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.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7090
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:01 pm

*
Dear all, I know... it's been a while since I've published any new Tychos research - but rest assured that I've not been sleeping and have kept incessantly digging for further confirmations of the model's validity. This last finding of mine (concerning Ernest Esclangon's observations) may - hopefully - take your breath away (although in a totally harmless, non-lethal manner !).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

*

ESCLANGON'S OBSERVATIONS OF EARTH'S DAILY MOTION

I never cease to marvel at the amazingly precise observations made by some of the best observational astronomers of yesteryear - as they tried to make sense of this solar system of ours. Their tireless dedication to their noble quest of unveiling the secrets of our cosmos has not been in vain - and I'm proud & glad to have contributed to highlight the significance of their lifetime efforts.

Image

Ernest Esclangon (17 March 1876 – 28 January 1954) was the director of the Strasbourg Observatory and the Paris Observatory before becoming the President of the Société astronomique de France. In 1935, he received the Prix Jules Janssen, the society's highest award. In France, he is acknowledged as one of the most rigorous astronomers of his time. On his French Wikipedia page we can read that "Esclangon was attached to the establishment of the Chart of the Sky; it improved the precision of measurements in the fields of astronomy: measurement of time, variation of longitudes, variation of gravity." In any event, Esclangon was certainly a major authority in astronomical matters - even though most people will never have heard of him.

I came across his work while browsing the website dedicated to Maurice Allais (the man who definitively disproved Einstein's theory of relativity). Here's an extract from the Maurice Allais foundation's website that describes Esclangon's most peculiar observational program carried out around the years 1927/1928:
"The observations of Ernest Esclangon

Between 25th February 1927 and 9th January 1928 Ernest Esclangon carried out, at the Strasbourg Observatory, a programme of optical observations following a very different procedure from that which had been almost exclusively used until then in interferometric observations. It was as follows:

a) a refracting telescope placed in the horizontal plane facing north-west, autocollimation is used to cause a horizontal thread located at the focus of the telescope to coincide with its image reflected on a mirror that is integrated with the telescope. The angular displacement required for this coincidence is denoted by c.

b) Turning the device to face north-east, the operation is repeated. The angular displacement required to obtain the coincidence this time is denoted by c'. The magnitude whose evolution has been monitored over time is (c-c').

These observations comprised 40 000 sightings carried out by day as well as by night and divided into 150 series. The published reports included, in addition to a detailed description of the equipment used, the values for (c-c') for each series and the average temperature during each series as well as temperature evolution over each series.

By adopting the standpoint of sidereal time, Ernest Esclangon had detected a sidereal diurnal periodic component, whereas nothing in particular emerged when solar time was adopted.

He published his findings in a communication to the Académie des Sciences: “Sur la dissymétrie optique de l’espace et les lois de la réflexion” [On the optical dissymetry of space and the laws of reflection] (December 27, 1927) in the April 1928 issue of the “Journal des Observateurs”, in which he also provided the experimental data collected: “Sur l’existence d’une dissymétrie optique de l’espace” [On the existence of dissymmetry of space]. In making use of these data, Maurice Allais established the presence, in addition to the sidereal diurnal component, of at least one long periodic component (estimated on the basis of a rapid analysis to be half-yearly)."

http://www.fondationmauriceallais.org/t ... s/?lang=en
To the layman, this may all sound like a dreadfully complex affair - and I must admit it took me quite a while to wrap my head around what exactly Esclangon's observational program was all about. "An optical 'dissymetry' [or in more correct English, asymmetry] of space"? Hmm... What could this possibly signify?

Well, please stay with me as I attempt to illustrate in the simplest possible manner what exactly Esclangon (unwittingly) observed. As you will see, it all amounts to a spectacular confirmation of one of the major tenets of the Tychos model: Earth’s proposed orbital speed of 1.6 km/h around its PVP orbit.

Here is the conclusive paragraph of Esclangon's paper describing his observational program of Earth's daily motions:

Image
source: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k ... 0esclangon

In short, here's what Esclangon's extremely rigorous series of telescopic observations (in Strasbourg) established :

- Between 3AM and 3PM (i.e. a 12-hour interval), the star quadrants at either side of Earth appear to be "offset" by -0.036" and +0.036" (for a total of 0.072").
- Between 9AM and 9PM (i.e. a 12-hour interval), the star quadrants at either side (i.e. looking East and West) of Earth show NO such asymmetry in relation to the meridian.

Esclangon's concluding thoughts: "What is the origin of this assimetry? Does it come from the absolute movement of our star system? Categorical explanations would be premature. The question for now belongs to the experimental domain."

As it is, the Tychos model can now offer a categorical explanation for Esclangon's meticulous astronomical observations (which Maurice Allais used, along with Dayton Miller's interferometer experiments, to demolish Einstein's theories regarding the supposed impossibility to measure Earth's velocity in space).

Before proceeding, I must remind the readers of the following key figures established by my Tychos research over the years:

- Earth moves at 1.6km/h around its PVP orbit (completing one orbit every 25344 years) and thus covers 14,035.85km every year.
- This yearly motion of Earth causes the stars (located perpendicularly to Earth's motion) to appear to 'drift sideways '- or to 'precess' - by 51.136 arcseconds annually.
- In 12 hours, Earth will therefore move by approximately: 1.6km/h X 12h = 19.2 km

We see that 19.2 km (the distance covered by Earth in 12 hours) is 0.1368% of 14,035.85km (the yearly distance covered by Earth). We also see that Esclangon's observed "asymmetry" amounts to 0.072 arcseconds - yet, in a subsequent paper* he published in 1928, he appears to have slightly redacted this figure to about 0.07 arcseconds.
*Ernest Esclangon - " Sur l'existence d'une dissymétrie optique de l'espace" (1928): http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1928JO.....11...49E

And in fact, 0.07" is - lo and behold - 0.1368% of 51.136" - i.e. the annual stellar precession (caused by Earth's 1.6km/h Earth's motion) as of the Tychos model!

We may therefore logically conclude that the amount of "asymmetry" recorded by Esclangon was, in fact, the parallax caused by Earth's motion between 3AM and 3PM.

As illustrated in my below graphic, the 12-hour stellar parallax observed by Esclangon concerned the two star quadrants ("A" and "B") that lie perpendicularly to Earth's direction of motion. The other two star quadrants ("C" and "D") were not affected since we move at all times either away (from "C") or towards ("D") these two star quadrants. Hence, they will not exhibit any parallax between each other.

Et voilà. What Esclangon observed was, quite simply, Earth's ('clockwise') motion around its PVP orbit.

Image
( The above images are screenshots from the Tychosium simulator: https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd )

Needless to say, Mr. Esclangon had - in his time - no way of realizing the crucial significance of his observations. However, he should now be smiling in his grave!

As a final note, I would like to point out that this (only apparent) "asymmetry of space" observed by Esclangon is most probably what caused Kepler to theorize his bizarre elliptical orbits. This long-held inkling of mine was recently bolstered as I stumbled upon a fascinating paper by Laurence Hecht titled "Optical Theory in the 19th Century - and the Truth about Michelson-Morley-Miller". The entire paper is well worth the read - but the following sentence made me jump in my chair:

"The difference between the major and minor axis of the ellipse, which, as every school child is taught, constitutes the Earth's orbit around the Sun, is about one part in one thousand." https://21sci-tech.com/Subscriptions/Ar ... 998_Sp.pdf

One part in one thousand? Well, that's indeed most interesting - as viewed through the 'Tychos lens': if Earth rotates around its axis at about 1600km/h and moves across space at 1.6km/h, this means that its orbital velocity is 1/1000th of the value of its rotational velocity. One may thus easily fathom how this circumstance would have brought Kepler to assume that all planetary orbits - not only Earth's supposed orbit around the Sun - are (very slightly) elliptical rather than circular.
.
As I always like to say - at the end of the day - the Tychos model is here to stay.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7090
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Sun May 16, 2021 7:32 pm

*

Dear Cluesforum readers,

I'm currently working on the 2nd edition of my TYCHOS book - which will keep me busy for a while... From time to time though, I will keep you posted with some selected, easy-to-understand "no-brainers" that show why the TYCHOS model must be the correct design of our solar system. Today, I will just reiterate (with new, improved graphics) something that I already covered in Chapter 7 of the 1st edition of the TYCHOS book (2018).


HOW VENUS CAN RETURN FACING THE SAME STAR IN 816 DAYS

It is a fact that Venus can return facing the same star (i.e. conjuncting with a given star) in 816 days.
For instance, Venus conjuncted with star Regulus on these two dates:

- July 10, 2018
- October 3, 2020

So here's a graphic I made by superimposing those two dates on a COPERNICAN SOLAR SYSTEM SIMULATOR (the "JS Orrery") :

Diagram 1:
Image

That's right: the Copernican model would have us believe that Venus could conjunct with star Regulus on these two dates - even though Earth and Venus should have displaced themselves laterally by as many as 200 million km (according to the Copernican geometry, what with Earth revolving around the Sun). On both occasions, Venus was actually observed to be aligned with star Regulus (located at about 10h10min of RA / Right Ascension). Copernican astronomers will tell you that the reason why this would occur is that the stars are so immensely distant that these two ostensibly PARALLEL lines of sight (towards Venus and Regulus) are perhaps not QUITE PARALLEL and will thus somehow ultimately converge towards star Regulus. The thing is, we may debate this question of parallelism (or non-parallelism) until the cows come home -but it would be impossible to prove either way. The empirical fact is that Venus, our nearmost "planet" (or actually the Sun's largest moon) was indeed observed to align with star Regulus on those two dates.

Now, here's a graphic I made by superimposing those two dates on the TYCHOSIUM SIMULATOR :

Diagram 2:
Image

As you can see, under the TYCHOS model, Venus conjuncted with star Regulus on those two dates for the simple reason that it actually returned to the very same celestial longitude(RA) in our skies. Indeed, the TYCHOSIUM also correctly shows Venus being slightly more distant in 2020 (1.08AU) than it was in 2018 (0.99AU).
In other words, Venus returned to almost the same place in our cosmos on those two dates - and NOT in some place 200 million kilometers away from the other!

In conclusion: to be perfectly fair, one may say that the Copernican advocates may still have a point when they argue that Venus reconjuncts with star Regulus due to a "slight non-parallelism" between the two lines-of-sight (illustrated in Diagram1). However, if this were true, the very fact that the TYCHOSIUM SIMULATOR shows Venus conjuncting with star Regulus on both dates (in Diagram2) along the VERY SAME LINE OF SIGHT would then have to be attributed to (and dismissed as?) some sort of "freak / random / happenstance/ extraordinary coincidence"!... Oh well, I will leave it up to the readers to assess this matter with their own brain matter.

Please always keep in mind that the TYCHOS model has all planets moving at constant speeds around perfectly circular orbits - whereas the COPERNICAN model has all planets moving at variable speeds around slightly elliptical orbits. Also, please know that the orbital speeds I've given to our planets (and moons) in the TYCHOSIUM simulator are simply the MEAN/AVERAGE value of their purported variable min & max velocities (as listed on official astronomy tables). At the end of the day, it is for everyone to judge which of the two models (COPERNICAN or TYCHOS) provides the most plausible & logical geometric configuration of our solar system.

