Introducing the TYCHOS

Simon Shack's (Tycho Brahe-inspired) geoaxial binary system. Discuss the book and website for the most accurate configuration of our solar system ever devised - which soundly puts to rest the geometrically impossible Copernican-Keplerian model.

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby simonshack on Wed May 02, 2018 11:38 pm

PianoRacer wrote:Thanks so much for these instructions Simon, this is exactly what I was looking for.


You are very welcome.

PianoRacer wrote:Hmm, I don't see a listing for a transit of Mercury on the date given: 1754-04-19. I'm sure I am missing something obvious, but in the TYCHOS model, it seems like a mercury transit would occur every few months, which certainly isn't what we observe in the sky. What am I missing? Thanks in advance for the help and apologies if I am once again asking for "knowledge spoon fed" - or maybe I am asking for the "sun and the moon"! :lol:


Well, here's the thing dear PianoRacer: all you needed to do was to spend a modicum of your time reading that Mercury wiki page that I linked to:
"Transits of Mercury occur in May or November." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Mercury

You can use the NEAVE Planetarium to see that Mercury passed above the Sun on 1754-04-19. https://neave.com/planetarium/

A Mercury transit across the Sun's disk only occurs in the months of May or November - when its orbit's inclination is aligned with the Sun as seen from Earth. Please do a little more homework before posting more questions on this thread, thanks. Patrix said it right: you cannot reasonably ask us to spoon feed you such basic knowledge - lest this thread turn into "first-grade astronomy class". I hope you'll understand.

As for your question : "Anyway, quick question - am I supposed to be able to see the HTML/CSS/JS windows in Tychosium 2D? It seems like that is something that should only be shown to editors/admins, etc." Well yes, the Tychosium 2D is meant to be an open source project, the development of which anyone may, if willing and able, contribute to. Moreover, it is a way for anyone to verify that all the computations involved in its making have used values (such as orbital periods, planetary speeds, relative distances, etc) entirely consistent with those that countless astronomers have laboriously established in the last centuries via empirical observation. In other words, no amount of fancy fudging has gone into its making.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6599
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby PianoRacer on Thu May 03, 2018 12:25 am

Please do a little more homework before posting more questions on this thread, thanks. Patrix said it right: you cannot reasonably ask us to spoon feed you such basic knowledge - lest this thread turn into "first-grade astronomy class". I hope you'll understand.


I do understand! Message received. I will keep my ignorant, ill-conceived questions to myself going forward. Thanks for putting me in my place! I am just grateful not to be labeled a silly clown (or other ad-hominem insults) for questioning your obviously infallible cosmology. I will silently look forward to the (allegedly inevitable) more complete 3d model, and do my best to keep my ever-present cosmological skepticism contained. Congrats again Patrix for your excellent, diligent (and presumably, pro-Bono) work! As a fellow programmer, I know how much time you must have put into this, and I understand your defensiveness for those like me who ask for more, more, more! Please don't take it personally.

All the best,
-PR
PianoRacer
Member
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:13 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby hoi.polloi on Thu May 03, 2018 3:43 am

I do understand! Message received. I will keep my ignorant, ill-conceived questions to myself going forward. Thanks for putting me in my place! I am just grateful not to be labeled a silly clown (or other ad-hominem insults) for questioning your obviously infallible cosmology. I will silently look forward to the (allegedly inevitable) more complete 3d model, and do my best to keep my ever-present cosmological skepticism contained. Congrats again Patrix for your excellent, diligent (and presumably, pro-Bono) work! As a fellow programmer, I know how much time you must have put into this, and I understand your defensiveness for those like me who ask for more, more, more! Please don't take it personally.


You have kind words, PianoRacer. Don't feel ignorant for asking questions. They are not ill-conceived, and the cosmology desires and deserves critique and testing. So thank you for taking the time to learn about it. You have, as many valid questions have done, raised good points and opportunities for all of us to re-learn the astronomy of millennia of study.

You are invited to make your own Tychosium with refined numbers and added features. That is why we offer the Tychosium 2-D as something like "open source" software where you can see and modify the code as you see fit.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby patrix on Thu May 03, 2018 6:06 am

Congrats again Patrix for your excellent, diligent (and presumably, pro-Bono) work! As a fellow programmer, I know how much time you must have put into this, and I understand your defensiveness for those like me who ask for more, more, more! Please don't take it personally.

All the best,
-PR


Thank you PR and please understand we're only humans and sometimes get frustrated and melodramatic. Including you. And we have reason to be suspicious. You write "presumably pro-Bono work". Yes as I've stated before this is pro-bono. I have other means and I hope this helps Simons research. I'm confident that in time people interested will find Simons work and see what I see - That it's the model of our Solar System that is in best accordance with actual observations and logic. They can only fool some of the people some of the time.

May reason prevail /Patrik

PS And since you're a programmer I'm inviting you to write the Earthly camera view yourself. PM me your email and I will send you the code and have a talk with you explaining it.
PPS
And as you wrote, yes it is simple but I have only so much time to devote so my hope is that Tychosium will become community driven.
PPPS
And if I would have had the insights I've gained by working with Simon and his model the last year, as a young man with interest in science and programming, I would be willing to give a lot to get an opportunity to work with this. But fortunately it's absolutely free since no one gets it yet.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby Observer on Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:37 am

I was inspired to create two summary illustrations. Hopefully you might like my artistic presentation this time: :)

Image
Image

I created the summary illustration above after being inspired by the nice illustrations below mainly by Simon (plus a nice illustration at the bottom by Hoi) (plus a nice comparison graph below that by PianoRacer)

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

So, at the top of this post I shared my beautiful summary illustration of when stellar-parallax would be positive/zero/negative, right? :P ;) B) :D :)

But, I hereby boldly suggest to you Simon, to consider focusing more on the every-546-day Mars-DeltaCapricorni-alignment proof (which we non-elite mortals can actually observe for ourselves, which clearly disproves the Copernican model), and the every-816-day Venus-Regulus-alignment proof (which we non-elite mortals can actually observe for ourselves, which clearly disproves the Copernicuan model), and the sun's noontime direct-over-head latitude location changing twice as fast from February 21st to April 21st than it does between April 21st to June 21st (which we non-elite mortals can actually observe for ourselves, which clearly disproves the Copernican model) and consider focusing less on the stellar-parallax "proof" (which conversely we non-elite mortals can't actually observe for ourselves, because we don't own home technology sufficient to accurately to detect such supposedly-existing microscopic 'data' differences.)

