Introducing the TYCHOS

[simonshack]

I guess what is baffling to me is when you say that the movement all takes place in the last four minutes. I can’t see that . . . I see the star moving incrementally over the whole 24 hr period. Do Copernicans say that the movement takes place in the last four minutes of the day? Is there another way of you putting this?

On a practical level I’ve another question. How are these observations taking place when the stars are not visible throughout the day when the Sun is at its zenith?

Dear Peaker,

I can certainly appreciate your "bafflehood" - as it took me a long, long time to wrap my head around this spiny yet fundamental sidereal-vs-solar day issue !

No, Copernicans don't say that. They say that, at the completion of a sidereal DAY (23h56min) a given star will return to the same RA position it had "one year earlier" - whereas the Sun has then moved "to the left"(Eastwards) by about 4minutes - which is, of course, precisely what is observed. Hence, they say that 4 more minutes are needed for the earthly observer to line up again with the Sun (the solar DAY - 24h). In this short 4-min period, BOTH the star and the Sun are in fact observed to move by ca. 4 minutes "to the right" (Westwards).

But there's a problem with this - a HUGE problem (that is, under the Copernican paradigm) - and I now realize that this whole issue can be better explained as follows. Dear Peaker, I would like you to perform the following simple experiment - based on this three-frame animation that I posted yesterday:



1: Hold up your index finger in front of your eyes and call it "the SUN". Your head / cranium will be "EARTH", ok?

2: Choose a distant tree in your neighborhood and call it "a distant STAR".

3: Place your index finger slightly to the right of the tree (just as in the above animation showing the Sun slightly to the right of that reference star).

4: Now, hold your finger steady and move your head sideways (from left to right) so as to enact/simulate Earth's supposed daily (left-to-right) 2.5-million-km displacement due to its alleged counter-clockwise (and hypersonic) orbital motion around the Sun (as of Copernican heliocentric theory). You will see your finger moving CLOSER to the tree. So far so good : this is what is indeed observed.

5: Next, slowly ROTATE your head ever-so-slightly to the left (so as to enact/simulate those 4 minutes of Earth's rotation separating the sidereal day from the solar day ). Uh oh !... You will see your (immobile) finger moving again FURTHER AWAY from the tree - as if the Sun now receded from our reference star.

Well, this is certainly NOT what is observed ! What is observed during those crucial 4 minutes (as shown in my above animation I made using screenshots of the NEAVE Planetarium) is that BOTH the Sun and the reference star drift to the right (or "Westwards") at a pretty much equal rate. The Sun does NOT recede from the reference star in those 4minutes - since it continues to move Eastwards (at its constant orbital speed of 107,226 km/h) - just as propounded by the TYCHOS model.

*********************
PS: As for your question regarding "daylight observations of stars"(which are extremely hard yet not impossible), please understand that we may reasonably trust the stars' daytime celestial positions as simulated by the various online digital planetariums.

[Peaker]

Thankyou for this reply, Simon

And I am grateful to this forum, it is a great resource.

When I first picked up the Tychos I wasn''t expecting much, to be honest. I came to it in an odd way. I'll try not to bore you.

While listening to an E. Michael Jones interview some months back I experienced some Cognitive Dissonance when, for seven whole minutes, he went on about Geocentrism. There was a ringing in my ears and I stumbled to the computer to see what Google had to say. Only two results came up. The Tychos and Robert Sungenis 'Fool on the Hill' documentary. So I bought both right there and thought that would settle it. By the time The Tychos arrived I had watched the Sungenis film at least four times and had worked out that the Copernicans were not on all-that-solid a ground but figured I'd probably never really know the truth of it and was preparing to move on. Yes, I even regretted my rushed purchase of The Tychos! Old age can make you crabby and pennypinching, I admit it!

So, long story short, I'm in shock and intend to read The Tychos as many times as I need to to grasp each topic.

Looking forward to the second edition.

Garry

[Peaker]

Dear Simon,

I was watching Antiques Roadshow last night when the objects displayed were two beautiful brass sundials from early 20th Century, these instruments surprised me in their complexity, I did not know anything about modern sundials whatsoever. The owner was from British Sundial Society(?). He carefully explained that they weren’t accurate and could be as much as 15 minutes fast or slow.

Now, having just reread the chapt. 26 you can imagine what I was thinking!

This is an excellent teaching tool for the ‘Equation of Time’, no? On an audio interview with you, Simon, you said something about the Analemma being key to your first doubts re the Copernican System, I’m paraphrasing pls correct me if I’m wrong. In my mind I can see the time-lapse photo of the Analemma over Athens, complete with ruins for Earthly perspective and here, in the shot are these two brass sundials with their moving shadows for each shot of the Sun.

This ‘down to Earth’ demonstration of the Tychos might be a good starting point for newbies.

Regards,

[simonshack]

*

THE TYCHOS EXPLAINS THE EQUINOX-TO-EQUINOX INEQUALITY

Dear friends,

It is a little-known fact that the interval between the Vernal equinox and the Autumnal equinox are unequal. The former is actually 7 days longer than the latter.

From the Encyclopaedia Brittanica:

"The intervals of time between the equinoxes and solstices are not equal. There are about seven days more between the vernal and autumnal equinox, than between the autumnal and the vernal. Hence we learn, that the motion of the sun in its orbit is not uniform. Numerous observations, made with precision, have ascertained, that the sun moves fastest in a point of his orbit situated near the winter sostice, and slowest near the summer solstice." https://books.google.it/books?id=fZxF_h ... &q&f=false

As you can see, current theory once again attributes this inequality to the supposed speeding up and slowing down (acceleration / deceleration) of the Sun.

The curious fact of the 7-day equinox-to-equinox inequality is best summed up by this quote from professor Mehran Moalem of UC Berkeley :
"There are 186 days between Spring and Autumn Equinox and 179 days between Autumn and next year Spring Equinox." https://www.quora.com/In-the-Northern-h ... -the-Earth

In these many years of relentless research, I have been unable to find any astronomy texts that explain (in any intelligible manner) what sort of forces would alternately speed up and slow any celestial body. As you may know, the TYCHOS model holds that the Sun - and ALL the celestial bodies in our solar system - move at constant speeds around uniformly circular orbits. So what exactly, you may ask, would cause this odd 7-day inequality between the roughly semestral equinox-to-equinox intervals? To be sure, the heliocentric Copernican model has no rational answer to this question - nor much less any sort of quantitative nor qualitative evidence in support of same: it certainly cannot be explained by Earth's supposed precessional "Lunisolar wobble", since this would be a constant / immutable motion - if Earth were to revolve around a central Sun surrounded by the "fixed" stars.

Here's my proposed illustrated answer to this question:


Note: Earth size NOT TO SCALE with Earth's PVP orbit's size

But why 7 days? Why exactly 7 days? Can the TYCHOS model qualitatively and even quantitavely account for this peculiar 7-day inequality?

Indeed, it can:

As expounded in my book, the TYCHOS model posits that Earth revolves (360°) around its PVP orbit once every 25344 years - or 9,256,150 days.

7 days are a very small fraction of 9,256,150 days. To be precise, 7 days is just about 0.000075625395 % of 9,256,150 days.

Now, we see that 0.000075625395 % of 360°(a full circle) amounts to 0.000272251422°.

We also see that, in 25344 years, there are 1,322,307.142857 weeks (of 7 days).

Let us now multiply this number of weeks with this (observed) angular divergence of 0.000272251422° which, according to the TYCHOS, simply reflects the progressive revolution of Earth around its PVP orbit - over a period of 1,322,307.142857 weeks:

1,322,307.142857 X 0.000272251422° = 359.9999999°(or... pretty close to 360°!)

Bingo.

The TYCHOS model, I dare say, is here to stay.

[nokidding]

Dear Simon, I think there may be two problems with this.

1) The sun travels with the Earth as it revolves around it.

2) In Sidereal terms the calculation is still wrong.

In one half year (between the Equinoxes) the Earth travels 0.0071 degrees around the centre of the PVP orbit.

The shift in the tangent in half a year is thus 0.0071 degrees.

Converting this to days

0.0071 / 360 x 365 = 0.0072 days

This would be the difference between the two equinox periods (under the false assumption that the sun keeps sidereal time).

I am no great mathematician however.

nk

[simonshack]

*
Dear Nokidding, thanks for your reply - I now realize that my above exposé is far from complete / exhaustive - and fully understand your perplexity.

Let me try and clarify this particular issue, it's a rather complex one for sure! Firstly, let me quote another sentence by professor Mehran Moalem:

"The sum of Spring and Summer in Northern hemisphere is 3.9% longer than the sum of Autumn and Winter."
https://www.quora.com/In-the-Northern-h ... -the-Earth

So let's forget for a minute the (potentially confusing) notion of the "7-day discrepancy" between the A-to-B and the B-to-A periods (as illustrated in my above diagram). To wit, these 7 days are - so to speak - only "virtual": they are only an assumed discrepancy extrapolated by Copernican astronomers on the basis of their heliocentric computations of Earth's so-called general precession (believed to be caused by Earth slowly "wobbling" in the opposed direction of its axial rotation - and completing one 360° "wobble" in 25771 years). Let me just briefly remind you that this "wobble" has been disproved in recent years, i.e. it cannot exist. That's right: the Copernican model has currently NO explanation for the very "precession of the equinoxes" (or as they call it today, the "general precession")!

Now, we see that Copernican astronomers reckon that "the sum of Spring and Summer in the Northern Hemisphere is 3.9% longer than the sum of Autumn and Winter". What we need to focus on is just that: how exactly have they determined this 3.9% inequality? Well, please stay with me - as I'll do my best to expound just how they may have reached this mathematical (yet illusory) conclusion.

Copernicans have calculated that the "Great Year's" duration (the time it takes for Earth to complete ONE "backward wobble" around its axis) is approximately 25771 years. Mind you, they say that this period may well become shorter, since the rate of increase of the general precession is observed to grow exponentially - although they have so far failed to offer any kind of explanation as to why this would be the case. But let's get on.

So let's see: 25771 years amount to about 9,412,664 (Gregorian) days. We see that this number of days contains roughly 51542 semesters (i.e. half-years).

However, Copernican astronomers have noticed - via solar vs sidereal observations - that the Sun aligns with the stars (every semester) in an "unexpectedly unequal" manner: every six months or so, there seems to be a circa 0.0000756 % discrepancy between the length of Spring & Summer and the length of Autumn & Winter.

Over a full (Copernican) Great Year, this adds up to a (perceived) discrepancy between the lengths of Spring/Summer versus Autumn/ Winter of:

51542 X 0.0000756 % = 3,8965752 % (or practically 3.9%)

Hence, they have concluded that "The sum of Spring and Summer in Northern hemisphere is 3.9% (i.e. about 7 days) longer than the sum of Autumn and Winter."

Those 7 days are therefore illusory - and the TYCHOS model elucidates the underlying reasons for this Copernican illusion.

I hope this helps clarify my above post.

[Peaker]

Hello All,

I have a request regarding an expanded explanation for retrograde motion. More specifically, the time-frame for such.

The Tychos only touches upon this area. Could we have a detailed explanation of the time-frame for the duration of the event? ie actual time taken versus theoretical time needed?

For instance, what is the official start and stop points of a retrograde motion or event? or is it all just fuzzy definitions? and is there a more detailed explanation of the causes of retrograde motion than what appears in Wikipedia?

Has anyone done a thorough debunking of it? This is surely an Archilles Heel, no?

Regards, Garry

[simonshack]

Hello All,
I have a request regarding an expanded explanation for retrograde motion. More specifically, the time-frame for such.

The Tychos only touches upon this area. Could we have a detailed explanation of the time-frame for the duration of the event? ie actual time taken versus theoretical time needed?

Dear Peaker,

Thanks for asking!

The TYCHOSIUM (the simulator of the TYCHOS model) does indeed show the retrograde motions precisely as they are observed from Earth. Here are two screenshots I made from the TYCHOSIUM depicting the retrograde periods of Mars in 2003 and in 2010. I chose those two dates since they are perfect examples of a "closest" (2003) and a "furthest" (2010) passage of Mars from Earth, as the red planet transits in so-called opposition.

Around the (exceptionally close) Mars opposition which occurred on August 28, 2003 - Mars was observed to retrograde (for 61 days) as depicted below:



Around the (far more distant) Mars opposition which occurred on March 3, 2012 - Mars was observed to retrograde (for 83 days) as depicted below :



As you can see, the TYCHOSIUM simulator provides a plain, graphic explanation as to why those retrograde periods are of unequal lenghts/durations. Please know that it is a well-known fact that the average duration of Mars's retrograde periods is 72 days. And in fact, 61+83=144 / 2 = 72.

You may wish to verify for yourself that Mars truly retrograded just as described in my above screenshots by perusing the Stellarium simulator: https://stellarium-web.org/

[Peaker]

Thankyou Simon, this is a good start. Your explanation makes perfect sense.

Staratlas.com is not giving me a view of the Solar System on my iPad, I’ll try my desktop at my first opportunity. I would like to see the overhead view of the Solar System(Earth & Mars) running on these exact dates using the Copernican system. As in 72 days Earth would cover 1/5 of its supposed orbit and Mars 1/9.

I think what I’m looking for is the Mars/Earth version of the excellent figures 34 & 35 on page 38 of The Tychos.

I’m introducing this concept to several friends and I want to be able to show clearly why the Copernican system may account for the event but not its duration.

To be clear, Mars is at a dead standstill when the tangent of Earth is pointing directly at it (as Earth approaches) and Mars will appear to retrograde until the said tangent points once more at it. While this obvious to me I’d like to see a breakdown of this into its component parts.

On this same page you put out a challenge to Copernican advocates, has the silence been deafening? You may remember the long-standing debate challenge on WTC 7 which was never picked up. I can understand that a professional is timid but where are the feisty students?

The night sky is all the more interesting now.

[simonshack]

I think what I’m looking for is the Mars/Earth version of the excellent figures 34 & 35 on page 38 of The Tychos book.

Dear Peaker,

Here are the two figures you are referring to (from Chapter 7 of my TYCHOS book) - which I made using screenshots from the (Copernican) SCOPE simulator :





As you can see, in the case of Venus and Mercury it is relatively easy to demonstrate that the durations of their observed retrograde periods are incompatible with the Copernican geometry. This, because these two so-called "inner planets" (or as I call them, the Sun's two moons) pass between Earth and the Sun and, therefore, the Sun can be used as a central reference point to estimate what should be the expected duration of their retrograde periods. Clearly, it doesn't add up.

As for Mars (and the other "outer planets"), it is a bit of a different affair - since they never pass between Earth and the Sun. As I have extensively expounded in my book and on this forum, other methods can be used to demonstrate the inconsistencies of their observed behavior vis-à-vis the geometric paradigms of the heliocentric model. Mars in particular presents a number of insurmountable problems for the Copernican theory which I have illustrated in various posts on this forum:

MARS vs THE STARS - the Tychosium explains their "bizarre" conjunctions : viewtopic.php?p=2412399#p2412399
DEFINITIVE PROOF OF MARS'S MOTION - IN THE TYCHOS MODEL : viewtopic.php?p=2412705#p2412705
WHY MARS? : viewtopic.php?p=2412896#p2412896

However, I'm happy to keep submitting additional evidence as to how the Copernican model is geometrically impossible (as it is, I find it a quite enjoyable pastime!)

Today, a new idea (as to how this can be clearly illustrated) sprung to my mind. Again, it has to do with the observed retrograde motions of Mars. So let's see :

On June 10, 2018 Mars was observed to transit in the middle of the Capricorn constellation - more precisely at RA 20h44min and DECL -21°44'.
On October 5, 2018 Mars was again observed to transit in the middle of the Capricorn constellation - more precisely at RA 20h44min and DECL -21°50'

In other words, on those two dates (separated by 117 days), Mars was observed transiting at practically the exact same celestial longitudes AND latitudes.

Here are these two Mars transits - as shown on the STAR ATLAS simulator:



A few questions naturally spring to mind : HOW could Mars possibly return to the same spot in the sky, if Earth has moved (in 117 days) around its supposed Copernican orbit around the Sun by almost ONE THIRD of a full year? Moreover, HOW could Mars possibly return not only to the same RA (celestial longitude) but ALSO to the same DECLINATION (celestial latitude), since the 23.5° tilt of Earth causes the Sun (and all our surrounding planets) to bob heftily up & down in our skies over the seasons (by a massive 47° in total)? Is Mars somehow "immune" to those hefty latitudinal oscillations? Last but not least, you may ask yourself: HOW exactly would a Copernican orrery depict the relative positions of Earth and Mars on those two dates - as seen from ABOVE our North Pole?

Well, here's the answer to that last question - courtesy of the JS ORRERY :



At this point, I trust that you'll start to envision the utter absurdity of the Copernican model's proposed geometry - and that its advocates will start writhing in pain.

To relieve everyone from their misery, here's the simple explanation for Mars's observed behavior - courtesy of the lovely TYCHOSIUM simulator :



As you can see, Mars will return to the same place in our skies on those two dates simply because... it actually / physically returns to that same place !

Please feel free, dear readers, to peruse the TYCHOSIUM simulator to verify all of this for yourselves. The TYCHOS model, I dare say, is here to stay.

[Peaker]

Well, thank-you once again. I can’t be the only one out there who sees this as something monumental but it certainly feels that way at times. You would think that many young students of astronomy would have a great time trying to poke holes in this explanation but they are absent...somehow demoralised. I am thinking Don Quixote, are there no young guns in the astronomy field who would tilt at windmills?

Have you heard the saying “The map is not the territory” ? It rings in my ears these days.

PS I felt a need to edit to this post to better explain myself

[patrix]

My thoughts as well Peaker. Simon and I have been working on this for some time now. And the evidence has been steadily increasing. The latest on being the slam dunk with Halleys.

But to paraphrase Dave McGowan regarding the fake Moon Landings: The reason so few questions the Moon Landings isn't lack of evidence but fear. If this is true then the world is very different and scary compared to my current world view.

[aa5]

*

THE TYCHOS EXPLAINS THE EQUINOX-TO-EQUINOX INEQUALITY

Dear friends,

It is a little-known fact that the interval between the Vernal equinox and the Autumnal equinox are unequal. The former is actually 7 days longer than the latter.

From the Encyclopaedia Brittanica:

"The intervals of time between the equinoxes and solstices are not equal. There are about seven days more between the vernal and autumnal equinox, than between the autumnal and the vernal. Hence we learn, that the motion of the sun in its orbit is not uniform. Numerous observations, made with precision, have ascertained, that the sun moves fastest in a point of his orbit situated near the winter sostice, and slowest near the summer solstice." https://books.google.it/books?id=fZxF_h ... &q&f=false

As you can see, current theory once again attributes this inequality to the supposed speeding up and slowing down (acceleration / deceleration) of the Sun.

The curious fact of the 7-day equinox-to-equinox inequality is best summed up by this quote from professor Mehran Moalem of UC Berkeley :
"There are 186 days between Spring and Autumn Equinox and 179 days between Autumn and next year Spring Equinox." https://www.quora.com/In-the-Northern-h ... -the-Earth

In these many years of relentless research, I have been unable to find any astronomy texts that explain (in any intelligible manner) what sort of forces would alternately speed up and slow any celestial body. As you may know, the TYCHOS model holds that the Sun - and ALL the celestial bodies in our solar system - move at constant speeds around uniformly circular orbits. So what exactly, you may ask, would cause this odd 7-day inequality between the roughly semestral equinox-to-equinox intervals? To be sure, the heliocentric Copernican model has no rational answer to this question - nor much less any sort of quantitative nor qualitative evidence in support of same: it certainly cannot be explained by Earth's supposed precessional "Lunisolar wobble", since this would be a constant / immutable motion - if Earth were to revolve around a central Sun surrounded by the "fixed" stars.

Here's my proposed illustrated answer to this question:



But why 7 days? Why exactly 7 days? Can the TYCHOS model qualitatively and even quantitavely account for this peculiar 7-day inequality?

Indeed, it can:

As expounded in my book, the TYCHOS model posits that Earth revolves (360°) around its PVP orbit once every 25344 years - or 9,256,150 days.

7 days are a very small fraction of 9,256,150 days. To be precise, 7 days is just about 0.000075625395 % of 9,256,150 days.

Now, we see that 0.000075625395 % of 360°(a full circle) amounts to 0.000272251422°.

We also see that, in 25344 years, there are 1,322,307.142857 weeks (of 7 days).

Let us now multiply this number of weeks with this (observed) angular divergence of 0.000272251422° which, according to the TYCHOS, simply reflects the progressive revolution of Earth around its PVP orbit - over a period of 1,322,307.142857 weeks:

1,322,307.142857 X 0.000272251422° = 359.9999999°(or... pretty close to 360°!)

Bingo.

The TYCHOS model, I dare say, is here to stay.

Note: I am a believer in the Tychos model. The current Copernican model just cant explain what we see with Mars. And it also gives absurd distances for Stars we see, which makes me doubt it to start with. (it has to do this to try to explain away the parallax issues)

But imo the logic on this post isn't right. Basically you divided by a number, and then multiplied by the same number and that got back to the original amount.

I also looked up the Vernal Equinox & Autumnal Equinox durations and according to Wikipedia its even more skewed than your numbers. By using the time between dates calculator and their dates for the Equinoxes I got a 204 days for the A to B time period and 161 days for the B to A time period.

Using trigonometry & the Earth's radius of 6,378 km I then calculated what the Earth's PVP orbit's radius would be, if I assumed your brilliant diagram that showed the different sections of the circle, was the explanation for the difference in time for the A to B time period as compared to the B to A time period. The answer I got was 17,336 km. This then would give a circumference of the PVP orbit as 108,870 km.

You might think I would dismiss this radius I calculated right away because of the low amount of it. But you see I am a believer that the Sun is far, far, far closer to us than other theories say.

I came to the belief that the Sun is much closer to us based on simple observation. It just doesn't look like an object that is so far away, like when I see the light from the Sun seen from above the clouds when I went on an airplane. Or heck just looking at it from the ground, does it look that far away? I think simple observation of reality is an incredibly powerful way to find the truth. Obviously a Sun that much closer would have to be proportionally that much smaller than we believe as well.

Reading the Wikipedia article's definition of what the definition of the Equinoxes are I got extremely confused in general. They say the Earth is tilted along its North to South magnetic field axis, in relationship to the Sun. And that this tilt explains the seasons in the Northern & the Southern hemispheres. Which I think it makes sense so far, that the Sun would be closer to one Hemisphere or the other and that Hemisphere would get more sunlight, depending on where the Earth was in its orbit of the Sun.

Although I would add here that if the Sun was really as far away as they say, a thousand km of difference at most would make literally zero difference in the intensity of the Sun. It would be like .00000001% difference, which is clearly not what we feel with the heat of summer. They may try to argue that its not the distance but the duration of the day that is in the Sunlight, but my experience in the winter as compared to the summer is that the Sun is noticeably hotter in the Summer.

If we assume the Sun is actually more like 17,000 km away from the Earth, even a 500 km difference in how close a place was to the Sun depending on the where the Earth was in its orbit, then it could mathematically explain a difference between like 30 degrees versus 10 degrees.

Where I was most confused is my understanding from reading the Wikipedia article is they said during the Equinox the Sun is exactly aligned with the North-South magnetic axis of the Earth, and I think aligned with the Equator. But I don't know how the *$#@ that would be possible if the Earth was tilted, no matter where it was in the orbit. The only way I could think of is if the Earth was also massively shifting in the Z axis(up and down) relative to the Sun.

[simonshack]

Using trigonometry & the Earth's radius of 6,378 km I then calculated what the Earth's PVP orbit's radius would be, if I assumed your brilliant diagram that showed the different sections of the circle, was the explanation for the difference in time for the A to B time period as compared to the B to A time period. The answer I got was 17,336 km. This then would give a circumference of the PVP orbit as 108,870 km.

Dear aa5, there's a misunderstanding! My bad though, as I forgot to specify (in that diagram of mine) that Earth is NOT TO SCALE in relation to its PVP orbit (I have now added this in red type underneath the diagram). As described & illustrated in my book, the circumference of the PVP orbit is estimated to be 355,724,597 km.

Concerning the duration of A>B (186 days) versus the duration of B>A (179 days) in my diagram, I do believe this is correct - and can only wonder where on Wikipedia you read something different. For instance - as of Wikipedia's EQUINOX page, the table at top right shows that the coming A>B equinox period will span between March 20, 2020 and September 22, 2020 - i.e. 186 days. Whereas the next period spanning from September 22, 2020 to March 20, 2021 will last for 179 days. Ergo, a 7-day difference.

As for the Earth-to-Sun distance (currently believed to be about 150 Mkm), let me expound my stance on this particular issue. For my TYCHOS calculations, I have been "going with" the officially-accepted distances to the celestial bodies comprised within our Solar System - as they have been estimated using the trigonometrical baseline of Earth's 12756-km diameter (which I believe is a well-established value). To be sure, you are not alone in questioning the 150Mkm (Earth>Sun) figure, a.k.a. 1 Astronomical Unit. However, even if this figure should - some time in the future - be found to be in error (e.g. if the Sun turns out to be much closer than believed), I'm confident that this would not alter the RELATIVE distances between our little Solar System's "family members". The TYCHOS model's geometry would still hold true - and all we'd have to do is to scale down all our distance values (in km) between Earth and its "family members" proportionally.

Regarding Earth's 23.5° axial tilt (and why summers are hotter than winters), I'm not sure what issues you seem to have with this. Please know that no one is saying that summers are hotter due to the reduced Earth-Sun distance in km (caused by the tilt). It is said to be due (principally) to the significantly different angle / incidence of the sun rays in summer and winter - and is conventionally illustrated as follows:
SUMMER_____________________WINTER


Personally, I have no problems with this conventional explanation. Besides, if Earth's axis wasn't tilted, what would explain the fact that our North Pole enjoys about 6 months of daylight in the summer (versus 6 months of darkness in the winter)? As for your last question regarding the Equinox alignment with the North-South magnetic axis of the Earth (and the "Z axis" that you mention), I'm not sure what your point is - perhaps you could reformulate your question with more clarity? Thanks ! :-)

[aa5]

Dear aa5, there's a misunderstanding! My bad though, as I forgot to specify (in that diagram of mine) that Earth is NOT TO SCALE in relation to its PVP orbit (I have now added this in red type underneath the diagram). As described & illustrated in my book, the circumference of the PVP orbit is estimated to be 355,724,597 km.

Concerning the duration of A>B (186 days) versus the duration of B>A (179 days) in my diagram, I do believe this is correct - and can only wonder where on Wikipedia you read something different. For instance - as of Wikipedia's EQUINOX page, the table at top right shows that the coming A>B equinox period will span between March 20, 2020 and September 22, 2020 - i.e. 186 days. Whereas the next period spanning from September 22, 2020 to March 20, 2021 will last for 179 days. Ergo, a 7-day difference.

Oh you are right on the dates, I must have incorrectly entered the dates. I redid it on the timeanddate.com 'days between dates' calculator and got the A>B period as 186 days, and the B>A period as 179 days.

So with this I used the known radius of the Earth of 6,378 km and trigonometry again to get the circumference of the PVP orbit in that diagram. But this time I got the circumference as 665,533.84 km. (Radius of 105,923 km) This would be if the PVP orbit is the explanation of the difference in times between the A>B period and the B>A period.

For the trigonometry I drew a straight line between A & B(AB). Then I 'by construction' drew a parallel line to AB that went through the center of the Earth. The next step was to use the radius of the Earth as one side, this allowed me to make right angle triangles and one isosceles triangle to calculate the radius of the PVP orbit in the diagram. If someone could do trig to get the answer to double check my number. As its possible I have a logical error somewhere.

As for the Earth-to-Sun distance (currently believed to be about 150 Mkm), let me expound my stance on this particular issue. For my TYCHOS calculations, I have been "going with" the officially-accepted distances to the celestial bodies comprised within our Solar System - as they have been estimated using the trigonometrical baseline of Earth's 12756-km diameter (which I believe is a well-established value). To be sure, you are not alone in questioning the 150Mkm (Earth>Sun) figure, a.k.a. 1 Astronomical Unit. However, even if this figure would - some time in the future - be found to be in error (e.g. if the Sun turns out to be much closer than believed), I'm confident that this would not alter the RELATIVE distances between our little Solar Sytem's "family members". The TYCHOS model's geometry would still hold true - and all we'd have to do is to scale down our values (in km) proportionally.

That makes sense, that is why it doesn't affect my belief in the Tychos model, is all the distance changes would do is change the sizes of the celestial bodies.

Regarding Earth's 23.5° axial tilt (and why summers are hotter than winters), I'm not sure what issues you seem to have with this. Please know that no one is saying that summers are hotter due to the reduced Earth-Sun distance in km (caused by the tilt). It is said to be (mostly) due to the significantly different angle / incidence of the sun rays in summer and winter - and is conventionally illustrated as follows:

I guess that makes sense the angle of incidence of the Sun's rays. I wouldn't think the angle of the Sun's rays would make that much difference, unless it was at an extreme angle like your diagram, but it must be that the Sun is at a more extreme angle than I was thinking during the winter.

For example the difference between 73 degree & 90 degrees in that diagram on the size of the square of ground being hit by the same amount of sunlight would only be 1.04 meters² versus 1.00 meters².

Personally, I have no problems with this conventional explanation. Besides, if Earth's axis wasn't tilted, what would explain the fact that our North Pole enjoys about 6 months of daylight in the summer (versus 6 months of darkness in the winter)? As for your last question regarding the Equinox alignment with the North-South magnetic axis of the Earth (and the "Z axis" that you mention), I'm not sure what your point is - perhaps you could reformulate your question with more clarity? Thanks ! :-)

Yes I agree with that. The tilt of the Earth elegantly describes the differences in day lengths as you move up and down the Earth, depending on where the Earth is in its rotation around the Sun.

What got me confused was how the turning of the planet at the Equinox makes the Sun rise in the direct East(as the tilt I was thinking would make it appear to come from an angle to East). But playing with a model I made I think it might be that it appears to come from the East.