Halley's Comet in 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.
Post Reply
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6795
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:17 am

*
ADMIN NOTICE (Simon): I have made this thread in order to gather my research around Halley's comet in one place.

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



HALLEY’S COMET IN THE TYCHOS MODEL

Image

Dear friends, Good Heavens to you! Today we shall see how the famous Halley's comet may spectacularly concur to prove the TYCHOS model correct.

To be sure, Halley's comet (as it appeared in 1758 just as predicted by Edmond Halley ) is hailed as the greatest triumph of Newton's gravitational theories:

“By its appearance at this time, the truth of the Newtonian Theory of the Solar System is demonstrated to the conviction of the whole world, and the credit of the astronomers is fully established and raised far above all the wit and sneers of ignorant men.”
https://www.history.com/news/a-brief-hi ... -sightings

Let me start by stating that astronomy is truly a most bewildering branch of science: as should become evident to any “mad scientists” (like yours truly) patient enough to read untold volumes (in multiple languages) of international astronomy literature (as I’ve been doing in this last half decade), I'd say it is probably the most uncertain and unsettled of them all. Whilst one eminent academic scholar may say “black”, another eminent scholar may say “white”. Now, can black and white coexist as equally-valid representatives of the truth of any given scientific matter? Well, according to most modern-day scholars who embrace both of Newton's and Einstein's (strongly conflicting) cosmological theories, YES - they can! And this is without counting "quantum theory" or "MOND theory", both of which have probably emerged so as to try and "explain the inexplicable"...

I think that we should now start wondering just why and how this nonsensical state of affairs has been brought upon us.

As it is, what remains for us mere mortal citizen investigators to do - is to try and discern any shades of grey which may lead us closer to the “TTT” (True Truth of Things) in astronomical matters. A particular area of vivid - and still ongoing - cosmological debate has been concerned with the thorny issue of our periodically-returning comets, among which Halley’s comet is, by far, the most famous one. The continuous and persistent failures at predicting its reappearance in our skies have forced astronomers to conjecture about various gravitational "perturbations" and "turbulences" which would be responsible for the perceived randomness of the Halley comet's progression around our Solar System.

The two below-linked “abstracts” (of two diametrically-opposed academic studies) neatly exemplify the "White-vs-Black" situation we have today regarding Halley’s comet (or,in fact, regarding the nature of comets in general):

“CHAOTIC DYNAMICS OF COMET HALLEY”: The chaotic nature of Halley's present day orbit implies that a precise determination of its motion, at the level of the present-day observational uncertainty, is difficult to predict on a time-scale of approximately 100 yr.” (M. A. Muñoz-Gutiérrez, M. Reyes-Ruiz, B. Pichardo - 2015 )“ https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/ ... 75/1748404

The above-linked study basically concludes that the motions of Halley’s comet are… “chaotic”.
Whereas the below study basically concludes that the motions of Halley’s comet are… “harmonious” :

“DECODED CODES OF COMET HALLEY: The subject of the research we are discussing in this text is the cyber-information access to the research of the harmonic dynamics of comet Halley. Cosmic mechanics has been always a perfect example of the regular, deterministic, motion which allows a prediction to a fairly high accuracy. The analysis of these data allowed us to conclude that the motion of Halley's comet is harmonious." (Lutvo Kurić - 2014) https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... met_Halley

So what is it gonna be? Black or White? Are the motions of Halley's comet chaotic - or are they harmonious?

As should become crystal clear by the end of this exposé, I would personally lean towards the latter conclusion : comets do in fact move around the Sun & Earth in quite harmonious orbits. The only reason why some (or most) astronomers will say that their motions are “chaotic” is because their minds are stuck in the Copernican/Keplerian/ heliocentric paradigm, what with its notion of Earth hurtling around the Sun (at more than 100,000km/h) ; this causes formidable difficulties as to their understanding of our comets’ periodic appearances and transits around our (slow-moving) Earth and the Sun - since none of their (heliocentric / Newtonian) computations can adequately account for their empirically-observed periodicity.

Here's a diagram from a 1971 paper showing how Halley's comet revolved around the Sun and Earth in 1986 (from a geocentric perspective):
Image

It is a matter of common knowledge among astronomers that the successive apparitions of Halley's comet (and its motions around our Solar System) have never been fully understood. Astronomy literature has duly documented the perplexities caused by Halley's comet :
Image

Ironically enough, Johannes Kepler (the man who, in order to “explain” the puzzling motions of Mars, sold to the world his bizarre elliptical theories which were then somehow elevated by Isaac Newton to “Laws of Planetary Motion”) believed that comets moved in … straight lines! I kid you not: fortunately, history books have duly documented the many whimsical fantasies concocted by Kepler during his “scientific” career (which, of course, included the betrayal, distortion and outright sabotage of the impeccable work of his master, Tycho Brahe).

Image

But let's leave Kepler alone this time around - since he obviously had not the slightest clue as to what the comets were - let alone how they moved across space...

As I've mentioned on previous occasions, I also have a "Kepler-type" antagonist of sorts these days: namely, Paul - a rather petulant Swedish veteran astronomer who, for the last year or so, has tried his damnedest to find fault with the TYCHOS model (over an e-mail group discussion that Patrik and I are having with a dozen participants). One if his pet subjects are Kepler's elliptical orbits, which he reckons to be an obligatory assumption in order to explain the orbital motions of our surrounding planets, asteroids and comets. The other day, professor Paul lectured us about the motions of Halley’s comet which, in his view, are wholly incompatible with my proposed TYCHOS model. To drive through his point, Paul used a table released by ESO (the European Southern Observatory) following the latest transit of Halley’s comet (in 1986) to perform his own Newtonian computations so as to somehow "corroborate" the ESO table's data:

Image

Now, I have compared many of the above (ESO table's) positions of Halley’s comet with those of the STELLARIUM simulator (widely considered to be the most accurate resource for stellar/planetary positions). Not to bore the reader with a long and tedious comparison (of ALL these computed topocentric positions of Halley's comet), I have chosen only 4 of them to make my following point.

We see that the FIRST date and the LAST date of Halley’s positions (highlighted in GREEN in the above ESO table) are in pretty good agreement with the STELLARIUM simulator:

ESO table:
1984-12-23 : RA 5h55min/DECL +11°57min
STELLARIUM data:
1984-12-23 : RA 5h54min/DECL +11°52min (good agreement with the ESO table)

ESO table:
1986-06-05: RA 10h24min/DECL-6°6min
STELLARIUM data:
1986-06-05 : RA 10h21min/DECL -6°05min (good agreement with the ESO table)

So far, so good. The ESO data and the Stellarium data seem to be in good agreement. However, we may then find that several intermediate dates of Halley's celestial positions (listed in the ESO table) are in stark disagreement with the Stellarium data. Here are the two that I have highlighted in RED in the above ESO table:

ESO table:
1985-12-03 : RA 0h47min/DECL +12°11min
STELLARIUM data:
1985-12-03 : RA 21h44min/DECL-0°58min (massive disagreement with the ESO table!)

ESO table:
1986-01-18: RA 21h41min/DECL-5°52min
STELLARIUM data:
1986-01-18: RA 19h54min/DECL-15°03min (massive disagreement with the ESO table!)

So what exactly is going on? A series of legitimate questions arise: Why are modern simulators such as the famed STELLARIUM simulator in stark disagreement with the official ESO data? How could Paul possibly "corroborate" the ESO data - when the famed STELLARIUM has arrived at results which are BOTH in agreement and disagreement with those computed by ESO and Paul? Should we trust the ESO data? Should we trust Paul's data? Should we trust the STELLARIUM data? Go figure!...

Moreover, some specific data of Halley's comet (as published on Wikipedia) are also in whopping disagreement with the famed STELLARIUM simulator:

HALLEY'S 1986 PERIHELION TRANSIT OCCURRED...
According to Wikipedia: on February 9, 1986 (0.586AU)
According to Stellarium : on January 14,1986 (0.580AU) – a full 26 days earlier !

PREDICTIONS FOR HALLEY'S NEXT 2061 PERIHELION TRANSIT...
According to Wikipedia: on July 28, 2061
According to Stellarium: on July 6, 2061 - a full 22 days earlier!


As you can see, we should probably dismiss the STELLARIUM simulator as a reliable source of positional information for Halley's comet. Now you may ask : why should Wikipedia's data be any more trustworthy? Well, at least it reports a few empirically observed, historical passages of the comet which we may reasonably assume were correctly documented, on their day, by astronomers around the world.

Don't worry, dear reader : we shall now clear up all of this dreadful mess. After all, that's what the TYCHOS model is for: cosmic house-cleaning ! ^_^

Before getting on, please know that Halley’s comet has appeared (and is predicted to appear) in the following years, separated by about 76 years:

1456 - 1531 - 1607 - 1683 - 1758 - 1835 - 1910 - 1986 - 2061 - 2137

(Note that in 1910 and 2137, Halley passed - or is predicted to pass - EXCEPTIONALLY close to Earth. Exactly 227 years [i.e. 3X 75.7 years] separate 1910 from 2137).

HALLEY'S CLOSEST PASSAGES TO EARTH (1910 - 2137):
Halley’s comet’s closest-ever passage to Earth (at a spectacularly close 0.15AU!) is recorded as having taken place on May 20, 1910 - as we can read in THIS academic paper (published in 1914):

“Halley transited the Sun on May 18, 1910 and was at its least distance (14million miles) [i.e. about 0.15 AU] at noon on May 20, 1910. *

Oddly enough, Wikipedia states that the next SUPER-close transit of Halley’s comet will occur … in “2134”(!) :
2134
“In 2134, Halley is expected to pass within 0.09 AU (13,000,000 km) of Earth.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet
Huh?! ”2134”? This must be a typo – since 2134 would be only 73 years after 2061, whereas Halley has never strayed from its 75/76 year recurrence. The Halley comet should obviously - and in all logic - return in 2137 - and not in 2134 ! In fact, I have found several astronomy books and papers citing the expected return of Halley in 2137- such as Patrick Moore's Data Book of Astronomy in which he states that :

"Unfortunately, the return of 2061 will be as poor as that of 1986: for another really good view we must wait for the return of 2137." https://books.google.it/books?id=2FNfjW ... 37&f=false

As I submitted this 2134-vs-2137 issue to Paul (the Swedish astronomer who loves to hate my TYCHOS model), he replied as follows:
Paul wrote:"No, 2134 is not a typo. I got it from Wikipedia, and I've googled for and found several confirmations of that date. And you have just learned one new things about comets like Halley: their orbital periods can vary significantly from one orbit to the next, mostly depending on close it passes to big planets like Jupiter and Saturn. And even Venus, if it passes really close."
That's right, folks: according to Paul, comet Halley's regular/ habitual period of 75.66 years (on average) which has been observed for many centuries will suddenly slow down between 2061 and 2134 - i.e. by about three years!!! And this, supposedly due to "gravitational perturbations" from Jupiter, Saturn and Venus that would somehow cause Halley's period to be shortened by AS MUCH AS 3 YEARS !!!

This, you may hopefully agree, is totally absurd. ALL the available historical data of the Halley's comet indicates that it has an average 75.66-year orbital period. See? As I said earlier on, astronomy is truly a most bewildering branch of science... No one seems to agree with anyone !

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

HALLEY'S COMET IN THE TYCHOSIUM

But let us now get to the MEAT of the MATTER, ladies and gents, that is : how does Halley's comet fare within the TYCHOS model?

Well, here are a few screenshots I've made from the very last version of the TYCHOSIUM simulator (as updated by Patrik and I this last week) :

Image

And then, 227 years later... (note that 227/3 ≈ 75.7 years)

Image

We then have a prediction (as published on Wikipedia) that Halley's comet will come as close as 0.05AU to VENUS! The Tychosium can show this too:

Image


Perhaps we may gradually start to consider the TYCHOS model as the most plausible configuration of our Solar System - and the closest one to "TTT".

Image

memoryhole
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by memoryhole » Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:23 pm

Amazing Simon, I have no doubt that your model of the solar system is correct and I think you may have just predicted when Halley's Comet will crash into earth. Sometime around 2591-05-12, probably somewhere in the Pacific Ocean.

Image

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6795
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:31 pm

*

REALITY CHECK FOR HALLEY'S COMET


Dear friends,

We shall now see how Halley's comet may provide one of the best pieces of evidence in support of the TYCHOS model.

Halley's comet is undoubtedly the most thoroughly studied comet in the history of observational astronomy.

It was apparently spotted from Earth back in 1378 (obviously with the naked eye - since the telescope was invented several centuries later!).

Here's an extract from "THE STORY OF HALLEY AND HIS COMET", by Ralph E. Wilson (1910):

Image
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 7.000.html

Well, here's the problem, ladies and gents: according to modern Copernican / heliocentric simulators of our Solar System, the tiny HALLEY's comet (reckoned to be no larger than 15km X 8 km) would have found itself in the year 1378... beyond the orbit of Saturn!

Here's a screenshot I made of the JS ORRERY simulator, showing the supposed celestial position of HALLEY's comet in the year 1378 : Image
Incidentally, in the "credits" page of the JS ORRERY simulator, its author acknowledges the Swedish astronomer Paul (the man who loves to hate the TYCHOS) for teaching him how to calculate positions from orbital elements: "I learned about calculating positions from orbital elements by reading these documents by Keith Burnett, Paul Schlyter and E M Standish (JPL)."

Now, I can only hope that the reader will promptly realize the utter absurdity of this. I dare say that even a 10-year-old child would immediately start laughing hysterically at the idea that the tiny Halley's comet was beyond the orbit of Saturn - as it was spotted (with the naked eye) back in 1378!

So now you may ask: WHERE would Halley's comet have been in 1378 - according to the TYCHOS model? Here's where. No further than 1.3AU:

Image

This all goes to show how far astronomers have drifted away from common sense and plain logic. They truly live in an abstract fantasy-world made of numbers and equations which they rarely - if ever - verify or confront against the most basic (spatial / dimensional / cognitive) realities of nature that every man and woman swiftly acquires as soon as they exit from their mothers' womb. Worse still, most astronomers clearly believe that they are the chosen recipients of some sort of "Higher Knowledge" which their sacrosanct all-time heroes (e.g. Newton, Kepler, Einstein) have bestowed upon them; anyone who dares question these icons of science is promptly tagged as an "ignorant" or "heretic". As it is, throughout my life, I've seen more openmindedness and tolerance among fervently religious people - than I've seen among (so-called) men & women of science.

But I digress - let me return to Halley's comet and share with you a most astonishing realization that jumped at me as I was placing Halley's comet (and its orbit) into the TYCHOSIUM simulator. You will have to understand that I made the below screenshot while I still hadn't tilted the comet's orbit. Hence, Halley's orbit was still in the same plane as the Sun's orbit. I was curious to see how long the comet employed to traverse Earth's PVP orbit. (In my TYCHOS book, I show how I estimated the diameter of the same - using the Sun's orbital motion as a "spatial measuring tool": the Sun employed 44 days to traverse the PVP orbit's diameter). Well, let the drums roll : Halley's comet ALSO employs 44 days to traverse the PVP orbit !

Image

This leads us (with all due caution) to a possible, yet absolutely fascinating hypothesis: is Halley's comet (or perhaps even ALL comets?) quite simply a solar ejecta? That is, a lump of "solar debris" which was once ejected from the Sun at 107,226km/h - and has thus kept spinning at the same speed around its larger ("clockwise") orbit? Note that Halley's looping motion actually proceeds counter-clockwise (as viewed from above our North Pole) - much like the Sun's counter-clockwise axial rotation.

Food for thought. -_-

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6795
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:02 pm

*
Important notice to peer-reviewers of the TYCHOS model

THE TYCHOSIUM'S CALENDAR REDUCTION FACTOR


Dear all, what follows is an overdue yet essential clarification regarding the year count currently implemented in the TYCHOSIUM simulator.


As thoroughly expounded in my TYCHOS book, the TYCHOS model proposes a small adjustment of our current Gregorian calendar solar year count (from the current 365.2425 days to an ideal 365.22057 days). This, in order to prevent the Sun to "slip out of synch" with Earth's slow revolution around its PVP orbit, thus ruinously offsetting (in the long run) our earthly seasons. This slight adjustment would ensure that, for instance, the Sun will always remain highest in our (Northern Hemisphere) skies on the June 21 summer solstice - as humanity has grown accustomed to. As it is, astronomers will tell you that Earth's tilt is observed to decrease at a rate of 47" per century. This may be simply caused by the incorrect (and undesirable) calibration of the Gregorian calendar count - which fails to account for Earth's 1-mph motion.

This is why the TYCHOS Great Year is calculated to have a duration of 25344 solar years - instead of the officially-estimated 25771 solar years, a 1.684% difference. In short, this 1.684% factor is a consequence of Earth's annual motion around its PVP orbit.

Therefore, when performing any secular / long-term positional comparisons (of our planets, moons and comets) between the TYCHOSIUM and any heliocentric Solar System simulators, it is essential to account for this 1.684% "reduction factor". Over longer periods of time, this seemingly small 1.684% difference will, of course, become increasingly noticeable. Let me illustrate this with the following example:

Yesterday, someone using the moniker "Quantumtroll" posted (on Reddit) this critique of the Halley's comet secular / long-term motions in the Tychosium :
Quantumtroll wrote:"What about the sighting in 837?

From Wikipedia: "In 837, Halley's Comet may have passed as close as 0.03 AU (3.2 million miles; 5.1 million kilometres) from Earth, by far its closest approach. Its tail may have stretched 60 degrees across the sky. It was recorded by astronomers in China, Japan, Germany, the Byzantine Empire, and the Middle East."

So: a huge global phenomenon, we can be sure that the year is accurate. According to Britannica, the closest approach was on April 10, 837.

In Tychosium, the closest passing is some time in 850. You're off by more than a decade. A similar error is found for lots of ancient observations, including one in 12 BC and one in 374 AD, to name a few."
In actuality, the TYCHOSIUM is "off" by more than a decade on that date : more precisely, it is "off" by 14.1 years. The TYCHOSIUM shows a very close approach of Halley (0.049AU) on 851-05-13 or just about 14.1 years later than April 10, 837:

Image

If the TYCHOSIUM featured a "Gregorian year-counter", I believe it would display for the above position of Halley's comet April 10, 837 (or thereabouts) instead of 851-05-13. Patrik and I are, in fact, currently working on the implementation of just such a Gregorian year-counter in the TYCHOSIUM. Until then, this 1.684% factor must be accounted for in any comparative verifications (vis-à-vis heliocentric simulators) of such long-term orbital periods. Perhaps some math wiz could help me write the correct reduction formula?


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

Another interesting point touched by "Quantumtroll" is that of the relative distances of Halley - as it approaches and then recedes from Earth:
Quantumtroll wrote:"Worse is the problem of how the comet "looks" as seen from Earth. In real life, it shows up, is visible (by naked eye) for a few weeks, then recedes. Because of the constant speed of TYCHOS, Halley's comet hangs around much longer."
To understand the issue at hand, let me use this animation from Wikipedia which illustrates how comets are believed (by mainstream astronomy) to move around our solar system. As you can see, they are meant to be violently accelerating as they transit around our solar neighborhood:

Image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27 ... mation.gif

Consequently, mainstream astronomers would expect that Halley's comet (or any comet, for that matter) would very quickly recede from us - and thus, become much fainter in a relatively short amount of time. Under the TYCHOS model, however, one would expect the comet to recede much more gradually - as the comet moves at a constant speed. To mainstream astronomers, it would seem like an inexplicable oddity if Halley were to remain brighter (for a longer time than expected by their calculations) as the comet receded from our solar system.

Well, thanks to some old astronomy papers, we know that such an "inexplicable oddity" was precisely what was noticed during Halley's 1910 passage.

Image
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi- ... lassic=YES
Extract from The Astronomical Journal, volume 76 -number8, October 1971

The above extract neatly exemplifies the all-too-common practice of mainstream astronomers of glossing over the incovenient (i.e. inexplicable) parts of their findings - while underlining the parts that "agree quite well" with the generally-accepted 'canons' of astronomy. If you click on the above link and read that paper in its entirety, you will see that no attempt whatsoever is made to investigate just why Halley's comet remained brighter than expected under any known magnitude laws which govern the brightness of our celestial objects!

Seneca
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by Seneca » Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:25 am

simonshack » 06 Nov 2019, 21:02 wrote:If the TYCHOSIUM featured a "Gregorian year-counter", I believe it would display for the above position of Halley's comet April 10, 837 (or thereabouts) instead of 851-05-13. Patrik and I are, in fact, currently working on the implementation of just such a Gregorian year-counter in the TYCHOSIUM. Until then, this 1.684% factor must be accounted for in any comparative verifications (vis-à-vis heliocentric simulators) of such long-term orbital periods. Perhaps some math wiz could help me write the correct reduction formula?
I thought this was already done for the Tychosium 2-D ?
Keep in mind that according to the Russian mathematician Anatoly Fomenko the chronology before the Renaissance is completely screwed up. If this is true, the alleged medieval observations are useless as verifications or as falsifications.

Seneca
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by Seneca » Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:56 pm

I understood that the Tychosium 3D used the length of the Tychosium solar year, 365.22057 days. So is the factor we need to convert the dates here not just 365.22057 days divided by 365.2425 days (in the Gregorian calendar)? This is a reduction factor of 0.999940806. This corresponds to 0.00591 % instead of the 1.684 % that you used).

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6795
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:43 pm

Seneca » November 8th, 2019, 1:56 pm wrote:I understood that the Tychosium 3D used the length of the Tychosium solar year, 365.22057 days. So is the factor we need to convert the dates here not just 365.22057 days divided by 365.2425 days (in the Gregorian calendar)? This is a reduction factor of 0.999940806. This corresponds to 0.00591 % instead of the 1.684 % that you used).
Yes, dear Seneca - I soon made an update on my above post when I realized (the next morning) my mistake. Let me just ask everyone for a little patience and keep the Halley comet issue on hold for the time being - until I'll (hopefully) manage to wrap my head around some quite bewildering inconsistencies and contradictions to be found in the vast literature (and the numerous official databases) available for this most famous of all comets. Also, please understand (as I should have pointed out days ago) that the Halley comet currently implemented in the Tychosium is still very much an experimental addition to the simulator.

Let me remind everyone that, in the Tychosium simulator, all of our little Solar System's planets and moons (+ our Sun) revolve in uniformly circular orbits and at constant speeds (a natural concept pursued for millennia by astronomers all around the world) and this, in spite of Kepler's ideas of variable speeds and elliptical orbits. Yet, their celestial positions are now in very good agreement with all available (modern and historical) observational data - as anyone interested can verify for themselves by comparing the Tychosium to other online planetariums such as the famed "Stellarium" or "Celestia".

Having said all of this, please remember: the TYCHOSIUM is still a work in progress - on a zero budget, upheld by two quite honest and hard-working Swedes. ^_^

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6795
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:42 pm

*

HALLEY update


Dear friends,

This is just a little update of my (slow, yet promising) progress at making sense out of the available official data concerning the most famous of all comets, namely, Halley's comet. As I wrote last week :
simonshack wrote:"Let me just ask everyone for a little patience and keep the Halley comet issue on hold for the time being - until I'll (hopefully) manage to wrap my head around some quite bewildering inconsistencies and contradictions to be found in the vast literature (and the numerous official databases) available for this most famous of all comets. Also, please understand (as I should have pointed out days ago) that the Halley comet currently implemented in the Tychosium is still very much an experimental addition to the simulator."
Well, having now spent more time comparing the various databases available concerning Halley's comet, the mystery remains - and the plot thickens. There appears to be no general consensus regarding Halley's motions. And this, whether we're talking about its short-term periods (e.g. when Halley transits across our Solar System - and remains visible to the naked eye for about 6 weeks) or whether we talk about its secular motions. Yes, the JPL-Horizons (a "NASA.gov" webite) offers alleged / computed day-by-day positions of the comet between the years 1599 and 2200. Yet, none of the existing Copernican simulators of our Solar System (that I know of) appear to agree - by a long shot - with those "official" JPL-Horizons ephemerides.

Let me exemplify these enormous discrepancies with the following example: between May 18 and 20, 1910, Halley's comet was observed to pass right between Earth and the Sun (at the very close distance of 0.15AU from Earth). This 1910 observation was extensively documented at the time, in great detail (EXAMPLE), and there is really very little doubt about its veracity: in short, we can be sure, beyond doubt, that Halley truly passed between Earth and the Sun around May 18/20, 1910.

Now, the JPL-Horizons' data puts Halley's comet in some quite plausible (RA / DECL) celestial positions - between Earth and the Sun - on May 18/20, 1910.

Yet, NONE of the existing online Solar System simulators agree with the JPL data. For instance:

The STELLARIUM (reputedly the most respected simulator among astronomers) has Halley's comet as far away from Earth as 2.58 AU - on May 20, 1910 !

Other "established" solar system simulators such as CELESTIA, the JS ORRERY and the SCOPE SOLAR SYSTEM also show Halley to be still VERY distant from Earth on May 20, 1910. For instance, here's how the SCOPE simulator depicts Halley's position on that May 20,1910 date:

Image
SOURCE: https://www.solarsystemscope.com/?c=sidingspring

As you can see, Halley is shown to be NOWHERE NEAR between Earth and the Sun - on May 20, 1910.

The same goes for the JS ORRERY simulator: Halley is shown to be NOWHERE NEAR the Earth and the Sun on May 20, 1910:

Image
SOURCE: https://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/


So the question becomes: WHY don't these famed simulators agree with the "official" JPL data? To be sure, these simulators are the work of a large number of astronomy / computer geeks who pride themselves at solving any sort of computational issues concerning the observed motions of all the celestial bodies in our Solar System. Here is - for instance - the impressive list of contributors to the STELLARIUM simulator :
Image

Hence, we may also legitimately ask ourselves : WHY haven't the STELLARIUM authors simply integrated the JPL data into their solar system simulator?

In any case, these two things are for sure:

1: NONE of the existing simulators of our Solar System can be claimed to correctly / realistically trace the secular or short-term paths of Halley's comet.
2: ALL of these simulators disagree with each other. Here we are in 2019, and NONE can reliably predict the future transits of Halley - with any sort of accuracy.


This leaves us with the TYCHOSIUM (as I will henceforth illustrate) as the most plausible simulator of Halley's secular motions - since it generally agrees (within "tolerable" margins of error) with the historical positions of this most famous comet - as observed and documented in academic literature throughout these last few centuries. According to the current (provisonal / experimental) version of the TYCHOSIUM, the Halley's comet has a quite regular mean/average period of 75.66 years. The supposed "unpredictability" and "chaotic" orbital motions of Halley's comet are, therefore, nothing but a consequence engendered by the fact that this comet's "mysterious" motions (as observed whenever it transits across our Solar System) DO NOT AGREE with Copernican /heliocentric cosmology. This would go a long way to explain why the available data for the secular motions of Halley's comet are starkly conflicting.

