The TYCHOSIUM: Proving the TYCHOS with 3D modeling

[patrix]

As I have gradually woken up from our "cultural trance" and begun thinking rationally on my own again, I have for one understood the many reasons why Simons TYCHOS model is the only one that can explain the solar system. I have developed the Tychosium 3D, but currently it lacks a feature that would help visually demonstrate why a Tychonian configuration is the only one that works with observations.

One thing I have thought a lot about is the varying declination of the Sun which Simon explains so well in the picture below. The only reasonable explanation for the rapid declination of the Sun in Spring and Autumn is that the Sun is moving at an angled orbit around us. In the summer months we see the Sun "staying" high in the sky because we have its angled orbit "in front of us". I'm poor at explaining this, I know. Go read Simons chapter on this in his book instead :-)

But if you get what I mean, think about how this would appear if the Earth was moving around the Sun with a tilted axis. Then the change of declination would be constant during the year. I think not even Kepler would argue that the Earth would change it's speed in his suggested elliptical orbit at a rate that would accord for this. That would be absurd.

Now imagine how we could demonstrate this with a 3D animation. We have a camera with and Eartly viewpoint that looks at the Sun as it goes around the Earth. The declination speeds would match what we can observe in the real world. Now have another animation with the same camera but where the Earth moves around the Sun with a tilted axis. The declination speeds would not vary the way they observably do.

I will implement an Earth view camera into Tychosium 3D eventually, and when that's done I will make a small Copernican model as well to illustrate this. But I have a lot on my table right now, and I'm also thinking why should I be the only one doing these historical animations that visually show that the TYCHOS model is the only one that works with actual observations? Anyone that has the time and skill to do some 3D modelling could do this. So this is a call out. Put your mark in history and make this animation! All required is a globe orbiting another globe (revolving) and a viewpoint from the center globe and the opposite for the Copernican model.

And also, anyone with programming skills are welcome to join the Tychosium team. I've tried reaching out in some programming circles, but everyone seems to freak out when they realize it's about questioning the oh so holy Copernican model, which by the way only makes me even more determined to help put and end to this mass delusion with some crisp 3D visuals. But one guy can only do so much I guess.

If you're interested in joining send me a private PM. I will introduce you to the current T3D code.

Non faces nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant. (Neither power nor wealth, only Art and Science will endure) - Tycho Brahes motto

/Patrik

[patrix]

If only these guys could help. They got skillz. But I guess they're busy fighting their controlled resistance DBA

Does anyone know which 3D software they are using?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YzeGRFDIms

[simonshack]

*

Dear Patrik,

I just thought I'd post a few graphics showing the beautiful trajectories traced by our solar system's "family members".

Here is how Mars travels around the system over a 32-year period :



...as compared with Kepler's geocentric diagram of (a 16-year period) of Mars to be found in his "Astronomia Nova" :



Here are the combined trajectories of Mars and Venus :



And here we see our "inner" solar system (comprised of Earth, Sun, Mars, Venus & Mercury) surrounded by the paths of Jupiter and Saturn:


Note that the TYCHOS is truly a geo-heliocentric system (i.e. BOTH geocentric and heliocentric): the Sun-Mars binary system has Earth at its centre - whereas all the other "family members" have their orbits centered around the Sun.

Now, ladies & gents, you will probably think that these "spirographic" orbits are very strange and "unique". Well, you will have to think again. Here are a few examples of orbital patterns exhibited in other star systems - as observed with our most modern instruments :


Source: https://www.tychos.info/citation/009B_B ... Motion.pdf

So the question becomes: WHY would our own star system be any different from those we can observe from Earth?

[patrix]

Excellent illustrations Simon. And this is related to Kepler and his claimed elliptical orbits I'd say. Orbital mechanics is in fact a needlessly cumbersome and complex mathematical description on how an object moving in a circular orbit will appear to move if we view its orbital path from an angle. Then the circle will appear to be an ellipse and the motion of the object will appear to change speed since we cannot see the perpendicular motion.

I'm currently looking into tools and ideas for the next Tychosium version. Still only me on this project, but the water is warm :-)

I'm considering a different approach this time that might be more efficient and that may also enable production of the type of explanatory 3D animations I think would be very handy when dispersing Simon's geometrical findings and facts about our Solar System.

What I'm planning to do is to learn up on an open source 3D tool called Blender https://youtu.be/8hULmL9Ky94 and then build the basic configuration of the next Tychosium in it, and then code Tychosium in JavaScript from that blueprint . I hope this will enable me to be more efficient.

YouTubes of interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kikkE7wX73A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmLjYSmaW48
https://youtu.be/yub17hLcEj4

[PianoRacer]

I'm considering a different approach this time that might be more efficient and that may also enable production of the type of explanatory 3D animations I think would be very handy when dispersing Simon's geometrical findings and facts about our Solar System.

I've been out of the programming game for many years now (with good reason - I was never a very good one) but I do have some experience with visualizing data, although generally only in two dimensions.

One thing that might be useful if you can figure out how to do it would be to establish the algorithm(s) and underlying math that will produce accurate celestial coordinates first, and then worry about visualizing the data in three dimensions later. I am as bad at math as I am at programming, but it seems like with an accurate model and the proper application of geometry/trigonometry/whatever you could accurately produce the locations of objects in the sky. Though I realize that this isn't exactly what we're talking about, here are some examples of the type of math I am referring to, which I assume is accurate but is completely beyond me:

http://www.ambrsoft.com/TrigoCalc/Plan3 ... ction_.htm
http://www.ambrsoft.com/TrigoCalc/Circl ... ection.htm
http://www.ambrsoft.com/TrigoCalc/Spher ... ction_.htm

For example, design an algorithm that takes in a timestamp, longitude and latitude (or, failing that, pick a single point on the equator or wherever for which the calculations would be accurate and just take the timestamp) and use the Tychos geometric model to mathematically calculate and return the celestial coordinates of the Sun at that date/time/location. If you were able to do this, and show the geometrical / trigonometrical math that you are using to produce the result, you wouldn't have to worry about rendering a single thing in three dimensions (that could come later). Even without the 3d interface, if you could create an algorithm that accurately predicted the locations of objects in the sky using the Tychos geometry by outputting stellar coordinates, you would still have a very compelling proof of the model, especially if you could do this for multiple objects. I am thinking specifically of some of the planets which have dramatic retrograde motions that Heliocentrism does a completely inadequate job of explaining (Mars, Venus, Mercury, etc.)

What I'm planning to do is to learn up on an open source 3D tool called Blender https://youtu.be/8hULmL9Ky94 and then build the basic configuration of the next Tychosium in it, and then code Tychosium in JavaScript from that blueprint . I hope this will enable me to be more efficient.

Again I know nothing about this stuff, but I do know that a notorious YouTuber with a penchant for 3d animation uses Lightwave 3D for his animations, which I think are beautiful and very compelling representations of the model that he advocates, whether you agree with the accuracy of that model or not. Below are a few example of the animations that he has produced - the original YouTube videos are of much higher quality, but as the channel was recently taken down by YouTube, this was the best I could provide.

Please note that I am posting these only as an example of how a celestial model can be successfully animated in three dimensions using Lightwave 3D. I have no interest in debating the merits of any particular model at this point.

[patrix]

I am as bad at math as I am at programming, but it seems like with an accurate model and the proper application of geometry/trigonometry/whatever you could accurately produce the locations of objects in the sky

I have the same feeling and had very little experience of graphical programming when I started working with Tychosium 2D about a year ago. But I saw the merits of Simons model and learned what I had to. And the verifications he got from T2D was invaluable. The orbit of Mars "the key to our system" as Kepler put it, was literally figured out by Simon by adjusting the speeds and orbits in T2D days on end and verifying against actual observations.

And I am equally not that interested in arguing the correctness of the Tychos model with the available material. What I'm interested in, since I can see it is correct, is to strengthen the case by using 3D modelling.

Imagery can be used to sell great lies, as this forum exposes. But it can of course also be used to visually demonstrate what is actually true.

Thank you for the links Pianoracer. Very interesting.

[PianoRacer]

Another thing you might consider Patrix - you might be able to use existing planetarium software to demonstrate 3d simulations that align with the Tychos theory more effectively than Simon's static images, with the added perk that people can verify the animations themselves. Check out what I was able to do playing around with Stellarium for a couple of hours (apologies for the size, I am brand new - as in today - at making these types of gif videos):


Link in case the embed doesn't load (it's 25MB, again, apologies): https://imgur.com/nxD4gTe

What can I see with certainty from this view in Stellarium? It is very clear that Mercury and Venus do indeed revolve around the Sun, thus confirming a part of the Tychos model!

Hope this is somewhat helpful. Best of luck to you.

[patrix]

What can I see with certainty from this view in Stellarium? It is very clear that Mercury and Venus do indeed revolve around the Sun, thus confirming a part of the Tychos model!

Hope this is somewhat helpful. Best of luck to you.

Very intersting video PR. This is exactly the type of visualizations we should show and talk about. Stellarium is an observationally based planetarium which means that it shows the planets and stars actual positions in the sky, which in turn means that the predictions of a model like Tychos or the Copernican must confirm with it. If not it is wrong.

From this video at least I see that Venus and Mercury moves along with the Sun and it does not seem like Earth is hurtling along an orbit outside them at 100 thousand KPH. That would look different I’d say.

And the Tychos/Tychonic/semi-Tychonic model agrees with the Copernican model in that Venus and Mercury orbit the Sun. The major difference is that the Tychonian models claim that the Sun (together with Venus and Mercury) orbits the Earth. Something I agree with. In fact I think this is just as obviously supported by observations as the claim by the semi-Tychonic and Copernican model that Earth rotates around its own axis in 24 hours.

[PianoRacer]

Hey Patrix,

I had an idea of how you could easily improve Tychosium 2d to graphically illustrate the transits, oppositions and eclipses that Simon mentioned in the other thread: draw a line between the Sun, Earth, and whatever body is aligned (Mercury or Venus for transits, Mars for oppositions, and the Moon for eclipses) on the dates that they occur.

I would also suggest adding the planetary and solar conjunctions such as these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conjunctions_(astronomy)
https://in-the-sky.org/article.php?term=solar_conjunction

In a two-dimensional model such as Tychos 2d, there really is no way to differentiate between a transit vs. a conjunction, and the latter are much more frequent.

I took the liberty of dusting off my coding skills and adding a small set of these occurences to Tychosium 2d - I'm sure you could do a much better job with the code, but it effectively demonstrates what I am describing. You can access my code here:

https://codepen.io/PianoRacer/pen/BxexwY?editors=0010

Examples below. I think this could be improved in a couple of ways:

• Add additional conjunctions as described above, and expand the range of dates that are covered. I only put in dates between 2000 and 2020.
• Draw the lines for a few days before and a few days after the occurences, and on the date of the occurence, change the line color to something dramatic. This way, in "playback" mode, you can see the alignments coming ahead of time and for a bit afterwards, and you can observe that the conjunction occurs on the date when the planets are most closely aligned.
• Maybe add "Step to next conjunction" / "Step to previous conjunction" buttons so anyone can confirm all of the known conjunctions quickly and easily.
• Display text describing the event, something like what I have in the examples below.
• Add the rest of the planets and the conjunctions for them as well. This is really needed to complete the model.

I hope this is helpful. I enjoyed trying this out and didn't find any major discrepencies with the exception of some of the Mars opposition dates which didn't quite align (see last example below).

--PR

[simonshack]

*
Dear PianoRacer - many warm thanks for contributing to the Tychosium 2D !

As it is, what you have done (implementing lines to highlight the various conjunctions, eclipses and oppositions) is among the things I had on my checklist for future improvements of the TD2, I just hadn't asked Patrik for it yet. Superb job!

I hope this is helpful. I enjoyed trying this out and didn't find any major discrepencies with the exception of some of the Mars opposition dates which didn't quite align (see last example below).

It most certainly is helpful, and as soon as Patrik takes some time off from the Tychosium 3D development, I'm sure he will integrate this function fully (although I shudder to think of the amount of time & patience needed to insert all of those planetary conjunctions across the centuries!...)

As for the 'discrepancy' you mention (the Mars opposition of 2005-11-07), I will now illustrate why that is not, in fact, a discrepancy. The reason being that Mars, as it returns in opposition (i.e. closest to Earth), will not always necessarily be transiting "due South" at midnight from a given position on Earth.

To verify what follows for yourself, you'll need to use the handy NEAVE planetarium - and compare it with your own version of the Tychosium 2D.

Open NEAVE and click on the "position" button:
Position yourself somewhere up in Finland, like so :


See, I have chosen that position in Finland because it will show Mars transiting pretty much due South at midnight on 2003-08-28 - which is a "famous" date among astronomers - since Mars was then exceptionally close to Earth.

The historically close opposition of Mars on August 28, 2003, found Mars at 34.65 million miles (55.76 million km) from Earth. This was the Earth’s closest approach to Mars since the Stone Age. http://earthsky.org/?p=234037

Here's a screenshot of it:



Here's another example - showing Mars transiting again pretty much due South at midnight (during its opposition of 2014-04-08) :



Now, as you can verify on your own version of the Tychosium2D, the two above Mars oppositions will appear to be pretty much "bang on".

However, here's the thing: in the case of Mars's opposition of 2005-11-07 (the example you made a screenshot of in your above post), Mars transited at midnight of that particular opposition date considerably further West of due South :



And in fact, this is precisely what the Tychosium shows - as illustrated by your screenshot of the 2005-11-07 Mars opposition :


So, it would seem that the Tychosium 2D is pretty much "spot on" even for Mars's 2005 opposition. Evidently, Mars was closest to Earth on November 7 of that year - even though it appeared to transit more to the West than it usually does, as viewed from Earth.

[PianoRacer]

Thank for the explanation Simon, that makes sense. Conjunctions and Oppositions are when the objects are nearest to each other, not necessarily when they are vertically aligned, though you would expect them to be nearly vertically aligned most of the time when they are nearest to each other, which is why it usually works. When you compare the longitudes of Mars and the Sun on the date in question, the difference is about 167 degrees. When you compare the longitudes of Mars and the Sun on the date where, in Tychosium 2d, the two bodies are most closely in line (2005-10-28), the difference in longitude is almost exactly 180 degrees, which is what one would expect. Another win for Tychos!

What would be ideal would be to obtain a list of vertical alignments among the Moon, Sun, and planets, and to integrate that into Tychosium 2d. I disagree that the list of dates of alignments would be difficult to integrate into Tychosium 2d, assuming that you could obtain them - it's trivially easy to take a list of dates (or any string) and convert them to a format (say, an array) that could be leveraged by software, assuming you could get them in some sort of common format. Therein lies the difficulty, I think, but it's still achievable. I would assume that historical (and future) lists of dates of conjunctions, oppositions, transits and eclipses would exist somewhere, it's just a matter of obtaining and formatting them correctly, and this would be "close enough" if the vertical alignment data does not exist in similar format anywhere.

Alternatively, you could do it the other way around - have Tychosium 2d calculate the alignments and when two bodies are the most closely aligned in a given time period, give a graphical indicator that that is an instance of vertical alignment. These alignments could then be compared to observations or planetarium software. Even better, do both! Show that literally every time that the bodies align in Tychosium 2d is also a known instance of observable planetary alignments. That way you could prove that Tychosium never misses an alignment, and that it has no superfluous alignments that cannot be observed in reality.

That, of course, would be a more difficult undertaking, and I know there are competing priorities right now, so these are just my thoughts on this particular potential feature. Obviously a fully functioning 3d simulation is the "holy grail" so it may make sense not to distract with this work.

[PianoRacer]

One other thought I had, on a slightly different topic: Patrix, if you are going to undertake mastering Blender, Lightwave or similar, if I were doing it I would focus initially on only two or three objects: the Earth, the Sun, and maybe the Moon. Even if you just had the Earth and the Sun, you could show that it matches the inclinations/declinations that occur at different times during the year that Simon has been pointing out, and could show that the Tychos model explains other currently unexplained phenomena such as the Analemma. Throw in the moon and you could also show that the model properly explains solar and lunar eclipses. Even without the stars or planets, I think that would be extremely compelling, and much simpler than modeling the entire system.

[patrix]

One other thought I had, on a slightly different topic: Patrix, if you are going to undertake mastering Blender, Lightwave or similar, if I were doing it I would focus initially on only two or three objects: the Earth, the Sun, and maybe the Moon. Even if you just had the Earth and the Sun, you could show that it matches the inclinations/declinations that occur at different times during the year that Simon has been pointing out, and could show that the Tychos model explains other currently unexplained phenomena such as the Analemma. Throw in the moon and you could also show that the model properly explains solar and lunar eclipses. Even without the stars or planets, I think that would be extremely compelling, and much simpler than modeling the entire system.

Dear PR, this is exactly what I have in mind now. To focus on a rotating Earth with a camera on it and show the effect of Sun declination when the Sun is orbiting Earth and vice versa. But I think I will actually do it in JavaScript and Three.JS. It's probably easier for me with programming knowledge than learning an advanced 3d program.

[PianoRacer]

After my last post, I was curious so I did some googling to see if the data I was interested in was available in the format I wanted it (CSV or similar). Turns out it is, and it also turns out, somewhat to my surprise, that NASA is useful for something besides bad sci-fi theater after all! They make data of all of the stellar objects available for download for free with a myriad of options here:

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons

I was able to get the exact data I was looking for in CSV format, specifically the longitude, latitude and diameter of all of the planets, the Sun and the Moon for the dates 2000-2100.

Wanting to investigate the data graphically, I imported the CSV data into a database and used a graphing tool to put it all on a time-series graph. Here are the results:

All planets:
Sun & Moon:
Tychos Planets:
Tychos Planets Zoomed In:
Sun & Moon Zoomed In:

I was very happy with the results. I've had a lot of fun playing around with the data and visualizing it in different ways, comparing orbits, diameters, etc. It helps me understand what's happening up there a bit better.

Next, I modified the Tychosium 2D code to output the longitude of each available planet (plus the Sun) in CSV format. This was surprisingly easy - all the points were already there, and a JavaScript funtion to calculate an angle was a cut & paste job. You can see the code I used on my CodePen project (it's currently commented out - it was a bit of a hack job.)

I imported the Tychosium data into my database and added it to the same graphs as the JPL data. I was delighted to see that the data matched up very closely. The results of each object (Sun, Mercury, Venus and Mars) are below.

Tychos Sun Comparison:

The Sun longitude given in Tychos is very close to reality, with an error range compared to the JPL data between +2.5 and -4 degrees for a total error range of 6.5 degrees.

Tychos Mars Comparison:

Mars also matched very closely, including hitting all of the retrogrades on the correct dates, although the retrogrades are when Tychos deviated the most from JPL. Error ranged from +15 degrees to -6 degrees for a total error range of 21 degrees.

Tychos Mercury Comparison:

Mercury also lines up well but has problems with some of the retrogrades, missing some entirely (retrogrades occur when the longitude line goes down). Range was +25 to -25 for a total error range of 50 degrees, again with the biggest discrepancies occuring during the retrogrades.

Tychos Venus Comparison:

Venus once again lines up fairly well. Range was +7.5 to -7.5 for a total error range of 15 degrees.

All series combined:

I do notice that the average error is very close to zero across all four objects, which shows how close to the JPL data the Tychos data is.

I hope that this analysis was somewhat useful. Unless I am missing something, it appears that Tychosium 2d lines up extremely well with JPL data, with some possible tweaking needing to happen with some of the Mercury retrogrades. If I am somehow misinterpreting or misrepresenting the data - please let me know. The fact that the data matched up so very closely, and the process was relatively straightforward, leaves me fairly confident that the graphs (and the data behind them) are accurate, but please point out where I may have gone astray.

Once again I appreciate the work Simon and Patrix have put into Tychosium 2d - that I was so easily able to extract the data I needed is a testament to the quality of the software they have written, and making it available for all to see and tinker with helps keep things transparent and my analysis would not have been possible without it. I would love to see the remaining planets added so that I can perform a similar analysis.

All the best,
-PR

[patrix]

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?