Just as: it would lead to absolutely wrong conclusions, to naively wrongly put faith-based belief in and base conclusions about reality upon the supposedly "trustable" Official Archive "footage" of 9/11 (with impossible undamaged-entering plus undamaged-exiting "plane" depictions, impossible top-down-demolition "dustification" depictions, and impossible mistakenly-sized 4-meter "victims" depictions) after Simon Shack's September Clues Videos (19 videos: 3hours 54minutes of evidence) conclusively proved the Official Archive "footage" of 9/11 was Preprepared Forged Images, and the Official Archive "footage" of 9/11 does not match the entirely military-smoke-obscured Manhattan which people actually saw with their eyes on 9/11,

so too: it would lead to absolutely wrong conclusions, to naively wrongly put faith-based-belief in and base conclusions about reality upon the supposedly "trustable" Stellar Parallax "reports" of Royal Observatory Greenwich et al (such elite "data" producers requiring Emperor's-Clothes-Technology http://archive.is/tehxc unobtainable instruments with supposed 1/15484 of an inch (0.00006458279 of an inch) accuracy, since 1 angle of parallax is the angle of the star at the apex of an astronomer's triangulation, the angle of parallax 0.31 (thirty-one hundredths of a second of arc) is so extremely small that it represents only one 11,613th part of a degree, the Greenwich Observatory vernier is six feet in diameter, 1 degree on this vernier measures about three-quarters of an inch, so even if an honest mere mortal not in the club were allowed unfettered access for confirmation of say parallax 0.31 on that vernier "the definitive-solar-system-model-proving difference between parallax and no parallax" would be a difference of merely one 15,484th part of an inch (0.00006458279 of an inch) (0.001640402866 of a millimeter) thus when angles are as small as this I am inclined to agree with Tycho Brahe when he said that Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers; they are due to instrumental and personal errors.
https://ia902705.us.archive.org/12/item ... ckrich.pdf
http://www.aamorris.net/properganderatp ... ration-lie
http://archive.is/15jL4

PianoRacer also wisely came to the same conclusion in his beautifully-composed vital-content-filled explanation here:

"Heliocentrism is definitely unworkable, for many many reasons. 'Stellar parallax' is hardly needed to come to that conclusion."

PianoRacer » May 26th, 2018 wrote:If by "historically" you mean "allegedly for the first time ever in 1838" then I would agree. 1838 is rather late in the game for the field of astronomy, wouldn't you agree? And I'm not really into numerology, as I think the human brain is prone to seeing patterns where there are none, but does anybody else find that date just a tad suspicious? Here of all places?

And who was Mr. Bessel, the alleged first in history to observe stellar parallax? I found this nugget on Wiki:

In January 1810, at the age of 25, Bessel was appointed director of the newly founded Königsberg Observatory by King Frederick William III of Prussia


Appointed by the king to be director of an observatory - he must have been quite the savant! Surely he achieved such a prestigious position at such a tender age by merit alone - for there is certainly no evidence nor historical precedent for these types of positions going to those who would be sure to do and say as they are told. Perhaps someone with better research chops than myself could do more investigation of Mr. Bessel, to see if there is any other pertinent information about the man.

Outside of the acolytes of $cientism who have access to the worlds largest telescopes, all owned and operated by governments, who has made these observations? Yourself, Patrix? Any other members of this forum? I would love to see some original research in this area, but as I seem to recall reading, the parallax measurements are so minute that they are only about twice the margin of error, presumably using some of the world's more powerful telescopes. Perhaps I am misremembering that, but with such tiny discrepancies, I would expect one would need quite the powerful telescope - the kind only found at government observatories - to make these observations, but as it is I have been fooled too many times by the "evidence" presented by the hucksters at the top of the "scientific" aristocracy that I have my serious doubts about this. After all, it was around the time of Bessel's "discovery" that the "discovery" of the first dinosaurs were made. If the entire field of Paleontology could be created out of whole cloth and maintained up to the present day, why not the theory and "evidence" for stellar parallax?

I don't see why we should accept this claim any more readily, and with little more evidence, than we should the rest of the theories or evidence that have been utterly destroyed by the members of this forum. I am open to the reasons why the evidence is seemingly so strong, but thus far I have not seen them. I have only seen the claim presented as fact, certainly with some accompanying pictures that may or may not represent reality, and which have seemingly not at all been questioned nor attempted to be verified by those who present them as fact. I find that quite curious and not in line with the standards of evidence and skepticism that are usually a hallmark of this forum.

All that being said - Heliocentrism is definitely unworkable, for many many reasons. "Stellar parallax" is hardly needed to come to that conclusion.

P.S. Please do not take offense by this. I am merely trying to hold every idea to the same standard of evidence. I am worried that some here may be overly invested in this assertion being true, and thus may have their judgement clouded. People in such situations tend to react emotionally to having their claims and beliefs questioned, and given the extremely high regard in which I hold yourself Patrix and most other members of this forum, I'm just not sure that my fragile ego could withstand much more in the way of personal attacks on this and similar topics. If I am wrong, that's fine - show me why! I am totally convincable. I am happy to be proven wrong, because I hate to be wrong and would rather be right! I assume that is the goal of everyone else here, regardless of how invested we may be in any particular idea.

All the best,
-PR


http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2405887#p2405887

The relatively brief story since 1838 of "well-endowed lens-owners with honesty" arguing about their supposed 0.001640402866 of a millimeter differences in measurements might be a well-controlled long-con red-herring trap they began setting centuries ago, with both innocently mistaken data mixed together with maliciously fraudulent data, and the real bottom line is the official "data" about stellar-parallax can NOT be observed with our own eyes, even utilizing our best home telescopes, so all such data claims are un-testable un-observable appeals to trust various elite astronomy authority figures and/or appeals to trust various "alternative" elite astronomy authority figures.

Just as: it is absurd to use proven faked "footage" as "evidence" of non-standard exotic WTC demolition methods (due to the "footage" being sprinkled with red-herrings planted such as "squibs", "thermite", "dustification", "DEW beams", "nukes", "mini nukes", "UFOs", "angels", "demons", "melted cars", "extreme rate of fall", etc.) since we simply don't have any actual personal observations nor any actual authentic footage of 9/11 to analyze,

so too: it is absurd to use probably faked "data" as "evidence" of pinpoints of light reflected onto unobtainably-expensive yet-still-imperfectly-flawed glass-lenses owned by rich liars who supposedly honestly report that without a doubt sometimes some of the tiny dots appear to move 0.001640402866 of a millimeter further from specific neighbor-in-appearance dots and sometimes those same tiny dots appear to move again 0.001640402866 of a millimeter closer to those same neighbor-in-appearance dots.

And there, did you notice it, there it is, did you notice it? That little "fact" about the official "data" set. I didn't notice it until I was putting the finishing touches on my two artistic summaries above:

The official "stellar-parallax" "data" claims (drum-roll please...) that the movement... comes back... each year... to reset... to the exact same old starting point. (!) D'oh!

These minuscule un-observable supposed differences don't build up over the years, in the official story, they only build for 6 months for a peak of 0.001640402866 of a millimeter movement on a 6 foot lens, then... over the next 6 months go back to zero and finish right where they started.

Turns out that's the whole unspoken point of the official stellar parallax claims... the parallax supposedly doesn't go right forever, the parallax supposedly doesn't go left forever, it simply does (supposedly) an annual little ultra-tiny microscopic circle and ends up right back in the same location each year.

