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

Unread postby simonshack on Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:19 am




Dear friends, it is most ironic that the greatest (and still ongoing) astronomical controversy of all times revolved around our own Moon's motions. After all, the Moon is our largest, nearmost and thus most intensely studied celestial body: shouldn't our world's scientific community have fully settled the matter by now, after all these years / centuries? How can the Moon's motions still be such a hotly debated question? Here's what we can read today at Wikipedia (my bolds) :

"Lunar theory attempts to account for the motions of the Moon. There are many small variations (or perturbations) in the Moon's motion, and many attempts have been made to account for them."

Attempts. Just attempts....The "Lunar theory" Wikipedia page goes on saying that "after centuries of being problematic, lunar motion is now modeled to a very high degree of accuracy." Well, that is simply untrue - since modern scientists are still looking to solve the Moon's seemingly inexplicable orbital motions - as this abstract (from a scientific study dated 2011) concludes:

"Thus, the issue of finding a satisfactorily explanation for the anomalous behavior of the Moon's eccentricity remains open."

As for what concerns Newton's stance on the matter, the Moon's motions were notoriously problematic to him :

"The motion of the Moon is very complicated. Sir Isaac Newton is supposed to have told his friend Halley that lunar theory "made his head ache and kept him awake so often that he would think of it no more." ... /0006-0024

No wonder that the Moon's motions caused pain in Sir Isaac's brain : they stubbornly refused to comply with his gravitational theories!
Let's have a quick look at what the Moon Controversy was all about - as documented in astronomy literature:


To be sure, the Moon's motions were (and still are) in serious conflict with Newton's gravitational "Laws". It is a matter of historical record that Newton's "Laws" were contradicted by the Moon's "inexplicable, renegade behavior" - and that this plain fact ignited a humongous, endless controversy among our world's scientific community which, incredibly enough, remains unresolved to this day. Now, don't let any smartass astronomer tell you otherwise (i.e. that "the Moon controversy was eventually resolved") - for it would be a bare-faced lie which flies in the face of what has been repeatedly admitted in (earnest) astronomy literature - as I am partially documenting here.

What astronomy students are taught today is that the Moon's utterly bewildering motions were successively "resolved" by some of the most revered scientists of our times (e.g. Euler, Horrocks, Lagrange, Laplace, Clairaut, Dunthorne, Mayer, Einstein - to name a few), all of whom contributed in constructing a vast number of "terms" and "perturbations" that would supposedly account for the Moon's puzzling motions. Eventually, a veritable hodgepodge of theories were formulated in order to "rescue" Newton's sacrosanct Gravitational Laws. Here's what we can read today at the "Lunar Theory" Wikipedia page:

"The analysts of the mid-18th century expressed the perturbations of the Moon's position in longitude using about 25-30 trigonometrical terms. However, work in the nineteenth and twentieth century led to very different formulations of the theory so these terms are no longer current. The number of terms needed to express the Moon's position with the accuracy sought at the beginning of the twentieth century was over 1400; and the number of terms needed to emulate the accuracy of modern numerical integrations based on laser-ranging observations is in the tens of thousands: there is no limit to the increase in number of terms needed as requirements of accuracy increase."

As you can see, dear friends, there is apparently "no limit" to the increase of terms needed to explain the Moon's motion! The numbers of these terms keep growing - year by year. And most assuredly, our modern-day astronomy students are strongly discouraged from questioning the validity of the same. To be sure, it is "scientific heresy" to question the "established science" of our world's most acclaimed scientists. But let me submit a few more excerpts of astronomy literature to back up and document my previous assertion (that most astronomers, back in the days, agreed at least upon ONE thing, i.e. that the Moon's motions gravely contradicted Netwon's Gravitational Laws):

Here's an extract from the book "Pierre-Simon Laplace, 1749-1827: A Life in Exact Science" - by Charles Coulston Gillispie (1997) :

Source: ... an&f=false

And here's an extract from the "Edinburgh Review or Critical Journal", again highlighting the fact that the Moon's observed motions (with its so-called "anomalies and inequalities") were in stark contradiction with Newton's gravitational theories :

Source: ... on&f=false

The problems with the Moon's motions ranged from its observed periodic (short-term) motions - and all the way to its secular (long-term) motions over the centuries. The latter triggered a gigantic (and still unsettled) debate - as studies of the ancient solar / lunar eclipses suggested that the Moon, over time, was thought to be continually "accelerating" although, paradoxically enough, its orbital speed was thought to be decreasing! Other theories proposed that Earth's rotation was actually decelerating. In short - and to put it bluntly and frankly - it was all a big mess.

“Astronomers who studied the timing of eclipses over many centuries found that the Moon seemed to be accelerating in its orbit, but what was actually happening was that the Earth’s rotation was slowing down. The effect was first noticed by Edmund Halley in 1695, and first measured by Richard Dunthorne in 1748 — though neither one really understood what they were seeing. ... g-Away.htm

I shall start with these supposed secular "accelerations" of the Moon - and demonstrate how the TYCHOS can account for them in the simplest imaginable manner. My two below graphics should suffice to illustrate the matter in easily comprehensible fashion.

The TYCHOS - and the Moon's apparent secular acceleration

My below diagram illustrates how and why the Moon will APPEAR to accelerate over the centuries (yet, it is only an illusion caused by what I believe must be the true geometry / configuration of our solar system - as expounded in my TYCHOS model) :


My next graphic shows how the Moon (in the TYCHOS model) will naturally appear to accelerate in relation to an earthly observer - yet, at the same time, will appear to decelerate in relation to the Sun (due to the Gregorian calendar's faulty year count - as thoroughly expounded in my TYCHOS book ( :


This, dear friends, concludes the TYCHOS model's explanations for the observed SECULAR (long-term) motions of the Moon. In short, the apparent "accelerations" (of the Moon) and "decelerations" (of Earth's rotation) are illusory. They are all due to Earth's tranquil yet steady 1.6-km/h motion around its PVP orbit (covering 14,036km every year), a motion that the TYCHOS model has now proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Let us now take a close look at the PERIODIC (short-term) motions of the Moon - an issue which has baffled astronomers and mathematicians alike for many centuries :

The TYCHOS - and the Moon's major longitudinal variation (a.k.a. the "evection")

The Moon is observed to oscillate (it apparently "accelerates and decelerates" Eastwards and Westwards against the 'fixed' stars) by +/- 1.274° (or 4586.45" seconds of arc) with a period of 31.8 days. This is what astronomers call the Moon's "EVECTION" - which they believe to be caused "by the action of the Sun" - or / and by a host of other proposed effects, such as "tidal forces", "core-mantle coupling" - assorted turbulences and "planetary perturbations".

All these various "gravitational / or non-gravitational disturbances" had to be imagined / invented by our most eminent astronomers, physicists and mathema[g]icians - since the Moon's observed motions obstinately refused to obey Newtons' Laws. The theories kept piling up, yet none of them succeeded to attain any sort of plausible, let alone precise answers to the puzzling motions of the Moon.

Perhaps the most cringeworthy, ad hoc hypothesis ever concocted to "save Newton's face" was that of Paul Dirac, considered as "one of the most significant physicists of the 20th century." Here's what we may read in a paper by F.R Stephenson published in the Journal of the British Astronomical Association :

"The most plausible cause of a non-tidal acceleration is a possible time rate of change of G, as was first proposed by Dirac. Such a change would affect the planets as well as the Moon, producing accelerations (or decelerations) in the exact ratio of the mean motions."

Huh? A "time rate of change of G", the so-called "gravitational constant"? Oh well... So hey, gentlemen, let's just tweak that "constant" and make it a "non-constant," et voilà - Newton wins again!.. It is almost comical to see how many ad hoc "solutions" have been unashamedly put forth - by the brightest (or most acclaimed) minds of science - so as to try and "accomodate" the Newtonian principles.

We shall now examine (under the TYCHOS "lens") the largest observed "inequality" (or "anomaly") of the lunar motion - i.e. what is known as the Moon's "EVECTION" :


"In astronomy, evection (Latin for "carrying away") is the largest inequality produced by the action of the Sun in the monthly revolution of the Moon around the Earth. The evection, formerly called the Moon's second anomaly, was approximately known in ancient times, and its discovery is attributed to Ptolemy.

Evection causes the Moon's ecliptic longitude to vary by approximately ± 1.274° [or ± 4586.45" seconds of arc], with a period of about 31.8 days. The evection in longitude is given by the expression +4586.45''\ sin(2D-L), where D is the mean angular distance of the Moon from the Sun (its elongation), and L is the mean angular distance of the moon from its perigee (mean anomaly). It arises from an approximately six-monthly periodic variation of the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit and a libration of similar period in the position of the Moon's perigee, caused by the action of the Sun."

In simpler words, this means that the Moon's longitude in the sky is observed to vary by as much as ± twice its diameter (Eastwards or Westwards of the so-called "mean moon"*) for a total of somewhat more than four lunar diameters (3474km X 4) - or approximately 14,000km. Here follows a simple diagram to visualize this fact:


* [The "mean moon"] is an imaginary body which orbits the Earth, in the ecliptic plane, at a steady angular velocity that is equal to the Moon's mean orbital angular velocity ... de133.html

The Moon is observed to move every minute of time (as seen from Earth) by 32.9" seconds of arc. We can therefore express the amplitude of the Moon's observed oscillation (4586.45") in minutes of time:

4586.45 / 32.9 = 139.4 min
Hence, the Moon is observed to oscillate back and forth (i.e. appears to speed up and slow down) by +/- 139.4 minutes of (solar) time every 31.8 days.

31.8 days is 16.6% more than 27.2848 days - which is the mean value of the Moon's 360° annual revolutions within the time frame of a tropical year, i.e. 365.24219 / 13.386266. The latter little-known value is from a rigorously researched paper by the Binary Research Institute:

"Lunar calculations, comparing the delta of the moon’s revolutions around the earth in a tropical year, 13.386266, to the number of new moons in a tropical year, 12.368266, apply the same principle and confirm the same thing; the delta of “one” (lunar orbits in this case) occurs in the time frame of the tropical year." ... pg-web.pdf

Now, in 31.8 days the Moon will have moved considerably more than 360°. However, since we wish to know the mean / average amplitude of the Moon's evection over just 360° of its motion , we need to reduce our 139.4-min figure by 16.6% - which gives us a figure of 116.4 minutes of time. In other words, the Moon "accelerates" by 116.4 min of time during one half of its orbit around Earth - and "decelerates" by 116.4 min of time in the other half of its orbit (the two halves corresponding "spatially" to the Sun's two six-month periods).

