## 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

Seneca » April 1st, 2018, 5:50 am wrote:
In other words, if you snap a picture of a given star, say, every night at midnight for one year, the resulting 'path' of the star on your photographic plate will exhibit this trochoidal shape.

Thanks, that makes sense. Is there a link where this kind of trochoidal movement of a star is shown? How is this "explained" in the Copernican model?

Yes, Seneca - here is another link I included in the book :

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/hunting-for-planets-around-proxima-centauri-0126201667/

Here's how it is "explained" in the Copernican model :

Here's a link to the diagram in my previous post (three years of star Vega): http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys440/le ... _para.html

Here's from the Hipparcos page on Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparcos#/media/File:Hipparcos-star-path.gif

And here's how the TYCHOS accounts for the observed trochoidal paths of the stars (see Chapter 26) :
simonshack

Posts: 6695
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Wow, I am starting to become convinced you are right. Got any other links like that?

This is from that site you mentioned. http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/le ... nottrivial

Here the explanation is a combination of:
-the annual back-and-forth shift of a star, due to the changing point of view as the Earth orbits the Sun. The width of the ellipses traced by the star give its parallax angle.
-the steady drift of the star across the sky, due to the star's own motion in the galaxy. This drift is called the star's proper motion.

Is one of your arguments against this the following?
If the orbit of the earth around the sun would be a factor to explain this, we would see the biggest displacement between december and june.

But in reality we see the biggest displacement between march and september as in your figure?

Happy Easter everyone!
Last edited by Seneca on Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Seneca
Member

Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Nice find Seneca. This is so great. To see the talented researchers here examine if TYCHOS holds up to scrutiny. I'm convinced it will in all essential parts, and if it doesn't we will all learn something new.

Happy Easter to you too Seneca and to all of Cluesforum
patrix
Member

Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

patrix » 01 Apr 2018, 12:56 wrote:Nice find Seneca. This is so great. To see the talented researchers here examine if TYCHOS holds up to scrutiny. I'm convinced it will in all essential parts, and if it doesn't we will all learn something new.

Happy Easter to you too Seneca and to all of Cluesforum

Thanks for the compliment, but I am not sure what you think I have found. I will continue to strutinize TYCHOS, I think I owe that to Simon. If I have my computer I will check out this app: https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparco ... diate-data
Seneca
Member

Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

My bad. I read your post too quickly. But I hope you and the others here will give Simons TYCHOS a good look and actually hopefully find some problems so he can improve it. Because as you point out, he has deserved that.
patrix
Member

Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

I think I understand why the "pie slices" in the above figure are drawn in those positions. In the upper figure, above length A there is a gray arrow with 14036 km, the distance that earth moves in one year on the PVP orbit. The end of the left "pie" and the beginning of the right "pie" coincide with the start and end of this arrow. This illustrates that in one year the distance a star is observed to precess is a combination of the movement of the earth along the PVP orbit and the movement of the observer caused by the rotation of the earth in 6 hours. As I wrote earlier, both movements have similar orders of magnitude. Is this correct?

But as I understand it, the movement in 6 hours, about 1/4 of a full rotation, can also be in the direction opposed to the movement on the PVP orbit. For an observer on the equator it could be between -6387 km and + 6387 km in that direction depending on what direction the earth is facing at the time of the first observation. (Using 6387 km for the radius of the earth). The observed precession of a particular star would depend on the time of day at which it is measured and on the location of the observer.
For the same reason, the apparent motion of the star during the year depends on the time of day of the measurements and the location of the observer. For example, in the above figures the star starts to move to the left around september-october, but this date would depend on the variables mentioned. Is my reasoning correct here and is this confirmed by observation?

Seneca » 01 Apr 2018, 13:40 wrote:I will continue to strutinize TYCHOS, I think I owe that to Simon. I have my computer I will check out this app: https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparco ... diate-data

I downloaded the app. The program called "intermediate-data" shows the paths of objects as observed from earth, like the one for Vega Simon showed earlier.

I was hoping to use the ASCII data provided to check the date and time. But apparently these are not recorded. What is recorded is the "orbit number".
The following formula allows the orbit number o to be derived, using an epoch t expressed in years relative to J1991.25(TT):
o = int(1157.39 + 823.02t + 0.216t2)

I tried to calculate "t" for the different orbit numbers that are listed. But because the numbers are rounded with the "int" function, it is impossible to get the exact time of day, let alone the date.

Seneca
Member

Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Dear Seneca, you wrote:

"But as I understand it, the movement in 6 hours, about 1/4 of a full rotation, can also be in the direction opposed to the movement on the PVP orbit."

Exactly. However, here's the thing: Copernican astronomers will just dismiss this movement in the opposed direction as "errors of observation".

As for the two "pie slices" of 3h each, I think you now can envision how they represent the "0.25" (or extra 6 hours) of the "365.25" figure that we nonetheless define as one 365-day calendar year. The annual drift of our star field (currently about 50.3" arc seconds) is thus determined on the basis of this maximal "positive" stellar parallax observed - for stars located towards the "SEW quadrant" of our celestial sphere - as illustrated in my below graphic :

Whereas, for stars located towards "N", the annual motion will be about 40" arc seconds (as illustrated in the graphic in your above post, i.e. "Lenght "A").
simonshack

Posts: 6695
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

simonshack » 12 Apr 2018, 00:05 wrote:Dear Seneca, you wrote:

"But as I understand it, the movement in 6 hours, about 1/4 of a full rotation, can also be in the direction opposed to the movement on the PVP orbit."

Exactly. However, here's the thing: Copernican astronomers will just dismiss this movement in the opposed direction as "errors of observation".

Thanks Simon but I think you misunderstood my point so I I'll try to explain myself better. I wasn't talking about the apparent movement of the stars (parallax) here. I was talking about the movement of an observer on earth (which may lead to parallax).

As I understand your model, the distance that an observer travels in exactly one year depends on the position of the observer on the earth and on the orientation of the earth in space at the moment of the observation. Take for example an observer on the equator, making his first observation when the earth is facing exactly in the direction of the PVP orbit. This means that when you would draw a line from the center of the earth in the direction that earth is moving on the PVP orbit, that line would go trough the observer. The distance this observer travels in one year in the direction of the PVP orbit is about 14036 km - 6387 km= 7649 km. This is because after exactly one year (365.25 days) the earth will have moved 14036 km and will also have turned about 1/4 of an orbit. That rotation will have moved the observer 6387 km in the other direction (taking 6387 km for the radius of the earth).

An observer at the exact opposite side of the earth will have moved 14036 km + 6387 km= 20423 in exactly a year, almost 3 times as much. If both observers were observing the same star, the second observer would see more parallax (more positive or more negative parallax depending on the position of the star).
Seneca
Member

Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Seneca wrote:An observer at the exact opposite side of the earth will have moved 14036 km + 6387 km= 20423 in exactly a year, almost 3 times as much. If both observers were observing the same star, the second observer would see more parallax (more positive or more negative parallax depending on the position of the star).

Precisely, dear Seneca! As you thus may realize, there are therefore countless (erroneous) ways that observational astronomers may "read" their various stellar parallax data - since they are stuck with the idea that Earth revolves around the Sun.

I would highly encourage you to get acquainted with the work of Vittorio Goretti, an esteemed Italian observational astronomer who spent decades of his life scratching his head about this. Goretti then had the courage to question ESA (the European Space Agency) about the stellar parallax data published in their "Hipparcos" and "Tycho" catalogues but, unsurprisingly, he never got any reply (and sadly passed away in 2016).

"REMARKS AND QUESTIONS ON THE HIPPARCOS CATALOGUE" - by Vittorio Goretti
http://www.vittoriogoretti-observatory610.org/2nd-research-2010-2012-pub-jan-2013/ [/quote]
simonshack

Posts: 6695
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Yes, it's important when considering setting up parallax experiments for the TYCHOS that we consider the location on Earth and even the times of day as well as the time of year.

However, the amazing thing to me is that you can already achieve a great deal of parallax in the TYCHOS just by selecting a long night and waiting 12 hours (such as from 6pm through 6am). You travel to a point "faster" by rotating each day than waiting for Earth to bring its entire self through as much space. Since the Sun is hidden most from parts of the world around its solstice, that would be a great time (and place) to take measurements. In 12 hours, Earth will travel about 12 miles, so you can add this to (or subtract this from) Earth's diameter at your location (depending on "where" midnight is) to guesstimate the distance you are checking on a star that you are "passing". A computer could be set up to watch star "rises" and star "sets" in a single night and we will most easily notice solstice parallax from periods around midnight since otherwise (closer to 6am or 6pm) Earth's rotation is actually bringing us towards distant stars and away from them. But this is just novel and we want precision. So let's avoid all that rotating of Earth and try to isolate only Earth's PVP. That is, let's try to minimize the dizzying trochoidal motion of Earth and how can that be accomplished according to the TYCHOS?

I suggest an experiment (please help me design it!) that would be easy to simply measure, record and photograph the star positions as they appear at the same time each night for a week with the middle of the week being the solstice.

We can adjust for our rotating time reference ("the position of midnight" in the summer solstice faces the opposite direction from "the position of midnight" in the winter solstice) with the following idea:

360 degrees / 365.22 days is approx. 0.9857 degrees.
86400 seconds per day / 365.22 days is about 236.57 seconds.
24,900 miles / 365.22 days is about 68.178 miles.

Every 24 hours, our "midnight" moves by about 0.9857 degrees or 3.94 minutes of our day or 68 miles away on the equator. Well, let's just use 4 minutes and 110 km (roughly 68 miles).

tychos parallax 2.GIF

So in order to face a reasonably precise parallel direction each night (we must take into account the PVP) we might say that we can take great parallax measurements at these times on the equator on the solstice, without having to move our work station:

June 17 at 00:16 (am)
June 18 at 00:12 (am)
June 19 at 00:08 (am)
June 20 at 00:04 (am)
June 21 at midnight
June 21 at 23:56 (pm)
June 22 at 23:52 (pm)
June 23 at 23:48 (pm)
June 24 at 23:44 (pm)

(If we don't adjust our time for the spinning factor then we could be exponentially off target by 110 km of circle section of the circumference each night. Every single minute that we "miss" the right time makes us inaccurate by 0.076 kilometers — over 70 meters — and with the PVP being so slow, taking over a week to give us our 300 km of parallax, every kilometer counts immensely so we want to measure our stars at times that are as precise as possible.)

Done with good timing, as I suggest above, we will "eliminate" Earth's spinning, "isolate" the PVP motion of about 300 km in 9 successive days of star recording and get us proper stellar parallax for once in Earth's history!

To be sure, here is just one small test of our accuracy. Note that the times and dates selected produce almost identical views, so our system is pretty consistent here and parallax should "show up" just about as clearly as we can have it:

parallax_checker_2.GIF

Who wants to go to Ecuador's winter with me this summer? The dry ("winter") season typically runs from right around June to September! We could go many places, of course, and the North Pole in the winter would be another great place to check out since there's hardly any rotational motion but maybe we'll come up with more experiments while we're partying!

Another way for us in the Northern hemisphere would be looking as North as possible (maybe even focusing on Polaris and the little bear/dipper constellation) from a single location higher on the longitude. Since we are passing the "North stars" just as much as we are passing those stars seen past the "inside of the PVP," (opposite summer solstice) those seen past the "outside of the PVP," (opposite winter solstice) and the "South stars". Though, given PVP's curve the stars opposite the winter solstice sun should be moving "the fastest" and demonstrate the most negative parallax — which ought to really confound the heliocentrists!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
hoi.polloi

Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Edit: I just want to add that Hois post above was a *very* interesting read and I would love to go round the world finding confirmations for Tychos and disproof of the Copernican model.

I just did a short screencast demoing Tychosium 3D. Hope you'll like it.

https://youtu.be/zkwaGvTm_tY

I would recommend that you click on this icon in the lower YT bar and choose 720p HD viewing quality - and view it in full screen.
Last edited by patrix on Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
patrix
Member

Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

*
A lovely introduction to the Tychosium 3D, dear Patrix!

Just to make one thing clearer in relation to how Mars's "pringles" (or "teardrop loops", as I call them) will appear to be above or below an earthly observer - depending on the time of year that they occur : here's a graphic from my Tychos book illustrating these particular observations (which haven't only been observed - but have actually been photographed!). In the TYCHOS, this is of course due to Mars's orbit (and that of the Sun and ALL our surrounding bodies) being tilted by about 23° (or 25°in the case of Mars's orbit) in relation to Earth's equator.

Can the Copernican model explain all of this? Nope. But if you disagree, please submit your alternative theories here on this thread!

simonshack

Posts: 6695
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

When I myself first became skeptical of the Copernican heliocentric cosmology, I sought something which I was never able to find, namely an accurate, realtime three dimensional model of the solar system. Such a model would allow a viewer to go directly from what can be observed by anyone who looks up at the night sky from the surface of Earth (i.e. that which can currently be viewed in models such as Stellarium, Google Sky, etc.) to a "zoomed out" view that shows the three-dimentional locations and trajectories of the heavenly bodies, i.e. what can be viewed in models such as Tychosium 3D or sites like these:

https://www.solarsystemscope.com/
http://www.theplanetstoday.com/
https://theskylive.com/

It seems to me that if one has an accurate model of the solar system, it would be more or less trivial to plug the sizes, locations, paths, and speeds of the stellar objects into a 3D computer model and create an accurate and true "planetarium".

The 2D/3D Tychosium models do not seem to me to be a true "planetarium" in that they are not capable of showing me what I observe from the surface of the Earth. If the model is accurate, why can't I set the view to "Earth's Surface" so that I can compare the results to a model that I know is accurate, such as Stellarium? As it is, the Tychosium simulations show me only that the general retrograde paths that some of the planets exibit can be reproduced, not that it is a truly accorate model that matches up with observation.

(Correct me if I am wrong here, as I do not have access to the 3D Tychosium model, merely what Patrix has posted in his video preview).

Patrix, does your model allow this? Can I set the camera to the surface of the Earth and observe that the positions of the Sun/Moon/Planets match up exactly with observations that I can make myself? If not, why not?

I am not intending to be critical. I think that if the TYCHOS model is truly accurate, which I do not dismiss, then showing a model that accurately reflects what can be observed by anyone with a pair of eyes (even one would suffice) and access to the sky at night would be truly compelling and nearly impossible to refute. As it is, the current 2D/3D models are interesting but not definitive because they lack this feature.
PianoRacer
____

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

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

PianoRacer wrote:The 2D/3D Tychosium models do not seem to me to be a true "planetarium" in that they are not capable of showing me what I observe from the surface of the Earth. If the model is accurate, why can't I set the view to "Earth's Surface" so that I can compare the results to a model that I know is accurate, such as Stellarium? As it is, the Tychosium simulations show me only that the general retrograde paths that some of the planets exibit can be reproduced, not that it is a truly accorate model that matches up with observation.

I agree wholeheartedly PianoRacer and that is why I have asked patrix about this and said that being able to even have a simple placeholder snapshot of the stars would be better than nothing as well as the ability to have real sizes of bodies. They agree too but the star part is a lot of work. So for the release of the first Tychosium 3-D they will probably have a few key stars. But eventually what you describe is the goal!
hoi.polloi

Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

### Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

hoi.polloi » April 15th, 2018, 1:04 pm wrote:Being able to even have a simple placeholder snapshot of the stars would be better than nothing as well as the ability to have real sizes of bodies. They agree too but the star part is a lot of work. So for the release of the first Tychosium 3-D they will probably have a few key stars. But eventually what you describe is the goal!

I understand but I am actually not all that interested in the stars, though of course they would truly complete the model. Simply showing the positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets from the surface of the Earth would be more than enough for me. Those objects, after all, are what Simon is proposing a new model for, not so much the stars (as far as I understand). If Patrix's 3D model is accurate, surely it is simply a matter of putting the camera in the correct location, i.e. the surface of the Earth?

If one did want to create a "placeholder" for the stars, I assume it could be achieved by using the same method as which is done for the Heliocentric model, namely the concept of the "celestial sphere":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_sphere
PianoRacer
____

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

PreviousNext