed that Earth's polar axis somehow slowly wobbled (ONCE every 25000 years or so) in a clockwise direction around its polar axis - and this, in spite of Earth's permanent counterclockwise rotation! This bizarre and utterly unphysical "clockwise wobble" was also meant to explain why our North (and South) pole stars change over time (e.g. our North Star is currently Polaris - whereas ca. 5000 years ago, Thuban was our North star).

Earth's supposed 25000-year "clockwise wobble" - according to Wikipedia...

PrecessionWOBBLE_wikianimation.gif (2.05 MiB) Viewed 1680 times

Before proceeding any further I must clarify that the Binary Research Institute holds on to the idea of Earth revolving around the Sun (unlike the TYCHOS). Hence, they have never considered Mars as a candidate to be the Sun's binary companion. As far as I can gather, they have speculated (over the years) that Sirius - or some other invisible and/or unidentified star might be the Sun's elusive binary companion. Since none of those hypotheses have ever met with any sort of confirmation, the BRI research is currently in a stalemate. The institute's founder, Walter Cruttenden, appears to have abandoned the research in later years and has, it seems, moved on to more lucrative activities.

In any case, I have to wonder what happened to Walter Cruttenden's former enthusiasm for his groundbreaking astronomy research. As I visited and "mini-toured" the USA last year (with Hoi Polloi), our plan was to visit him in his California office - so we contacted Walter via e-mail, asking him if he would receive us for a brief meeting. Walter flat out declined - i.e. refused to meet us! Nonetheless and anyway, Hoi and I decided to fly and drive to his office and knock on his office door. So we did: we found his office (BRI logo and all) and rang the doorbell... to no avail (the door remained silent and closed).

However, what the rigorous BRI studies have determined (beyond reasonable doubt) is that Earth's supposed 25000-year "Lunisolar wobble" is spurious / non-existent. You will find the full description of how this was determined at the below-linked page of their website (a precious document which I have obviously saved / backed up for history - lest it disappear one dark day from the internets):

http://binaryresearchinstitute.com/bri/ ... nar-cycle/

BinaryResearchInstitute-logo.png (9.52 KiB) Viewed 1680 times

In short, the BRI researchers (after having used the lunar motions to prove their case) conclude that...

"The only conclusion is, while the Earth is moving 360 degrees counterclockwise around the Sun in a solar year, the entire solar system (containing the Earth Sun reference frame) is moving clockwise relative to inertial space. The mathematical calculations support no other conclusion."

"No other conclusion?" Well, as we now know, this is not quite correct: the TYCHOS model does indeed provide an alternative (and fully demonstrable) explanation for the annual Eastward drift (about 51" per year) of our entire star field / firmament : in the TYCHOS model, this clockwise motion is - quite simply - due to Earth slowly revolving around its PVP orbit - as our entire system slowly precesses clockwise completing one such "retrograde" precessional cycle in 25344 years (no wobbles required).

Nevertheless, the BRI studies have effectively demolished the fanciful idea of a "wobbling" Earth. The Copernican/Keplerian model is thus left without any explanation for the famed "precession of the equinoxes" (and for our gradually changing/alternating pole stars). Imagine that!

In any event, the BRI research provides one of the most solid confirmations of the TYCHOS model - even though it was never meant to do so. I will therefore take this occasion to warmly thank the BRI for scientifically disproving the very existence of the so-called "Lunisolar wobble".

**********
More evidence of the non-existence of Earth's "Lunisolar wobble" is to be found on this BRI page:
http://binaryresearchinstitute.com/bri/ ... t-paradox/
"The earth may experience nutation and minor short term effects but it does not appear to precess 50”p/y relative to objects within the frame of the moving solar system."

[hoi.polloi]

Congratulations on ever more salient points for the TYCHOS model, which is the most geometrically correct (and most intriguing, inspiring Cartesian system to date). Most of these points are unassailable and appear to beg answers from the obsolete heliocentric "mono-star" model.

TLDR: emotional pleas and comments that Copernican ideas are laughable (but those same ideas or similar ideas are used by TYCHOS) are not as effective as the concrete geometric arguments

And now the long version:
I just want to point out a few problems that I have encountered while trying to use some of the particular wording/arguments set forth here. I am not responsible for these opinions but only trying to point out where Simon's tiny PR team might get more traction and not waste the time I have, while borrowing some of the weaker language used to explain Simon's most unarguably & incredibly powerful TYCHOS discoveries. I won't waste your time with my NASA/ESA conflicts I've gotten into with people, because (as we all know) this is like beating our heads against a wall for those who believe their Hollywood effects depict reality.

However, these are just a few things that I think may be important and maybe we can learn from, if we are willing to learn from them and gain the most from these lessons. That is why I am sharing. I fully expect my advice to be seen as useless to many, and then I'm truly sorry for wasting your time.

1. People do not have issue with the priming concept that "the third motion of Earth doesn't exist ..." but Simon's punchline falls flat. It is seen as a contradiction by most that the 25,344 year "leaning out" of Earth as it makes the TGY movement is not considered a replacement (that is, a third motion) by the TYCHOS model. So it has been more successful for me to point out that the third motion isn't a silly idea but has been misunderstood. Otherwise, TYCHOS calls itself whatever it's throwing at the Copernican by this argument. So I would be cautious with this language. Especially the part about spinning tops, since that argument has never made any sense to anyone I've tested it on, considering TYCHOS still has Earth's tilt rotating clockwise. For most, the slowly-changing tilt of Earth does not radically differ between Copernicus-Newton and Tycho-Shack.

2. People do not seem to have issue with the concept that Venus and Mercury are tidally locked, but the claim we've made in the book that all moons are tidally locked would be worth reconsideration in the next edition. It has been pointed out repeatedly to me that some 'natural satellites' are indeed free from tidal locking. Or they may be in the process of becoming tidally locked. So insisting on this extremism is not as useful to the TYCHOS as pointing out that in the center of the TYCHOS there exists a tendency (towards order? magnetic resonance?) towards tidal locked moon-body relationships. However, the truly incredibly idea deserves attention. And that is why it should only get the attention that pertains to reality rather than wishfully assuming those "other" moon-like things that aren't tidally locked should be seen as exceptions and/or ignored. If a rule in science is broken before it's even made, it shouldn't really be made in the first place.

3. Some people insist that the numbers of the TYCHOS are still not precise enough (despite "precision" being cheated repeatedly by the Copernican system, with cheaters and liars like Galileo, Newton, Einstein, et al). For most laypersons, if the formulas are not made incomprehensibly complex by people like Johannes Kepler, James Bradley, Richard Feinman or Stephen Hawking, they don't trust that it's been "researched enough". That is, as long as completion is fudged to the very point that simulations and computers must take over the calculations, completion is considered superior to proper restraint. Although this position seems intractable to you or I, it seems it has become a nearly universal religious belief for most people in scientific fields who are asked to "respect" fields that have most turned to technological domination. And there are other positions we may find intractable, and yet, there they are.

I cannot possibly speak to the particular nuances and frustrations that others have faced discussing the TYCHOS with others but it has been imperative in mine that respect and deference is shown to such belief as one would show to someone who has the belief in a completely undisprovable God. In trying to understand this, I have allowed myself to consider it many ways, including this one: science comes down to bias and belief; every single time. Questioning someone's core beliefs is not the duty of a scientist as much as it is their duty to present evidence and the best cases for that evidence that cannot be easily reproduced (even if those cases are easily/readily/"unfairly" dismissed by a listener) and then go no further. Then perspectives are exchanged and compared as equally valid before moving on. That is how patient rational arguments have "won" and given us a more "enlightened" period of discourse in harmony with increases in tolerance, fidelity, great food or anything else you wish to credit to good civilization that led us to the discoveries of the TYCHOS. The point is that in my experience people are more open to ideas that are compared as interchangeable in quantity rather than ideas that are interchangeable in quality. This means that the TYCHOS is not "valued currency" as much as even the most nonsensical Einstein stuff. I am often just terrible with analogy. Really comically bad. But maybe in "white" terms, you are not going to convince many to take your bushel of magic wheat for ten fields of cattle. Here's another attempt at metaphor:

Asking people to see that the "all moons are tidally locked" argument is justified, despite it being blatantly unproven and untrue, is a rhetoric on par with Newton's/Einstein's assertions that "matter density is inextricably linked to the force of gravity", and therefore it is at immediate disadvantage to the already winning rhetoric of the day.

Asking people to accept that the "third motion of Earth doesn't exist" while actually ignoring the description of a similar motion is a distraction that doesn't actually work.

If thought about in "wrestling terms", if you wish to land a pinch or a poke on someone in order to weaken the resolve of that set of muscles or distract them from another set of muscles you tend to throw them with, the muscles actually have to be vulnerable. Or it comes across as very pathetic. It may be seen as bravery by some to attempt to "psyche out" a perceived enemy by ankle biting and barking, but it is ultimately foolhardy bravery rather than clever bravery. At least in our day (and I suspect for some time to come) the strength of TYCHOS, just like the strength of the Relativity Hypothesis, isn't in its logic but in the emotional strength of the logic.

Conclusion
TYCHOS has a strong advantage in not turning to emotional pleas or related posturing. Because it shows proper restraint in language most of the time, it is my observation that most people (in my admittedly limited circles but of various backgrounds: U.S.A.-Americans, Europeans of various stripes, Indigenous/Native Indians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, mixed heritage, etc. etc.) would all appreciate the TYCHOS arguments more if its "cool head" would serve as the mouth of the leading statements, while rhetorical arguments like the spinning top, the "all moons" statements or other broad brushes would be kept somehow separated or minimized altogether.

I understand that we cannot help but look at it the way we do. And we are human. Yet if we are to view TYCHOS as something that, as Patrix sagely asked us to recognize, is something that can change opinions sooner than later, we should not try to tackle a complete change in culture all at once, which today is immediately recognized as the work of extremist and emotionally destabilized persons when encountered in person (we do not have the hypnotic power of mass media to convince people of extreme positions while feigning "professional" demeanor, like Fox News or a Hollywood producer). Instead, we should adapt to the culture that exists, and exercise extreme emotional intelligence (true empathy, authentically felt demonstrations of understanding and respect of the other) in approaching others about this topic, which still has a chance to be respected and to not waste all of its "social capital" in making arguments that ask for too much immediate trust.

The TYCHOS represents much more intelligence than the light that some of its proposed arguments are casting it in.

The foundation of the TYCHOS could be so strong and even important to our proper understanding of nature, that the more we appear within the cultural context (that none of us can escape from) as people who show a strict deference to amazing mathematical logic and an active distaste for anything less, the more the TYCHOS will gain its deserved respect in the minds of people today. In fact, its foundation is so strong that it seems barring catastrophe it will be faced and addressed eventually. Perhaps even sooner than we'd expect.

But that doesn't mean I do expect that. And I don't wish to see TYCHOS lose precious time/appreciation by failing to understand the difference I am hopefully articulating here.

Personally, I think the TYCHOS is an important understanding that opens up entirely new avenues of possibility, with respect to achieving reconciliation and peace between various cultures with what I dare to call equally important discoveries we would otherwise not fathom. Yet, it could fail as a tool to bridging unique and valuable contexts if it insists too highly on replacing dominant contexts (like the Copernican view, which has been at times unfortunately impressed upon humanity's most visionary members). And I don't know if my view is shared or even seen by others, but I just wish to make it known so that it's clear why I'm posting.

Thank you for reading and considering. It has been a slow day at work.

[simonshack]

*

Dear Hoi, thanks for your truly fine considerations - and obviously well-meant constructive musings and advice. Good to hear from you, btw !

I'd say that I pretty much agree with you on all your points, that is, except for your first one (concerning the issue of Earth's non-existing "wobble").

See, this particular issue was raised the other day by "Paul" - a Swedish veteran astronomer with whom Patrik and I have exchanged innumerable mails in the last few months (for privacy, I'll just call him "Paul"). Paul is no "friend" of the TYCHOS, on the contrary: his energies are quite clearly spent trying to disprove it (and he quite often indulges in rather cheap, sarcastic and derisive remarks as he types away). However, I think that Patrik can bear witness to the fact that none of the points that professor Paul has presented so far have, so to speak, "rattled the foundations" of the TYCHOS model. However, Patrik and I agree that Paul's expert critique is precisely what we need at this time in order to learn which weaker arguments presented in the TYCHOS book might need some refining in its 2nd edition.

So, since Paul had insisted adamantly in a couple of mails that, in his view, the Earth "still wobbles" in the TYCHOS model, I responded to him with these lines:

No, Paul : the Earth in the TYCHOS does not wobble. It stays tilted in (almost*) the same manner at all times.
(although this tilt angle / obliquity seemingly oscillates slightly - by about 2.4° over thousands of years).

To verify this for yourself, take a globe and hold it with your arms outstretched in front of your nose (with the globe's Northern Hemisphere leaning at a ca. 23°angle away from your nose). Now, start slowly rotating your feet - while remaining in the same spot - so that your body eventually spins around itself by 360°. Did you see the globe wobble? I don't think so. Earth's polar axis stays (almost*) stably inclined throughout its 25344 journey - and that's the whole point with the PVP orbit: Earth does not wobble - it simply proceeds around its circular path while keeping the (almost*) same inclination.

*By "almost", I am referring to the current understanding of Earth's fluctuating obliquity - as stated on Wikipedia: "Earth's obliquity oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle; Earth's mean obliquity is currently 23°26′12.4″ (or 23.43677°) and decreasing. At present, it is decreasing at a rate of about 47″ per century."

Here is what Paul eventually (and most graciously) admitted :

OK, I'll change my mind. The Earth does not wobble in TYCHOSIUM, I agree.

I looked up "wobble" in Wictionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wobble

"Wobble" has several different meanings of course, but the meaning which is relevant here is: "An unsteady motion."

In the TYCHOS model, Earth has no third motion - it only has two (very steady) motions: (1) its rotational motion around its polar axis and (2) its 1-mph motion around its 25344-year PVP orbit. The fact that Earth is leaning towards a given "side" of the zodiac today - and will lean towards the opposite "side" of the zodiac in about 12500 years - doesn't constitute a "third motion". It is just a natural consequence of the 2nd. Earth's polar axis remains tilted at (almost) the same angle at all times.



As for your point about the moons' tidal locking (and how it cannot be called a "universal rule"), I fully agree with you, dear Hoi. That part in my book (where I uncautiously state that one of the defining features of all moons is that they are tidally locked with their hosts) is probably in error - and needs to be amended in the book's 2nd edition.

However, on Wikipedia we can read that :
"Most major moons in the Solar System − the gravitationally rounded satellites − are tidally locked with their primaries, because they orbit very closely and tidal force increases rapidly (as a cubic function) with decreasing distance." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

So yes, it is most moons (and not all moons) that are considered to be tidally locked. At least, this is the current consensus - although it is also admitted that it is oftentimes quite hard to tell (even with our best modern technology) whether a given, small & distant "lunar" celestial body (e.g. the many moons of Jupiter & Saturn) is tidally locked to its host or not. So I think the question remains open - yet I agree that it was wrong to suggest / imply in the TYCHOS book that ALL moons in our universe are tidally locked to their host stars / or planets.

As for your well-expressed musings regarding how we should ideally show caution and restraint at all times (so as not to become equally guilty of the same self-assuredness, arrogance and dogmatic ways of "the Copernican disciples") - I cannot agree with you more. Humility is the wisdom of the sage. I am aware of the fact that I sometimes get carried away whenever some new apparent confirmation of the TYCHOS model comes along - and of my over-eagerness to share it with our readers (in perhaps over-enthusiastic manner). To my "defense", I would ask everyone to exert some leniency towards my ways: if I can sometimes seem to announce a given new finding with too much fanfare, it is only because I'm hoping (against hope) that my enthusiasm will make people at large take a little more interest in astronomy... in general! To be sure, astronomy has become some sort of "untouchable" science to most people on this planet - due to the almost religious faith placed in the sacrosanct edicts of a restrict number of thinkers (e.g. Kepler / Newton / Galileo / Einstein) - even though their "scientific Laws" have been, over time, proven to be fallible by a large number of independent (yet highly qualified) studies.

We all live for only a limited time on this planet (as far as I know), so let us not allow our passion for discovery be thwarted and dulled down by the social / intellectual / "scientifically correct" boundaries and constrictions set in place by those "luminaries" who claim to have sussed it all out. Our universe is very far from being understood by humankind ("black holes", "dark matter", "ever-expanding universe", "cosmic background radiation" etc. are all wild, unproven assumptions) - and no honest person would deny this fact. Yet, if we haven't even properly figured out the actual geometric configuration and dynamics of our own little solar system, what can humankind claim to "truly know" - at this moment in history?

[patrix]

Well said (both of you), and good to hear from you Hoi. I agree, particularly with the emotional restraint part—and that is hard—very hard sometimes. We are humans, and it hurts to be looked at as a fool merely for trying to explain that dogma cannot make one plus one equal to three "because Newton" . . . no matter how long this has been believed to be the case.

The human mind is tricky business, and not particularly guided by logic and reason, but often by emotions, although we fail to see that. And this is a weakness that is obviously being exploited by those who seek to control the world.

I'm currently reading the The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems by Galileo, and I find it very interesting to see (and being recognized by Galileo) that the view of the Earth as the immobile center of the universe was the most reasonable assumption in Ptolemy's and Aristotle’s days—but, and I quote,

SALVIATI: But to give Simplicio more than satisfaction, and to reclaim him if possible from his error, I declare that we do have in our age new events and observations such that if Aristotle were now alive, I have no doubt he would change his opinion.

And I believe that the same thing goes for Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo and Newton—had this quintet been alive today.

In the dialogues I find Galileo's arguments for a diurnally rotating Earth and the replacement of Earth with the Sun as the center of our universe, sound. The stars appeared to be immobile objects, and since our Sun is a star, it was reasonable to assume that our Sun was the immobile center of our own solar system.

Today on the other hand, as Simon has laid forward very clearly, it is not a reasonable assumption to make. Observations show that stars are not stationary, but rather, have an orbit, and the star parallaxes that were held as a definite proof (of the Copernican model), in fact disprove the very same. And there are of course numerous other problems that Simon brings up in his book and articles.

However, and this is an important point, the diurnally rotating Earth is a proven fact, and in the 17th century Kepler and Galileo (with the support of the Copernicus model) were the only recognized astronomers who stood up for this idea. Tycho Brahe chose not to challenge this core dogma of the Catholic church at the time. Why we will probably never find out.

He may have seen it as a less important question, been convinced of the contrary, or perhaps he was intimidated, and did not want to risk his position as a noble. Who knows? But, I believe the bitterness of the "outsiders" may have grown strong, and seeing the church eventually retract this dogma (and accept the Semi-Tychonic system) did not make them change their heliocentric view, although it was the most reasonable compromise at the time.

There's a lot of talk and speculation about lies and foul play, and that may of course have been the case as early as in the 17th century. We will never know. But the place where I personally draw the definite line regarding honest mistakes and lies is the late 19th and 20th century. This was the time when astronomy (and science in general) was deliberately turned into a religion.

So I don't think it's a good idea to use the word liar together with people like Newton or Kepler. We simply don't know what their true intentions were or what secret societies they were part of - if any.
But one thing I do know is that the TYCHOS is a fact. And that the growing realization of this will eventually make it a world changing one since it shows that the very core of our so-called science (today) is not in fact science, but a religious belief.

It is a belief that includes space travel(s), atom bombs, and TV-terror, which are made up miracles by this religion. And I find it a bit hilarious actually that the way those balls and lights move in the sky has this power over humanity. I think everyone is familiar with Lord of the Rings, and an analogy here is that the one ring (or ellipse if you will) - the one that Earth used to follow around the Sun, has now thoroughly been cast into the fires of Mount Doom by our very own host of this forum—Simon "Frodo" Shack.

Edit:

An explanation on why Galileo was condemned of heresy in the 17th. But as we now know thanks to Simon, he did not prove the Copernican model in its entirety but only the diurnal rotation of Earth. Prophetic last words in that video:

From the Galileo affair we can learn a lesson which remains valid in relation to similar situations which occur today and which may occur in the future.

We'll see about that...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d9OkDLd-iw

[Flabbergasted]

Hopefully, some of you will help out diffusing it by downloading the two files, have a few dozens / or hundreds printed at your local print shop - and distribute them at any appropriate locations you can think of!

Simon, I had a go at printing the Tychos folder at my local print shop, but there were two problems:
1) The resolution of the images is low, making them pretty useless to the reader. The files I downloaded are 211 KB and 294 KB. Is there a version in higher resolution?
2) The yellow background is lovely, but it makes printing a bit more expensive, even if you keep the run in the few dozens.

Another, unrelated point:
Some of the images you post are only visible if I log in. This is what I see when I am logged out:

[simonshack]

Simon, I had a go at printing the Tychos folder at my local print shop, but there were two problems:
1) The resolution of the images is low, making them pretty useless to the reader. The files I downloaded are 211 KB and 294 KB. Is there a version in higher resolution?
2) The yellow background is lovely, but it makes printing a bit more expensive, even if you keep the run in the few dozens.

Dearest Flabbergasted !

1) Yes, I do have the two files in much higher resolution - and I'm sending them you by e-mail straight away.

2) I have now also made a version with white background - which should be cheaper to print. Am sending those files to you as well.

To all readers: please feel free to send to contact me by e-mail at [email protected]. Don't be shy - and no need to spend time composing many words - just type in the e-mail title "Send me the TYCHOS brochure files"

As for the attached images not displaying for readers who aren't logged in, I will look into it. Dear SCS, any idea as to why that is?

[hoi.polloi]

Flabbergasted, click on the images for the higher res versions. Don't save the forum thumbnails.

The files Simon posted are 2.78 MB and 3.84 MB but you must open them by clicking on the thumbnails and then saving the high res images that open in a new window.

These are great summaries. Simon and Patrik ought to really come up with a good YouTube video with good music (wonder where that might come from? ) and get into people's brains. This pamphlet is good and for patient intelligent people but if people ought to know about the thing, they seem to only have time/attention for videos and other weird digital "ephemera".

Make a YouTube vid!