The official stellar parallax data claim is a long-con trap just WAITING (until the reality model becomes known by enough truth seekers) to suddenly reply back to the whole world when needed, "Quiet down everybody, we rulers have been intelligently collecting stellar parallax data since 1838, look at our 'official accounts', look at our 'official photos', the closer stars appear to do an microscopic circle each year, so this data, which only we rulers are able to gather conclusively with our elite tools, proves Earth does an annual circle around the sun, that's what the official stellar parallax data proves, the relatively-closer stars appear to move a minuscule amount one way for 6 months (called "positive parallax") and then those same relatively-closer stars appear to return the same minuscule amount back for 6 months (called "negative parallax"), the main point being the movement returns back to the starting point of zero each year, thus Earth annually returns back to the starting point of zero each year, so how could you possibly have entertained any model other than the Kepler/Copernican model, so just accept the Kepler/Copernican model and go back to sleep forever!"

So, if I visually summarized your model correctly in my illustration Simon (which I'm quite confident I did) and if the "stellar-parallax" "data" "shows" "stellar-parallax increasing for 6 months then decreasing for 6 months, for a little annual circle dance which comes back to zero each year" (which is what the official stellar parallax data claims), then a logic-loving person like myself would have to (if I believed the official stellar parallax data were to be true) angrily announce:

"Hey man, according to stellar-parallax you're wrong man, because look at this perfect illustration of your model man, it conflicts with what the stellar-parallax data says man:

Your model shows EVER-BUILDING annual positive-parallax in the Summer Quadrant every Summer Equinox year to year to year, meaning the closest stars (the stars which appear to "move" due to parallax) would appear to move further and further west each year, relative to the most far stars which would appear to not move, and the apparent gap between them would increase every year, getting bigger and bigger. But the official data shows the apparent "moving" stars come back to reset to their original location each year.

And similarly, your model shows EVER-BUILDING annual negative-parallax in the Winter Quadrant every Winter Equinox year to year to year, meaning the closest stars (the stars which appear to "move" due to parallax) would appear to move further and further east each year, relative to the most far stars which would appear to not move, and the apparent gap between them would increase every year, getting bigger and bigger. But again, the official data shows the apparent "moving" stars come back to reset to their original location each year.

You must not have understood the official data man, but now that I've properly regurgitated the official data story to you, you should assume your 1mph model was wrong, because if stellar parallax returns to reset to zero each year, without ever-building differences, then Earth is definitely not moving 14,036km each year (140,360km each decade) in one direction man.

Wow, if stellar-parallax is your main evidence, yet stellar-parallax says the Earth comes back to the same spot each year, then I guess the 14,036km each year (140,360km each decade) "Earth traveling in one direction, in a grand slow huge diameter circle, not coming back to the same spot for 25,344 years" model must be wrong man. according to stellar-parallax.

So I'm gonna' start doubting the 1mph part of your model man, and next I'm gonna' start doubting the 'Sun revolves around the Earth' part of your model too, and next I'm gonna' start doubting every conclusion you have ever arrived at, even the 9/11 conclusions, just as BrianV feared man. Steller Parallax data disagreeing with the summary illustration at the very top of this post has made me abandon the CluesForum ship forever!"


Don't worry Simon, fortunately, I'm NOT thinking those thoughts, those are the thoughts they HOPED people like me would think, when we got around to comparing the "annual reset" claim of the official "data" specifically conflicting with the year to year to year "annually increasing" aspect of your model shown in that summary illustration I made.

Again, we just don't know what the actual stellar parallax data shows, because we can't observe any ourselves. Perhaps there really IS "annually increasing" ever-building Summer-to-Summer year to year to year positive stellar parallax in the Summer Quadrant, and perhaps there really IS "annually increasing" ever-building Winter-to-Winter year to year to year negative stellar parallax in the Winter Quadrant, with the apparent gaps (between the relatively closer-to-us "apparent movers" and the relatively far-from-us "non-movers") growing bigger and bigger every year.

Even if we buy/make our own 6 foot lenses and get out our tiniest microscopic rulers to prove that the elite have been HIDING the actual "annually increasing ever-building year to year to year positive parallax in the Summer Quadrant" and that the elite have been HIDING the actual "annually increasing ever-building year to year to year negative parallax in the Winter Quadrant" even THEN we would STILL be hard pressed to prove anything to ourselves or to others using stellar parallax because we mere mortals simply can't accurately notice a 0.00328080573mm annual difference, it would take 300 years of measuring just to theoretically build up to 1 whole millimeter of difference!

Again, back to the stellar parallax "data" they give us, they claim "0.001640402866mm difference for 6 months, then back to zero reset 6 months later, so absolutely zero year-to-year parallax" which disagrees with the Tychos model of Summer Quadrant "movers" continuously year to year to year moving West and Winter Quadrant "movers" continuously year to year to year moving East, so basically stellar parallax "data" is not only un-testable and un-observable, its "year-to-year parallax of ZERO" claim is totally conflicting with the Tychos model.

I'm the only one who noticed the "year to year to year" unspoken unwritten claims of the official Copernicus model versus the Tychos model. Everyone has been confusingly getting fooled into talking comparing 6 month differences. The official Copernicus model talks about 6 month differences, but rarely mentions its "then back to zero" claim.

The Tychos model has taught me well, about the need to #1 take measurements at midnight (no changing times), #2 from one particular point (no changing locations) and #3 look at stars directly above during midnight during equinoxes to actually be looking at the four specific quadrants (no random months, no random directions) so those three rules are very important.

Still, it seems I was the only one so far who realized (by chance while making that summary illustration at the very top of this post) that 14,036km annual movement in one direction means ever-growing ever-building ever-increasing year to year to year parallax amounts in the Summer quadrant and in the Winter quadrant... if (and that's the big if) if parallax were actually to be an observable thing.


So, if I still think the Tychos model is the best model, why DON'T we see noticeable "annually-increasing" ever-building ever-growing differences between the annual location of the closer stars in the summer and winter quadrants? I really don't know. Perhaps the stars are simply too mysterious. Maybe they really are super tiny. Maybe they really are super far. Maybe they really are super tiny and far. Maybe they really are totally different things than we assume them to be.

The point I am saying is: let's not make the lovely Tychos model dependent on stellar-parallax since the elite will simple tell the masses, "Stellar Parallax reverts to zero each year, so Stellar Parallax disproves the '140,360km each decade Tychos model' conclusively" and if THAT weren't reason enough to disassociate from the "stellar parallax data" there's the bigger problem that we don't observe stellar parallax with our own eyes or our own telescopes so we can't prove the elite "stellar parallax data" false, even actual annually-growing stellar-parallax would take 6 foot lenses PLUS 300 years just to wave around a 1 millimeter figure to the masses.

So, I'm NOT allowing myself to be fooled by the fact that Tychos 1mph model doesn't match the "stellar-parallax" "yearly-reset" "data", because I never really trusted the conflict-filled "royal elite A versus royal alternative elite B" "data" in the first place. It's just like the 9/11 "footage": all such official "data" which happens to be un-testable and un-observable by the average human are obvious targets of forgery and fakery by the royal clowns (they forge and fake ALL such all data which we mere non-elite mortals are not able to observe for ourselves.)

