Proving the TYCHOS model with 3D modelling

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: Proving the TYCHOS model with 3D modelling

Unread postby patrix on Tue May 29, 2018 11:10 am

Thank you PR. This is just great. So valuable. Yes I believe most data we find on NASA and other official sources is correct. If it weren’t independent astronomers would complain that their own observations don’t match it. And even an Copernican orrery can be correct in terms of the planets positions in respect to each other if I’m not mistaken. But as Simon has discovered - when star positions and declinations are verified against the Copernican model there are big problems.

Yes I could add the outer planets to Tychosium 2D and will do eventually, but if you’d like to beat me to it by all means go ahead PR. Maybe you can find the correct values for orbit size and such as well. Otherwise I believe Simon can help you. One thing that I’m not clear about however is that if it’s according to Tychos is the Sun that is the orbit center of the outer planets or the Earth or the virtual orbit center/barycenter that Earth orbits. Perhaps Simon can straighten this out?
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Proving the TYCHOS model with 3D modelling

Unread postby simonshack on Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:47 pm

Pianoracer wrote: I would love to see the remaining planets added so that I can perform a similar analysis.

Dear Pianoracer and Patrik,

The question of our so-called "outer / or superior planets" (from Jupiter outwards) is something I'm still working on. In my TYCHOS book, I call them "P-type planets" - because this is how modern-day astrophysicists have named such circumbinary objects (which revolve around binary systems). As you know, the VAST MAJORITY (up to 85% and counting) of the single points of light (that we see in our skies) that we call "a star" are, in fact double stars / binary systems. Now, here's how the "P-type" planets are described at this Austrian astronomy website (please disregard those highly-elliptical shapes of the orbits depicted in their diagram!):

"P-Type: A planet stays in an orbit around both stars."
Image (In the TYCHOS, "Star 1" would be Mars and "Star 2" would be the Sun. Jupiter would be a "P-type" object.) ... orbin.html

The question is: if Jupiter passes MUCH closer to Earth at opposition (as it does according to the Copernican model), why doesn't it appear MUCH larger?

"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 that of the Earth, and so its angular size does not vary much as it cycles between opposition and solar conjunction."

Hmm... Jupiter's angular size "doesn't vary much as it cycles between opposition and solar conjunction?" Well, that's very strange. Consider this: according to current theory, Jupiter is meant to be about as much as 380 Mkm (or 2.54 AU) closer to Earth as it transits in opposition - than when it is in conjunction with the Sun. Whereas Mars is meant to be about 342.6 Mkm (or 2.29 AU) closer to Earth as it transits in opposition - than when it is in conjunction with the Sun (i.e. "in apogee").

In other words, Jupiter's apparent size should vary by roughly about as much as Mars (or more). Yet, here's what we could read not so long ago (back in the early 19th century), in the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"A superior planet is in apogee when in conjunction with the sun, and in perigee when in opposition; and every one of the superior planets is at its least possible distance from the earth where it is in perigee and perihelion at the same time. Their apparent diameters are variable, according to their distances, like those of the inferior planets; and this, as might naturally be expected, is most remarkable in the planet Mars, who is nearest us. In his nearest approach, this planet is 25 times larger than when farthest off, Jupiter twice and a half, and Saturn once and a half."

Evidently, something doesn't add up here: if Mars can appear to be 25 X larger as it transits in opposition, how could Jupiter possibly appear to be only 2.5 X larger (than when it is in conjunction with the Sun)? To be sure, modern astronomy has concocted a series of ad hoc "explanations" for these optical aberrations which, once more, challenge the limits of our natural senses.

In the TYCHOS, of course, Mars (our Sun's binary companion) truly transits far closer to Earth at opposition than when it is in conjunction with the Sun (circa 56.6 Mkm versus 400Mkm). My best guess at this moment is that Jupiter orbits much like all known "P-type planets" (observed to revolve around other binary star systems) - and circles around an orbit which is only slightly off-center from our Sun-Mars binary system's barycenter (same goes for our other "P-type" planets, i.e. Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto), and this is why Jupiter doesn't look much larger when it transits in so-called "opposition" - i.e. closest to Earth.
Posts: 6674
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy


Return to The TYCHOS model

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest