HALLEY’S COMET IN THE TYCHOS MODEL
Dear friends, Good Heavens to you! Today we shall see how the famous Halley's comet may 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):
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 :
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).
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:
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:
1984-12-23 : RA 5h55min/DECL +11°57min
1984-12-23 : RA 5h54min/DECL +11°52min (good agreement with the ESO table)
1986-06-05: RA 10h24min/DECL-6°6min
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:
1985-12-03 : RA 0h47min/DECL +12°11min
1985-12-03 : RA 21h44min/DECL-0°58min (massive disagreement with the ESO table!)
1986-01-18: RA 21h41min/DECL-5°52min
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”(!) :
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 :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
"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 veteran astronomer who loves to hate my TYCHOS model), he replied as follows:
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 speed up between 2061 and 2134. And this, due to supposed "gravitational perturbations" from Jupiter, Saturn and Venus that would somehow cause Halley's period to be foreshortened by as many as 3 years! This, you may agree, is quite absurd; yet those "planetary perturbations" were theorized by the most acclaimed astronomers of the 18th century - and are still taught as 'fact' to astronomy students today.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 how close it passes to big planets like Jupiter and Saturn. And even Venus, if it passes really close."
As it is, in far more recent times, an academic study ("Chaotic dynamics of Comet 1P/Halley - 2015)" has firmly refuted the die-hard notion that Halley's comet apparent 'chaotic behaviour' has anything to do with any close encounters with planets in our Solar System. Here is the very final, conclusive sentences of that study:
"An important finding in our work is that the chaotic behaviour is not related to close encounters of Halley with any of the planets in the Solar System, nor to the overlap of any known system of resonances. The origin of the chaos in such eccentric orbits is a subject to be explored in more detail in future studies."
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/ ... 75/1748404
The bottom line of this whole affair is that the available historical data of the Halley's comet indicates that it has an average 75.66-year orbital period. However, as I mentioned earlier, 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) :
And then, 227 years later... (note that 227/3 ≈ 75.7 years)
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:
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".