In the TYCHOSIUM simulator, the current (experimental) path of Halley's comet does at least show Halley returning REGULARLY every 75.66 years (on average). Here's a diagram I made today by superimposing as many as 10 of Halley's past / and predicted transits - from the year 1456 to the year 2137 :

Image
SOURCE: https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd

We see that the TYCHOSIUM neatly shows Halley's comet REGULARLY returning to our Solar System every 75.66 years - on average. Never, in these last six centuries, has Halley's comet return strayed much away from its habitual 75 / 76-year period.

But here is when things get very, very strange indeed: according to JPL-Horizons (and even Wikipedia), Halley will return in the year 2134 - instead of the year 2137 - as statistically / mathematically expected ! This would be only about 73 years after 2061 !

How could this possibly happen? How could Halley's comet suddenly shorten its REGULAR 75.66-year period into a circa 73-year period (2061 to 2134)?

Well, get this, ladies & gents: not so many years ago (2005), the most "authoritative" Phillip's Astronomy Encyclopedia (which featured a large section about Halley's comet) predicted that Halley's comet would, in fact, return in 2137:

Image

So WHO are we to trust - regarding the predictions for (the 2137 vs 2134) return of Halley's comet? The Phillips Encyclopedia - or the JPL/NASA data?

In any event, the TYCHOSIUM predicts a 2137 return - which is perfectly in line with the observed average periods of Halley's comet for the past six centuries. Anyone who wishes to trust the JPL data - that predicts an absurd 2134 (!?) return of Halley's comet - would have to live in a fantasy world where the basic rules of statistical deduction (as we know them) somehow do not apply! Mainstream astronomers will tell you that the (purportedly) HIGHLY irregular periods of Halley's comet are due to "gravitational perturbations caused by Jupiter, Venus and other planets". Wow... So these perturbations would supposedly (and haphazardly) accelerate Halley's period by a couple of years - making it return in 2134 instead of the statistically-expected 2137? Sorry folks, I don't know about you - but I, for one, find this extremely dubious.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6795
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Dec 07, 2019 11:47 pm

*

HALLEY’S HOLLOW HISTORY


Dear friends,

I say, Good Heavens again! The history of Halley’s comet is full of deep, gaping "black holes"!

This is, in any case, the preliminary - yet incontestable - conclusion of my current, ongoing research. For the last few weeks I have been looking into the available data and literature concerning our most famous comet. Quite frankly, I never thought this would be such a fascinating (and ultimately quite fruitful) discovery journey. And this, in spite of the most frustrating nature of this investigation - what with the pervasive, starkly contradictory information concerning the past appearnces of Halley’s comet in our skies. In fact, I'd venture to say that the utter chaos surrounding the historical record of Halley's comet is an archetypal example of the sort of unsettled cosmological issues which have precipitated astronomy into its current state of limbo. What I am about to expound should be, at the very least, a matter for further investigation by astronomy historians - were it only to alert our world's astronomers as to the shaky ground on which their assumptions and calculations are based upon.

Before we get on looking into the comet’s incredibly warped historical record, please know that the current / modern-day academic consensus regarding Halley is that its orbital motions are "in a chaotic state" and therefore, its recurrence in our skies cannot be exactly calculated / predicted :
"The prevailing view among astronomers is that the orbit of Halley’s Comet cannot be calculated exactly because the orbit would be chaotic on a time scale of only seventy years. " https://astronomynow.com/2016/07/01/cha ... explained/

“In a chaotic state”? "On a time scale of only seventy years?" This is a quite hilarious contention / state of affairs (as we soon shall see, Halley regularly returns every 75.6 years or so): if its orbit truly is "chaotic on a time scale of only seventy years" (as officially claimed), we might as well give up ANY efforts aimed at predicting its periodicity. Astronomers studying Halley's comet would just be a bunch of fools wasting our time and money! As it is, the "chaotic nature" of Halley might well just reside in the minds of the Copernican/Keplerian disciples. Here follows an example of how those mainstream academics will simply discard and "forget" any inconvenient (yet historically-documented) empirical observations which won't “fit” with their proposed heliocentric calculations (based on assorted "planetary perturbations" which would haphazardly speed up or slow down Halley's comet, sometimes by a couple of years or more !).

THE "FORGOTTEN" 1305 HALLEY TRANSIT
According to modern mainstream astronomy, Halley's transit of 1305 ... never took place! Instead, modern official tables report that Halley's comet flew across our Solar System in 1301(i.e. about 4 years earlier!). However, there appears to be solid evidence that this 1305 passage truly occurred : in fact, Edmond Halley himself used it in his original calculations - and one may find several texts mentioning this 1305 passage, such as this :

EXTRACT 1:
Image Source:https://books.google.it/books?id=RE0EAA ... &q&f=false

Here's another example mentioning the 1305 passage of Halley's comet (from a 1986 paper):
EXTRACT 2:
Image

Curiously, in more recent Halley literature we may actually find "denials" of the very occurence of Halley's 1305 transit, such as in this 2003 paper which bluntly asserts (without any supportive evidence) that the observed 1305 transit "was proved not to be correct":
EXTRACT 3:
Image Source: https://books.google.it/books?id=6Hpi20 ... &q&f=false

To this day, I have not been able to find (in the available literature) any explanations / justifications as to why the 1305 passage would be “incorrect”. Au contraire, I have found several writings corroborating the same, whereas - oddly enough - the modern, official listing of Halley’s passages now report a “1301” transit :

THE OFFICIAL LIST OF HALLEY'S HISTORICAL TRANSITS
(as generally-accepted by modern-day astronomers)

Image

Now, and here's when it gets truly astonishing, this "1305 versus 1301" discrepancy is by no means the ONLY such instance of inexplicable contradictory historical records of Halley's passages: as I delved deeper into the extant literature on the subject, I found a French astronomy paper published in the Revue BRITANNIQUE (dated 1835) which lists a number of Halley's transits (duly supported by detailed historical accounts) which were observed in these years :

-130(BC) / 323 / 399 / 550 / 930 / 1005 / 1230 / 1305 / 1380
As you can see, NONE of these dates are listed in the modern official tables of Halley's historical transits! We must ask ourselves: what's going on here? Did the French know more about Halley's comet than the rest of the world? Is this French 1835 paper a hoax? Well, if it's a hoax, I myself certainly played no part in it. To be sure, this French account of the historical passages of Halley's comet is strongly supportive of Halley's behavior in the TYCHOSIUM simulator - as I shall presently illustrate.

Revue BRITANNIQUE (1835): https://books.google.it/books?id=Y9EaAQ ... e&q&f=true
EXTRACT of same paper saved for posterity: http://septclues.com/TYCHOS%20SLIDESHOW ... cle_01.jpg

Note that the French paper justly points out the regular 75.5-year periodicity of Halley's comet (or the 151-year period intercurring between any three transit dates). It appears that, back in the days, no one was conjecturing about any sort of imponderable, random irregularity (or "chaotic state") of Hallley's periodicity!...

I was obviously curious to check just how the above dates (from 130BC to 1380AD) would be displayed in the TYCHOSIUM simulator. Well, here are the results:
Image

Last week I also performed this other TYCHOSIUM test - using the more recent Halley transits (1456 through 2137) which official astronomy generally agrees with:
Image

The TYCHOSIUM : https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd
(NOTE: In the TYCHOSIUM, you will have to activate Halley's comet by clicking on the "planets" drop-down menu - and checking the "Halleys" box. You may also wish to activate the "trace" function for Halleys - and enjoy the charming looping path traced by the comet - much like all the other bodies in our Solar System).

As you can see, the current version of the TYCHOSIUM, with its (still experimental) orbital path of Halley's comet, does a pretty fair job simulating Halley's ancient transits as listed and documented in that 1835 paper from the Revue BRITANNIQUE (all the way back to 130BC!), as well as the more recent transits that officialdom generally agrees with. Keep in mind that Halley does not return in an integer number of years* - as its mean orbital period appears to be somewhere between 75.5 and 75.7 years : thus, it will not always return on May 20 - which is just a "control day" of sorts that I picked to compose my above graphics of superimposed Halley transits (spanning from 130BC to 2137AD). Hence, my above graphics are only meant to show that the TYCHOSIUM does at least place the comet in the vicinity of our Solar System at each given date - which is more than can be said about any other existing simulator of our Solar System. I would encourage everyone to verify for themselves that all the above dates shown in my above graphics are separated by a fairly constant & regular average period of ca. 75.6 years (or multiples thereof). For instance, between the first date (130BC) and the last date (2137AD), we have a timespan of 2267 years. We see that 2267/30= 75.56 years.

* According to my best estimates, Halley's comet has a long-term cycle of (an integer number of) 227 years.

In any event, that French paper goes to show that something fishy is at play with the historical records of Halley's comet. What to make of this? Evidently, someone has been fiddling with the historical records of Halley's comet. The question is: WHY ?
Surely, NO modern data concerning Halley's comet can possibly be trusted - least of all those released by NASA through their JPLHorizons website.