Our celestial sphere's time scale (around which our clocks are calibrated) is of course determined by the Sun's annual 360° revolution around Earth: there are 525,948min in a 360° solar (or "tropical") year.

Hence, we will need to quantify the amplitude of Moon's evection against our 360° "solar minute-scale", since the observed longitudinal (East-West) oscillations that this evection induces (over a 360° lunar journey around our celestial sphere) corresponds to ±116.4 minutes of solar / clock time.

Now, 116.4 min amounts to 0.0221% of 525,948 min (i.e. one solar year)

As of the TYCHOS, the Moon's "mean" (or actually constant) orbital speed is ca. 3656 km/h.

We see that 0.0221% of 3656 equals 0.8079 or approximately 0.8. This 0.8 "coefficient" would thus represent the six-monthly* speed variation - i.e. the apparent yet illusory acceleration (and / or) deceleration of the Moon.

(*Remember the above-quoted Wikipedia statement: "It [the Moon's evection] arises from an approximately six-monthly periodic variation of the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit.")

In the TYCHOS, we may illustrate this apparent variation of the Moon's speed like so :


Hence, this 0.8 factor would appear to nicely confirm Earth's orbital speed of 1.6 km/h - as proposed by the TYCHOS - as this tranquil speed of Earth would account for the Moon's largest longitudinal inequality known as the "evection". As it is, my proposed 1.6km/h speed of Earth has already solved many other 'mysteries' of astronomy, so this is just yet another confirmation of its qualitative and quantitative exactness.

Let us now perform a last cross-verification of this result (for math geeks and assorted critics) to verify our above figure of 116.4 minutes representing the Moon's observed, six-monthly EAST-WEST "acceleration/deceleration :

1.601169km/h (Earth's orbital speed) is 0.043795% of 3656km/h (the Moon's orbital speed).

0.043795% of 39,290min (the minutes contained in 27.2848 days, i.e. the Moon's mean "tropical" period) is 17.2min.

Now, the full amplitude of the Moon's evection is gauged over a six-month period. In six months, there are 182.625 days, which is 6.6933 X 27.2848 days. In order to verify our above-determined 116.4min-value for the Moon's evection, we should therefore multiply 17.2 minutes by 6.6933:

17.2 X 6.6933 = 115.12 minutes.

Ok, so 115.12 is not exactly 116.4 (a 1.1% discrepancy) - but you may agree that it is a reasonably close match - within the margins of probable error. Perhaps further study will clarify this 1.1% discord, conceivably due to periodic variations of the eccentricity (not ellipticity) of the Moon's circular orbit. To be sure, the Moon's motions are quite complicated - and the TYCHOS does not pretend to resolve all of their subtle irregularities. However, I have just demonstrated that the Moon's LARGEST longitudinal "anomaly" (the so-called evection) can be shown to be plausibly accounted for by Earth's 1.6km/h-motion - as proposed by the TYCHOS model.

The TYCHOS accounts for the Moon's perigee oscillation

Here is a classic diagram depicting the minimal and maximal Earth-Moon distances (perigee versus apogee):


In simple words, the Moon's orbit is off-center of Earth's barycenter. Now, does using the "barycenter" word necessarily mean that we are still talking Newtonian gravitational physics? No. Magnetic forces (as experimentally demonstrable here on Earth) may be at play. The TYCHOS model is, in any case, primarily focused on determining the correct geometry of our solar system. As long as we Earthlings haven't correctly determined this geometry (so as to make it agree with empirical observation), we surely cannot pretend to formulate any valid theories as to the physics regulating the same.

NOTE: The above diagram showing the Moon's orbit strangely talks about "overemphasised eccentricity" - whereas what is depicted is a very flat, highly-exaggerated ellipse (a senseless yet all-too-common feature in astronomy illustrations). The circular orbits of our solar system's bodies can be eccentric (i.e. offset from the centre of the body they revolve around) - but need not be ellipitical to be eccentric. As we shall see, in the TYCHOS the perceived ellipticity of our Moon's orbit (as viewed from Earth) is caused by our 1.6km/h motion around the PVP orbit ( see blue orbit in the Tychosium simulator: )

As I came upon this database which features annual charts of all the Moon-Earth distances for the lunar perigee (and apogee) passages, I was curious to see if those distances might be of interest to the TYCHOS model. Before we get on, I should remind the reader of one of the most 'crucial' distance-values established by the TYCHOS model:

This is the distance that Earth covers every year (in the TYCHOS) - as it moves along its PVP orbit at 1.6km/h. I will henceforth refer to this key value as the "EAM" (Earth's Annual Motion).

As I consulted that detailed chart of the Moon's perigee transits, my attention was naturally drawn to these long-term (i.e. secular) average minimal and maximal lunar perigee distances:

"Over the 5000-year period from -1999 to 3000 (2000 BCE to 3000 CE), the distance of the Moon's perigee varies from 356,355 to 370,399 km." ... p2001.html

So let's see: the difference between 356,355km and 370,399km is:

370,399km - 356,355km= 14,044 km

How interesting: this value is only 8km "off" of the "EAM". As it is, by carefully consulting these lunar perigee charts, it can be easily verified that the Moon's perigee regularly oscillates back and forth every solar year by an average distance of approximately 14,000 km !

As we saw earlier, the Moon's longitudinal variations are also in the 14,000-km range. We may therefore intuitively sense the plain logic of it all - and conceptually illustrate it with the following diagram :


Thus far we have determined that Earth's annual 14,036-km motion (as of the TYCHOS paradigm) can nicely account for both of the major lunar variations (i.e. the Moon's so-called "anomalous inequalities"): the ca. 14,000-km oscillation of its perigee - and its ca.14,000-km longitudinal oscillation (a.k.a. the lunar "evection").

And now comes the "cherry on the cake" - so to speak: the above diagram only conceptually illustrates the fluctuating behavior of the Moon's perigee. So what about the Moon's apogee? Can we also find a 14,000-km "component" in connection to its apogee (the Moon's furthest distance from Earth)? Indeed we can! Here's what we can read about the AVERAGE values of the lunar perigee and apogee:

"The Moon’s distance from Earth (center-to-center) varies with mean values of 363,396 km at perigee (closest) to 405,504 km at apogee (most distant)." ... p2001.html

So let's see, we have a difference of: 405,504km - 363,396km = 42,108km

We see that 42,108 equals 3X 14,036 (14,036 + 14,036 + 14,036)!

Since (as we have just seen) the Moon's perigee oscillates by about (1X)14,036km, the other two (2X14,036km) would seem to be logically accounted for by its apogee.

As astounding as this may be, this allows me to reasonably conclude that the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit (i.e. the relation between its perigee and apogee) exhibits an exact 2:1 ratio based on the TYCHOS' all-important EAM value of 14,036km - the distance covered by Earth each year.

Now, to keep our feet firmly anchored on Earth, let me state what follows, dear friends: I am fully aware that all of this may seem almost too good to be true (for the TYCHOS) - but I am certainly not making it up: I have only 'bumped into' this discovery (through patient & persistent efforts, mind you!) - whilst perusing available observational data. Of course, this same data (e.g. the 14,036-km-value) would have meant next to nothing to a Copernican / Keplerian researcher.

To the inevitable naysayers who will argue that this may all just be a case of (multiple) coincidences - I wish them the best of luck computing the odds / probabilities of this being the case. More likely - and in my honest opinion - the Moon's orbital perigee / apogee variations unequivocally "reflect" Earth's annual motion and decidedly concur to corroborate the TYCHOS model's principal contention: namely, that Earth travels at 1,6km/h - covering 14,036km every year.

As ever, more study is needed to finally figure out the exact periodic & secular dynamics of the Moon's motions, yet I am confident that this is well within reach given modern computing power - and given that we now know "what to look for", geometrically speaking.

And thus, my dear friends, the TYCHOS elegantly "conquers the Moon" (and cures Newton's headache)... :)
Posts: 6734
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby patrix on Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:56 am

Exellent writeup Simon. It is a strange feeling to know this is a very historical moment, but that this will not be realized for many years to come. So let's pull together everyone to make those years as few as possible!
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Sun Dec 23, 2018 3:28 am



In the first pages of my TYCHOS book I point out that - in Tycho Brahe's times (end of 16th century) - no one knew of the existence of double stars - or what are generally referred to as "binary" star systems. Everyone thought that all of our visible stars in our sky were so-called single stars. Still today, our Sun is considered to be a single, companion-less star. It was only in 1650 (50 years after Tycho Brahe's death) that Giovanni Riccioli discovered the very first double star. Of course, the TYCHOS model proposes that our solar system is a binary system composed of the Sun and Mars - similar to the binary system composed of Sirius A and Sirius B (the four of them being proportionally equal in size : as I "serendipitously" discovered, Mars is 0.4881% the diameter of the Sun, whereas Sirius B is 0.4888% the diameter of Sirius A).

Interestingly, Giovanni Riccioli was the author of the "New Almagest" which proposed a modified version of Tycho Brahe's geoheliocentric solar system.
Image < Note the old Ptolemaic model that lies discarded on the ground, made obsolete by the telescope's discoveries.
"The frontispiece to Riccioli's Almagestrum Novum tells his perspective on the state of astronomy in 1651. Urania, the winged muse of astronomy, holds up a scale with two competing models, a sun centered Copernican model, and the Tychonic geocentric model. Under God's hand from the top of the image, the scale reports the Tychonic model to be heavier and thus the winner." ... odels.html

By the mid-18th century, double stars were still considered to be a rarity. This belief slowly started to wane when the famous William Herschel started finding hundreds of double stars all over our celestial sphere. Here's a chart of Herschel's 805 certified double star systems:

"William Herschel's Double Star Discoveries - His 805 confirmed discoveries displayed as an all sky star chart."