Look, the elite have known for centuries (if not millennia) that someday a normal non-club-member human would re-discover the observations which prove the sun moves around the Earth and discover (as you have) the necessary observations which prove that while the sun is circling the Earth the Earth is also moving 1mph (14,036km per year: 140,360km per decade) in one direction, in a grand slow huge diameter circle, not coming back to the same spot for 25,344 years.

They couldn't predict WHO would be the thinker in the future who would figure out their greatest secret (the real movement of the Earth, which they have been hiding using their Royal Society hoax factory since the very first "royal" clowns fooled everyone into giving them power and "authority") but they knew they needed to set a trap to trip up whoever eventually DID figure out the real movement of the Earth (a human with the ability to disprove lies and state reality using logic and observations which all can see, in an age of the ability to have one's message of reality potentially spreading out and reaching almost every living human.) The trap was set for someone like you Simon.

So in 1838 (9/11) they set this trap of Emperor's-Clothes-Technology making observations about "evidence of the Earth circling the Sun, evidence of the Earth returning to the same spot each year, evidence which regular people can never observe from their own backyards with there own eyes, evidence which we will release conflicting 'data' about with various big-lens-having 'alternative' astronomers too, to keep interested parties debating forever about which old/new elite 'data' set is most trustable, we will call this imaginary minuscule 'data-set' 'stellar-parallax', ha-ha, the masses will never realize that there is NO discernible 'difference' at all except for ground shake and lens glass flaws / atmospheric refraction, and hopefully this long-term trap will trip up somebody eventually, because since 'stellar-parallax' claims the star 'positions' are reset to zero each year, when thought about deeply and assumed to be true, this trap will serve to DISPROVE the reality model of anyone who tries to tell the world the truth of Earth's 1mph movement.

If the reality model sharer focuses on the easily observable grand movements in the sky (namely the sun's noontime direct-over-head latitude location changing twice as fast from February 21st to April 21st than it does between April 21st to June 21st, and the planets' moving and aligning relative to the background non-moving stars) then the truth will win.

If the reality model sharer focuses on the non-observable minuscule 0.001640402866mm 'data' which ONLY THE ELITE have the "ability" to show the masses official [forged] reports and official [forged] images of, then the elite "data"' set will prove the reality model sharer 'wrong' and thus the lie will win.

Simon, you are the reality model sharer, I urge you to focus on the easily observable grand movements in the sky (namely the sun's noontime direct-over-head latitude location changing twice as fast from February 21st to April 21st than it does between April 21st to June 21st, and the planets' moving and aligning relative to the background non-moving stars) so the truth will win.

Don't use any "Royal data" as a starting point since it is assuredly filled with false assumptions to begin with. Only build from personal observations, as you have observed with your own eyes, which we can all observe with our own eyes, namely easily observable grand movements like the sun and the planets.

Here's a warning example of a guy being led by faulty data, I once found a seemingly nice elderly character sharing videos of himself online (perhaps a psy-op, perhaps just a useful idiot fooled by the elite, who knows, he was programmed during his university years as an 'engineer' by MIT, so probably a combination of both idiot and spook) named Alan Friot who created his grand lifetime work "2.22 degree" "3rd-axis" "Zale angle" "discovery" by naively or maliciously basing his starting point on the elite claim that our solar system moves a million miles a day.

Yes, IF our solar system were moving a million miles a day, in a grand speeding race around the galaxy,
IF Earth were indeed orbiting-around-while-racing-together-with this million-mile-a-day speeding sun,
then: "Earth's orbit is not perfectly perpendicular to the sun's movement, a 3rd-axis of 2.22 must exist"
and thus: "this 2.22 degree angle puts Earth sometimes ahead and sometimes behind the speeding sun"
and thus: "21.28 tilt COMBINES with this 2.22 axis to explain the annual sun changes, not any wobbling."
and thus: "21.28 tilt combining with this 2.22 axis explains the sun's seasonal 'direct-overhead' changes."
and thus: "anyone who doesn't factor in this 2.22 degree axis doesn't understand the heliocentric model."
and thus: "heliocentrists who don't realize sun-movement-direction and this angle: aren't heliocentrists!"
(I tried to explain to him that he should call himself a galaxycentrist, but he didn't grok that correction."

He truly improved the official model, but he didn't critically demand proof of the official speeding claim.

Totally tragically, my friend's wonderful point was unfortunately naively based on the initial false elite lie.

Just as studying 9/11 "footage" leads to steel-dustification conclusions, but the initial "footage" is all false.

Summary: the falsity of the Copernicus (Earth rotates around the sun) model
and the veracity of the Tycho-Simon-Shack (sun rotates around the Earth) model
should be proven by the sun/planet movements easily observable with our naked eyes
and not tied to the accounts which only elite people with elite tools have supposedly seen.

Observer » May 10th, 2018, 7:13 am wrote:
"...the Tychos is not tied to star parallax results. It's possible ALL parallax accounts were corrupt and/or flawed.

...again, let me close with saying: the world's first real parallax tests as described above might show ZERO parallax.
Yep, limiting the direction to true-left and true-right, only at perfectly-perpendicular midnight, MIGHT show NO parallax.
Taking perfectly-perpendicular midnight photos might prove: all previous "parallax" due to "time & direction variances."
I just want to mention that possibility, of the upcoming perfectly-perpendicular midnight photos proving a big surprise.
In which case stars would be very strange! But even then, Tychos explains planet "loops" better than any other model.
Last edited by Observer on Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:33 pm, edited 8 times in total.
Observer
Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby patrix on Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:23 am

Very good points by both you Observer and PianoRacer. And beautiful illustrations Observer. I need to read it a few times more though, but I just wanted to say that I wholeheartedly agree that it’s so important to not accept shady evidence. That is their prime game and I have fallen for it so many times now. They use the trust they get by revealing one thing to fool you regarding something else. If you figure out the Moon Landing is fake, you get a warm welcome by all the “truth seekers” that show you how they were faked by going into Earth orbit and using satellites…
Let’s focus the case around things that common people can verify using naked eye astronomy, basic math and experimentally verified science. Aye to that.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby simonshack on Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:46 am

"

Dear Observer,

Thanks for your supportive efforts towards my TYCHOS model. I must however quickly correct you (in order to prevent confusion among our readers) regarding your obvious and unfortunate misgivings regarding stellar parallax & precession: no, Copernican astronomers do not claim that the stars return to the same place every year. They all know / agree that we observe the stars to move Eastwards by about 50" (arcseconds) every year - and that this causes our North stars to change over time. More precisely, the amount of observed stellar precession is currently 50.3" (yet it keeps increasing - and, in fact, the reason for this 'mysterious' increase is also covered, explained and illustrated in my Tychos book).

You really need to read up on this important subject matter - and once you've clarified for yourself what 'general precession' means (and how it is generally understood), I will kindly ask you to edit your above post accordingly.
You may start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession

In the TYCHOS of course, the annual stellar precession is - quite simply - caused by Earth's 1-mph-motion around its PVP (Polaris-Vega-Polaris) orbit. Earth employs 25344 years to complete one such orbit.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6599
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby PianoRacer on Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:32 am

My only comment is to thank Observer for his kind words. They mean a lot to me.

I also wanted to add a few pictures and animations that are a result of the continuation of the work that I've been doing for the Tyochos comparisons that I posted previously. I plotted the longitude, latitude, and magnitude of the JPL data on a 3D graph and I find the results to be utterly fascinating. The question I have is - how can the heliocentric, tychonic, or flat earth models account for this data? I truly can't see how this is possible under any of the proposed models. That is one of the reasons that I am so interested in a functioning 3d model of the Tychos system, and why I agree with Observer that we need something that we can independently verify to confirm the proposed model.

FYI the data points shown are generally over a 100-year time period, from 2000 to 2100. Also, this was ridiculously easy to set up - if anyone is interested I could show you how to reproduce all of this using the original JPL data in a couple of hours.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
PianoRacer
Member
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:13 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby hoi.polloi on Sat Jun 30, 2018 3:45 pm

PianoRacer, hello! Looking forward to meeting you when we are back in your area.

Thank you for spending your hours on it. Any work on the TYCHOS is certainly needed now. Anyway, please, can we ask you (for users unfamiliar with what JPL data "means") to explain what exact bodies the coordinates represent?

I don't think we're meant to assume that JPL buildings or their employees are soaring around in warped trochoids that look like a screen saver from 1990. So please unpack your thoughts about the data you acquired, the "data points'" meaning, what they claim it is, and your process of analysis.

We need to demystify astronomy and observation for people and your post is interesting but mysterious as fuck.
:lol:

We can only read that one 3D image represents, for example, "Mercury" but how? What is claimed? Is this a "satellite view", an Earthly view or a Mercurial view, first of all?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby Observer on Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:46 pm

Yes Simon, Stellar Precession (the entire set of all the stars together, appearing to move Eastwards annually, currently by about 50.3 arcseconds annually, as one complete set) is agreed upon by all.

And yes Simon, the Tychos model explains Stellar Precession as quite simply being caused by Earth's 1mph 25,344year orbit under PVP (Polaris-Vega-Polaris). Agreed upon by all who understand the Tychos model.

And yes Simon, the fact that you covered, explained and illustrated in your Tychos book the REASON why Stellar Precession's annual arcseconds amount keeps INCREASING every year is yet another fine point of evidence proving the Tychos model superior to the Copernican model, since the Copernican model has no explanation for the "mysterious for Copernicans" annual increase in Stellar Precession.

The entire set of all the stars together appearing to move Eastwards 50.3 arcseconds annually as one complete set (aka Stellar Precession) is a given, a fact which needn't even enter our conversation since it is factored out when discussing Stellar Parallax.

WITHIN the (Easternly moving, yes, yes) complete set, the official story is that SOME stars are closer to us than others and thus these "CLOSEST stars appear to show parallax RELATIVE to the FAR stars" which means these CLOSEST stars APPEAR to "move" RELATIVE to the FAR stars.

My entire post is pointing out a problem with the official Stellar Parallax story, which I discovered while creating this for you:

Image

See, while you were talking about 6-month parallax data (since the elite's parallax data is usually talking about 6-month parallax data) I happened by chance to choose to illustrate what perfect 1-year parallax looks like in the Tychos model.

In the Tychos model,
during Summer Equinox,
from let's say the equator,
looking directly up at midnight,
taking 1 photo with a super telescope
of a close star in the center of Summer Quadrant,
with relatively far stars also in the shot for comparison,
AND THEN a year later doing the exact same thing perfectly,
since the Earth has moved 14,036km in one direction during that year:
compared to the 1st, the 2nd photo would have the closest star showing "positive parallax"
meaning the close star would "appear to move 0.62 arcseconds (to the west side of the photo) relative to the far stars."
Compared to the 1st photo, the 3rd photo would show 1.24 arcseconds of "parallax, relative to the far stars."
Compared to the 1st photo, the 11th photo would show 6.2 arcseconds of "parallax, relative to the far stars."
(unfortunately this relative difference is too microscopic for your telescope+camera, so this is just theoretical)

In the Tychos model,
during Winter Equinox,
from let's say the equator,
looking directly up at midnight,
taking 1 photo with a super telescope
of a close star in the center of Winter Quadrant,
with relatively far stars also in the shot for comparison,
AND THEN a year later doing the exact same thing perfectly,
since the Earth has moved 14,036km in one direction during that year:
compared to the 1st, the 2nd photo would have the closest star showing "negative parallax"
meaning the close star would "appear to move 0.62 arcseconds (to the east side of the photo) relative to the far stars."
Compared to the 1st photo, the 3rd photo would show 1.24 arcseconds of "parallax, relative to the far stars."
Compared to the 1st photo, the 11th photo would show 6.2 arcseconds of "parallax, relative to the far stars."
(unfortunately this relative difference is too microscopic for your telescope+camera, so this is just theoretical)

In the Tychos model,
during Autumn Equinox,
from let's say the equator,
looking directly up at midnight,
taking 1 photo with a super telescope
of a close star in the center of Autumn Quadrant,
with relatively far stars also in the shot for comparison,
AND THEN a year later doing the exact same thing perfectly,
although the Earth has moved 14,036km in one direction during that year,
since the center of Autumn Quadrant is exactly the direction in which the Earth moves,
compared to the 1st, the 2nd photo (and even the 11th photo) would have the close star showing "zero parallax".

In the Tychos model,
during Spring Equinox,
from let's say the equator,
looking directly up at midnight,
taking 1 photo with a super telescope
of a close star in the center of Spring Quadrant,
with relatively far stars also in the shot for comparison,
AND THEN a year later doing the exact same thing perfectly,
although the Earth has moved 14,036km in one direction during that year,
since the center of Spring Quadrant is exactly opposite the direction in which the Earth moves,
compared to the 1st, the 2nd photo (and even the 11th photo) would have the close star showing "zero parallax".

The point is, my illustration and explanation matches the Tychos model about parallax, meaning specifically that:
the Summer Positive Parallax would have close stars appear to move, to the west side of photos, relative to far stars,
the Winter Negative Parallax would have close stars appear to move, to the east side of photos, relative to far stars,
and this Parallax be ever-building, ever-growing, as Earth moves 14,036km per year (140,360 per decade) in one direction.

(In the Tychos model, that "one direction" needs clarification of course, it seems like a "one direction" straight line for say a decade or even a hundred years, but of course it's not an actual straight line since zoomed out that seemingly straight path is actually a giant 25,344 year circular path. The fact remains, in the Tychos model, Earth does NOT come back to the same location every year. In the Tychos model, Earth only comes back to the same location once every 25,344 years.)

The point is, here's the problem with the official stellar parallax data story: according to the special people like the supposedly trustable authorities at Greenwich Observatory, they claim Stellar Parallax (a close star appearing to move, for example, 0.31 arcseconds (to the west side of the photo) relative to the far stars) PEAKS at 6 months and then over the subsequent 6 months RETURNS back to its original position in the set.

The "returns exactly back to its original position in the set each year" is their main piece of "evidence" for their false claim that "Earth returns exactly back to its original perspective position in the solar system each year."

The Tychos model says Parallax would be ever-building, ever-growing, since it would have to be, since Earth moves 14,036km per year (140,360 per decade) in one direction, away from it's former location, and doesn't return to that original location until 25,344 years later.

The Copernican model says Parallax peaks at say 0.31 arcseconds over 6 months (0.001640402866 millimeter on their 6-foot-lens) then moves back to zero again by the end of the year, basically each close star performs an extremely small circle dance over the course of a year and they say that proves the earth does a circle dance over the course of a year.

Image
Image

The official Stellar Parallax model says: annual circle.
The close star does an annual circle dance relative to the far stars,
the relative difference between 6-month photos peaks at 0.31 arcseconds,
and then the close star returns to it's normal location in the set, just like Earth.

The Tychos Stellar Parallax model says: no annual circle. No annual circle at all. Straight line.
Each Summer the close star would appear to keep moving further, to the west of the photo, relative to the far stars,
each Winter the close star would appear to keep moving further, to the east of the photo, relative to the far stars,
0.62 arcseconds of relative difference between annual photos, 6.2 arcseconds of relative difference between decade photos,
the close star would not return to it's normal location in the set until 25,344 years later, just like Earth.

So when faced with this discovery (which nobody else noticed, since everybody was thinking only in terms of 6 month parallax) this discovery that the YEAR/DECADE Copernican Parallax "data" doesn't match the YEAR/DECADE Tychos Parallax Model, I was faced with a choice.

My first thought, as I explained to my kids, was that if I tell Simon he will be heartbroken, he will hate me forever, and my fantasy about saving up enough money to someday visit Simon in Rome will be totally crushed.

But then I realized, as I explained in great detail in my post above (viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1989&p=2405996&sid=8a79cfdbcfba51e2f7b395c85d4e6476#p2405996) that the YEAR/DECADE Tychos Parallax Model doesn't match the YEAR/DECADE Copernican Parallax "data" because (drum-roll, but no big surprise really) the Copernican Parallax "data" is false, incorrect, forged, faked, constructed entirely to DISPROVE any non-copernican model.

Simon, I'm surprised and a little hurt that my post above resulted in you replying "you must be mistaken, you must be talking about Stellar Precesion". I think if you re-read my post above, and this post right here, you will see there is an absolute conflict between the YEAR/DECADE Tychos Parallax Model and the YEAR/DECADE Copernican Parallax "data" and I am choosing to confidently state that the Tychos Model is correct and the Copernican "data" about Parallax is a huge lie.

The Copernican model says Parallax peaks at say 0.31 arcseconds over 6 months (0.001640402866 millimeter on their 6-foot-lens) then moves back to zero again by the end of the year.

If it moves back to zero at the end of each year, then Earth moves back to the same location at the end of each year.

Since Earth in reality does NOT move back to the same location at the end of each year, since Earth in reality keeps moving 14,036km per year (140,360 per decade) in one direction, the "annual circle parallax data" logically must be wrong.

And since this data involves 0.001640402866 millimeter difference on their 6-foot-lens, I am absolutely sure, just like PianoRacer, just like AA MORRIS, and just like Tycho Brahe himself, "Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers; they are due to instrumental and personal errors (...or total lies by the Royal Academy Clowns)."

https://ia902705.us.archive.org/12/item ... ckrich.pdf
http://www.aamorris.net/properganderatp ... ration-lie
http://archive.is/15jL4

How about this, please right click my illustration, it's a full-size original png, and please draw in the summer Tychos parallax prediction (close star appears to move west, relative to far stars) and the winter Tychos parallax prediction (close star appears to move east, relative to far stars) You and I are saying the same thing, and that parallax difference between the close stars and the far stars would continue to grow each year.

Image

Now look at the official Copernican "annual circle" illustrations again:

Image
Image


The conflict is not due to Tychos being wrong, not at all. Tychos is right.

The conflict is due to the whole subject of "Parallax" being a trap with official forged "data".

Please don't get mad at me Simon. I respect you so much. I want to visit you someday. Please realize that Parallax is NOT the friend you thought it was.

Sun movement proves Tychos correct!

Mars, Venus, Mercury movement proves Tychos correct!

Parallax is an "annual circle, so Earth moves in an annual circle" trap!

I will now silently hope you actually re-read my post above and this post with an open heart.

Perhaps take a week to figure out where my illustration is mistaken. I think the official "annual circle parallax data" is the only thing mistaken here.

Sincerely,

Your friend in Japan,

Steve the Levi

PS - Just like whoever told you "Simon, my brother, stop assuming the 'live helicopter with a camera' got accidentally blown by wind right before the nose-out moment, because the fact is: there WAS no helicopter, it was ALL CGI!" was correct,
(and just as such a friend was looking out for your best interests and trying to keep your evidence points all correct, not at all trying to "attack" your 99% correct evidence points),

so too, my intent is pure: I know your model is correct, I simply am realizing (before anyone else, it seems) that the "annual circle parallax data" doesn't match your model - meaning parallax data is wrong while the Tychos model is right!

Plus even before I made this little discovery of conflict, many smart folks including Brahe himself have said that nobody can measure such tiny (e.g. 0.31 arcseconds) amounts of difference between two dots of light, and since nobody can actually make precise measurements THAT IS EXACTLY WHY the Royal Clowns created the Greenwich Hoaxervatory and enlisted many "official bad guy" astronomers (and even "alternative good guy" astronomers as well) and thus created this debate in our heads about whether the close stars move west relative to the far stars for 6 months, or whether the close stars move east relative to the far stars for 6 months, but it's a false dichotomy because ALL of those parallax-measuring-gods all agree (although they don't say it loud enough to be noticed by most) "After the 6 month peak, the difference goes back to zero, since Earth goes back to location zero, since Earth orbits the sun of course." ALL of the parallax-measuring-gods have always been (since 1838) claiming "annual circle Parallax" thus "annual circle Earth orbiting the sun." And they have been getting away with this huge Emperor's-Clothes lie since absolutely no real honest humans can ever possibly observe such microscopic differences to prove the official "data" wrong.

I'm hoping you will realize: although I'm not as smart as you Simon (I'm so dumb I believed in Concave Earth and couldn't even stop mixing up the terms Concave and Convex), although you are absolutely a million times smarter than me Simon, as it happens, about this one little point, my illustration (which I originally made to PROVE your Parallax evidence TRUE) discovered a conflict.

