## 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.
nokidding
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:30 am

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

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

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

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

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

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

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

nokidding

Altair
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 pm

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

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

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6784
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

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

DOUBLE TROUBLE for Copernicus

Dear friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In any case, here is the situation we have today, ladies and gents: practically ALL of our nearmost stars (or "neighborhood stars") are now known to have a binary companion. However, astronomers are still classifying many stars (those not yet officially recognized as Binary Stars) as "Variable Stars" or as "Flare Stars". So what exactly, you may ask, are Variable Stars and Flare Stars? Well, let's see what Wikipedia can tell us about them:
VARIABLE STARS
A variable star is a star whose brightness as seen from Earth (its apparent magnitude) fluctuates.
This variation may be caused by a change in emitted light or by something partly blocking the light, so variable stars are classified as either:

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

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

Many, possibly most, stars have at least some variation in luminosity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_star
(I have to say that the first option - stars that "periodically swell and shrink" - sounds terribly outlandish to me!)
FLARE STARS
A flare star is a variable star that becomes very much brighter unpredictably for a few minutes at a time.
Most flare stars are dim red dwarfs, although less massive (lighter) brown dwarfs might also be able to flare. The more massive (heavier) RS Canum Venaticorum variables (RS CVn) are also known to flare, but scientists understand that a companion star in a binary system causes these flares. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flare_star
Thus, in both cases (Variable and Flare stars) we see that the best / or least bizarre explanation is that these stars are, quite simply, binary star systems whose brightness periodically dips due to one of them obscuring the other. There is no need to classify them as anything else but double/binary stars. And this is where we reach the underlying gist of my present dissertation:

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

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

WHY WOULD OUR SUN NOT HAVE SUCH A LOCAL ORBIT - BUT IS INSTEAD BELIEVED TO ONLY HAVE A HUGE, 240-MILLION-YEAR ORBIT?

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

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

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

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

***********************
For those interested, here's a link to a most thorough and comprehensive website concerned with Double Star Astronomy:
https://www.handprint.com/ASTRO/bineye5.html

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6784
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

*

THE COPERNICAN MODEL'S MOST MOMENTOUS INCONGRUITY

Dear friends,

If there is one regret that I have concerning my TYCHOS book - released in the spring of 2018 - is that, for some unfathomable reason (sheer brainfade, I guess?) I simply forgot to include a chapter about perhaps THE most catastrophic problem (as far as physics are concerned) afflicting the Copernican / Keplerian heliocentric theory! Anyhow, I will certainly make sure to include it in my 2nd edition of the book - along with the numerous additional findings in support of my TYCHOS model that I have shared with the Cluesforum readers during this fruitful past year and a half.

Come to think of it, this issue probably slipped out of my mind as it relates to the "universally-accepted" laws of physics - whereas my TYCHOS research has intentionally focused on observable and empirically-verifiable issues such as the geometry and kinematics of our Solar System. Nonetheless, and since the most common objection I get from critics & naysayers is, basically, that "the TYCHOS violates Newton's infrangible Laws", it is now my turn to ask them what explanation they may possibly have for what follows.

This most "momentous" problem (pun intended) concerns the missing angular momentum of our Sun. As it is, the Sun is believed to make up 99% of our Solar System - yet it is calculated (under the heliocentric model's paradigm) that it only has 1% of our system's total Angular Momentum! Now, I wish to make it clear that this is by no means one of my own findings / realizations; it has been debated for decades by numerous astrophysicists, since it constitutes a glaring contradiction of the most established and all-important laws of conservation of momentum - as defined and unanimously accepted in academic circles.

"The angular momentum problem is a problem in astrophysics identified by Leon Mestel in 1965."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_problem

Perhaps the most compelling research ever made around this subject matter is that of the Binary Research Institute. I will therefore link to (and quote in its entirety) a fine page of their website which succintly describes and illustrates their findings:
Angular Momentum
Evidence

The most widely accepted explanation for how the solar system formed is the Nebular Hypothesis. In this theory, the whole Solar System starts as a large cloud of gas that contracts under self-gravity. Conservation of angular momentum requires that a rotating disk form with a large concentration at the center (the proto-Sun). The centifugal force balances the gravitational forces and the disk coagulates into planets. Most people accept this theory, but there is one big unresolved problem – the angular momentum should be proportional to mass (as every physics student knows) but it’s not in our solar system.

The angular momentum issue is a well documented problem that has baffled solar system formation theorists for many years.The Sun contains 99.9 % mass, but only 1% of the total Angular Momentum. Most of the remainder is typically associated with the Jovian Planets. Theoretical Physicists developing Formation Theories are thwarted by this anomalous distribution. The Binary Model provides allocations of Angular Momentum to Mass for Planets and Stars in line with common expectations.

An object in Rotational motion has an Angular Momentum L equal to its moment of inertia S (mi r2i) times its angular velocity w. If there is no external Torque, then L = Constant (Conservation of Angular Momentum).

Our proof here is rather compelling. We first looked at the angular momentum distribution charts (see here 60 percent of angular momentum lies with Jupiter). We then ran the formulas ourselves with existing inputs to make sure the textbook data was correct. Everything checked out.

Next, is the same chart in an “Angular Momentum to Mass ratio” formula.
You can see all the bodies in our solar system have ratios in line with their mass except for the Sun.

We then added one input into the existing formula: we assumed the Sun was moving in a binary orbit with a period of 24,000 years.

As you can see, the Sun came right into line.

This indicates the Sun may indeed have it’s proper angular momentum (proportional to its mass) providing another indication our sun is part of a binary or multiple star system.

http://binaryresearchinstitute.com/bri/ ... -momentum/
Note that one of the Binary Research Institute's working theories has been that star Sirius might be our Sun's binary companion. Although I do not subscribe to this thesis, it is nonetheless an interesting one. This, because (as I've pointed out in my TYCHOS book) when comparing the respective diameters of the Sun and Mars with those of Sirius A and its tiny companion Sirius B, the four of them turn out to be proportionally identical. One should thus perhaps not exclude offhand the (however remote, yet fascinating) possibility that the Sirius A-B and the Sun-Mars binary systems are akin to other so-called "double-double" binary systems (revolving around each other) to be found in our skies.

As computed by the Binary Research Institute, the mystery of the Sun's missing angular momentum would vanish "if the Sun were moving in a binary orbit with a period of 24,000 years." In the TYCHOS of course, the Sun does have a similar cycle (of 25,344 years) although, and most interestingly, this precessional cycle is reflected at a 2:1 ratio ... with none other than Mars!

“As a combined effect of the precession of the spin axis and the advance of the perihelion, alternate poles of Mars tilt towards the Sun at perihelion every 25,500 years – that is, on a 51,000-year cycle.”
"The Planet Mars: A History of Observation & Discovery" - by William Sheehan (1996)

In conclusion, the "vexing" issue of the Sun's missing angular momentum appears to be, once more, neatly resolved by the TYCHOS model. It remains, on the other hand, a devastating incongruity which brutally undermines heliocentrism and Newtonian physics.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6784
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

*

OUR POOR SINGLE SUN GETS LONELIER BY THE DAY

Dear all, as I have mentioned in recent writings, our own beloved lady star (the Sun) who keeps us all warm around the year as best as she can, is supposed (according to mainstream science) to be a lonely, companionless bachelor: No dance partner and no cosy little local orbit; she's just hurtling haplessly around the galaxy at 800,000km/h - needing as many as 250 million years just to complete ONE spin "around the block". All this while somehow dragging along our planet (and,of course, all our Solar System's family members) around the center of the Galaxy... My gosh. How sad, if this were true!

Here follows a list of our Sun's twenty "closest friends in her neighborhood" (all located within about 12 "light years" of the Sun, as we are told). As you can see, ALL of the Sun's closest friends have companions to dance around with. Please also note that, remarkably enough, many of these "B" companions in the Sun's closest neighborhood have been discovered only in the very last few years (2016 - 2019), thanks to our most advanced modern-day technology. In fact, these new detections of double stars have involved some of our very closests stars ... which are, however, so faint as to be invisible with our naked eyes! This goes to show just how difficult it is just to detect such tiny companions - let alone determining just what sort of orbital relationship they have with their "host star":

1 Proxima Centauri A / Proxima Centauri B (companion discovered in 2016!)
2 Alpha Centauri / Alpha Centauri B (companion discovered long ago)
3 Barnard’s Star A / Barnard's star B (companion discovered in 2018!)
4 Luhman A / Luhman B (companion discovered long ago)
5 WISE 0855−0714 A / WISE 0855−0714 B (companion discovered in 2018!)
6 Wolf 359 A / Wolf 359 B / Wolf 359 C (companions discovered in 2019!)
7 Lalande 21185 A / Lalande 21185 B (companion discovered in 2017!)
8 Sirius A /Sirius B (companion discovered long ago)- proportionally identical to Mars vs Sun!
9 Luyten 726-8 A / Luyten 726-8 B (companion discovered long ago)
10 Ross 154 ("flare star" -Wikipedia) (flare stars are suspected double stars)
11 Ross 248 ("flare star" -Wikipedia) (flare stars are suspected double stars)
12 Epsilon Eridani A / Epsilon Eridani B (companion discovered long ago)
13 Lacaille 935 ("has 3 known planets" - Wikipedia)
14 Ross 128 A / Ross 128 B (companion discovered in 2017!)
15 EZ Aquarii A / EZ Aquarii B /EZ Aquarii C (companions discovered long ago)
16 61 Cygni A / 61 Cygni B (companion discovered long ago)
17 Procyon A / Procyon B (companion discovered long ago)
18 Struve A / Struve B (two more companions discovered in 2019!)
19 Groombridge A / Groombridge B (companion discovered long ago)
20 DX Cancri ("flare star" -Wikipedia) (flare stars are suspected double stars)

Now, I know what naysayers will have to say : "But hey...not all of the above-listed pairs are officially claimed to be binary systems! Some of those newly-discovered companions are supposed to be just planets, just like Earth and Jupiter (in fact, they're called "exoplanets")." Hmm. Well, if their very existence was only detected in these last few years, how exactly would we know whether those (very faint / or even invisible) recently-discovered celestial bodies are "just planets" - and not some intimate binary companion, just like the tiny Sirius B is to the big Sirius A ?

Believe it or not, but a veteran astronomer (who seems to hate the TYCHOS model with all his soul ) recently assured me that, NO, the Sun has no companion (and no local orbit of its own). Yet, he said, our Solar System speeds around the Galaxy at 800,000 km/h, and so do all these binary star systems - along with us. To underline his words he actually "hollered" (in ALL CAPS) :"DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT??"

I have to admit that, no - I don't understand how that would work out. Here's a cartoon of mine which I hope can picture my profound perplexity :

Quite frankly, I don't see why our Sun would be such a formidable "exception to the rule". It simply doesn't make sense.

Nor can I fathom just how all our surrounding stars could possibly move at hypersonic speeds in all imaginable directions (towards us / away from us, / up & down - etc) while still moving around the centre of our Galaxy along with (i.e. "in sympathy with") our Solar System. Can you?

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that the Sun ALSO has a binary companion (i.e. Mars) - just like pretty much ALL of our surrounding stars ? My humble opinion is (for what it's worth) that there's no more sensible, rational or logical conclusion (three words that most people love to hate!) to this matter.

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

Fortunately however, it would appear that some people out there are starting to "get it" :

https://www.quora.com/Do-we-live-in-a-b ... lar-system

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6784
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

*

WHY MARS ?

One of the more recurring questions I am getting these days (from people getting introduced to the TYCHOS model) is the following:

"Hmmm... WHY MARS? Why would Mars be the Sun's binary companion - instead of, say, Jupiter - which is far larger and therefore must be a far better candidate?"

Indeed, this "knee-jerk" seems to be an almost instinctive "Newtonian reaction/objection" that gets triggered by the TYCHOS model's Sun/Mars binary theorem : "Jupiter is much bigger, so it's much more likely to be the Sun's binary companion". Now, before proceeding, let me make it clear that my TYCHOS model has no pretense to replace Isaac Newton's Laws with some other Laws of my own fancy. Let us, for now - and for the sake of argument - stand by Newton's gravitational theories and ask ourselves the following (very basic) questions:

Isn't Jupiter supposed to be a "gas planet"? And isn't Mars, on the other hand, supposed to be mostly composed of iron (and rock)? Has anyone ever put Mars and Jupiter on a bathroom scale and compared their WEIGHTS? Of course not. Now, I trust we can all agree that the density (and hence, relative weight) of iron and rock are, several orders of magnitude larger than the density of any known gases existing in nature! Furthermore, don't we "all know" that the Sun is mostly composed of hydrogen (70%) and helium (28%) + a negligible 2% of other, denser elements? In this light, how hard would it be to imagine that Mars might, perhaps, be just as heavy as the Sun in spite of their "David-and-Goliath" proportions (i.e. their observed, respective diameters) and would thus nicely accomodate, as it were, Newton's gravitational Laws?

Having said that, I will once more remind my readers that my TYCHOS research has, ever since day one, intentionally "left Newtonian (and Einsteinian) physics at the door", so to speak, as it has preferred to focus at a number of (mostly geometric) empirically-testable and readily-verifiable aspects of astronomy as rigorously documented by our planet's greatest observational astronomers (e.g. Brahe, Riccioli - both "forgotten" giants of astronomy) whose work I consider to be not only of superior significance (scientifically speaking) but also far less abstract than any sort of (strictly) mathematical/algebraic approach at deciphering the physical reality of our cosmos (e.g. Kepler, Einstein - both proven plagiarists, thieves and fraudsters).

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

I will hereby list and comment, point by point, the numerous findings of my TYCHOS research which all concur to indicate that Mars IS (beyond rational doubt) the Sun's binary companion.

1: As Tycho Brahe determined, the orbits of the Sun and Mars INTERSECT. Of course, NO other orbits (of our Solar System's planets and moons) intersect with the Sun's orbit. Brahe was much ridiculed by many of his (lesser) contemporaries - who loudly scoffed at this very notion (of the intersecting orbits of the Sun and Mars). Their fallacious argument (formulated out of lack of attention or sheer laziness?) was that "sooner or later, the Sun and Mars must crash into each other!"

2: The simple reason why this crash will never happen, is because the Sun and Mars are a pair of binary companions "locked" in an orbital 2:1 ratio, in the sense that our Sun completes 2 of its orbits while Mars completes 1 of its orbits. Please note that the simple reason why this 2:1 relationship has gone unnoticed (by Earthly observers - for millennia on end) is illustrated in my below diagram (as published in my TYCHOS book):

As you can see, Mars will NOT realign every 2 years (i.e. 730.5 days) with the Sun - in relation to the background stars. This, due to the "spirographic" geometry of Mars's orbital motion which regularly causes it to retrograde (i.e. "to move backwards" in relation to the Earthly observer) for a number of days - and thus, it reconjuncts with the Sun later than one might expect. This retrograde period lasts for an average of 72 days; and in fact, Mars is usually observed to re-conjunct with any given star in 707.5 days*, yet it reconjuncts with the Sun in 779.5 days (on average), that is, about 72 days later .
* Further on, we shall see why Mars can sometimes reconjuct with a given star in only 546 days - a totally inexplicable fact within the geometric configuration of the heliocentric model.

3: Mars is the ONLY body of our Solar System whose farthest-to-closest transits from Earth exhibit a whopping 7:1 ratio (mean apogee: 400Mkm / mean perigee: 56.6Mkm), a clear indication that Mars - and no other body in our solar system - is the Sun's binary companion:

Incidentally, the TYCHOS also resolves the age-old mystery of Mercury's and Venus' lack of moons: they have no moons... because they ARE (the Sun's) moons!

4: Mars is the ONLY body of our Solar System who exhibits an IRREGULAR (79-year) opposition cycle. Whereas the outer planets (from Jupiter to Pluto) all have regular / equally-long orbital periods, Mars exhibits this most peculiar opposition pattern:

15 years/17 years/15years/15years/17 years (full cycle: 79years). NONE of our other planetary "family members" (from Jupiter to Pluto) exhibit such an irregular pattern - they all return "in opposition" in the same number of years (Jupiter: 12 years, Saturn: 30 years, Uranus: 84 years, Neptune: 165 years, Pluto: 248 years). Thus, Mars is clearly a special case. It is a unique body in our Solar System - since it is the Sun's very special binary companion.

5: Most remarkably, Mars's peculiar 79-year cycle can be shown to be connected (at a 2:1 ratio) with the Sun's peculiar cycle of oscillations around its nucleus. Since the Sun/Mars binary system is "locked" in a 2:1 ratio, it is to be expected that the Sun oscillates around its nucleus in half of Mars's 79-year cycle (i.e. 39.5 years). This is, in fact, precisely what is observed! The below, well-known diagram (as can be found in various astronomy papers) is commonly described as "the barycentric motion of the Sun" over a number of years. Although this isn't mentioned in the literature, a close look at this diagram reveals that the Sun returns "to the same place" in precisely 39.5 years (of course, the Martian 79-year period has Mars also returning "to the same place") :

In other words, the famous 79-year cycle of Mars is "reflected" by the Sun's 39.5-year barycentric wobble - just as would be expected in the TYCHOS model.

6: Another remarkable aspect of the TYCHOS model is that the closest Mars oppositions (as Mars passes closest to Earth) occur when it finds itself at (an average) distance of 56.6 Mkm from Earth. Well, this distance "just happens" to correspond to half the diameter of the PVP orbit (113.2Mkm) - as propounded by the TYCHOS model!

7: In the TYCHOS, the duration of one "Great Year" is estimated to be 25344 solar years (i.e. the time needed for Earth to complete one revolution around its PVP orbit - from Polaris to Vega and back to Polaris). This period is commonly-known as "the precession of the equinoxes" (believed to be caused by Earth slowly "wobbling clockwise" - i.e. in the opposite direction of its rotation!...). Most interestingly, we may find in astronomy literature that Mars is believed to have a ca.51000-year precession cycle of its own equinoxes (which, of course, would be just about 2 X 25344):
“The Martian equinoxes also precess, returning to an initial position over a period of about 51,000 years.”
https://books.google.it/books?id=MnrrLH ... rs&f=false
Now, remember: in the TYCHOS, Mars and the Sun are "locked" at a 2:1 ratio. Under this paradigm, it would therefore make sound sense that the estimated equinoctial precession of Mars is twice as long as the estimated equinoctial precession of Earth. And this is precisely what is observed.

8: As mentioned earlier, Mars can sometimes return facing a same given star in 546 days (instead of the "usual" 707 days). The full 15-year opposition cycle of Mars unfolds in this peculiar 8-period sequence: 707/707/707/707/707/707/707/546(!). Huh? How could this possibly occur in the Copernican model, where Mars is just meant to revolve around an "outer lane" with respect to Earth's supposed orbit around the Sun? Well, here's how Kepler's mathemagics "made it work". The below image is a (multiple) screenshot from the "JS Orrery", a Copernican solar system simulator, showing how such an 8-period sequence is meant to unfold under the heliocentric model's geometry:

In the TYCHOS model, on the other hand, this 8-period sequence (707/707/707/707/707/707/707/546) has Mars returning, each and every time (including the shorter 546-day period), on the exact same line of sight joining Earth>Mars>Deneb Algedi. Could it get any clearer than THIS? :

All this can of course be independently verified by anyone - by perusing the TYCHOSIUM simulator: https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd

It goes without saying that, if the TYCHOS model were a complete fantasy (i.e. a mere figment of my imagination) you would essentially be left to conclude that the fact that the TYCHOSIUM simulator reliably shows Mars re-conjuncting each and every time in our line of sight to that star (located at the celestial longitude 21h47m of RA) , in full agreement with what is observed in reality - must be nothing but "a matter of chance" and/or some "fascinating coincidence".

At the end of the day, it is really up to anyone of us to decide for ourselves which theorized solar system model best satisfies our rational minds.

9: The very existence of our so-called Main Asteroid Belt is yet another indication that the Sun and Mars are a binary system - featuring intersecting orbits, just as Tycho Brahe and Pathani Samanta (arguably the greatest naked-eye astronomers of all times) had concluded.*

The Main Asteroid Belt is located in the celestial region between Mars and Jupiter or - in fact - just beyond the orbit of Mars. Here’s how it is conventionally illustrated:

*The advent of the telescope may have allowed astronomers to magnify their view of the stars and get a closer look at them - yet it certainly did nothing to advance their understanding of the "big picture" of our cosmos, au contraire! Imagine if your children started looking at life through a long, dark tube all day long: wouldn't you fear that they might become terribly narrow-minded?

To be sure, no one really knows (i.e. there exists no general concensus as to) just why and how this belt of dust and debris came to be - or much less why it is located just beyond the orbit of Mars. However, astrophysicists specialized in double/binary systems (who study similar asteroid belts to be found around numerous binary systems) have a sensible explanation as to their formation:

As two binary companions periodically cross paths along their intersecting orbits, fields of rocks, particles and debris will be ejected as they collide, to be flung into a wider, circumbinary orbit. In the case of our Sun-Mars binary system, it should therefore be naturally expected that our main asteroid belt should be located as is observed: just outside Mars’s orbit, in the celestial region between Mars and Jupiter.

10: Perhaps the best evidence we have that Mars is indeed a unique & very special case (among our solar system's family members) is the fact that Kepler formulated his entire set of "Laws" around the bewildering motions of Mars. As astronomy historians have duly documented, Kepler (who was recruited by Tycho Brahe for the sole purpose of helping figuring out Mars's "inexplicable behavior") spent over half a decade (in what he called "his War on Mars") obsessively trying to solve the Martian riddle. In all likelihood, it was out of sheer desperation that he eventually resorted to fudge Tycho Brahe's data so as to make them fit with his (ad hoc) algebraic "solution": that is, that Mars had to revolve around an ELLIPTICAL orbit and to periodically speed up ... and slow down. And yes, Kepler's fancy theories were indeed founded exclusively around Mars and its baffling motions - as we can read all over historical astronomy literature. Here's but one example documenting this fact:

https://books.google.it/books?id=WboPRe ... ce&f=false

As you can see, the evidence that the Sun and Mars are a binary pair locked in a 2:1 ratio is truly overwhelming. And no, Mars is not "too small of an object to be the Sun's companion" - as most people may think. For instance, the very brightest star in our skies, Sirius, is a binary system composed of (at least) two objects, SIRIUS A and Sirius B. The latter is only about 0.5% the size of the larger one. Well, as it happens, Mars is also 0.5% the size of the Sun. Yes, I know: astrophysicists will start sweating and shaking as you point this out to them. After catching their breath and rolling their eyes, they will let you know how dreadfully ignorant you are, "because according to our Newtonian computations, we have LONG established that Sirius B has to be an extrueeeeemely dense little star!!! Don't you know that the pull of gravity on Sirius B is 400,000X stronger than that on Earth? Now go read some good books of astrophysics, Junior!"

Who knows, perhaps astrophysicists really DO weigh the stars and planets on their bathroom scales - and can therefore be DEAD CERTAIN of their respective - ehrm - "densities"...

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6784
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

*

KEPLER'S ELLIPTIC ILLUSION
and why his ad hoc "mathemagic equant" needs to go

Dear friends,

I think it is now time for me to share with you my latest, more deep-seated realizations regarding Johannes Kepler's proposed "Laws of Planetary Motion". I trust that all Cluesforum readers will be fairly familiar with them. In short, Kepler is the man responsible for having implanted in our minds that our planets travel around elliptical orbits - while also periodically accelerating and decelerating (as they approach or recede from the Sun). We shall now see how these (spurious) notions can be thoroughly deconstructed - and shown to have been (in all probability) mere figments of Kepler's fervid imagination, ardent ambition and blinding confirmation bias.

I will not dwell here on the fact that Kepler was ultimately exposed as a science fraudster, as revealed (in 1988) by William H. Donahue, the highly-qualified translator of Kepler's famous Astronomia Nova, a book still regarded as the “Bible of the Copernican Revolution”. If you wish, you can read about it here. However, the fact that Donahue's findings never caused any sort of reaction among our world's scientific community is quite telling: it goes to show the extent to which the sacrosanct "established scientific truths" proclaimed a few centuries ago by a handful of privileged scholars (elevated to God-like stature) have reached an almost divine status of "untouchability". To be sure, no single existing religious group can even dream to attain the sort of mass consensus enjoyed by the almost universally-accepted Copernican /Keplerian heliocentric creed - what with its billions of converts spread all over our planet.

But let's get back to our present / specific topic - Kepler's elliptical orbits. Flavia Marcacci, an Italian astronomy historian (whom I hope to meet in person very soon), is the author of "Cieli in Contraddizione" ("Skies in Contradiction") - a book that I promptly ordered as it was released in 2018. Her thorough and rigorously-researched treatises focus on the monumental work of Giovanni Battista Riccioli and his "Almagestum Novum". Here's an extract from an earlier academic paper of hers:
"Many astronomers, such as Galileo, did not like the elliptical orbits of Kepler, that seemed an artful reworking of the Ptolemaic punti aequantes. All these problems have to be inserted in an astronomical context where the alternative was not strictly between the Ptolemaic and the Copernican systems. The alternative was between the Copernican solution and the Tychonic one, and we would make a mistake if we forget this. Therefore, their first attempts were to try to explain these questions in the context of the astrometrical techniques: Riccioli’s solution is one of these and he succeeds in embedding these items in his system."
That's right: even the "Great Galileo Galilei" disliked the elliptical orbits proposed by Kepler! And with good reason: Galileo quickly realized that what Kepler had done was no more than a "mathemagical sleight-of-hand" which, as it were, amounted to nothing but a clever algebraic formulation of the dreaded (and much-ridiculed) EQUANT- as proposed by Ptolemy. Before proceeding, I must clarify to the reader what Prolemy's EQUANT was all about. Let me use Wikipedia to help me summarize this "equant issue" in a succint manner:
"Equant (or punctum aequans) is a mathematical concept developed by Claudius Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD to account for the observed motion of the planets. The equant is used to explain the observed speed change in planetary orbit during different stages of the orbit. This planetary concept allowed Ptolemy to keep the theory of uniform circular motion alive by stating that the path of heavenly bodies was uniform around one point and circular around another point.

The equant model has a body in motion on a circular path that does not share a center with Earth. The moving object's speed will actually vary during its orbit around the outer circle (dashed line),
faster in the bottom half and slower in the top half. The motion is considered uniform only because the planet sweeps around equal angles in equal times from the equant point. The speed of the object is non-uniform when viewed from any other point within the orbit."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equant

In simpler words, the EQUANT was Ptolemy's geometric attempt to account for our planets' apparent accelerations and decelerations - whereas Kepler's attempt was the algebraic equivalent of the same. Kepler's theory was (and remains) in stark contradiction with the Newtonian "Laws" which stipulate that the gravitational constant "G"... is a constant! Since the speed of a free-falling body will remain constant, there is no explanation whatsoever as to why our planets would be alternately accelerating and decelerating - nor why they would have elliptical orbits!

In the TYCHOS model - let this be clear - Ptolemy's "EQUANT" and Kepler's "ELLIPTICITY " are accounted for, quite simply, by Earth's 1.6km/h-motion around its PVP orbit. The TYCHOS explains (both qualitatively and quantitavely) the observed - yet illusory - accelerations/decelerations of our surrounding celestial bodies.

And yes, we DO observe our planets speeding up and slowing down over the course of their respective orbits. The reason for this, however, is a plain "space-time" illusion that we can readily understand - without the need for any sort of intricate (Ptolemaic) geometry - nor any kind of (Keplerian) mathemagics.

Under the TYCHOS model, both of Ptolemy's intricate "equant" theory and Kepler's "elliptic" theory are elucidated via a much simpler explanation: an earthly observer (moving "in a straight line" at 1.6km/h - and by 14036km every year) will perceive the motions of our planets as "accelerating and decelerating" - simply because the planets will appear to speed up and slow down depending on where they find themselves - that is, either in the "top half" or the "bottom half" of their 360° revolutions around the slow-moving Earth.

One basic reason for our planets to appear to accelerate and decelerate (as they revolve around us in ECCENTRIC orbits) can be illustrated as follows:

Yet, in spite of this quite obvious perspective effect, we may find (on Wikipedia and all sorts of "scientific" websites) ludicrously animated gifs such as the one below - meant to depict the Halley comet's orbital motion. I think that even a child can see how silly it is: the comet appears to briskly accelerate as it transits close to Earth - and to slow down as it recedes from us. This 2D animation has obviously no relation with reality : it is nothing but a 2D animation which cannot possibly represent the true (constant) orbital speed of the Halley's comet : it only simulates the perceived - yet illusory - accelerations and decelerations of the comet as seen from Earth :

Eccentricity versus Ellipticity

It is absolutely essential NOT to confuse eccentricity with ellipticity:

Eccentricity is the off-center displacement of a planetary orbit (in relation to the Sun). Yes, all of our solar system's planets have eccentric / off-centered orbits - and even Kepler accepted this undeniable fact. And so does the TYCHOS model. However, the TYCHOS model needs NO elliptical orbits - NOR does it require accelerating / decelerating orbital speeds - as demonstrated by the TYCHOSIUM 3D solar system simulator.

Ellipticity, on the other hand, is just the proposed Keplerian "explanation" for the (VERY small - yet VIGOROUSLY debated, for centuries!) observed periodic inequalities (accelerations / decelerations) of our planets' secular motions. The TYCHOS model accounts for the supposed "ellipticity" of the planetary orbits (and the observed accelerations / decelerations of our planets) in the simplest imaginable manner: Earth moves very slowly (at 1.6km/h) along its PVP orbit - and has thus been moving virtually "in a straight line" for the last (say) 2000 years or so. ALL of our solar system's family members (revolving around us at high speeds) will therefore appear to move slightly faster or slightly slower - depending on which "side" of Earth they find themselves: at times they will be moving in the same direction of Earth's "straight line" motion - and at times in the opposite direction of Earth's "straight line" motion. These fluctuating (yet illusory) observed orbital speeds will cause an earthly observer to conclude that planets move in elliptical orbits. I know, this may seem to be an almost incredible & breathtakingly simple demolition of Kepler's "elliptical" Laws of Planetary Motions - but here it is.

A funny aspect of all this eccentricity/ellipticity question is that NASA, on their very own official "Planetary Fact Sheets" (see example) of our Solar System's bodies, do not feature any "ELLIPTICITY" data - at all. Instead, they use the (completely different) term "ECCENTRICITY" to define our planets' orbital offsets in relation to the Sun. If Kepler were still alive, he would immediately call some NASA operators and tell them to correct the terminology used in their Planetary Fact Sheets! In any case, the fact that NASA (or their supposedly highly-trained data editors) would confuse "eccentricity" with "ellipticity" is just another tidbit of supportive confirmation that NASA isn't - and has never been - any reliable source of scientific knowledge. We may hope that ALL of the truly thoughtful, earnest and intelligent people of this planet have, by now, figured out what NASA is all about.

As for Kepler's idea that the orbital trajectories of our solar system's planets have elliptical shapes, all the available historical astronomy literature on this subject will tell you that he reached this conclusions SOLELY on the basis of his obsessive, half-decade-long study of Mars's motions (as observed and documented by his master Tycho Brahe). It was Mars - and Mars only - that caused Kepler to theorize about elliptical orbits. Here's just one testimony of this fact :

https://books.google.it/books?id=WboPRe ... ce&f=false

In hindsight, we can now clearly see how Kepler went about his "scientific" endeavors. Since he couldn't make any sense out of Tycho Brahe's precise and rigorous observations of the motions of Mars (which, in the TYCHOS model, are plainly demonstrated and enacted in the TYCHOSIUM simulator), Kepler simply decided - out of thin air (or out of sheer ambition?) to stipulate what follows:

1: The planets do NOT revolve around uniform circles - they revolve around elliptical orbits.
2: The planets do NOT move at constant speeds, they accelerate and decelerate depending on their distance from the Sun.

I don't know about you, dear friends - but as far as I can see, Kepler's "Laws" belong to the most egregious cases of AD HOC "solutions" ever concocted in the history of science. No wonder that Galileo (and many astronomers of his time) disliked Kepler's elliptical theories. It remains a mystery why Kepler ultimately became one of the most acclaimed "Gods" of astronomy - in spite of having subverted and crudely sabotaged the work of his master, Tycho Brahe.

"AD HOC :In science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6784
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

*

HALLEY’S COMET IN THE TYCHOS MODEL

Dear friends, Good Heavens to you! Today we shall see how the famous Halley's comet spectacularly concurs 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:

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) :

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".

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

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

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.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6784
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

*

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):

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 :
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:

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 !

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: 6784
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

*
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:

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:

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.

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

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

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: 6784
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

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.

Peaker
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:04 pm

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Hello Everyone, I have a question..

I just heard about the 'Three Body Problem' listening to a podcast this afternoon and I immediately thought that the Tychos might have something to say about it.

Does the Tychos predict the future locations of three planets?...it seems so.

How does the Three Body Problem relate to the Tychos?