M159
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 11:22 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by M159 » Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:53 am

To Simon/Patrik,

Have you considered creating feature or version of the Tychosium that inverts the universe so that the Earth is our outer cavity and everything else is plotted inside, but the geometric movement of the system remains the same?* A nice explanation of the conversion process and formulas can be found in Mostafa A. Abdelkader's A Geocosmos: Mapping Outer Space Into a Hollow Earth.**

It certainly would be interesting to see how "everything" looks inverted when run in the Tychosium. And beyond being a fun exercise out of curiosity, the inversion might also lend to further support to the Tychos model, such as by demostrating how the geometry of Tychos can also be harmonized with physics, given the different size/mass of objects in the converted space. Maybe it also provides an explanation for what we perceive as sunspots, or something else is discovered, who knows?

* except that the Earth would truly be stationaly, and it's perceived orbit would be accounted for through the movement of the rest of the heavens in the middle space.

** Hard to find. Here's a link to download: https://smallpdf.com/shared#st=fc913c09 ... nt&rf=link

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7090
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:05 am

M159 wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:53 am
To Simon/Patrik,
Have you considered creating feature or version of the Tychosium that inverts the universe so that the Earth is our outer cavity and everything else is plotted inside, but the geometric movement of the system remains the same?*
Dear M159,

The short answer to your question is : no. Perhaps I'll consider that in another life though - but only if the Tychos model turns out to be flawed. -_-

I must kindly ask anyone wishing to contribute to this particular thread to stay on topic - and to submit questions directly related to the tenets of the Tychos model. I'II trust that everyone may appreciate that, after 8years+ of very hard work, I would rather engage in dialogues & debates pertinent to my research - rather than being asked if I've considered flipping it all on its head... Please try to give the Tychos a fair chance before doing so. I hope you'll consider this as a reasonable requirement.

Thanks for your kind comprehension

M159
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 11:22 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by M159 » Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:06 pm

If you take 10 minutes to read the short Abdelkader piece, you would see that my suggestion wouldn't flip Tychos model on its head at all, as nothing really changes from a functional geometric perspective as you invert the coordinates in polar space. If anything, the experiment would seem worthwhile as part of the dialogue and debate process to disprove a concave theory similar to how you have disproven the heliocentric theory. In any event, I apologize if you took my suggestion as being off topic, and will refrain from questioning any tenet of the Tychos model until after they are shown to be flawed. :huh:

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7090
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:31 pm

M159 wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:06 pm
In any event, I apologize if you took my suggestion as being off topic, and will refrain from questioning any tenet of the Tychos model until after they are shown to be flawed. :huh:
I suppose that's sarcasm on your part, M159? It certainly sounds like it. In any case, you've got it upside down: I am not asking anyone to refrain from questioning the Tychos model. On the contrary, I'd be very happy indeed to take any questions about the Tychos model - so long as the questions are pertinent to its proposed tenets.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7090
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Jul 10, 2021 6:40 pm

*

Dear all,

A few days ago, Patrik and I were invited to the "Amish Inquistion" podcast to present the Tychos model.

The "Amish Inquisition" (composed of Phil, Matt and Ben) present themselves on their YT channel as follows:

"A trio of 30-something Northerners, with half a clue in half a garage, trying to make sense of at least some of it all."

We (Patrik and I) certainly enjoyed their cool manners and open-minded vibes - sprinkled with some loud (and appropriate) laughters, as they gradually realized the sheer absurdity of the Copernican heliocentric model...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxnH3oPoc3I
(Note: The podcast ends at 1:41:40 - and goes silent after that).

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

The next day, we were pleased to read this great review of the show by David Mathisen - on his own blog / website.
I will just copy/paste here (as a backup) David Mathisen's full review - in case it disappears for some reason or another:

"EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF SCIENCE" (by David Mathisen -July 6, 2021)

I was happy to receive a message today from my friends Phil, Matt and Ben over at the Amish Inquisition podcast informing me that they had posted a new episode featuring a video interview with Simon Shack and Patrik Holmqvist regarding the Tychos model of our solar system, and the abundant evidence casting serious doubt on central tenets of the Keplerian model which we all are taught from an early age and which we tend to accept without question.

This interview is very much worth your consideration and attention, and afterwards you may want to dive deeper into the evidence and analysis presented by Simon in his book, which he has made available for free in its entirety online here, as well as check out the Tychosium digital planetarium which Patrik crafted, based upon the model developed by Simon in his book and his research.

During the conversation, Patrik and Simon use the Tychosium to illustrate some of their arguments, both arguments illustrating the problems with Kepler's model and arguments demonstrating the way that the Tychos model neatly explains those problems.

One of the strongest arguments they discuss is the concept of stellar parallax -- and the stubborn readings of so-called "negative stellar parallax" which astronomers continue to observe, causing a king-sized problem for the Kepler model (but constituting a powerful argument in favor of the Tychos model).

Another powerful argument discussed in this conversation is the troubling pattern of the so-called “empirical sidereal intervals" of the planet Mars, in which Mars is observed from earth to align with any specific star at intervals of about 707 days (for seven times in a row) followed by a "short interval” or "short ESI" of only about 543 days -- a pattern very difficult to explain using the conventional paradigm.

Once again, although this unusual pattern causes king-sized problems for proponents of Keplerian-type models of solar-system mechanics, it is easily explained by the Tychos model, and thus constitutes yet another strong piece of evidence in favor of the Tychos model, even as it calls into serious doubt the conventional model.

The way that the Tychos model explains this unusual pattern of Mars sidereal intervals takes a bit of time and explanation in order to properly illustrate -- and due to the pressures of time, it wasn't really fully explained during this particular conversation. For those interested, I recommend checking out the video that I made exploring some aspects of the Tychos model, back in August of last year, which you can find here (and embedded below):

You can also listen to a podcast conversation I had with Patrik and his co-host Martin on their Radio Qui Bono podcast, from April of this year.

And, if you're interested, you can also check out my visit to the Amish Inquisition podcast, from November of 2020.

I remain somewhat "agnostic" regarding the mechanics of our solar system, but it is undeniable that Simon Shack has presented overwhelming evidence which raises grave doubts regarding the viability of the Keplerian model (as well as showing evidence which raises serious doubts about Kepler's character -- Kepler in fact having been proven by modern research to have falsified his data). But the sheer difficulty we have of even considering the possibility that the Keplerian paradigm could be wrong -- a model that we have all been taught since childhood -- shows the power of swimming like a fish within a single paradigm all our lives, and one that is basically not allowed to even be so much as questioned.

For this reason, I believe it is extremely valuable to consider the arguments that Simon and Patrik are bringing to light which demonstrate the possibility that this "unquestioned and unquestionable" paradigm may indeed be incorrect, if only because it reveals so much about the power of unquestioned assumptions and the power of authority (both in academia and in the media) to shape our thinking and put boundaries on our curiosity.

At one point in the interview, around 0:43:27 in the YouTube video (and at about 0:41:00 in the audio file on iTunes and other podcast platforms), Simon says something extremely important about the way that supporters of the Keplerian paradigm appear to start with the assumption that their model must be correct, and then "work backwards" to explain the evidence and make it fit with the conclusion that they have already decided must be right -- which is "exactly the opposite of science," as Simon puts it.

An analogy might be a trial in which the guilt of a party is already predetermined by the judge, who then forces all the evidence to point towards that verdict, no matter how much the evidence might point in the exact opposite direction.

Needless to say, such an approach does not lead to good science -- and indeed, as Simon points out, such an approach is not actually science at all. It is exactly the opposite of science.

This should be a powerful lesson to us, not to do the same thing in areas of our lives where we simply assume that the things that people in the media and in academia tell us must of course be correct, especially in areas in which abundant evidence exists to call those paradigms into question.

https://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary

Post Reply