Please realize, the correct feeling in this situation is, "Wow Steve, thanks, I was thinking about the 6 month parallax data, since they always talk about 6 month parallax data, I never really drew what the Tychos year to year to year photos would look like! Your illustration is correct, the Tychos year to year to year photos would definitely NOT show the close stars returning to the exact some location relative to the far stars. The Tychos year to year to year photos would definitely show the continuously building differences between the close stars and the far stars, most especially in the center of Summer&Winter quadrants. But all the official (and official alternative) "data" shows "annual circle Parallax", which means all their Parallax data, if authentic, would be proving "annual circle Earth orbiting the sun." And thanks for understanding that even though Stellar Parallax was a trap, Stellar Precession IS real, and my Tychos book covers, explains and illustrates the REASON why Stellar Precession's annual arcseconds amount keeps INCREASING every year - this is a GOOD point of evidence proving the Tychos model superior to the Copernican model, since the Copernican model has no explanation for the "mysterious for Copernicans" annual increase in Stellar Precession. Precession is real. Parallax is fake. Thanks for pulling me out of the Parallax trap, my brother Steve. It took a lot of courage to risk our friendship by telling me a truth which at first glance seemed to be "attacking" one of my evidence areas. That particular "parallax evidence" area was indeed based on forged "annual circle" data. Thanks for helping me get back on track with the NON-conflicting, OBSERVABLE by all, Sun/Mars/Venus/Mercury REAL undeniable evidence areas. You are of course always welcome to come visit me, if you ever do indeed save up enough, we'll have a great time and laugh together about the Concave trap and the Parallax trap which we both respectively helped pull each other out of, with respect, gratitude, and love of reality above all." :)

Image
Image
Image Image
Observer
Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby PianoRacer on Mon Jul 02, 2018 3:28 am

hoi.polloi » June 30th, 2018, 10:45 am wrote:please, can we ask you (for users unfamiliar with what JPL data "means") to explain what exact bodies the coordinates represent?


Sorry for the confusion, Hoi. I should have provided more context and detail about what the graphs represent. The long and short of it is this: the above graphs accurately depict (in a way that is independently verifiable by anyone) the actual paths of the objects we observe in the sky, hard as it is as that may be to believe.

Each point on the above graphs represent the position of a body at midnight UTC on a given date, as represented by it's latitude, longitude, and diameter. Diameter is assumed to be inversely correlated to distance (other explanations welcome). All of these measurements can be independently verified by anyone with a telescope capable of measuring latitude, longitude and diameter.

The data were obtained by the JPL Horizons website here: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi

These were the settings:

Ephemeris Type [change] : OBSERVER
Target Body [change] : Mars [499]
Observer Location [change] : Geocentric [500]
Time Span [change] : Start=2000-01-01, Stop=2100-01-01, Step=1 d
Table Settings [change] : QUANTITIES=2,4,13; angle format=DEG; range units=KM; CSV format=YES
Display/Output [change] : download/save (plain text file)


Columns 2, 4 and 13 are the latitude (in degrees), longitude (in degrees) and diameter of the object in question:

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons_doc# ... quantities

2. Apparent RA & DEC:
Apparent right ascension and declination of the target with respect to
the specified observing center/site. "Apparent" can have three different
meanings, depending on where the observer is located:

A) For EARTH-BASED sites: apparent coordinates are with respect to a
true-equator and Earth equinox of-date coordinate system (reflecting
precession, nutation and other motion of the spin-pole), adjusted to
model light-time delay, the gravitational deflection of light, and
stellar aberration, with an optional (approximate) correction for
atmospheric refraction. Apparent RA/DEC for Earth-based sites is
generally used when aligning a telescope on the surface with the equator
and pole of-date.

4. Apparent AZ & EL:
Apparent azimuth and elevation of target. Compensated for light-time,
the gravitational deflection of light, stellar aberration, precession and
nutation. There is an optional (approximate) correction for atmospheric
refraction (Earth only). Azimuth is measured North(0) -> East(90) ->
South(180) -> West(270). Elevation is with respect to plane perpendicular
to local zenith direction. TOPOCENTRIC ONLY. Units: DEGREES

13. Target angular diameter
The angle subtended by the disk of the target seen by the observer, if
it was fully illuminated. The target diameter is taken to be the IAU2009
equatorial diameter. Oblateness aspect is not currently included.
Units: ARCSECONDS


Latitude and longitude are represented in degrees. This is why Longitude seems to "wrap around" when it hits 360, as the bodies are all continuously moving in the same direction horizontally (except, of course, when they are in "retrograde motion"). Imagine that the longitude axis wraps around in a cylindrical loop when it hits 360 and you will have a fairly accurate three-dimensional graph of what is observed in the skies. Still working on that feature...

Since the planets, sun and moon tend to wander between +30 and -30 degrees on the vertical (latitude) axis, those tend to be the boundaries there.

Diameter can be a bit misleading, as it is always bound by it's maximum and minimum values. That means that a range of 1.5 to 4.5 looks the same as a range of 10 to 30. Diameter is measured in Arc seconds:

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

And... that's it. Latitude, longitude and diameter of the celestial objects. Keep in mind that this is in reference to the celestial coordinate system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial ... ate_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_ascension
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_equator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_ ... ade_motion

I don't think we're meant to assume that JPL buildings or their employees are soaring around in warped trochoids that look like a screen saver from 1990. So please unpack your thoughts about the data you acquired, the "data points'" meaning, what they claim it is, and your process of analysis.


At first I was slightly miffed by your snarky "screen saver" comment but then I realized that you are absolutely and hilariously correct. Maybe they were slapping us in the face with the truth all along? Hah!

Image

Look, I didn't come up with this data, nor did I represent it in any kind of uniquely artistic fashion. I took the JPL data which presumably represents observable reality, and plugged it into a modern 3d graphing utility (Plotly - https://plot.ly for the record) using literally the default settings. I agree the shapes are... unexpected, but that is my whole point: the motions of the sun, moon and planets can never be explained by classical circular "orbits", Tychosian or otherwise.

We need to demystify astronomy and observation for people and your post is interesting but mysterious as fuck.
:lol:


I can't say that anything I've ever done in the past has ever been described to me as "mysterious", let alone "mysterious as fuck", but I will go ahead and take that as a compliment, with the hope that this follow-up post will "de-mystify" my previous one to your, and everyone else's, satisfaction. If not - my offer still stands to spell out step-by-step how to visualize the data in the way I did, but I would need some active participation for that to happen. All the data and software I used was free. No programming required.

P.S. Hmmm... now I am starting to wonder, if one were to be presented with "September Clues" or - better yet, my first "Shack" experience, "Synched Out" - could they come up with a better term to describe their experience than "mysterious as fuck"?
Last edited by PianoRacer on Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
PianoRacer
Member
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:13 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby hoi.polloi on Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:25 am

Ha! Well, I wouldn't call Simon's work "mysterious as fuck" unless you mean it inspires one to solve certain mysteries about how governments fake events, footage, data and proofs.

I am glad you understand my humor is not directed at you but meant to make us all lighten up about this strange data.

The thing is this: diameter in this case cannot conceivably represent the real size of the planet and none of the locations represent real locations per se. What is being graphed by JPL is the apparent diameter and apparent location of the objects in our sky. I am getting that, now. Thank you for trying to explain to this slow amateur.

That is to say, they are not tracking physical 3D coordinates of objects on an absolute objective space as if looking at the system from a set camera; instead this is data taken from an Earthly perspective of only what is seen in the skies, and then mapped to a coordinate system that can stand for it.