ELUCIDATING THE CURIOUS "TWO-COMET THEORY"

Now, if you have read the above EXTRACTS 2 & 3 carefully, you'll have noticed that there was a peculiar "two-comet" theory being speculated back in the days. Huh? TWO Halley comets? One at perihelion and the other at aphelion? What could possibly have spawned such a bizarre theory? Well, according to the TYCHOSIUM, whenever time Halley's comet returns in Earth's neighborhood, it will actually make TWO fly-bys of Earth (within less than a year): due to its looping motion, it will always transit both in conjunction with - and in opposition to the Sun. This conjunction/opposition sequence alternates (from one transit to another) as described in my below list of "TYCHOSIUM observations" :

SOLAR CONJUNCTIONS AND OPPOSITIONS OF HALLEY’S COMET - according to the TYCHOSIUM:
1304-06-17 Halley in conjunction / 1305-04-08 Halley in opposition- or “below” Earth
1379-07-24 Halley in opposition / 1380-05-23 Halley in conjunction
1455-07-11 Halley in opposition / 1456-04-28 Halley in conjunction
1531-06-21 Halley in conjunction / 1532-04-09 Halley in opposition- or “below” Earth
1606-08-03 Halley in opposition / 1607-06-07 Halley in conjunction
1682-07-22 Halley in opposition / 1683-05-12 Halley in conjunction
1758-07-05 Halley in conjunction / 1759-04-23 Halley in opposition- or “below” Earth
1834-06-13 Halley in conjunction / 1835-04-09 Halley in opposition
1909-07-26 Halley in opposition / 1910-05-19 Halley in conjunction
1985-07-11 Halley in conjunction / 1986-04-27 Halley in opposition- or “below” Earth

Now, consider this: whenever the comet passes in conjunction with the Sun (i.e. swamped in the Sun's glare), it will more often than not be totally invisible by earthly observers. Similarly, whenever the comet passes in opposition to the Sun, it may ALSO be fairly hard to detect : this, because the comet's tail will then be directed AWAY from the earthly observer. Notoriously, what we can see is the comet's tail (which is always directed AWAY from the Sun) - since the comet itself (its so-called "nucleus") is very dark and reflects almost no sunlight at all:

"[Halley's] nucleus is an irregular object about 16 x 8 x 8 kilometers and very dark, with an albedo of about 0.03." https://www.planetary.org/multimedia/sp ... comet.html

In fact, all comets (not only Halley's) are at their brightest when they transit in "quadrature", i.e. neither in conjunction or in opposition. However, some acute observers of yesteryear may have noticed this "double-passage" of Halley's comet - and this goes some way to explain why that "two-comet" theory was speculated back in the days.

We may now clearly envision that the reason why Halley's comet is believed to have an IRREGULAR orbital period is due to this alternation of its passages (in solar conjunction and in solar opposition). Astronomers have thus had to come up with some explanation for these apparent fluctuations of its return in our skies - thence, the "perturbation" theory.

In reality, Halley's comet has a fairly regular & constant period of about 75.6 years - although its actual appearance in our skies will fluctuate due to the irregular alternation of its passages in solar conjunction or in solar opposition. Moreover - and more importantly - any Halley passages through the width of our Sun's orbit (which lasts for almost 3 years) to be mistaken for / confused with any of three dates within that time window. Example: Halley was observed in 1757,1758 and 1759).


ABOUT HALLEY'S 1910 TRANSIT
The 1910 passage of Halley's comet appears to be a well-documented and fairly spectacular event which left a memorable impression. In 1910, it passed quite close to Earth (only 0.15AU or so) - and there are many accounts as to how Earth may "perhaps have passed through its tail" - although this was successively refuted / disproved. In any case, there is no doubt about the actual occurrence of the famed 1910 transit of Halley's comet. As I searched for historical documentations of the 1910 passage, I found this extremely interesting diagram that plots the approach of Halley'scomet - as observed (telescopically) between October 1908 and December 1909 :

Image Source: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_ ... %27s_Comet

Here is the reason why I find the above diagram extremely interesting: in the TYCHOSIUM simulator, the "flattened S-shaped" approach of Halley's comet between October 1908 and December 1909 (as viewed from an earthly perspective) appears to be very much similar in form and shape. Judge for yourselves :
Image
Although it still needs some further fine-tuning, the TYCHOSIUM simulator already appears to be the only existing 3-D simulator capable of visualizing ACTUAL ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS of a comet's path (as well as planetary retrograde motions) as viewed and documented from planet Earth throughout the ages.

Here is another example of the TYCHOSIUM's ability to reproduce actual observations. The below graphic compares the 1986 transit of Halley's comet - as featured on WIKIPEDIA - with a TYCHOSIUM screenshot of the same 1986 transit of Halley's comet:
Image

The same Wikipedia graphic compared with the TYCHOSIUM (of the April 1986 passage of Halley's) - from another viewing angle:
Image

ABOUT HALLEY'S 1985/1986 TRANSIT
Let me now illustrate what the TYCHOSIUM simulator can tell us about the very latest transit of Halley's comet (in 1985/1986).
In 1985 (between February 20 and August 20), Halley's comet would have made a fly-by as it transited (probably unseen?) in solar conjunction, as illustrated here:
Image

In 1986 (between January 20 and May 9), Halley's comet would have made a fly-by as it transited (more visibly) in solar opposition, as illustrated here:
Image
Note that, during this particular transit, Halley probably passed "below" Earth. In fact, there are many testimonies to the fact that scores of eager comet-watchers travelled to remote locations in the Southern Hemisphere in order to witness its passage (although they were all dreadfully disappointed by what they saw: just a tiny speck of light in the sky). As it is, the last passage of Halley's comet is widely known to have been a "flop". Halley has been, in fact, slowly fizzling out over the years.

Now, you may ask yourselves why I chose to illustrate the two above / particular time periods of Halley's 1985/1986 passages. The reason for this choice goes as follows: as I tried to find any PROFESSIONAL OBSERVATIONAL DATA of these 1985/1986 passages, the only relevant data I could find (it was actually sent to me by an Australian astronomy student who questions my TYCHOS model) was this observational data - now published on NASA's Astrophysics Data System - which was apparently gathered by a few Italian observatories:
Image Source: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full ... 5.000.html

As you can see, this Italian observational data of Halley's 1985/1986 passages feature "big black holes" precisely during the crucial / closest transits of the comet !

Incidentally, on January 28,1986 - just as the comet re-emerged from behind the Sun - the infamous "Space Shuttle Challenger disaster" played out on TV.
"Among the prescribed duties of the five astronauts and two payload specialists (represented by the seven stars of the U.S. flag) was observation and photography of Halley's Comet, backdropped against the U.S. flag in the insignia." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-L


In conclusion... I do not pretend to formulate any sort of firm conclusion regarding Halley's comet. However, it is painfully evident that the historical records surrounding our most famous comet are totally unreliable and have, for some reason, been grossly distorted. Why this has happened is a matter open to speculation - yet it is beyond the scope of the present writeup to hypothesize about the possible motives or circumstances that may have caused this utter mess. Suffice to say that, as the author of the TYCHOS model, I will henceforth ignore any objections (as to my proposed secular motions of Halley's comet) based on the official timeline of the comet's (supposedly "chaotic") recurrence in our skies.


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

EPILOGUE

Of course, dear ladies and gents, modern-day astronomers will tell you that comet Halley actually makes a "U-turn" as it flies across our inner Solar System, like so:

THE SUPPOSED "CIGAR-SHAPED" ORBIT OF HALLEY'S COMET:
Image

That's right, folks: as current theory has it, all comets would be travelling around cigar-shaped trajectories - as illustrated above! Not only that, but comets are also believed to violently accelerate as they enter our inner Solar System, making a sharp U-turn around it - and to gradually slow down as they recede from it. Then, about 38 years later (in comet Halley's case), the comet would - for some unfathomable reason - decide to make another sharp U-turn (this time at a very slow rate of speed) and start its return-journey towards our Solar System... And all of this while our little Solar System would be moving around our galaxy at the speed of 800,000 km/h !!! Quite frankly, I have no idea how any sane brain on this planet can fail to question such utterly grotesque, "long-established scientific theories". I must suspect that most people are blinded by the towering "authority" of a few Untouchable Gods of Science (e.g. Sir Isaac Newton) who, some hundreds of years ago, decided for all of us that "hey, that's the way it is, folks! You gotta believe it - because I say so: comets move around EXTREMELY ELONGATED, ELLIPTICAL, cigar-shaped orbits! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?" Well I, for one, certainly cannot see what sort of forces of nature would cause comets to fly around cigar-shaped paths. Sorry, Isaac - but no cigar from me.

Let us never forget that Edmond Halley was the man who financed the publication of Isaac Newton's "Principia"(a world-changing text if there ever was one) - and that Halley's own discoveries concerning the comet that took his name were universally hailed as a "glorious confirmation of Newton's theories". Science has truly become a far more dogmatic cult than any form of religion. Religious creeds are, at least, still multiple and diverse (although I don't subscribe to any). Official scientific "truths", on the other hand, are almost unanimously embraced by academic circles worldwide - and by many billions of inhabitants of this planet. Let's hope that this infrangible dogmatism soon comes to an end - lest we become the laughing stock of the entire universe.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6795
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Dec 11, 2019 3:36 am

*

HALLEY'S APPARENT "IRREGULARITY" - SOLVED BY THE TYCHOS?

Dear friends,

To those who may wonder why I am spending much effort trying to make sense of the historical record of Halley's comet, please consider that this is certainly no petty matter - since Halley's predicted return of 1759 was very much touted as a "decisive confirmation of Newton's laws":

“The return of Halley’s comet at its predicted time* provided a decisive confirmation of Newton’s laws. Nowadays we might not find this very interesting, but at the time it was very important. After all, in those days Newton’s theories were brand new – when Halley made his prediction, Newton’s Principia was a mere 17 years old.” Extract from “Understanding the Universe" – by George Greenstein https://books.google.it/books?id=pkZr-w ... &q&f=false

*Note that, in the literature, we may find various predicted times / years for this crucial return of the comet (which made Edmond Halley famous and "scored a glorious triumph for Newton's theories"): 1757, 1758 or 1759. At the time, our world's (well, mostly French and British) many eminent astronomers had different opinions on the matter - and a bunch of them, on both sides of the Channel, feverishly competed to predict Halley's return to the best possible accuracy.

The other day, as I found this French article in the Revue BRITANNIQUE, I was a bit reluctant to cite it in my above post due to the fact that the article was unsigned. The article was nonetheless most interesting, since it mentioned (accompanied with some measure of historical detail) as many as nine assumed ancient transits of Halley's comet in our skies which are ALL absent in the modern Halley transit list, namely: -130(BC) / 323 / 399 / 550 / 930 / 1005 / 1230 / 1305 / and 1380. As I tested them one by one in the TYCHOSIUM simulator, Halley's comet neatly showed up, on all of these dates, in the vicinity of our Solar System (see above post).

Here is once more the screenshot I made of these 9 passages - as plotted in the TYCHOSIUM simulator:
Image

Fortunately however, after some further digging, I was able to trace the original source of that information. It turns out that it originated from none other than Gustave De Pontécoulant, arguably the foremost 19th-century French authority on Halley's comet - whose prime claim to fame is to have predicted the 1835 return of Halley's comet with stunning precision:

"In 1829 he [Pontécoulant] used the mathematical methods of Poisson and Lagrange to successfully predict the return of Halley's comet with good precision. His prediction of the perihelion passage was correct to within two days." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_ ... %A9coulant

Here's the front page & foreword to Pontécoulant's academic paper - as translated from French to English by Colonel Charles Gold :
Image
Source: https://books.google.it/books?id=RXeF1w ... &q&f=false

And here's the list of the 9 ancient Halley transits featured in Pontécoulant's paper (which are ALL absent from the MODERN list of ancient Halley transits!) :
Image
Source: https://books.google.it/books?id=RXeF1w ... &q&f=false

You may easily verify for yourselves that all of the above years are separated by multiples of approximately 75.5 years (a plain statistical fact that Pontécoulant justly mentions on several occasions in his above-linked academic paper). Keep in mind that Pontécoulant published the above list many decades after both Edmond Halley and his protégé Isaac Newton had passed away (Halley was the man who financed the publication of Newton's "Principia"). Pontécoulant was therefore certainly not ignorant of Newton's "perturbation" theories according to which comets will somehow be strongly affected by the gravitational forces of Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Earth (etc...), causing their return to our Solar System to be either anticipated or retarded (sometimes by several months / or years!...).

This very idea (of the so-called "perturbations") is of course utterly outlandish and irrational - as it challenges the limits of human credulity, imagination and common sense: after all, does ANYTHING similar occur in Nature, here on Earth? Does, for instance, an aircraft circling the Himalaya mountains gain (or lose) speed, due to the mass of the mountains? If you ask any astrophysicists, they will usually sermon you with of this sort of discourse: "Well, up there in the cosmos, this is just the way it is. Newton proved it: planets and comets DO accelerate and decelerate. If you cannot grasp it, you are just too damn stoopid - sorry. Find yourself another hobby - and let us scientists deal with such complex matters."

We shall now see how the sheer confusion caused by the SEEMINGLY irregular return of Halley's comet is - in all likelihood - to blame for this sorry state of affairs.


THE 1757, 1758 and 1759 RETURNS OF HALLEY'S COMET

I presume that hardly any modern astronomer will be aware of - or remember - the following observations, as they are scarcely reported in astronomy literature (it took me quite a long time to find them, as I patiently scoured through the immense "internet libraries"). It so happens that, back in the days when the entire western world's scientific community was on their feet, in trepidating expectation of Edmond Halley's famous prediction of "his" comet's return in our skies, a couple of observations were made PRIOR to the expected 1759 return:

-Around mid-September 1757, a comet was observed in our skies.
-Around mid-August 1758, another comet was observed in our skies


Both were eventually dismissed as "mistaken observations" (i.e. NOT the expected Halley comet) - as mentioned in "Cometography - A Catalogue of Comets".
Image
Source: "Cometography - A Catalogue Of Comets": https://books.google.it/books?id=Umxbb6 ... &q&f=false

Those astronomers that had predicted Halley's return in 1757 or 1758 just had to bow down - I suppose - to the "towering authority" of the (already) universally-venerated "God" of science, Sir Isaac Newton (and his sponsor Edmond Halley), whose theories had predicted the comet's return no earlier than 1759... The comet was certainly not "allowed" to appear one or two years earlier!

It appears that the motives for ruling out these two sightings as being spurious (i.e. two entirely different comets than Halley's) was that their observed celestial positions were incompatible with the Copernican / heliocentrically assumed path of Halley's comet (which is believed to make a sharp "U-turn" around our Solar System each time it comes into our sight).

Well, dear friends: the TYCHOS model may provide a possible (and very simple) answer to these purportedly "spurious sightings of Halley's comet" which, back in the days, must have caused a lot of chagrin to those poor astronomers who had predicted its return in 1757 or 1758.

I submit that the "two" comets observed in mid-1757 and mid-1758 were, in fact, Halley's comet.
Here's how the TYCHOSIUM simulator shows Halley's positions in 1757, 1758 and 1759:
Image
Source: The TYCHOSIUM simulator: https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd

Note that, in the TYCHOSIUM, Halley is shown to be (on April 26,1759) very close to Earth indeed - at only about 0.1AU.
As it is, the ATLAS OF GREAT COMETS has the closest passage of Halley's comet (on April 26, 1759) at 0.1225 AU :
Image
Source: https://books.google.it/books?id=VEF5Bg ... &q&f=false
Note also that, in the above extract from the ATLAS OF GREAT COMETS, we may read that: "The orbit of Halley's Comet at its first predicted return in 1759 was extremely similar to that of its most recent apparition in 1986". This is indeed also the case in the TYCHOSIUM - as anyone can verify by perusing the simulator: on both occasions, Halley first passed "above" our planet (about ten months earlier) and then "below" Earth around April 1759 and 1986. As it is, the two dates are separated by an integer number of years - that is, 227y (or 3X75.66 years) which appears to be Halley's "full cycle"; interestingly, this is similar to the periodicities of our Moon, which completes one "full" cycle (a.k.a. the Exeligmos cycle) every 3 "partial" cycles (a.k.a. the Saros cycles).

In fact, the TYCHOSIUM agrees with several other "key" (i.e. well-documented / beyond question) observed positions of Halley's comet recorded in the last few centuries. Yet, Halley's "looping" orbital motion (as of the TYCHOS) is obviously quite different from the single "U-turn" (as of current heliocentric theory) that it supposedly traces as it transits across our Solar System: hence, Halley's positions can sometimes be "off" by many degrees as compared with official tables (as computed, for instance, by the JPL/NASA website). However, as we have just seen, astronomers are prone to simply "dismiss & ignore" any inconvenient observational cometary data which contradicts the assumed positions of Halley's comet as it transits in Earth's vicinity. They will just assume that "it must have been another, different comet"- and close the case...

I really think I might be on to something, folks. Of course, only time will tell... -_-

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6795
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:21 pm

*

THE TYCHOS EXPLAINS THE "FALSE SIGHTINGS" OF HALLEY'S COMET

Dear friends,

The raw explanatory power of the TYCHOS model never ceases to amaze me as it keeps delivering elucidations concerning age-old (yet, to this day, unresolved) riddles and controversies of astronomy - and this, beyond my wildest expectations. For instance, I truly never expected that my current investigations around Halley's comet would yield any sort of solid / useful arguments in support of the TYCHOS. However, it now appears that... I was dead wrong about that.

In my previous post I provided an illustrated example of how Halley's orbital motion (as proposed by the TYCHOS model) might go to explain why the comet was observed in 1757 AND in 1758, even though the comet ALSO appeared in 1759 - as everyone was very anxiously expecting at the time: to be sure, not only was Edmond Halley's famed predictions at stake - but so were indeed his protégé's (Isaac Newton) essential theories!

Image

The observed comets of 1757 and 1758 were eventually dismissed as "false/mistaken sightings" of Halley's, or in other words, to have been some other totally-unrelated cometary bodies which somehow fooled those astronomers of repute who happened to have sighted them in 1757 and 1758. In any case, Halley's comet DID appear in 1759 as predicted - passing closest to the Sun & Earth - so "no harm was done" to Halley and Newton. *Phew!*

The thing is: the story of the "False Sightings" of Halley's comet doesn't end here. As I've found out by patiently combing through (mostly vintage) astronomy literature, there have been numerous such cases of (purported) "mistaken identity" - all of which would have occurred either one or two years before/or after the closest passages of Halley's. Now, if we have MULTIPLE such "false sightings" (within one or two years of Halley's closest passages to Earth) spread over the centuries, you'll hopefully agree that it becomes terribly hard to brush them away as "mere coincidences".

Before we get on I must make it clear to the reader that, under current theory (which has Halley's making a "parabolic U-turn" as it sweeps around our Solar System) it would be inconceivable that any ancient observers would have possibly sighted the comet one year/ let alone two years before/ or after its closest passage. This, because the comet would be far too distant to be seen - especially prior to the invention of the telescope.

Here's how the NASA/JPL simulator of Halley's path would depict the 1757/1758/1759 sightings of Halley's. That is, IF their Java simulator even would correctly depict ANY historical passage of the comet as of their own official tables - which it simply doesn't ! (with the possible exception of the very latest 1986 passage) :
Image
The NASA/JPL Halley simulator: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=1P&orb=1#top

Hence, we can clearly see why "Academia" simply HAD to dismiss (as spurious) any sightings of Halley's comet made one or two years away from its closest passage to Earth - since they were utterly incompatible with the assumed paradigms of the Copernican / heliocentric model. The problem is, as we now shall see, is that the above-illustrated 1757/1758/1759 case was not an isolated one: as documented in the literature, such "False Sightings" occurred on several other occasions.

Around the time that Edmond Halley himself witnessed "his own" comet's passage, a total of three cometary observations were made (in 1680, 1682 and 1683). Bearing witness to these historical records is the below illustration - as posted at the UniverseToday website (on their page dedicated to the history of Halley's comet) :

Image
https://www.universetoday.com/48991/halleys-comet/

Here is how the TYCHOSIUM simulator depicts Halley's positions on these successive dates:
Image https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd
The 1682 and 1683 sightings would have been naked-eye events, whereas the 1680 sighting might possibly have been a telescopic one, since the telescope had already been invented (on 7-27-1680, the comet would have been no more than 2.8AU away from Earth). In any case, the TYCHOSIUM tells us that all three sightings may well have been none other than Halley's comet. This is of course "unacceptable" for mainstream astronomy - and is the underlying cause for the endless controversies surrounding the periodicity of our most famous comet.

Further back in time (long before the invention of the telescope) it was reported in the catalogue of Alstédius and Lubienietski that two sightings had taken place in 1379 and 1380 (Note that the modern / official Halley catalogues have Halley passing Earth in late 1378):

Here is how the TYCHOSIUM simulator depicts Halley's positions on these two dates:
Image
source of book extract: https://books.google.it/books?id=RXeF1w ... &q&f=false
As you can see, Halley's would have been quite close to Earth on both of those dates - i.e. naked-eye events.

And now we arrive to the most bizarre case of contradictory information afflicting Halley's historical record: the 1305 passage. It is a veritable mystery that this apparently most spectacular 1305 passage (as thoroughly described in scores of vintage literature) has now been "zapped out" of the modern Halley tables - and replaced with the year 1301! And this, in spite of the fact that Edmond Halley himself used the well-documented 1305 passage date for his famed calculations of the comet's return! Moreover, there seem to exist NO dependable eyewitness reports of the supposed "1301 Halley passage" in astronomy literature. Instead, what you will find are vague, popular conjectures that Italy's famous painter Giotto "may have personally witnessed the comet in 1301" - and this would have inspired him to depict the comet (as the star of Betlehem) in one of his masterworks, the "Adoration of the Magi" (apparently completed in...1305).

Here's from Wikipedia's "HALLEY'S COMET" page :
Imagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet

Now, imagine my "surprise" as I bumped into this most interesting tidbit of information - on the website of an Italian Astronomical Observatory:
Image
http://www.brera.mi.astro.it/sormano/ancientcomet.html

"Giotto's Comet - was it the Comet of 1304 and not Comet Halley?" http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993QJRAS..34...21H

That's right: another "False Sighting" of Halley's comet appears to have been made in 1304 ! I was of course eager to check what the TYCHOSIUM had to say about that:

Well, here is how the TYCHOSIUM simulator depicts Halley's positions in 1304 and 1305:
Image
source of book extract: https://books.google.it/books?id=RXeF1w ... &q&f=false
Note that the 1305 passage is described in the literature to have occurred "around Easter"; the TYCHOSIUM has Halley passing closest to Earth on April 6, 1305.

Need I say more? I suppose not - but just to make it very clear: BOTH the 1304 and 1305 passages would have been naked-eye events (as shown by the TYCHOSIUM) - and would therefore quite plausibly have happened in reality. This leaves the purported "1301 passage" as the least plausible (and worst-documented) option. As of today, one may justly affirm that the TYCHOSIUM is the only existing simulator capable of plotting the secular motions of comet Halley in a manner reasonably consistent with the comet's historical records.

All in all, I am now personally satisfied that, within the context of Halley's comet, both the TYCHOS model and the TYCHOSIUM simulator are supported by historical documentations - to a degree that I dare describe as unassailable. It is - as ever - for each and everyone of my readers to assess my latest findings and draw their own conclusions thereof.

*******************
Edit to add:

I just found this other tidbit of information related to Halley's 1456 passage - in a book titled "Astronomical Enigmas: The Star of Betlehem and other Milky Way Mysteries" - by Mark Kidger. Once more, it goes to indicate that each time Halley passes in our Solar System's neighborhood, it may be sighted on any of three successive years - and this is the main cause for the confusion surrounding the (supposedly "chaotic") periodicity of our most famous comet:

"There was no bright comet in 1455, but Halley did notice that one was observed in 1456, which he suspected was his comet, although he did not calculate its orbit. Actually, besides the one in 1456, there were two bright comets in 1457 and another in 1458, which somewhat confused the issue." https://books.google.it/books?id=DKYJaB ... 58&f=false

I rest my case. -_-

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6795
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Dec 28, 2019 11:15 am

*
ADMIN NOTICE (Simon): I have made this thread in order to gather my research around Halley's comet in one place.

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

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6795
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Dec 29, 2019 11:24 pm

*

THE ORBITAL MOTIONS OF HALLEY'S COMET - in the TYCHOS model

Dear friends,

The other day I was asked how I came to imagine - and went on to formulate - the motions of Halley's comet around our Solar System (what with its "funny" circular / looping motion around its trochoidal, yet non-elliptical orbit). As it is, all I did was to apply to the comet's orbital "behavior" the same logic that applies to all of our so-called outer planets, from Jupiter to Pluto: they all revolve around our little Sun/Mars binary system - as if attached by a rigid imaginary (magnetic?) string to the SUN. This causes them to trace those beautiful, "flowery" orbital patterns enacted by the TYCHOSIUM simulator's Trace function.

Indeed, the "funny" looping motion of our planets and comets (as illustrated below) is a direct consequence of the SUN (which we may think of as a Mother Magnet) revolving around its orbit. Note that the width / or breadth of these loops (2AU) reflect the Sun's orbital diameter. Thus, one certainly cannot say (as some have bemoaned) that the TYCHOS has demoted the Sun to some sort of unimportant, "sidekick" entity: it still remains very much the central driving force (for lack of a better term) of our Solar System. Of course, today we know that practically ALL of the stars in our skies (possibly 100% of them) have "local" orbits of their own - as they revolve around their binary companions. Hence, to think that our Sun would NOT have a "local" orbit (and therefore be some odd / freak / unique exception to this cosmic rule) is, well, simply unthinkable. It is a statistically absurd proposition - yet, this is precisely what the Copernican heliocentric model proposes...

This screenshot from the TYCHOSIUM goes to show the similarity of the "looping" (i.e. trochoidal) orbital motions of Jupiter, Saturn - and Halley's comet:

Image

Of course, the cometary paths (such as Halley's) are not wholly identical to those of our outer planets, as their orbits' focal points are, so to speak, "glued" to the Sun.
In this case, you may think of the Sun as a girl's belly, as she swings a hula hoop around her waist. In fact, an imaginary "comet" attached to the hula hoop will not only revolve in a large circle around the girl - it will also trace smaller loops, the size of which will reflect that of the circular motion of the girl's waist:
Image

Let me quickly remind the reader that modern-day astronomers specializing in the study of exoplanets and their host stars are very much familiar with those "funny", looping / spiralling motions. Here follows a diagram from an academic paper showing various examples of the kind. Thus, the question becomes: why would our Solar System NOT feature such pretty, spirographic "mandala patterns"? Are we earthlings just out of luck? :(
Image
http://www.tychos.info/citation/009B_Ba ... Motion.pdf

You may now ask yourselves: "does the looping motion of Halley's comet (as of the TYCHOS) reflect the Sun's circular motion around its orbit?" Yes indeed :

Image

Once again, the wondrous TYCHOSIUM simulator enables us to visualize (and even measure) with our own eyes what may well be the GEOMETRIC REALITY of our Solar System and its various components. I dearly hope that most of my readers are enjoying this ongoing discovery journey as much as I do!

At the beginning of this month, I posted an old (1910) diagram which plotted the observed path of Halley's comet as it approached Earth (between Oct 1908 and Dec 1909), prior to its famous May 1910 passage (Halley then came as close as 0.15AU from Earth). What I forgot to mention was that the very existence of that diagram constitutes, all by itself, a spiny problem for the current theory of Halley's motions. In fact, according to current theory, Halley would have been, roughly speaking, more than 6AU away (i.e. beyond the orbit of Jupiter!) in October 1908. It would seem extremely dubious that a tiny (Dimensions: 15kmX8km) and intrinsically dark (the albedo of its nucleus is very low) object such as Halley would have been visible at such a distance with the early-1900's telescopes. According to the TYCHOS model, on the other hand, Halley would have been as close as 1.6AU. Aside from such considerations (which may be debatable), I would like to bring the readers' attention to the aforementioned observational diagram - and how the TYCHOSIUM is actually capable of rendering / reproducing the peculiar shape of the same :

Image
Source of diagram of the 1908-1909 observations: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_ ... %27s_Comet

I don't know about you, but as far as I can see, this constitutes formidable empirical / scientific evidence in support of the correctness of the TYCHOS model.

Now, I presume that Copernican advocates will contend that this peculiar "Z-shape" of Halley's 1908/1909 approach (as telescopically observed and documented) can be explained by "Earth's motion around the Sun". Very well. So here is my challenge to Copernican advocates:

Please provide a graphic counterpart of the above TYCHOSIUM screenshot, demonstrating how and why Halley's comet would have traced this "Z-shaped" path (under the paradigm of the Copernican heliocentric theory) between October 1908 and December 1909.

Next, we shall see how and why Halley's comet can, occasionally (every 227 years or so), pass "ABOVE" Earth and "BELOW" Earth in two successive years - and why one of these two passages will remain unobserved from Earth or/and be deemed to be a "False Sighting" of Halley's comet (i.e. some other comet being mistaken for Halley's). There are reports about a "bright comet" that passed close to Earth in the year 1304. There are also reports about a "very bright comet" passing close to Earth in 1305. The 1305 passage was extensively documented (as a "terrific & frightful event") and used by none other than Edmond Halley himself in his famous calculations regarding the comet's recurring apparitions. Here's a "side-view" of how the TYCHOSIUM simulator plots these two passages :

Image

Incredibly enough, the 1304 and 1305 passages are virtually absent in the modern literature - and official lists now report Halley as having passed in...1301 !

The TYCHOSIUM simulator tells us another story: these "As-Above-So-Below" passages (as I like to call them) of Halley's comet seem to occur every 227 years or so.

Specifically, they occurred in 1304/1305, then in 1531/1532, then in 1758/1759, and most recently in 1985/1986 (all four events separated by about 227 years).

Here's the 1985/1986 occurence of Halley's "As-Above-So-Below" double passage - as neatly plotted by the TYCHOSIUM:

Image

In all probability, the close 1985 passage went largely unnoticed, since the comet would have been entirely "lost" in the Sun's glare (around June 1985). On the other hand, the 1986 passage was widely reported as a "below Earth" passage: many astronomy buffs travelled to the Southern Hemisphere in order to catch a little (and apparently most disappointing) glimpse of the famous comet. https://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/13/us/d ... well.html

That's all for now, folks. At this stage, I can only hope that my research gets assessed and debated by influential scientists graced with intellectual honesty. My next post will, in fact, feature the writings of some most eminent scholars who have questioned both the validity and the credibility of the scientific community's "treatment" of the many puzzling and controversial questions surrounding Halley's comet.

Peaker
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:04 pm

Re: Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Unread post by Peaker » Mon Dec 30, 2019 2:09 am

Hello Everyone,

I'm finding this thread fascinating...with that 'who woulda thought' feeling coming through strongly. Who would have thought that The Tychos would have something strong to say about something so intermittent as Halley's. And that Halley was the mentor of Newton. Did I get that right? Like one big club, isn't it?

Anyway, I wanted to say that I saw Halley's Comet in 1986 as a young flight-attendant for Qantas. The captain called me to the flight deck and pointed it out one night. Yes, it was small almost insignificant and two, it was in the Southern Hemisphere. I have a clear memory of this as I only begun my flying in Dec '85.

Regards to all,

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6795
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:35 pm

*

"BOGUSLAWSKI'S COMET" OF APRIL 1835
a fully demonstrable case of mistaken identity


Dear friends,

I'd like to salute and kick off this New Year (propitiously named 20/20) by sharing with my readers this latest "chance" discovery of mine which corroborates (I dare say in resounding manner) my proposed motion of Halley's comet and its peculiar trajectories traced by the TYCHOSIUM simulator. Keep in mind that Halley's comet is a recent addition to the Tychosium - and one that is still in its experimental phase (I've only just started fine-tuning Halley's secular celestial positions). Nonetheless, it would appear that its simulation of Halley's path has already attained a quite remarkable level of accuracy - certainly beyond my boldest expectations!

The issue at hand concerns Halley's 1835 passage. As it is, the 1835 passage has had me scratching my head for a while: this, because its reported perihelion passage of November 16, 1835 was (unlike most other documented returns of the famous comet between 1305 and 1986) in poor agreement with the Tychosium simulator which, instead, shows Halley closest to Earth around April 1835. Of course, a comet's perihelion passage is not the same as its closest approach to Earth, yet I had to wonder why I could find no accounts of its close April approach in the literature: how could everyone have missed Halley's close passage to Earth (in opposition to the Sun) around April 1835? My steady efforts at seeking a possible answer to this particular riddle were finally rewarded a few days ago - as I came upon this report by the Académie des Sciences (dated September 14, 1835). The French report contains a brief description of "the recent discovery of a new comet" credited to one "M. Boguslawski". I later found out more about the distinguished professor Boguslawski:
Palm Heinrich Ludwig von Boguslawski
Palm Heinrich Ludwik von Boguslawski or Palon Heinrich Ludwig Pruß von Boguslawsky, (1789-1851) was a Polish/German professor of astronomy and head of the observatory in Breslau. (...) Boguslawski discovered a comet in 1835 and calculated its course. For this he was awarded the first gold comet medal and the comet was named after him. http://400-blogg.ub.uu.se/2019/03/14/palm-eng/
The brief French report instantly piqued my curiosity, since the "new" comet (known today as "Boguslawski's comet") was reported as having passed perihelion in March (or April ) 1835 - and to have a retrograde orbital motion (i.e. moving in opposed direction to our planets). This seemed basically consistent with Halley's comet as simulated in the Tychosium. Yet, there was more - much more - to come... As I pursued my search for more information & data regarding "Boguslawski's comet", I was delighted to find it in a book titled "Cometography: 1800-1899" (by Gary W. Kronk, Maik Meyer, David Allan John Seargent) :
Image
Source: https://books.google.it/books?id=5XXjVF ... &q&f=false

As you can see, the comet observed by Boguslawski (and successively by Kreil) was recorded by these two professional astronomers as having behaved as follows:

On April 21, 1835 Boguslawski observed it at RA: 11h58min and DECL: -12°07'.
On May 28, 1835 Karl Kreil observed it at RA: 10h04m and DECL: +2°49'.
Moreover, the "new" comet was calculated to have passed closest to Earth on April 11, 1835.


This compares to the celestial positions of HALLEY's COMET in the Tychosium simulator which are (currently) as follows :

On April 21, 1835 > RA: 10h50m DECL: -12°24'
On May 28, 1835 > RA: 9h58m DECL: +3°22'
Moreover, Halley's comet was closest to Earth (according to the Tychosium) around April 8/9/10 1835.


Here's a screenshot I made of this triple scenario - as plotted by the ever-more-wondrous Tychosium simulator:
Image

In other words, what Boguslawski and Kreil observed was - in all probability - none other than Halley's comet! However, since the entire (mostly French & British) scientific community was feverishly awaiting Halley's return around the month of November 1835 (as was more or less the general consensus), we may easily imagine why none of the bigwigs seem to have suggested that Boguslawski's bogus "new" comet may have been, in fact, an "early" and wholly unexpected return of Halley's comet; to be sure, they had all been engaging in a fierce competition involving excruciatingly complex calculi of the mystical "perturbations" believed to either retard or accelerate the comet's orbital speed) to predict the day of its 1835 return. They were probably more than happy to let professor Boguslawski give his name to this supposed "new" (and most "inconvenient") comet which just happened to pass close to Earth shortly before the widely-expected November return of Halley's comet...

I expect that the various opponents of my TYCHOS model (who are naturally / unsurprisingly growing in numbers these days) to once more dismiss this latest discovery of mine offhand and ... "chalk it up to coincidence". For instance, Paul (the veteran Swedish astronomer who "loves to hate the TYCHOS") has oftentimes accused me of "cherrypicking data & information which happen to fit into my theory". Well, I think Paul has it assbackwards: what I'm finding is data & information which either conflicts with current heliocentric theory - or raises serious questions about it: I'm not making up any of this information - those putative "accidental coincidences" simply keep jumping at me as I pursue my research, every step of the way. After all, what exactly is scientific research all about - if it isn't about:

A: Postulating an (alternative) working thesis aimed at advancing current scientific / empirical and documented knowledge
B: Proceeding to verify whether it is tenable & demonstrable - within the framework of current scientific / empirical knowledge

I believe that, so far, my proposed TYCHOS model has duly met with these basic, "deontological" requirements. As ever, dear reader, you be the judge.

Post Reply