Fast-forwarding to the 1980's, one of the major experts in binary star systems, Wullf Heintz, estimated by the end of his career that at least 85% of all the stars had to be part of binary systems. Heintz was the successor of the famed Peter van De Kamp - another world-renowned expert in the field of binary stars. The two colleagues and (onetime) friends are known to have had a fall out over a bitter (and, as we shall see, ultimately ironic) dispute which I will relate in more detail shortly.
ImageImage< Peter van De Kamp

Today, the numbers of known binary star systems are in the range of several HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS - as we can read in this Russian academic paper [by Malkov, Karchevsky, Kaygorodov, Kovaleva, Skvortsov] published as recently as October 2018:
Binary Star Database (BDB): New Developments and Applications
The Identification List of Binaries (ILB) is a star catalogue constructed to facilitate cross-referencing between different catalogues of binary stars. (...) ILB currently contains about 520,000 entries: 120,000 systems, 140,000 pairs and 260,000 components. ... tachment=1

Clearly, binary systems are certainly no longer a "rarity" - as previously believed! To be sure, practically ALL of our nearest stars have now been firmly established as being double (or multiple) binary systems. You may verify this by yourself by looking them up one by one:

But back to Heintz and Van De Kamp : we can read about their bitter controversy on Wikipedia - which had to do with Van de Kamp's strong conviction, matured over many decades of studies, that even the Barnard's star had a binary companion (the Barnard's star is one of our nearmost stars - and is famed for being the fastest-moving star in our skies. Yet, in a human lifetime, it will only move by about the angular diameter of our Moon, i.e. approximately 0.5°...). Let me condense the relevant text to be found on Wikipedia :

Barnard's Star affair
"In the spring of 1937, Van de Kamp left McCormick Observatory to take over as director of Swarthmore College's Sproul Observatory. There he made astrometric measurements of Barnard's Star and in the 1960s reported a periodic "wobble" in its motion, apparently due to planetary companions. (...) Astronomer John L. Hershey found that this anomaly apparently occurred after each time the objective lens was removed, cleaned, and replaced. Hundreds more stars showed "wobbles" like Barnard's Star's when photographs before and after cleaning were compared – a virtual impossibility. Wulff Heintz, Van de Kamp's successor at Swarthmore and an expert on double stars, questioned his findings and began publishing criticisms from 1976 onwards; the two are reported to have become estranged because of this. Van de Kamp never admitted that his claim was in error and continued to publish papers about a planetary system around Barnard's Star into the 1980s, while modern radial velocity curves place a limit on the planets much smaller than claimed by Van de Kamp. Recent evidence suggests that there is, indeed, a planet orbiting Barnard's Star, albeit of much lower mass than Van de Kamp could have detected."

And here's what we can read about the search for the Barnard's star's elusive companion - on Wikipedia's BARNARD'S STAR page :
"Even though this research greatly restricted the possible properties of planets around Barnard's Star, it did not rule them out completely as terrestrial planets were always going to be difficult to detect. NASA's Space Interferometry Mission, which was to begin searching for extrasolar Earth-like planets, was reported to have chosen Barnard's Star as an early search target. This mission was shut down in 2010. ESA's similar Darwin interferometry mission had the same goal, but was stripped of funding in 2007."

So both NASA's and ESA's efforts to search for Barnard's companion, we are told, were ...shut down ! One may wonder why. Lack of funding? Really? Or are NASA and ESA perhaps unwilling - for some reason - to help establishing that ALL of the stars in our skies are in fact double / multiple binary systems? Hmm. Maybe because this would imply the absurd notion that our Sun is the ONLY non-binary star in the entire universe - and thus utterly destroy the plausibility of the currently-accepted Copernican / heliocentric model ?

Well, it now turns out that Heintz was wrong - and that Van De Kamp was right all along: just last month (November 2018), here's what the ground-based European Observatory announced:

Super-Earth Orbiting Barnard’s Star
Red Dots campaign uncovers compelling evidence of exoplanet around closest single star to Sun

"A planet has been detected orbiting Barnard’s Star, a mere 6 light-years away. This breakthrough — announced in a paper published today in the journal Nature — is a result of the Red Dots and CARMENES projects, whose search for local rocky planets has already uncovered a new world orbiting our nearest neighbour, Proxima Centauri.

The planet, designated Barnard's Star b, now steps in as the second-closest known exoplanet to Earth. The gathered data indicate that the planet could be a super-Earth, having a mass at least 3.2 times that of the Earth, which orbits its host star in roughly 233 days. Barnard’s Star, the planet’s host star, is a red dwarf, a cool, low-mass star, which only dimly illuminates this newly-discovered world."

And in this 'sister' article, we can read something that is of interest to the TYCHOS model (what with its proposed 1.6-km/h-speed of Earth):
"There have actually been many previous searches for planets around Barnard’s Star, and even announcements of discoveries, but not one has ever been confirmed. The thing is that the candidate planet we found is so small and so far from its host star that its effect on the star is really, really tiny. The planet only changed the star’s speed by 4.3 km/h in each direction and with a long period of 233 days, making it extremely difficult to detect. Finding the planet was only possible by collecting an enormous number of velocity measurements. In total, we combined nearly 800 measurements from seven different facilities." ... exoplanet/

As it is, another quite recent discovery (August 2016) was that of a binary companion ( now named "Proxima Centauri B ) of our NEARMOST star, Proxima Centauri. Here's what we can read about it:
"The Pale Red Dot data, when combined with earlier observations made at ESO observatories and elsewhere, revealed the clear signal of a truly exciting result. At times Proxima Centauri is approaching Earth at about 5 kilometres per hour — normal human walking pace — and at times receding at the same speed. This regular pattern of changing radial velocities repeats with a period of 11.2 days. Careful analysis of the resulting tiny Doppler shifts showed that they indicated the presence of a planet with a mass at least 1.3 times that of the Earth, orbiting about 7 million kilometres from Proxima Centauri — only 5% of the Earth-Sun distance."

Wow: both of these recent discoveries (of the companions of Barnard's star and Proxima Centauri) report extremely slow "wobbling" speeds - in the range of "normal human walking pace" - much like the tranquil orbital speed of Earth (1.6 km/h) proposed by the TYCHOS model! Just think about it: have we not all been accustomed to hear about extremely fast / supersonic / hypersonic speeds - in the context of planetary motions in our cosmos? Yet, we now have nearby stars such as Barnard and Proxima "wobbling" back and forth at a mere 4 or 5 kilometres per hour?

Well, as of the TYCHOS, "alien" astronomers living outside of our solar system would conceivably be measuring our Sun's "wobble" as a 1.6 km/h motion - a speed which is very much within the range of the observed "wobbles" of Barnard and Proxima (respectively 4.3km/h and 5 km/h).

And to be sure, it certainly now appears that, quite possibly, ALL of our stars have a so-called "binary" companion. Hence, dear friends, what are the odds for the Sun to be the sole exception to this rule? And why would the Sun be the fastest-moving star of ALL the stars in our cosmos? (the Sun is said to be moving at 222 km-per-second, more than twice than the Barnard's star's alleged speed of 110 km-per-second!). It all really makes very little sense.

In conclusion: we live in a binary system composed by the Sun and Mars. Tycho Brahe's geometrical configuration of our solar system was basically correct. He only missed a few pieces of the puzzle - which the TYCHOS has now integrated in his original geoheliocentric model: the 1.6km/h-motion of Earth around its PVP orbit (Polaris-Vega-Polaris) as it rotates once a day around its axis, completing one of its PVP orbits in 25344 years. Mercury and Venus are the Sun's two moons. Phobos and Deimos are Mars's two moons. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto/Charon ( another mini-binary system ) all revolve in circular / yet somewhat eccentric orbits around our Sun-Mars binary system.* (Pluto-Charon binary system: ... 42/3101592 )

* Giovanni Riccioli favoured a modified version of Tycho Brahe's system. Here is how he described the system that "came to [his] mind" when he was in Parma : "it shares everything with the Tychonian system, except the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter; for [me] their center was not the Sun, but Earth itself". (Later on though, Riccioli back-pedalled on this issue (in his "Astronomia reformata") - and eventually embraced Tychos Brahe's view that our superior planets revolve around the Sun).

One truly has to wonder why Riccioli (pronounced "Ritcholee" in English) is today virtually unknown to the general public - given that some scholars consider his work to have superseded that of Galileo. And remember, Riccioli can claim the extraordinary distinction of having been the first man on this planet to have discovered a double star !

"The historian of science Edward Grant has described [Riccioli's] Book 9 as being the "probably the lengthiest, most penetrating, and authoritative" analysis of this question made by "any author of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries", in his opinion apparently superseding even Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems — Ptolemaic and Copernican. Indeed, one writer has recently described Book 9 as "the book Galileo was supposed to write". ... a_Riccioli


As for the problem that some of you will have with the definition of a "binary" or "double star" (there are numerous different types of them), I will recommend you to read this fine paper by Bruce McEvoy - which explains how this only comes down to a question of grammatical nomenclature or, if you will, semantics (e.g. - WHY do we call Mars "a planet" - whereas we call Sirius B "a star" ? They are both VERY MUCH alike - unless you buy the official Newtonian notion that Sirius B is 400,000 X "denser / or heavier" than Earth ... while being slightly smaller than our planet!):
As it is grammatically confusing to give the same name to a thing and to the illusion of the thing — as if a mirage were called optical water — the received usage is profoundly defective. I adopt the following terminology:

• Optical pair (or optical group) for any stars joined by visual appearance only, without any evidence either for or against a possible gravitational bond;

• Pair asterism (or group asterism) for two or more stars assumed from available physical evidence — an extended linear relative motion, divergent proper motions or discrepant geometric or spectroscopic parallax distances — to be dynamically unrelated; and

• Double star (without the redundant multiple star) to denote the three defining criteria that Heintz assigns to it.
Posts: 6734
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:42 pm


Dear all,

New Year's eve is upon us - and I dearly hope you all feel happy and comfortable cruising at a tranquil 1mph around the TYCHOS geoaxial binary solar system. :)

At this moment, I'm expecting a few friends coming to celebrate the New Year - and frantically cleaning my house, so I'll just quickly post this new graphic of mine and let you marvel at the harmonious, commensurate orbital relationships between our Sun, Mars and Earth. I will comment on this further tomorrow - but for those who've been following the TYCHOS research, I trust you will grasp and appreciate the sheer beauty of it all :



456.8 Mkm : the officially-accepted and long-established diameter of Mars's orbit
299.2 Mkm: the officially-accepted and long-established diameter of our Sun's orbit

113.2 Mkm : the diameter of Earth's PVP orbit - as established by my TYCHOS research
22.2 Mkm : the eccentricity of Mars's orbit in relation to the Sun's orbit around Earth

Posts: 6734
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:16 am



Perhaps the most dramatic problem of the Copernican heliocentric theory is that - incredibly enough - it actually lacks an explanation for the most undeniable fact observed in our skies, namely, what is commonly-known as the "Precession of the Equinoxes".

Here's a brief (conventional) "explanation" of what has historically been referred to as "the Precession of the Equinoxes": ... equinoxes/

In simple words, what is observed is that ALL THE STARS in our skies appear to slip "backwards" (i.e. from West to East) by about 50.3 arcseconds every year. This, in relation to any earthly observer - or, if you will, in relation to the Sun. To wit, this is also directly related to the fact that our Northern stars change over time (currently star Polaris is our North star - but about 5000 years ago, star Thuban was our North star).

Now, according to the Copernican theory, this would be caused by a slow, clockwise*, wobbling of Earth - a.k.a. "Earth's 3d motion". As the theory goes, Earth revolves counterclockwise around the Sun - and rotates counterclockwise around its axis... yet this axial rotation would also somehow have a (very slow) clockwise motion... That's right, we are told that "Earth is like a spinning top which, as it slows down, starts wobbling from side to side before it falls over". Well - but uh - common sense dictates that such a wobble cannot possibly gyrate in the opposite direction of a spinning top's rotation!

*(Please understand that, by convention, the terms "clockwise" and "counterclockwise" refer to the motions of our solar system as viewed from above our solar system - i.e. as if we were hovering above Earth's North Pole and looking down.)

A spinning top about to fall over:
(rotation: counterclockwise / wobble: counterclockwise).
Image source:

Now, here's an illustration from the Italian Wikipedia entry for "Precessione degli Equinozi" :

I trust that anyone can see the absurdity of this Copernican contention - or if not, please try and explain JUST HOW this clockwise wobble could physically occur. To be sure, the "Lunisolar wobble" theory is - still today - the official explanation for our Northern stars to slowly alternate (from Polaris to Vega and back to Polaris over a timespan of about 25,000 years).

I then had to laugh heartily when reading that Italian Wikipedia page. As you will know, Wikipedia allows editors to comment on any specific, questionable claims - and to "flag" the same with a request for clarification. Well, in this case - here's what some (smart) editor has complained about:

Image ... i_equinozi

My best translation of the above Wikipedia text:
Clockwise precession of the Earth's axis

The fact that the precession motion of the Earth is clockwise while that of rotation on itself is counterclockwise is not in contrast with the example of the spinning top. In fact, if the Earth were straight and a force tried to tilt it, then it would develop a motion of counterclockwise precession, in the same direction as the rotation on itself, just as in the case of the spinning top.

In this case, however, the opposite situation occurs: the Earth is inclined and a force tends to straighten it, giving rise to a clockwise precession motion, contrary to the counterclockwise direction of rotation of the Earth. [this lacks an explanation for the exact reason why the direction of rotation of the precession is opposite to that expected by common logic] < !!!.

Of course, in the TYCHOS model, the "Precession of the Equinoxes" is explained - in the simplest and most "economical" manner - by Earth's clockwise motion as it proceeds at 1mph (or 1.6 km/h) around its PVP orbit (Polaris-Vega-Polaris). An exemplary Occam's razor solution if there ever was one...

"Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami); further known as the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae) is the problem-solving principle that essentially states that simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions."

Note: The Copernican "Lunisolar wobble" theory has, in later years, been definitively disproved by a number of proficient independent researchers - as described in Chapter 18 of my book. The supposed "wobble" of Earth cannot exist since this would, for instance (and among other problems), also affect the periodicity of the transits of Venus and Mercury across the Sun's disc - as well as the periodicity of our seasonal meteor showers, something which is NOT observed.
Posts: 6734
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:34 pm


The WONDROUS "SYNCHRONICITIES" of the Sun/Earth/Moon trio

A string of remarkable synchronicities (for lack of a better term) emerge when comparing the respective rotations and revolutions of Earth, the Sun and the Moon.

They are remarkable in the sense that, if viewed through the COPERNICAN "lens", it becomes extremely difficult to fathom why those multiple (and apparently "coincidental") synchronicities would exist. After all, if Earth is just one of several planets circling the Sun (along with our Moon), it would seem to be a quite quaint circumstance that these three separate celestial bodies would have such "commensurate" (or "resonant") gyrational periods - as I will henceforth illustrate.

Firstly, one has to wonder why the Sun rotates around its axis in the same amount of time (ca 27.3 days - see "Carrington number") that our Moon revolves around its orbit (ca 27.3 days). Did you know this, dear reader? In any case, it is an empirically-observable fact. We can see sunspots on the Sun - and they tell us how long it takes for the Sun to rotate around its axis (about 27.3 days). As for our Moon, we can easily observe it returning to the "same place" (in about 27.3 days).

Let's see how this would look like - under the TYCHOS model's configuration :

Figure 1: The Sun and Moon's 27.3-days synchronicity - as viewed in the TYCHOS model :
Source of Carrington quote: ... am&f=false

Not that many people are aware of this fact, mind you: as far as I know (and after having read volumes of astronomy literature over the years) this has never been pointed out - nor much less debated - in any cosmological study! Incredibly enough, you might say...

Let's now see how this Sun-Moon relationship would look like - under the COPERNICAN model's configuration :

Figure 2: The Sun and Moon's 27.3-days synchronicity - as viewed in the COPERNICAN model :

The thing is, if our Moon were just one among dozens of moons (Jupiter's moons, Saturn's moons, etc) circling the Sun, why would only one of these (our own Moon) have such an "intimate relationship" with the Sun? Conversely, if our Moon were instead central to the Sun's orbit (as of the TYCHOS model - see Figure 1), you may agree that this observable fact would suddenly appear to make far more "intuitive sense"- and not only philosophically speaking.

Let us now cross-compare the respective rotational speeds of the Sun, Earth and the Moon.

Rotational speed of Sun: 6675 km/h

Rotational speed of Earth: 1670 km/h

Rotational speed of Moon: 16.68 km/h

We see that:

The Sun's rotational speed is near-exactly 4X Earth's rotational speed (6675/1670 ≈ 4)

The Sun's rotational speed is near-exactly 400X our Moon's rotational speed (6675/16.68 ≈ 400)

[Also, Earth's rotational speed is near-exactly 100X our Moon's rotational speed (1670/16.68 ≈ 100) - and the Moon's rotational speed is about 10X the orbital speed of Earth (16.68/1.601669 ≈ 10)]

One truly has to ask oneself : WHY would our little Moon have such an "intimate / synchronous gyrational relationship" with the Sun - if it were only one of many moons circling around the Sun?

On the other hand, if our Earth & Moon are circling in the middle of the Sun's orbit (as of the TYCHOS model), this all becomes a decidedly less mysterious affair: the Sun, Earth and the Moon share such "synchronicities" simply because they ALL share the same rotational center (unlike the Copernican heliocentric paradigm).

Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami); further known as the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae) is the problem-solving principle that essentially states that simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones.

The TYCHOS model is your Occam's razor explanation for the observed behavior of our surrounding cosmos. I can only hope that people will seriously consider this - before my allotted time on this wonderful planet runs out. I need no prizes or accolades as rewards for my efforts: a mere reviewing-process of my model among knowledgeable astronomers (or/and intellectually honest individuals) will suffice. As of today, it hasn't even started - yet, sorry to say, folks... the TYCHOS won't go away.
Posts: 6734
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:35 am



This is a due clarification of my latest post in a separate thread, "Is Betelgeuse roughly the same size as our Sun?"

Of course - and to clarify - I'm not adamant that my 42633 stellar-distance reduction factor is absolutely correct (I may be 'crazy' but I'm not a fool). My point is only that Tycho Brahe might well have been more correct than the Copernicans - as he argued for reasonably-sized stars and rejected the idea of "supergiant stars" dwarfing our Sun to a quite insignificant, teeny-weeny little star. Moreover, today we know that most (over 85% and counting) of our visible stars are 'locked' in double / binary systems, i.e. they revolve (in intersecting orbits and around their common center of mass) around a smaller companion in relatively short orbital periods (examples: Sirius A and B: 50.1 years / Alpha Centauri A and B : 79 years / Polaris A and B: 29 years / etc. etc.). Some even have far shorter orbital periods - of months, weeks, days or hours, but none are known to have a super-duper-gigantic orbit lasting anywhere near 240 MILLION years - as our Sun is claimed to have! According to Copernicans, the Sun would thus be the ONLY known star which lacks a "local" orbit of its own (while hurtling around our galaxy at 800,000 km/h!) - unlike the vast majority of (double) stars we see in our skies, a most unlikely proposition form a purely probabilistic viewpoint.

To wit, Tycho Brahe's own geoheliocentric model featured the Sun and Mars revolving around each other (in intersecting orbits - much like all known double/binary star systems. At the time (late 16th century), Brahe didn't know about the existence of double stars, since the first pair was only discovered about 50 years after his death by Giovanni Battista Riccioli. In our days, modern astronomers keep discovering new double / binary star systems almost on a daily basis - so it is not beyond possibility that the remaining 15% of "single stars" do, in fact, have a binary companion (which is simply too small & faint to be observed even with our best modern instruments). Of course, were this the case (and 100% of our visible stars eventually turn out to be members of double / or multiple systems), our Sun would then be the ONLY single star in our universe - a most absurd notion if there ever was one! The Copernican theory will then - hopefully - die a natural death and be logically discarded for good (unless human intelligence is a dead-born baby).

Here are the models of Tycho Brahe and Pathani Samanta (India's greatest naked-eye observational astronomer who also reached the same conclusion as Brahe):


And here is the TYCHOS, my proposed completion of their work - featuring the "missing piece of the puzzle", i.e. Earth's PVP orbit :


In later months, Patrik and I have been hard at work refining the TYCHOSIUM 3D, an interactive digital "planetarium" which simulates the TYCHOS geoheliocentric model 3-dimensionally. To our delight, it is (slowly but surely) turning out to be a most remarkably accurate machine - insofar as it correctly tracks the motions of our solar system's bodies to a high level of precision. Lately, I have spent days / weeks patiently testing it against numerous existing tables (i.e. observational data from about the mid-16th century and predictions thereof well beyond the year 2000) of planetary conjunctions / transits / oppositions / eclipses, etc. and the results have been extremely satisfactory (as it is, way beyond my expectations). In any event, we have proven beyond any doubt that the TYCHOS model is a totally feasible geometric / mechanical configuration of our solar system - something which cannot be said about the Copernican model (as demonstrated in Chapter 7 of my book).

The first "definitive" version of the TYCHOSIUM should hopefully be scheduled for release sometime this year, so stay tuned my dear friends... Soon however (on the 24th of February), Patrik and I will be presenting the TYCHOSIUM 3D at a public event in Gothenburg- for the first time. So please, dear fellow Swedes, try to make time for this event - which won't be televised nor youtubed (according to my perhaps objectionable wishes). Hopefully, I won't make a mess of the presentation - what with my rusty Swedish (and poor knowledge of Swedish astronomy terms...).That's all for now, dear readers and friends - wish us luck, if you will!
Posts: 6734
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:23 pm

Hey all,

I'm off to Sweden tomorrow (have packed my suitcase and given instructions to my friends about how to feed my dog). Will anyone wish me luck? :mellow: ^_^ :)
Posts: 6734
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby michiganj on Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:45 am

Best of luck Simon to both you and Patrik! And kick some Copernican ass ! :D
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:17 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby patrix on Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:12 am

michiganj » February 18th, 2019, 6:45 am wrote:Best of luck Simon to both you and Patrik! And kick some Copernican ass ! :D

Thank you! :-) And as I just said to a colleague who I invited to our presentation - Sometimes you get a crazy idea. Something that's completely unlikely. For example, that the Solar system model we currently hold as true can be incorrect.

What we do then (naturally) is to look for evidence that can dismiss it. I've done that the past year, and failed. What I've found during my investigation is instead that historic and current evidence supports Simon’s model.

Which in turn means that this is not just a crazy idea, but one of the most important discoveries in modern history. So, thank you Simon for keeping this “crazy” idea in your head . . . investigating it, and making this discovery.

The first "definitive" version of the TYCHOSIUM should hopefully be scheduled for release sometime this year, so stay tuned my dear friends...

I like deadlines sometimes. It gives you an aim, so let's make this official - The scheduled release for TYCHOSIUM 3D will be Wednesday the 20th of March. A fitting date since the TYCHOS was released on the vernal equinox last year.
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:26 pm


I've been asked on several occasions in the past months to compile a selection of the most salient aspects of the TYCHOS model that distinguishes it from the Copernican one - describing the principal / most compelling motives why the former should be preferred over the latter. I have promised to do so whenever I would feel fully confident & satisfied with the TYCHOS, with its core principles and overall soundness - as well as with a series of obligatory cross-verifications with observational realities, something which I can now happily say to be. So here we go.


- and why the Copernican theory needs to be definitively discarded

Image: a screenshot from the TYCHOSIUM 3D Interactive Planetarium:

It is a commonly-held misconception that the heliocentric theory (as proposed by Copernicus and Kepler many centuries ago) has, by now, been fully confirmed as the only true and correct system of our World. All honest astronomers and cosmologists will earnestly admit that many empirical / observational realities remain unaccounted for, or/and lack a solid and wholly satisfactory explanation.

A long series of longstanding (yet to this day unsettled) riddles & mysteries of astronomy are shown to be effectively resolved and / or elucidated by the core principles of the TYCHOS model. Here is a condensed compendium of its more significant argumentations, discoveries and logically-formulated conclusions - [each followed by indications of the Chapters of my TYCHOS book where they are more extensively expounded and illustrated].

- why only Mercury and Venus have no moons. In the TYCHOS, Mercury and Venus are moonless simply because they ARE (the Sun’s) moons.“No "moons of moons" or subsatellites (natural satellites that orbit a natural satellite of a planet) are currently known as of 2019.“ (source: Also, it is hardly a coincidence that Mercury and Venus rotate around their axes at “walking paces”, respectively 3X and 6X slower than our Moon (that is 5.5 km/h and 2.7 km/h). None of our planets rotate anywhere near that slowly (e.g. Jupiter: 43000 km/h and Saturn: 35000 km/h). [see Chapter 3]

- why our surrounding planets (and moons) retrograde periodically the way they do. Current explanations for those retrograde motions (and their irregular periods) are shown to be inadequate, implausible or outright impossible. The TYCHOS provides geometrically rigorous and empirically-supported demonstrations for these all-important observed phenomena which have puzzled our world’s astronomers for millennia. [see Chapters 8 and 9]

- the reason why Venus - and only Venus – may appear (to Copernican observers) to rotate around its axis in a clockwise direction (it does not: it rotates counterclockwise - just like all of its companions in our solar system). [see Chapter 11]

- why our Moon appears to be the “central driveshaft” of our entire solar system (what with its 29.22-day mean synodic period) - a fact which would seem utterly mysterious under the Copernican model’s heliocentric configuration: why would our Moon’s period be reflected (in exact integer multiples) and thus be resonant with all of our system’s celestial bodies? In the TYCHOS, this becomes a far less mysterious affair - since our Moon revolves around Earth, located at the center of our Sun-Mars binary system. [see Chapter 15]

- why our Moon regularly lines up with the same star every 27.3 days. If Earth and the Moon hurtled at 107226 km/h around the Sun (as of heliocentric theory), they would both travel by about 70 million km every 27.3 days. Yet, the Moon is observed to conjunct with the same star every 27.3 days! In the TYCHOS, this is no mystery - since Earth moves at "snail pace". (Note: 27.3 days is also, remarkably, the time employed by the Sun to rotate once around its own axis). [see Chapter 27]

- the reason for the “precession of the equinoxes”(the observed, annual ‘retrograde’ / eastward drift of the stars) - and why our North stars change over time (as well-documented ever since antiquity). As has been proven by a number of recent studies, Earth does not slowly “wobble” - as claimed - in the opposite direction of its axial rotation (a most bizarre and unphysical hypothesis). Hence, the Copernican theory is left - incredibly enough - without an explanation for the aforementioned, indisputable observations. In the TYCHOS, what is known today as the “General (or Stellar) Precession” is simply caused by Earth’s slow, clockwise motion around its 25344-year circular PVP orbit (Polaris-Vega-Polaris).[see Chapters 18 and 19]

- why our Main asteroid belt is located between Mars and Jupiter (and why it came into existence) - and why we have another one about ten times more distant (the Kuiper belt). Modern astronomers have recently discovered that numerous binary star systems also have similar asteroid twin belts (also separated at an approximate 1:10 distance ratio!) [see Chapter 14]

- why the solar day is longer than the sidereal day – and the solar year is shorter than the sidereal year (a fact that still lacks a satisfactory explanation under the Copernican theory’s geometric layout). [see Chapter 23]

- the curious 8-shaped analemma traced by the Sun (and the reasons for our need of the “Equation of Time”). The analemma turns out to be Earth’s “speedometer”, since it reflects the orbital velocity of Earth (1.6km/h) - as mathematically demonstrated in the TYCHOS. To be sure, current theory lacks a scientific explanation for the apparent solar accelerations / decelerations: since the Sun is undeniably observed to “accelerate” (which, in the Copernican model, would be equivalent to Earth speeding up) between June and mid-July, i.e. when Earth is furthest from the Sun, the core principles of Kepler’s and Newton’s famous “laws” (of motion and gravitation) are categorically falsified – in one fell swoop. This, because their “laws” predict that Earth will slow down as it transits furthest from the Sun - i.e. the opposite of what is observed. [see Chapter 26]

- why Kepler (erroneously) concluded that all planetary orbits must be elliptical – and that planets regularly speed up and slow down. In the TYCHOS, all orbits are uniformly circular – and all celestial bodies travel at constant speeds. Since they all revolve around Earth (which always slowly proceeds in roughly the “same direction”), they will alternately travel in the same or in the opposite direction of Earth’s motion. This creates the “space-time” illusion that Kepler fell for. [see Chapter 26]

- the failures of the Michelson-Morley experiments - and all other similar interferometer studies which vainly attempted to detect the supposed hypersonic motion of Earth through the ether and around the Sun. The near-null velocities (or even ‘negative’ speeds) recorded by all these advanced experiments would appear to support the notion of a “near-zero” (1mph) orbital speed of Earth – as proposed by the TYCHOS. Michelson is even quoted as saying that he “thought of the possibility that the solar system as a whole might have moved in the opposite direction to the Earth”. This is, of course, precisely what Earth does in the TYCHOS model: it moves (very slowly) in the opposite direction of the orbital motions of our Sun and planets! [see Chapter 19]

- James Bradley’s “aberration of light”(a convoluted theory successively falsified by “Airy’s failure”) was yet another attempt to rescue the Copernican theory from its looming demise. The odd, tear-shaped motion of the stars (causing them to move annually in wholly unexpected manner - under the heliocentric theory) is simply due to the trochoidal curve around which earthly observers (i.e. their moving frame of reference) revolve every year. Bradley’s acclaimed “definitive proof of Earth’s revolution around the Sun” is thus roundly disproved. [see Chapter 34]

- the “anomalous precession of Mercury’s perihelion” (which purportedly corroborated Einstein’s theory of General Relativity - and made him a world-famous celebrity overnight). The TYCHOS shows that there is no such anomaly - and that the (seemingly inexplicable) extra 43”-per-century precession of Mercury’s perihelion is nothing but a natural and demonstrable corollary of the mercurial precession (in relation to the "fixed" starry background) caused by Earth’s 1-mph motion around its PVP orbit. [see end of Chapter 28]

- why Ole Roemer’s famous observations of Jupiter’s moon “Io” were illusory. Roemer is credited of having first (roughly) estimated the speed of light. In the TYCHOS, it is shown that “Io” will logically employ a few more minutes transiting behind Jupiter when our largest planet proceeds in prograde motion - than when it moves in retrograde motion. Hence, Roemer’s reckoning of the speed of light (a widely celebrated one, although it was about 33% “off” of the currently-held value) was spurious. [see end of Chapter 8]

- why both Mars and the Sun exhibit peculiar 79-year cycles - a little-known fact which, under the Copernican model, could only be attributed to some bizarre “coincidence”. Under the TYCHOS paradigm, this is no random happenstance nor by any means an unexpected one, since the two bodies are a binary pair. [see Chapters 6 and 13]

- why Mars is reckoned to have a “Great Cycle” of about 51000 years - or almost precisely 2X 25344 years, i.e. the duration of the “Great Year” as determined in the TYCHOS model. In the TYCHOS, the motions of the Sun and Mars are, of course, firmly “locked” at a 2:1 ratio (for every Martian revolution there are two solar revolutions). [see Chapter 30]

- why Mars can occasionally line up (as viewed from Earth) with the same star within a ca. 550-day period - in spite of such alignments occurring most frequently (7 out of 8 times) every 707 days or so. In the TYCHOS, this is shown to be a plain & natural geometric consequence of the peculiar, “spirographic” motion of Mars around our planet. As the Copernican theory has it, this 550-day alignment (with the very same star that habitually lines up with Mars every 707 days) can somehow occur in spite of Earth and Mars having both moved laterally by about 300 million kilometers! [see Chapter 7]

- Mars can complete one full revolution around our celestial sphere – that is, when Mars skips its retrograde period - in 557.65 days on average (max 571.3d / min 544 d). Since Mars’s orbit is 1.5267 X larger than the Sun’s – and since Mars completes one revolution around our 360° celestial sphere in about 557.65 days (i.e. 365.25 X 1.5267), this means that Mars physically travels at the same speed as the Sun. Mars’s estimated orbital circumference is 1,435,079,524 km. We see that 557.65 days = 13,383.6 hours. Hence: 1,435,079,524 km / 13,383.6 h = 107,226.7 km/h (or near-exactly the Sun’s estimated speed of 107,226 km/h). One could hardly wish for better evidence that the Sun and Mars are a (magnetically-locked?) binary duo. [Note: this is a recent realization not included in my TYCHOS book].


- why Earth's rotation appears / is believed to decelerate and its equinoctial precession to increase; [see Chapter 30]

- why our Moon appears / is believed to accelerate (in relation to the “fixed” starry background); [see Chapter 30]

- why we can see so many stars with our naked eyes (the closest being allegedly some 4.3 light years away - while the farthest being allegedly 16308 light years away!). Quote:“The farthest star we can see with our naked eye is V762 Cas in the constellation of Cassiopeia at 16308 light years.” This quite extraordinary claim becomes considerably less extraordinary in the TYCHOS model - which posits that the stars are about 42633X closer than currently believed. This, because star distances are estimated (using basic trigonometry) under the assumption that Earth moves laterally by 299.2 million km every six months. In the TYCHOS however, Earth only moves by 7018 km every six months (i.e. 42633X less than currently assumed). [see Chapters 35 and 36]

- the currently inexplicable and apparently absurd so-called negative(!) stellar parallax exhibited by a good 25% of our stars (as well as the baffling amount of stars - nearly 50%! - registering ZERO parallax) can be shown to be natural corollaries of the TYCHOS geometry. In other words, the “mysterious” existence of three types of observed stellar parallaxes (positive, negative and zero) is to be fully expected in the TYCHOS model. Conversely, the existence of negative stellar parallax is a physical impossibility under the Copernican / heliocentric model. Important disclaimer: the TYCHOS therefore doesn’t negate the vast amount of stellar parallax data gathered to this day - it only provides a logical explanation for its observed distribution, i.e. roughly 25% positive, 25% negative and 50% ZERO / NIL. [see Chapter 36]

- why the perceived speed between our solar system and the “fixed stars” is estimated to be approximately 19.4 km/s. Once more, the TYCHOS has a plain and simple explanation for this generally-agreed-upon relative speed: If we convert 19.4 km/s to km/h, we obtain 69840 km/h. If we now divide 69840 by 42633 (the TYCHOS “reduction factor”), we obtain 1.638 km/h, or almost exactly 1.601169 km/h (the proposed orbital speed of Earth in the TYCHOS). As it is, the available evidence (from observational data) pointing to Earth’s 1.6 km/h orbital motion is overwhelming. [see end of Chapter 36]

In conclusion, all of the extant, above-listed astronomical “puzzles & mysteries” find sensible and forthright answers when assessed within the TYCHOS paradigm and its proposed 1.6 km/h (or 1-mph) motion of Earth around its PVP orbit. In light of this, the TYCHOS model stands on very solid ground – whereas the Copernican model emerges as an ultimately untenable proposition. It is often (and rightly) said that a scientific theory cannot be definitively proven as long as it can be falsified – in one way or another. I will now therefore humbly ask our world’s scientific community to spend a little time and endeavor to try and falsify the TYCHOS model’s tenets – while observing the highest degree of intellectual honesty with regards to its interpretation of the vast volume of available observations gathered by our planet’s best astronomers throughout the centuries. As long as no such effort will be forthcoming, I will uphold my “bold” yet well-grounded assertion that the TYCHOS is the most viable and accurate model of our solar system ever devised.
Posts: 6734
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Wed May 15, 2019 5:16 pm


(another historical riddle solved by the TYCHOS model)

Dear friends and fellow rational thinkers,

One may justly argue that THE greatest unsolved mystery of our cosmos is that of the minuscule Angular Momentum (AM) that our Sun exhibits (less than 1% of our solar system's combined angular momentum!) - that is, under the tenets & computations of current heliocentric theory. This is a formidable problem that keeps haunting all of this world's cosmologists & astrophysicists, as noone has ever put forth any plausible explanation to what amounts to a dramatic contradiction of the much-heralded newtonian laws of conservation of momentum. In fact, this issue is of fundamental importance to those studying the very formation of our universe.

As it is, this still-utterly-unsolved riddle is known in astronomy circles as the "ANGULAR MOMENTUM PROBLEM". It is a widely recognized problem among cosmologists who study the so-called "formation theories" (i.e. the hypotheses of how our stars, planets, moons, etc were formed in the first place).

"Angular momentum problem : The fact that the Sun, which contains nearly all of the mass of the solar system, accounts for just 0.3 percent of the total angular momentum of the solar system. This is an aspect of the solar system that any acceptable formation theory must address." ... %20problem

That's right, folks: any theory of our Universe that doesn't address or/and fails to resolve the issue of the Sun's (0.3%!) AM is not acceptable. -_-

Here are a some descriptions of the thorny ANGULAR MOMENTUM PROBLEM:

Solar System -The Angular Momentum Problem
"Perhaps the most important issue to be resolved in future versions of the solar nebula model is that of the distribution of angular momentum. The problem for the solar nebula theory is that it predicts that most of the mass and angular momentum should be in the Sun. In other words, the Sun should spin much more rapidly than it does. A mechanism is therefore required to transport angular momentum away from the central proto-sun and redistribute it in the outer planetary disk. One proposed transport mechanism invokes the presence of magnetic field in the nebula, while another mechanism proposed the existence of viscous stresses produced by turbulence in the nebular gas." ... oblem.html

The Angular Momentum Problem
"A possible weak link in the condensation theory is sometimes known as the angular momentum problem. Although our Sun contains about 1000 times more mass than all the planets combined, it possesses a mere 0.3 percent of the total angular momentum of the solar system. Jupiter, for example, has a lot more angular momentum than does our Sun—in fact, about 60 percent of the solar system's angular momentum. All told, the four jovian planets account for well over 99 percent of the total angular momentum of the solar system. By comparison, the lighter (and closer) terrestrial planets have negligible angular momentum. The problem here is that all mathematical models predict that the Sun should have been spinning very rapidly during the earliest epochs of the solar system and should command most of the solar system's angular momentum, basically because it contains most of the mass. However, as we have just seen, the reverse is true. Indeed, if all the planets' orbital angular momentum were transferred to the Sun, it would spin on its axis about 100 times as fast as it does at present." ... T31505.HTM

The Planet-X and Angular Momentum Problem
"Many hypotheses have been formulated to justify the missing angular momentum, such as the loss of solar mass due to solar radiations, solar wind and solar magnetic field. However, as we will see below, the ejection mass due to these phenomena can not compensate for the missing angular momentum, which remains an unsolved problem to this day, as are the anomalies detected in theTNOs orbits. (...)The Sun only accounts for about 0.6% of the total angular momentum of the solar system! This result is really unexpected since nebular model predicts that most of the mass and angular momentum should be in the Sun. The problem is known as «angular momentum problem». Several hypotheses have been advanced to explain this problem, but there is still no convincing theory."

In other words, no one knows why the currently-computed angular momentum of our Sun (which contains 1000 X more mass than all the planets combined) could possibly amount to a less than 1% of the combined angular momentum of our entire solar system!!! This humongous riddle is, believe it or not, still up for grabs!

Moreover, it makes no sense (under current theory) that our Sun would rotate around its axis as slowly as it does - at 6670km/h (incidentally, near-exactly 4X Earth's rotational speed) whereas Jupiter, for instance, rotates at about 43,000km/h. It is also believed that the Sun's rotational speed is gradually slowing down. Tentative attempts have been made (by 'mainstream' scientists) to explain this other puzzle, yet they appear to belong to the realm of wild speculation ; as one theory goes, the Sun's spin rate is being "slowed down by ... its own photons"!

But let's return to the ANGULAR MOMENTUM riddle - for which a bunch of assorted, wildly speculative theories have been proposed (if you're interested, please look them up for yourself - as I find them overly fanciful and unworthy of mention here...). There exists however a quite sensible and rational explanation for this (heliocentrically-computed) absurdly small angular momentum of the Sun. It is the (well-researched) thesis put forth by the Binary Research Institute.


As you can see, the Binary Research Institute has basically determined that:

IF we assumed that the Sun was moving in a binary orbit with a period of ca. 24,000 years, the Sun would then turn out to have the proper & expected (or in any case, a far less disproportionate) angular momentum (AM) in accordance with its mass.

Well, as it happens, the TYCHOS model has the Sun moving in a binary orbit (with Mars) of approximately 24000 years (or more precisely 25344 years).

This is a short animated gif showing (in four 6336-year "snapshots") how the Sun's orbit, in the TYCHOS model, revolves around our system in 25344 years:

source> The TYCHOSIUM:
Note: In the TYCHOS, the Sun and all the other bodies of our system (except Earth, of course) revolve counterclockwise around Earth, yet their orbits slowly precess clockwise over time - thus "dragging" Earth in a clockwise direction around its 25344-year PVP orbit (blue circle in above animation).

Much like all the binary star systems surrounding us (more than 85% of all visible stars - and counting), our closest star (the Sun) has a "local" orbital path of its own and, of course, completes ONE such orbit every year. This may well go to resolve the historical riddle of the "missing" angular momentum of the Sun - as vividly debated for decades by our modern astronomers. (In stark contrast - as current theory has it - the Sun supposedly employs about 240 MILLION years to complete just ONE of its orbits!)

The TYCHOSIUM solar system simulator is a truly wondrous machine. Here is how it now traces the FULL path of our Sun over 25344 years:


A few years ago, as I was still calculating "by hand" my imagined path of the Sun's 25344-year path, here is what I managed to compose with my little GIMP software, a freely downloadable "image manipulating" program (this diagram is included in Chapter 32 of my TYCHOS book):


All in all, I feel rather satisfied with the 'linear nature' of my ongoing TYCHOS research. Step by step, the Tychosium (a simulator only 2 years young - for which much credit goes to my fellow Swede* and friend Patrik Holmqvist, its genius programmer) is proving the TYCHOS model's paradigm correct.

As for the Sun's ANGULAR MOMENTUM "mystery", I think the TYCHOS speaks for itself - since it resolves the spiny AM question in the simplest imaginable manner : the Sun does indeed have a local (1-year-long) orbit, much like all the binary stars in our universe. Yet, since this fact is not recognized by the proponents of the heliocentric theory, they have become "entrapped" by their very own theory!

*Heja Sverige! I'm really not much of a Swedish patriot (having been an expat for almost my entire life), yet I was born in Sweden - and so was Patrik. And Tycho Brahe's island "Hven" (from where he made his historical observations) is now also part of Sweden - although it was under the Danish crown back then. So allow me to salute all the astronomers of this world - and to raise my glass towards the skies while hollering "Heja Sverige!" Without those patient & rational Swedes, astronomy would keep drifting into la-la-land... ^_^
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Posts: 6734
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Sat May 18, 2019 3:01 am



Dear friends and cosmic free-thinkers,

As I bumped into the Binary Research Institute's website (several years ago) and its most interesting findings, I didn't fully realize at the time what a "treasure trove" I had found. Yes, I did mention - and quoted a few tidbits of - the commendable BRI research in my Tychos book, yet there is much more to it than I had realized back then.

What I am hereby sharing with you in more detail, is the hard evidence (as brilliantly researched, computed and expounded by the BRI) that Earth's supposed "Third Motion" simply does not - and cannot - exist. Earth's "Third Motion" is also known as the "Lunisolar wobble" (under current heliocentric theory, Earth's First and Second motions would be, respectively, Earth's rotation around its axis and its supposed revolution around the Sun).

Earth's "wobble", on the other hand, was (crucially) meant to account for the all-important precession of the equinoxes. It was believed that Earth's polar axis somehow slowly wobbled (ONCE every 25000 years or so) in a clockwise direction around its polar axis - and this, in spite of Earth's permanent counterclockwise rotation! This bizarre and utterly unphysical "clockwise wobble" was also meant to explain why our North (and South) pole stars change over time (e.g. our North Star is currently Polaris - whereas ca. 5000 years ago, Thuban was our North star).

Earth's supposed 25000-year "clockwise wobble" - according to Wikipedia...

Before proceeding any further I must clarify that the Binary Research Institute holds on to the idea of Earth revolving around the Sun (unlike the TYCHOS). Hence, they have never considered Mars as a candidate to be the Sun's binary companion. As far as I can gather, they have speculated (over the years) that Sirius - or some other invisible and/or unidentified star might be the Sun's elusive binary companion. Since none of those hypotheses have ever met with any sort of confirmation, the BRI research is currently in a stalemate. The institute's founder, Walter Cruttenden, appears to have abandoned the research in later years and has, it seems, moved on to more lucrative activities.

In any case, I have to wonder what happened to Walter Cruttenden's former enthusiasm for his groundbreaking astronomy research. As I visited and "mini-toured" the USA last year (with Hoi Polloi), our plan was to visit him in his California office - so we contacted Walter via e-mail, asking him if he would receive us for a brief meeting. Walter flat out declined - i.e. refused to meet us! Nonetheless and anyway, Hoi and I decided to fly and drive to his office and knock on his office door. So we did: we found his office (BRI logo and all) and rang the doorbell... to no avail (the door remained silent and closed).

However, what the rigorous BRI studies have determined (beyond reasonable doubt) is that Earth's supposed 25000-year "Lunisolar wobble" is spurious / non-existent. You will find the full description of how this was determined at the below-linked page of their website (a precious document which I have obviously saved / backed up for history - lest it disappear one dark day from the internets):


In short, the BRI researchers (after having used the lunar motions to prove their case) conclude that...

"The only conclusion is, while the Earth is moving 360 degrees counterclockwise around the Sun in a solar year, the entire solar system (containing the Earth Sun reference frame) is moving clockwise relative to inertial space. The mathematical calculations support no other conclusion."

"No other conclusion?" Well, as we now know, this is not quite correct: the TYCHOS model does indeed provide an alternative (and fully demonstrable) explanation for the annual Eastward drift (about 51" per year) of our entire star field / firmament : in the TYCHOS model, this clockwise motion is - quite simply - due to Earth slowly revolving around its PVP orbit - as our entire system slowly precesses clockwise completing one such "retrograde" precessional cycle in 25344 years (no wobbles required).

Nevertheless, the BRI studies have effectively demolished the fanciful idea of a "wobbling" Earth. The Copernican/Keplerian model is thus left without any explanation for the famed "precession of the equinoxes" (and for our gradually changing/alternating pole stars). Imagine that!

In any event, the BRI research provides one of the most solid confirmations of the TYCHOS model - even though it was never meant to do so. I will therefore take this occasion to warmly thank the BRI for scientifically disproving the very existence of the so-called "Lunisolar wobble".

More evidence of the non-existence of Earth's "Lunisolar wobble" is to be found on this BRI page:
"The earth may experience nutation and minor short term effects but it does not appear to precess 50”p/y relative to objects within the frame of the moving solar system."
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Posts: 6734
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sun May 19, 2019 2:55 am

Congratulations on ever more salient points for the TYCHOS model, which is the most geometrically correct (and most intriguing, inspiring Cartesian system to date). Most of these points are unassailable and appear to beg answers from the obsolete heliocentric "mono-star" model.

TLDR: emotional pleas and comments that Copernican ideas are laughable (but those same ideas or similar ideas are used by TYCHOS) are not as effective as the concrete geometric arguments

And now the long version:
I just want to point out a few problems that I have encountered while trying to use some of the particular wording/arguments set forth here. I am not responsible for these opinions but only trying to point out where Simon's tiny PR team might get more traction and not waste the time I have, while borrowing some of the weaker language used to explain Simon's most unarguably & incredibly powerful TYCHOS discoveries. I won't waste your time with my NASA/ESA conflicts I've gotten into with people, because (as we all know) this is like beating our heads against a wall for those who believe their Hollywood effects depict reality.

However, these are just a few things that I think may be important and maybe we can learn from, if we are willing to learn from them and gain the most from these lessons. That is why I am sharing. I fully expect my advice to be seen as useless to many, and then I'm truly sorry for wasting your time.

1. People do not have issue with the priming concept that "the third motion of Earth doesn't exist ..." but Simon's punchline falls flat. It is seen as a contradiction by most that the 25,344 year "leaning out" of Earth as it makes the TGY movement is not considered a replacement (that is, a third motion) by the TYCHOS model. So it has been more successful for me to point out that the third motion isn't a silly idea but has been misunderstood. Otherwise, TYCHOS calls itself whatever it's throwing at the Copernican by this argument. So I would be cautious with this language. Especially the part about spinning tops, since that argument has never made any sense to anyone I've tested it on, considering TYCHOS still has Earth's tilt rotating clockwise. For most, the slowly-changing tilt of Earth does not radically differ between Copernicus-Newton and Tycho-Shack.

2. People do not seem to have issue with the concept that Venus and Mercury are tidally locked, but the claim we've made in the book that all moons are tidally locked would be worth reconsideration in the next edition. It has been pointed out repeatedly to me that some 'natural satellites' are indeed free from tidal locking. Or they may be in the process of becoming tidally locked. So insisting on this extremism is not as useful to the TYCHOS as pointing out that in the center of the TYCHOS there exists a tendency (towards order? magnetic resonance?) towards tidal locked moon-body relationships. However, the truly incredibly idea deserves attention. And that is why it should only get the attention that pertains to reality rather than wishfully assuming those "other" moon-like things that aren't tidally locked should be seen as exceptions and/or ignored. If a rule in science is broken before it's even made, it shouldn't really be made in the first place.

3. Some people insist that the numbers of the TYCHOS are still not precise enough (despite "precision" being cheated repeatedly by the Copernican system, with cheaters and liars like Galileo, Newton, Einstein, et al). For most laypersons, if the formulas are not made incomprehensibly complex by people like Johannes Kepler, James Bradley, Richard Feinman or Stephen Hawking, they don't trust that it's been "researched enough". That is, as long as completion is fudged to the very point that simulations and computers must take over the calculations, completion is considered superior to proper restraint. Although this position seems intractable to you or I, it seems it has become a nearly universal religious belief for most people in scientific fields who are asked to "respect" fields that have most turned to technological domination. And there are other positions we may find intractable, and yet, there they are.

I cannot possibly speak to the particular nuances and frustrations that others have faced discussing the TYCHOS with others but it has been imperative in mine that respect and deference is shown to such belief as one would show to someone who has the belief in a completely undisprovable God. In trying to understand this, I have allowed myself to consider it many ways, including this one: science comes down to bias and belief; every single time. Questioning someone's core beliefs is not the duty of a scientist as much as it is their duty to present evidence and the best cases for that evidence that cannot be easily reproduced (even if those cases are easily/readily/"unfairly" dismissed by a listener) and then go no further. Then perspectives are exchanged and compared as equally valid before moving on. That is how patient rational arguments have "won" and given us a more "enlightened" period of discourse in harmony with increases in tolerance, fidelity, great food or anything else you wish to credit to good civilization that led us to the discoveries of the TYCHOS. The point is that in my experience people are more open to ideas that are compared as interchangeable in quantity rather than ideas that are interchangeable in quality. This means that the TYCHOS is not "valued currency" as much as even the most nonsensical Einstein stuff. I am often just terrible with analogy. Really comically bad. But maybe in "white" terms, you are not going to convince many to take your bushel of magic wheat for ten fields of cattle. Here's another attempt at metaphor:

Asking people to see that the "all moons are tidally locked" argument is justified, despite it being blatantly unproven and untrue, is a rhetoric on par with Newton's/Einstein's assertions that "matter density is inextricably linked to the force of gravity", and therefore it is at immediate disadvantage to the already winning rhetoric of the day.

Asking people to accept that the "third motion of Earth doesn't exist" while actually ignoring the description of a similar motion is a distraction that doesn't actually work.

If thought about in "wrestling terms", if you wish to land a pinch or a poke on someone in order to weaken the resolve of that set of muscles or distract them from another set of muscles you tend to throw them with, the muscles actually have to be vulnerable. Or it comes across as very pathetic. It may be seen as bravery by some to attempt to "psyche out" a perceived enemy by ankle biting and barking, but it is ultimately foolhardy bravery rather than clever bravery. At least in our day (and I suspect for some time to come) the strength of TYCHOS, just like the strength of the Relativity Hypothesis, isn't in its logic but in the emotional strength of the logic.

TYCHOS has a strong advantage in not turning to emotional pleas or related posturing. Because it shows proper restraint in language most of the time, it is my observation that most people (in my admittedly limited circles but of various backgrounds: U.S.A.-Americans, Europeans of various stripes, Indigenous/Native Indians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, mixed heritage, etc. etc.) would all appreciate the TYCHOS arguments more if its "cool head" would serve as the mouth of the leading statements, while rhetorical arguments like the spinning top, the "all moons" statements or other broad brushes would be kept somehow separated or minimized altogether.

I understand that we cannot help but look at it the way we do. And we are human. Yet if we are to view TYCHOS as something that, as Patrix sagely asked us to recognize, is something that can change opinions sooner than later, we should not try to tackle a complete change in culture all at once, which today is immediately recognized as the work of extremist and emotionally destabilized persons when encountered in person (we do not have the hypnotic power of mass media to convince people of extreme positions while feigning "professional" demeanor, like Fox News or a Hollywood producer). Instead, we should adapt to the culture that exists, and exercise extreme emotional intelligence (true empathy, authentically felt demonstrations of understanding and respect of the other) in approaching others about this topic, which still has a chance to be respected and to not waste all of its "social capital" in making arguments that ask for too much immediate trust.

The TYCHOS represents much more intelligence than the light that some of its proposed arguments are casting it in.

The foundation of the TYCHOS could be so strong and even important to our proper understanding of nature, that the more we appear within the cultural context (that none of us can escape from) as people who show a strict deference to amazing mathematical logic and an active distaste for anything less, the more the TYCHOS will gain its deserved respect in the minds of people today. In fact, its foundation is so strong that it seems barring catastrophe it will be faced and addressed eventually. Perhaps even sooner than we'd expect.

But that doesn't mean I do expect that. And I don't wish to see TYCHOS lose precious time/appreciation by failing to understand the difference I am hopefully articulating here.

Personally, I think the TYCHOS is an important understanding that opens up entirely new avenues of possibility, with respect to achieving reconciliation and peace between various cultures with what I dare to call equally important discoveries we would otherwise not fathom. Yet, it could fail as a tool to bridging unique and valuable contexts if it insists too highly on replacing dominant contexts (like the Copernican view, which has been at times unfortunately impressed upon humanity's most visionary members). And I don't know if my view is shared or even seen by others, but I just wish to make it known so that it's clear why I'm posting.

Thank you for reading and considering. It has been a slow day at work.
Posts: 5062
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Sun May 19, 2019 9:12 pm


Dear Hoi, thanks for your truly fine considerations - and obviously well-meant constructive musings and advice. Good to hear from you, btw !

I'd say that I pretty much agree with you on all your points, that is, except for your first one (concerning the issue of Earth's non-existing "wobble").

See, this particular issue was raised the other day by "Paul" - a Swedish veteran astronomer with whom Patrik and I have exchanged innumerable mails in the last few months (for privacy, I'll just call him "Paul"). Paul is no "friend" of the TYCHOS, on the contrary: his energies are quite clearly spent trying to disprove it (and he quite often indulges in rather cheap, sarcastic and derisive remarks as he types away). However, I think that Patrik can bear witness to the fact that none of the points that professor Paul has presented so far have, so to speak, "rattled the foundations" of the TYCHOS model. However, Patrik and I agree that Paul's expert critique is precisely what we need at this time in order to learn which weaker arguments presented in the TYCHOS book might need some refining in its 2nd edition.

So, since Paul had insisted adamantly in a couple of mails that, in his view, the Earth "still wobbles" in the TYCHOS model, I responded to him with these lines:

simonshack wrote:No, Paul : the Earth in the TYCHOS does not wobble. It stays tilted in (almost*) the same manner at all times.
(although this tilt angle / obliquity seemingly oscillates slightly - by about 2.4° over thousands of years).

To verify this for yourself, take a globe and hold it with your arms outstretched in front of your nose (with the globe's Northern Hemisphere leaning at a ca. 23°angle away from your nose). Now, start slowly rotating your feet - while remaining in the same spot - so that your body eventually spins around itself by 360°. Did you see the globe wobble? I don't think so. Earth's polar axis stays (almost*) stably inclined throughout its 25344 journey - and that's the whole point with the PVP orbit: Earth does not wobble - it simply proceeds around its circular path while keeping the (almost*) same inclination.

*By "almost", I am referring to the current understanding of Earth's fluctuating obliquity - as stated on Wikipedia: "Earth's obliquity oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle; Earth's mean obliquity is currently 23°26′12.4″ (or 23.43677°) and decreasing. At present, it is decreasing at a rate of about 47″ per century."

Here is what Paul eventually (and most graciously) admitted :
Paul wrote:OK, I'll change my mind. The Earth does not wobble in TYCHOSIUM, I agree.

I looked up "wobble" in Wictionary

"Wobble" has several different meanings of course, but the meaning which is relevant here is: "An unsteady motion."

In the TYCHOS model, Earth has no third motion - it only has two (very steady) motions: (1) its rotational motion around its polar axis and (2) its 1-mph motion around its 25344-year PVP orbit. The fact that Earth is leaning towards a given "side" of the zodiac today - and will lean towards the opposite "side" of the zodiac in about 12500 years - doesn't constitute a "third motion". It is just a natural consequence of the 2nd. Earth's polar axis remains tilted at (almost) the same angle at all times.


As for your point about the moons' tidal locking (and how it cannot be called a "universal rule"), I fully agree with you, dear Hoi. That part in my book (where I uncautiously state that one of the defining features of all moons is that they are tidally locked with their hosts) is probably in error - and needs to be amended in the book's 2nd edition.

However, on Wikipedia we can read that :
"Most major moons in the Solar System − the gravitationally rounded satellites − are tidally locked with their primaries, because they orbit very closely and tidal force increases rapidly (as a cubic function) with decreasing distance."

So yes, it is most moons (and not all moons) that are considered to be tidally locked. At least, this is the current consensus - although it is also admitted that it is oftentimes quite hard to tell (even with our best modern technology) whether a given, small & distant "lunar" celestial body (e.g. the many moons of Jupiter & Saturn) is tidally locked to its host or not. So I think the question remains open - yet I agree that it was wrong to suggest / imply in the TYCHOS book that ALL moons in our universe are tidally locked to their host stars / or planets.

As for your well-expressed musings regarding how we should ideally show caution and restraint at all times (so as not to become equally guilty of the same self-assuredness, arrogance and dogmatic ways of "the Copernican disciples") - I cannot agree with you more. Humility is the wisdom of the sage. I am aware of the fact that I sometimes get carried away whenever some new apparent confirmation of the TYCHOS model comes along - and of my over-eagerness to share it with our readers (in perhaps over-enthusiastic manner). To my "defense", I would ask everyone to exert some leniency towards my ways: if I can sometimes seem to announce a given new finding with too much fanfare, it is only because I'm hoping (against hope) that my enthusiasm will make people at large take a little more interest in astronomy... in general! To be sure, astronomy has become some sort of "untouchable" science to most people on this planet - due to the almost religious faith placed in the sacrosanct edicts of a restrict number of thinkers (e.g. Kepler / Newton / Galileo / Einstein) - even though their "scientific Laws" have been, over time, proven to be fallible by a large number of independent (yet highly qualified) studies.

We all live for only a limited time on this planet (as far as I know), so let us not allow our passion for discovery be thwarted and dulled down by the social / intellectual / "scientifically correct" boundaries and constrictions set in place by those "luminaries" who claim to have sussed it all out. Our universe is very far from being understood by humankind ("black holes", "dark matter", "ever-expanding universe", "cosmic background radiation" etc. are all wild, unproven assumptions) - and no honest person would deny this fact. Yet, if we haven't even properly figured out the actual geometric configuration and dynamics of our own little solar system, what can humankind claim to "truly know" - at this moment in history?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Posts: 6734
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 0 guests