In that case, you have helped to demystify the data a little, but it's JPL's fault for making it obtuse in the first place.

For example, from what point on Earth is this data meant to be representative (of that point's POV)?
And how are the future dates extrapolated from the original?
Is this based on a "Copernican" movement where they have the Sun doing a wave-like movement as it orbits the "Chocolate Hole at the center of the Milky Way bar" in 250 million years?

(Once more, not questions to you but to JPL's logicmasters.)

If that is the case, then I can certainly "unpack" what we're seeing and pretend it as what we'd expect, given we are trying to force it into an expected model. So these trochoids appear as we rotate and they perform their actual true trochoids (as per Mars, Mercury and Venus in the TYCHOS). Even the Copernican model might expect some of this from at least some type of Earthly perspective.

But given that the "swooping" of the entire data (creating the wave shape) is for 100 years into the future, we can assume that JPL is projecting this wave-type of movement for the whole 100 years or so from their own understanding of the system.

Therefore, what good is this data except as an exercise in making raw information obtuse? Thank you for your work on it!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby PianoRacer on Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:50 am

hoi.polloi » July 1st, 2018, 11:25 pm wrote:Ha! Well, I wouldn't call Simon's work "mysterious as fuck" unless you mean it inspires one to solve certain mysteries about how governments fake events, footage, data and proofs.


I wouldn't call it that either. But envision this scenario:

  • Take a random US "Citizen"
  • Force or otherwise compel his agreement to watch
  • September Clues or, for slightly more ambiguity, Synched Out

Would the above mentioned phrase, which I think we should stop repeating, not be an unsurprising reaction from him/her? Anyway, we digress.

I am glad you understand my humor is not directed at you but meant to make us all lighten up about this strange data.


I agree that it is strange, in that it defies our expectations. But - can we refute it?

I am very lazy, refuting data sounds like a huge thing. I tend to trust the data implicitly, and let others refute it. Can you?

The thing is this: diameter in this case cannot conceivably represent the real size of the planet and none of the locations represent real locations per se. What is being graphed by JPL is the apparent diameter and apparent location of the objects in our sky. I am getting that, now. Thank you for trying to explain to this slow amateur.


Diameter does not equal distance, I agree with that. However - how else do you explain the fact that when planets go backwards, they get bigger? Are they literally growing?

Either they are growing, getting closer, or some third alternative that I have never observed. Given the continuity of the data - it seems obvious that they are getting closer. Unless I have a specific model that I am attached to and thus am resistant to this concept... hmm...

That is to say, they are not tracking physical 3D coordinates of objects on an absolute objective space as if looking at the system from a set camera; instead this is data taken from an Earthly perspective of only what is seen in the skies, and then mapped to a coordinate system that can stand for it.


"From an Earthly perspective" is the only perspective that we humble humans have access to. Therefore, it is the only one that matters for us, from a "scientific" perspective.

In that case, you have helped to demystify the data a little, but it's JPL's fault for making it obtuse in the first place.


Disagree. The measurements represented by my graphs are a standard of astronomy going back seemingly hundreds of years. X,Y coordinates? Size? How could these not be core components to any scientific study of the sky? What the ^%$# am I missing?

Therefore, what good is this data except as an exercise in making raw information obtuse? Thank you for your work on it!


Hoi, do you have a single measurable observation to put forward to "make this raw information obtuse"? (obsolete, I think you may have meant?) Discrediting the JPL data, which is admittedly based on long accepted formulate, is your burden to prove. They actually go into quite a bit of detail to describe how they produce their data: https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_pos
PianoRacer
Member
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:13 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby simonshack on Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:49 am

PianoRacer wrote:

Diameter does not equal distance, I agree with that. However - how else do you explain the fact that when planets go backwards, they get bigger? Are they literally growing?

Either they are growing, getting closer, or some third alternative that I have never observed. Given the continuity of the data - it seems obvious that they are getting closer. Unless I have a specific model that I am attached to and thus am resistant to this concept... hmm...


In the TYCHOS, the Sun's two moons (Mercury and Venus) transit closest to Earth whenever they "go backwards" (i.e. when they appear to 'retrograde') - and will therefore naturally appear bigger than usual as viewed from Earth :

Image


(See how Venus and Mercury produce those "teardrop loops"- even though they both just circle around the Sun):
The Tychosium 2D Planetarium (activate the 'Progressive' trace function)

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


Mars will appear much bigger whenever it retrogrades (as it transits in so-called "opposition") - due to a combination of two concurring factors:

A - Mars then transits closest to Earth (between 56.6 and 101 Mkm depending on what stage it's at in its 16-year cycle)
B - since Mars is then "in opposition", the Sun will be shining 'head on' at its surface (thus maximizing its apparent size & shine)

Image


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

The "P-Type" planets (a.k.a. our 'outer planets', from Jupiter to Pluto) will appear slightly larger & brighter when retrograding - due to the above-mentioned factor B.
"In practice, however, Jupiter orbits much further out in the solar system than the Earth – at an average distance from the Sun of 5.20 times that of the Earth, and so its angular size does not vary much as it cycles between opposition and solar conjunction."
https://in-the-sky.org/news.php?id=20180509_12_100
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6599
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Postby patrix on Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:31 am

Dear Cluesforumers,

Interesting discussion. I agree with Observer and PianoRacer that we should be suspicious about official data because “here be dragons”. Just as the imagery of 9/11 show problems with the official story, it may be fabricated data with the intention to send skeptics down the wrong alley.

But if we take a step back, I think we can agree that Simon in his book, a masterpiece supported by numerous independently verifiable data, shows that the Copernican model is geometrically impossible. And what any good scientist like Simon does when he finds a hypothesis/model to be false, is to set up a more likely one and test the evidence against that.

The Nutwork can only control so much of the people, communication and information. Every astronomer/historian can’t be “in on it” even though they are of course tightly groomed to never question the true faith – Copernicus.

The formulation of Simon's TYCHOS model is very sound. He shapes it by investigating historical astronomers works like Brahe and Samanta, and by looking at the latest data regarding binary stars. The proportions of Sirius, our closest star system that can be observed in detail, and or own Solar system are identical. And all observable systems appears to be binary with a similar configuration. This is an exceptionally strong case of deductive reasoning and a mountain of other observations support it. Forgive me for bringing it up, but this is similar to the Flat Earth vs Globe Earth. By investigating history (albeit with the suspicion it may be falsified) and by concluding that the Moon and planets are spheres. Deduction then gives us the hypothesis that Earth is also a sphere and rational observations and experiments support that hypothesis.

The Copernican model on the other hand, has no sound basis in its formulation other than the Sun being the biggest object in our system and that the so-called inner planets - Mercury and Venus, orbit around it. It did not make any sense in the first place and we have yet to find another system with a similar configuration. It can be regarded as a Flat Earth hoax that was successful. And forgive me for being cynical, but given time they may very well convince the world of the Flat Earth model as well unless the reasonable people of this world wake up. Simon has managed to awaken some of us now, but one man can only do so much.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

PreviousNext

Return to The TYCHOS model

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest