Introducing the TYCHOS

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: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby nokidding on Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:39 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:30 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby Altair on Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:22 am

I'm still intrigued by the Moon's orbital path and its anomalies, in particular the evection. In this post the position of solar system bodies are plotted according to JPL's data, which I think it can be assumed to be according to real observations.
If we look at the Moon/Sun graph, we can see (maybe it's just an optical effect, however) that the 'dots' for the Moon's longitude are somewhat closer around 180º ecliptic longitude. That would mean that our satellite is 'slowing down' around that point. With the Newtonian hypothesis and assuming the orbit is an ellipse, that could match with the perigee, but it would be utterly strange that it is ALWAYS in the celestial 'south', 180º. Let's remember that celestial 'north', 0º, is defined by the point where the Sun is (relative to Earth) in the vernal equinox.
Or it could be the mentioned evection perturbation, that would also happen always towards the 180º (that would be the point of max. 'slowing') and while in the graph is not easy to see, it would be offset by an acceleration in the 'north' of the orbit.
Well, just some musings... Some serious number crunching would be needed to analyse this issue, of course, but my guess is that in fact is the very concept of ecliptical coordinate system that could be flawed to begin with.
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:37 pm

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

DOUBLE TROUBLE for Copernicus

Dear friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many, possibly most, stars have at least some variation in luminosity.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

For those interested, here's a link to a most thorough and comprehensive website concerned with Double Star Astronomy:
Posts: 6762
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy


Return to The TYCHOS model

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests