Introducing the TYCHOS

[simonshack]

*
Dear all, I know... it's been a while since I've published any new Tychos research - but rest assured that I've not been sleeping and have kept incessantly digging for further confirmations of the model's validity. This last finding of mine (concerning Ernest Esclangon's observations) may - hopefully - take your breath away (although in a totally harmless, non-lethal manner !).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

*

ESCLANGON'S "DISSIMMETRY OF SPACE"

I never cease to marvel at the amazingly precise observations made by some of the best astronomers of yesteryear - as they tried to make sense of this enigmatic Solar System of ours. Their tireless dedication to the noble quest of unveiling the secrets of our cosmos has not been in vain - and I'm glad to have contributed to highlight the significance of their invaluable lifetime efforts.



Ernest Esclangon (17 March 1876 – 28 January 1954) was the director of the Strasbourg Observatory and the Paris Observatory before becoming the President of the Société astronomique de France. In 1935, he received the Prix Jules Janssen, the society's highest award. In France, he is acknowledged as one of the most rigorous astronomers of his time. On his French Wikipedia page we can read that "Esclangon was attached to the establishment of the Chart of the Sky; it improved the precision of measurements in the fields of astronomy: measurement of time, variation of longitudes, variation of gravity." In any event, Esclangon was certainly a major authority in astrometry - even though most people will never have heard of him. I came across his work while navigating the website dedicated to Maurice Allais (the man who effectively disproved Einstein's theory of relativity).

Here's an extract from the Maurice Allais foundation's website that describes Esclangon's most peculiar observational program carried out around the years 1927/1928:

"The observations of Ernest Esclangon

Between 25th February 1927 and 9th January 1928 Ernest Esclangon carried out, at the Strasbourg Observatory, a programme of optical observations following a very different procedure from that which had been almost exclusively used until then in interferometric observations. It was as follows:

a) a refracting telescope placed in the horizontal plane facing north-west, autocollimation is used to cause a horizontal thread located at the focus of the telescope to coincide with its image reflected on a mirror that is integrated with the telescope. The angular displacement required for this coincidence is denoted by c.

b) Turning the device to face north-east, the operation is repeated. The angular displacement required to obtain the coincidence this time is denoted by c'. The magnitude whose evolution has been monitored over time is (c-c').

These observations comprised 40 000 sightings carried out by day as well as by night and divided into 150 series. The published reports included, in addition to a detailed description of the equipment used, the values for (c-c') for each series and the average temperature during each series as well as temperature evolution over each series.

By adopting the standpoint of sidereal time, Ernest Esclangon had detected a sidereal diurnal periodic component, whereas nothing in particular emerged when solar time was adopted.

He published his findings in a communication to the Académie des Sciences: “Sur la dissymétrie optique de l’espace et les lois de la réflexion” [On the optical dissymmetry of space and the laws of reflection] (December 27, 1927) in the April 1928 issue of the “Journal des Observateurs”, in which he also provided the experimental data collected: “Sur l’existence d’une dissymétrie optique de l’espace” [On the existence of dissymmetry of space]. In making use of these data, Maurice Allais established the presence, in addition to the sidereal diurnal component, of at least one long periodic component (estimated on the basis of a rapid analysis to be half-yearly)."

http://www.fondationmauriceallais.org/t ... s/?lang=en

To the layman, this may all sound like a dreadfully complex affair - and it certainly took me a while to wrap my head around what exactly Esclangon's observational program was all about. "An optical 'dissymmetry' of space"? Hmm... What could this possibly signify?

Well, please stay with me as I shall now illustrate the ostensible cause of this dissimmetry that Esclangon (unwittingly) observed. As you will see, it all amounts to yet another confirmation of one of the major tenets of the Tychos model, i.e. Earth’s proposed orbital speed of 1.6 km/h around its PVP orbit.

Here is the conclusive paragraph of Esclangon's paper describing his observational program of Earth's daily motions:


source: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k ... 0esclangon

In short, here's what Esclangon's extremely rigorous series of telescopic observations (in Strasbourg) established :

- Between 3AM and 3PM (i.e. a 12-hour interval), the star quadrants at either side of Earth appear to be "offset" by -0.036" and +0.036" (for a total of 0.072").

- Between 9AM and 9PM (i.e. a 12-hour interval), the star quadrants at either side (i.e. looking East and West) of Earth show NO such dissimmetry in relation to the meridian.

Esclangon's concluding thoughts: "What is the origin of this dissimmetry? Does it come from the absolute movement of our star system? Categorical explanations would be premature. The question for now belongs to the experimental domain."

Before proceeding, I must remind the readers of the following key figures established by my Tychos research over the years:

- Earth moves at 1.6km/h around its PVP orbit (completing one orbit every 25344 years) and thus covers 14036km every year.

- This yearly motion of Earth causes the stars (located perpendicularly to Earth's motion) to appear to 'drift sideways '- or to 'precess' - by 51.136 arcseconds annually.

- In 12 hours, Earth will therefore move by approximately: 1.6km/h X 12h = 19.2 km (or 0.1368% of 14036km)

We see that 19.2 km (the distance covered by Earth in 12 hours) is 0.1368% of 14036km (the annual distance covered by Earth). Now, Esclangon's observed "dissimmetry" amounted to 0.072 arcseconds - yet, in a subsequent paper* he published in 1928, he appears to have slightly redacted this figure to about 0.07 arcseconds.

*Ernest Esclangon - " Sur l'existence d'une dissymétrie optique de l'espace" (1928): http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1928JO.....11...49E

And in fact, 0.07" amounts to - lo and behold - 0.1368% of 51.136", i.e. the annual stellar precession as of the Tychos model!

We may therefore conclude that the minuscule dissimmetry detected by Esclangon was caused by Earth's motion between 3AM and 3PM.

As illustrated in my below graphic, the 12-hour stellar parallax observed by Esclangon concerned the two star quadrants ("A" and "B") that lie perpendicularly to Earth's direction of motion. The other two star quadrants ("C" and "D") were not affected since we move at all times either away (from "C") or towards ("D") these two star quadrants. Hence, they will not exhibit any parallax between each other.


( The above images are screenshots from the Tychosium simulator: https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd )

Et voilà. What Esclangon observed was, quite simply, a direct consequence Earth's ('clockwise') motion around its PVP orbit. Needless to say, Mr. Esclangon had - in his time - no manner of realizing the significance of his observed 'dissimmetry', nor much less to identify its causality. However, he should now be smiling in Heaven!

As a final note, I would like to point out that this (only apparent) "dissimmetry of space" observed by Esclangon is most probably what made Kepler postulate his bizarre elliptical orbits. This long-held inkling of mine was recently bolstered as I stumbled upon a fascinating paper by Laurence Hecht titled "Optical Theory in the 19th Century - and the Truth about Michelson-Morley-Miller". The entire paper is well worth the read - but the following sentence made me jump in my chair:

"The difference between the major and minor axis of the ellipse, which, as every school child is taught, constitutes the Earth's orbit around the Sun, is about one part in one thousand." https://21sci-tech.com/Subscriptions/Ar ... 998_Sp.pdf

One part in one thousand? Well, that's indeed most interesting (as viewed through the 'Tychos lens'): if Earth rotates around its axis at 1670km/h and moves across space at about 1.6km/h, this means that its orbital velocity is approximately 1/1000th of the value of its rotational velocity. In the interest of precision, let's perform a quick calculus using the more exact figures at our disposal:

1670km/h / 1.601169km/h (Earth's rotational speed / Earth's orbital motion) = 1042.98

40075km / 38.428km (Earth's circumference, a distance covered daily by a man at the equator / the orbital distance covered by a man every day)= 1042.85

One may thus easily fathom how this circumstance would have brought Kepler to assume that Earth's supposed orbit around the Sun is (very slightly) elliptical rather than circular.
.

[simonshack]

*

Dear Cluesforum readers,

I'm currently working on the 2nd edition of my TYCHOS book - which will keep me busy for a while... From time to time though, I will keep you posted with some selected, easy-to-understand "no-brainers" that show why the TYCHOS model must be the correct design of our solar system. Today, I will just reiterate (with new, improved graphics) something that I already covered in Chapter 7 of the 1st edition of the TYCHOS book (2018).


HOW VENUS CAN RETURN FACING THE SAME STAR IN 816 DAYS

It is a fact that Venus can return facing the same star (i.e. conjuncting with a given star) in 816 days.
For instance, Venus conjuncted with star Regulus on these two dates:

- July 10, 2018
- October 3, 2020

So here's a graphic I made by superimposing those two dates on a COPERNICAN SOLAR SYSTEM SIMULATOR (the "JS Orrery") :

Diagram 1:


That's right: the Copernican model would have us believe that Venus could conjunct with star Regulus on these two dates - even though Earth and Venus should have displaced themselves laterally by as many as 200 million km (according to the Copernican geometry, what with Earth revolving around the Sun). On both occasions, Venus was actually observed to be aligned with star Regulus (located at about 10h10min of RA / Right Ascension). Copernican astronomers will tell you that the reason why this would occur is that the stars are so immensely distant that these two ostensibly PARALLEL lines of sight (towards Venus and Regulus) are perhaps not QUITE PARALLEL and will thus somehow ultimately converge towards star Regulus. The thing is, we may debate this question of parallelism (or non-parallelism) until the cows come home -but it would be impossible to prove either way. The empirical fact is that Venus, our nearmost "planet" (or actually the Sun's largest moon) was indeed observed to align with star Regulus on those two dates.

Now, here's a graphic I made by superimposing those two dates on the TYCHOSIUM SIMULATOR :

Diagram 2:


As you can see, under the TYCHOS model, Venus conjuncted with star Regulus on those two dates for the simple reason that it actually returned to the very same celestial longitude(RA) in our skies. Indeed, the TYCHOSIUM also correctly shows Venus being slightly more distant in 2020 (1.08AU) than it was in 2018 (0.99AU).
In other words, Venus returned to almost the same place in our cosmos on those two dates - and NOT in some place 200 million kilometers away from the other!

In conclusion: to be perfectly fair, one may say that the Copernican advocates may still have a point when they argue that Venus reconjuncts with star Regulus due to a "slight non-parallelism" between the two lines-of-sight (illustrated in Diagram1). However, if this were true, the very fact that the TYCHOSIUM SIMULATOR shows Venus conjuncting with star Regulus on both dates (in Diagram2) along the VERY SAME LINE OF SIGHT would then have to be attributed to (and dismissed as?) some sort of "freak / random / happenstance/ extraordinary coincidence"!... Oh well, I will leave it up to the readers to assess this matter with their own brain matter.

Please always keep in mind that the TYCHOS model has all planets moving at constant speeds around perfectly circular orbits - whereas the COPERNICAN model has all planets moving at variable speeds around slightly elliptical orbits. Also, please know that the orbital speeds I've given to our planets (and moons) in the TYCHOSIUM simulator are simply the MEAN/AVERAGE value of their purported variable min & max velocities (as listed on official astronomy tables). At the end of the day, it is for everyone to judge which of the two models (COPERNICAN or TYCHOS) provides the most plausible & logical geometric configuration of our solar system.

[simonshack]

*

Dear all,

A few days ago, Patrik and I were invited to the "Amish Inquistion" podcast to present the Tychos model.

The "Amish Inquisition" (composed of Phil, Matt and Ben) present themselves on their YT channel as follows:

"A trio of 30-something Northerners, with half a clue in half a garage, trying to make sense of at least some of it all."

We (Patrik and I) certainly enjoyed their cool manners and open-minded vibes - sprinkled with some loud (and appropriate) laughters, as they gradually realized the sheer absurdity of the Copernican heliocentric model...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxnH3oPoc3I
(Note: The podcast ends at 1:41:40 - and goes silent after that).

***************************

The next day, we were pleased to read this great review of the show by David Mathisen - on his own blog / website.
I will just copy/paste here (as a backup) David Mathisen's full review - in case it disappears for some reason or another:

"EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF SCIENCE" (by David Mathisen -July 6, 2021)

I was happy to receive a message today from my friends Phil, Matt and Ben over at the Amish Inquisition podcast informing me that they had posted a new episode featuring a video interview with Simon Shack and Patrik Holmqvist regarding the Tychos model of our solar system, and the abundant evidence casting serious doubt on central tenets of the Keplerian model which we all are taught from an early age and which we tend to accept without question.

This interview is very much worth your consideration and attention, and afterwards you may want to dive deeper into the evidence and analysis presented by Simon in his book, which he has made available for free in its entirety online here, as well as check out the Tychosium digital planetarium which Patrik crafted, based upon the model developed by Simon in his book and his research.

During the conversation, Patrik and Simon use the Tychosium to illustrate some of their arguments, both arguments illustrating the problems with Kepler's model and arguments demonstrating the way that the Tychos model neatly explains those problems.

One of the strongest arguments they discuss is the concept of stellar parallax -- and the stubborn readings of so-called "negative stellar parallax" which astronomers continue to observe, causing a king-sized problem for the Kepler model (but constituting a powerful argument in favor of the Tychos model).

Another powerful argument discussed in this conversation is the troubling pattern of the so-called “empirical sidereal intervals" of the planet Mars, in which Mars is observed from earth to align with any specific star at intervals of about 707 days (for seven times in a row) followed by a "short interval” or "short ESI" of only about 543 days -- a pattern very difficult to explain using the conventional paradigm.

Once again, although this unusual pattern causes king-sized problems for proponents of Keplerian-type models of solar-system mechanics, it is easily explained by the Tychos model, and thus constitutes yet another strong piece of evidence in favor of the Tychos model, even as it calls into serious doubt the conventional model.

The way that the Tychos model explains this unusual pattern of Mars sidereal intervals takes a bit of time and explanation in order to properly illustrate -- and due to the pressures of time, it wasn't really fully explained during this particular conversation. For those interested, I recommend checking out the video that I made exploring some aspects of the Tychos model, back in August of last year, which you can find here (and embedded below):

You can also listen to a podcast conversation I had with Patrik and his co-host Martin on their Radio Qui Bono podcast, from April of this year.

And, if you're interested, you can also check out my visit to the Amish Inquisition podcast, from November of 2020.

I remain somewhat "agnostic" regarding the mechanics of our solar system, but it is undeniable that Simon Shack has presented overwhelming evidence which raises grave doubts regarding the viability of the Keplerian model (as well as showing evidence which raises serious doubts about Kepler's character -- Kepler in fact having been proven by modern research to have falsified his data). But the sheer difficulty we have of even considering the possibility that the Keplerian paradigm could be wrong -- a model that we have all been taught since childhood -- shows the power of swimming like a fish within a single paradigm all our lives, and one that is basically not allowed to even be so much as questioned.

For this reason, I believe it is extremely valuable to consider the arguments that Simon and Patrik are bringing to light which demonstrate the possibility that this "unquestioned and unquestionable" paradigm may indeed be incorrect, if only because it reveals so much about the power of unquestioned assumptions and the power of authority (both in academia and in the media) to shape our thinking and put boundaries on our curiosity.

At one point in the interview, around 0:43:27 in the YouTube video (and at about 0:41:00 in the audio file on iTunes and other podcast platforms), Simon says something extremely important about the way that supporters of the Keplerian paradigm appear to start with the assumption that their model must be correct, and then "work backwards" to explain the evidence and make it fit with the conclusion that they have already decided must be right -- which is "exactly the opposite of science," as Simon puts it.

An analogy might be a trial in which the guilt of a party is already predetermined by the judge, who then forces all the evidence to point towards that verdict, no matter how much the evidence might point in the exact opposite direction.

Needless to say, such an approach does not lead to good science -- and indeed, as Simon points out, such an approach is not actually science at all. It is exactly the opposite of science.

This should be a powerful lesson to us, not to do the same thing in areas of our lives where we simply assume that the things that people in the media and in academia tell us must of course be correct, especially in areas in which abundant evidence exists to call those paradigms into question.

https://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary

[simonshack]

*


GALILEO “CONFIRMS” THE TYCHOS MODEL



“At the dawn of telescopic astronomy, the data supported the Tychonic world system.” - Christopher Graney

Christopher Graney is a contemporary astronomy historian and the author of a number of highly interesting writings concerning the Tychonic system. Graney, although a Copernican convert, appears to keep an open mind towards Tycho Brahe’s world view and that of his most eminent supporters - e.g. Simon Marius.

“Simon Marius used the stars to support a Tychonic world system, arguing that the telescopic appearance of stars shows that they are not distant enough to satisfy the requirements of a Copernican world system.(…) In 1720, astronomer Edmund Halley (1656-1742) still discussed the issue of whether telescopes revealed the physical bodies of stars. Thus, he criticized a fellow astronomer who measured Sirius to have a disk with a diameter of 5″ and took that to be the physical body of the star.(…) At the dawn of telescopic astronomy, the data supported the Tychonic world system.”
“Seeds of a Tychonic Revolution” - by Christopher Graney
http://cgraney.jctcfaculty.org/cmgresea ... eprint.pdf

Indeed, at the dawn of the telescopic era, some of our best observational astronomers estimated the angular size of our largest stars to be about 5″ (arcseconds), i.e. roughly 380 times smaller than the Sun (for instance, using his telescope the great astronomer Cassini estimated Sirius, our largest star, to subtend 6″). In another paper, Graney broaches the remarkable accuracy of Galileo’s telescopic observations and concludes that, had they been properly appraised in his time, Galileo’s own efforts would have spelled an early demise of heliocentrism! Here are a few extracts from that paper:

“Galileo’s skill as instrument-builder and observer was such that Galileo recorded observations with arc-second accuracy. (…) Those measurements would mean that stellar parallax could and, given the knowledge of his time, did “disprove” heliocentrism. (…) Undated notes of Galileo’s show that he observed Sirius and measured its diameter to be 5 and 18/60 arc-seconds.* (…) In short, Galileo’s notes and writings indicate that he was able to make and record observations to a high level of accuracy.”
“The Accuracy of Galileo’s Observations and the Early Search for Stellar Parallax” - by Christopher M. Graney
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0612/0612086.pdf

*(or, to put it in decimal form, 5.33”periodic).



Today, modern astronomers firmly contend that such large angular diameters of the stars (as reported by Galileo and his contemporaries) were erroneous and ‘completely illusory’ due to an optical phenomenon which would artificially enlarge in our telescopes the perceived angular diameter of the stars―and of the stars only, yet not of our planets! Consider that, if Galileo were alive today, modern astronomers would tell him that his best estimate of Sirius A’s angular diameter was too large by a factor of nearly 1,000 (5.33″ vs. the currently reckoned 0.005936″). It truly challenges belief that stars would suffer from massive optical distortion/inflation to the tune of a thousand times their perceived telescopic size, whereas our planets would remain unaffected by the same phenomenon.

However, we shall now see that Galileo’s empirical measurement of the largest star in our skies, Sirius A, is quite worthy of interest and appraisal. According to the TYCHOS model, the distance between Earth and Sirius is 12.92 AU - and not 8.709 light years (LY) as currently claimed - due to the Tychos "42633 reduction factor (as expounded above).

In the Tychos, 1 LY equals 1.4834 AU (1 LY divided by the TRF).

Officially, Sirius is believed to be 8.709 LY away. Hence, the actual distance to Sirius, in accordance with the Tychos model, is 8.709 LY x 1.4834 ≈ 12.92 AU. This is almost 13 times farther away than the Sun. In stark contrast, Copernican astronomers believe Sirius to be a whopping 62,341 times farther away than the Sun!

Now, let’s consider this well-known optical formula (as can be found on the Wikipedia):

“An object of diameter 725.27 km at a distance of 1 astronomical unit (AU) will have an angular diameter of 1 arcsecond.” https://www.tychos.info/citation/_WIKIP ... ameter.pdf

This means that, in the Tychos model (which has Sirius at 12.92 AU) - and if Galileo’s best estimate of 5.33″ is correct - the true diameter of Sirius A can be estimated to be about 50,000 kilometers (or just about 4X the size of Earth):

725.27 x 5.33 x 12.92 = 49,944.7 km (or roughly 50,000 km)

The Sun’s observed angular diameter being 1920″, Galileo’s estimate of the angular diameter of Sirius A (5.33″) would make it almost exactly 360 times smaller than the Sun, if the two bodies were located at the same distance from Earth (which, of course, they are not). In the TYCHOS , Sirius is 12.92 times farther away from Earth than the Sun. Given that the Sun’s diameter is 1,392.000 km, we may therefore (under the TYCHOS paradigm) estimate the true physical diameter of Sirius A to be:

1,392,000 / 360 x 12.92 = 49,957.3 km (or roughly 50,000 km)

Remarkable, isn’t it? Galileo’s most accurate observations of Sirius, the largest star in the sky, turn out to be quite consistent with the tenets of the Tychos model. It looks like Galileo was, after all, on to something, but failed to realize his observations actually supported the Tychonic world system rather than the Copernican one! To be sure, this is precisely the point that Christopher Graney makes in his above-cited papers. Today, Copernican astronomers will likely object that the telescopic star-size estimates made by Galileo (and his contemporaries) were grossly in error and were all invalidated, in one fell swoop, by the so-called ‘Airy disk’ diffraction phenomenon, according to which the stars (and the stars only!) would be spuriously dilated in telescope lenses by up to 100,000%!

A final thought which, however speculative, is worth considering : I have often wondered why the Sirius A & B binary pair employ as many as 50.1 years to complete ONE revolution around each other (as viewed from Earth) whereas our Sun and Mars - which are proportionally identical to Sirius A and Sirius B - do so in only about 1.85 years (as viewed from Sirius).

Well, should the above-estimated diameter of Sirius A (approx. 50,000km) be correct, we see that:

1 - Our Sun’s diameter is roughly 27X larger* than Sirius A (1,392,000km vs 50,000km)
*(Interestingly, in the modern magnitude scale, Sirius 'scores' -1.46 whereas our Sun comes in at -26.74. Moreover, astronomers have estimated the intrinsic luminosity of Sirius to be 25.4 times greater than the Sun).

2 - The Sun/Mars binary pair would thus complete one revolution around _each other_ in roughly 26.6X less time than the Sirius A/B binary pair (1.88y versus 50.1y)

In light of this, one could possibly conjecture that the orbital periods of binary stars might be ‘governed’ by their respective sizes. To wit, the Sirius A/B binary duo is not only proportionally identical to the Sun/Mars duo – but the two pairs also share the same 7/1 'eccentricity ratio' in relation to their common barycenter. Hence, if the Sun and Mars are 27X larger than Sirius A and B - and complete a revolution around each other 27X ‘faster’ than Sirius A and Sirius B - this may possibly indicate some orbital-velocity / star-size correlation. As it is, our outer planets (from Jupiter to Pluto) appear to follow such a ‘rule’ since their orbital speeds gradually decrease with their respective sizes. Mind you, this is not to say that this ‘rule’ would apply universally, given the vast variety of binary systems (of various sizes and separations) to be found throughout the universe. For instance, the binary pair composed of the twin stars Mizar A and Mizar B (both officially reckoned to be 2.4 times the size of our Sun) employ only 20.5 days to revolve around each other!

I will just leave the above speculations as a mere suggestion for future inquiry.

[simonshack]

*


EROS AND THE TYCHOS: LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT


From Wikipedia: "In Greek mythology, Eros is the Greek god of love and sex. His Roman counterpart was Cupid ('desire')."


What follows is the tale of my most cherished encounter during the course of my ardent Tychos research adventure: that with the tiny planet (or, if you will, 'Near-Earth Asteroid') Eros. As we shall see, not only does Eros strenghten the Tychos model's tenets; it also provides definitive evidence of the heliocentric theory's untenable nature. Firstly though, a little bit of history - regarding yesterday's astronomers' feverish quest to measure the Earth>Sun distance - is in order:

There was enormous excitement among the late 19th-century astronomers as Eros was discovered on 13 August 1898. In the previous decades, humongous efforts had been invested to determine the all-important Earth>Sun distance. For example, only for the sake of observing the 1874 transit of Venus* across the solar disk, France, England and the USA had organized as many as 19 official expeditions around the world - some of which had cost the lives of several sailors and astronomers.
*1874 TRANSIT OF VENUS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1874_transit_of_Venus

Why all these frantic & titanic efforts, you may ask? Well, since Venus was thought to be the celestial body that passed closest to Earth, the idea was to measure its parallax vis-à-vis the Sun - and thus to finally determine its exact distance from Earth. In fact, both the close-passing Mars and Venus had been used for this purpose, yet there were ongoing controversies as to the accuracy of these observations - as described in an essay by Edmund Ledger titled "THE NEW PLANET EROS" (1900):

"It was at one time hoped that this [the Earth-Sun distance] might be accurately determined in the case of Venus by observations made on those rare occasions when it passes in transit across the sun's disk. But the glare of the sun's light, the ill-defined edge of the sun's disk, and the atmosphere of Venus itself, combine to deprive such observations of the necessary accuracy. Apart from some other methods, involving long periods of time and highly complicated theoretical investigations in their use, attention was therefore next given to an attempt to obtain the distance of the planet Mars when it makes its nearest approaches to the earth. It was, however, found to be difficult to measure the exact position of the centre of its disk."

Enter Eros. When Eros was discovered by German astronomer Carl Gustav Witt at the Berlin Observatory on 13 August 1898, it was soon realized that it would pass much closer to Earth than either Mars or Venus. Edmund Ledger continues: "But in the case of Eros we meet with something utterly different and unexpected. A new planet has been discovered whose average distance from the sun is less than that of Mars; a planet which at times comes within a distance from the earth not much more than one third of the nearest distance within which Mars ever approaches it." https://archive.org/details/essaysinast ... 8/mode/2up

Today, Eros' closest passages to Earth (≈0.17AU) are estimated to be roughly 3X closer than those of Mars (≈0.45Au) and twice closer than those of Venus (≈0.3AU).

Eros is the largest member of the Amor group of NEA's (Near Earth Asteroids). 'Amor', of course, means 'love' in Latin - while 'Eros' was the Greek God of love. Why this peculiar nomenclature is interesting will become apparent shortly. As I studied the available data of Eros so as to integrate it into the Tychosium simulator, I noticed that Eros' very closest near-Earth passages occur almost precisely every 81 years - around January 31 - at virtually the same place in our sky (note that this is reminiscent of Mars' 79-year cycle). As I'd finished gathering the known parameters of Eros (such as its orbital size, speed and closest passages), I then activated the Tychosium's 'trace' function for Eros - and pushed 'play'. That's when my jaw dropped. I think you may imagine me gasping in utter fascination at the shape traced by Eros' "spirographic" orbit around our solar system.

That's right, ladies & gents: Eros traces a HEART around EARTH !



I then proceeded to adjust Eros' secular, closest Earth passages (by perusing the ephemeris data at the JPL website) and within a few hours of toggling, I was pleased to see that 'my Eros' (in the Tychosium simulator) was in excellent agreement with the JPL data. Here's a back-to-back comparison between the JPL and Tychosium ephemerides of five super-close Eros passages to Earth (at 81-year intervals), between the years 1850 and 2174. They really make for a most spectacular match:

EROS’ closest Earth passages (in “opposition”) – every 81 years

According to the JPL/NASA data
According to the Tychosium

1850-Jan-31 RA10h12m - DEC-04°05 - AU: 0.1701
1850-Jan-31 RA10h13m - DEC-01°59 - AU: 0.1705

1931-Jan-31 RA10h24m - DEC-04°02 - AU: 0.1741
1931-Jan-31 RA10h23m - DEC-03°13 - AU: 0.1743

2012-Jan-31 RA10h33m - DEC-04°48 - AU: 0.1786
2012-Jan-31 RA10h33m - DEC-04°17 - AU: 0.1788

2093-Jan-31 RA10h40m - DEC-06°30 - AU: 0.1824
2093-Jan-31 RA10h41m - DEC-05°15 - AU: 0.1837

2174-Jan-31 RA10h50m - DEC-06°17 - AU: 0.1889
2174-Jan-31 RA10h51m - DEC-06°19 - AU: 0.1885

To understand how this agreement between the Tychos and the Copernican model is even possible (in spite of the very different, 'spirographic' planetary motions in the Tychos model), here's a comparison of two 'static' views of Eros' position on January 31, 2012 - as depicted by the JPL simulator and the Tychosium simulator:

As Eros makes its closest passages to Earth every 81 years, it will return to very much the same celestial position in both simulators:




DOES EROS RETROGRADE AT ALL? YES - BUT NOT MUCH

We shall now look at the most peculiar aspect of Eros' observed behavior in the skies. Here's what you may read on the 'Simple English Wikipedia' :

"Unlike most objects in the solar system, it [Eros] never appears to be retrograde (back-track across the sky)." https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/433_Eros

This is not quite correct : as Eros passes closest to Earth, it will indeed back-track somewhat - but only be a very small amount (≈20 min of RA on average - but sometimes as little as 5min of RA!).

Now, remember: the Copernican model's proposed explanation for the planets' periodical retrograde motions goes like this: "As Earth overtakes Mars - or when Venus overtakes Earth - those planets will appear to back-track across the sky, for several weeks (and for up to 1 hour+ of RA). This, due to an optical parallax illusion caused by the shifting viewing angle of the planet in relation to the star background." The problem with this explanation is highlighted and greatly exacerbated by the existence of Eros which, as we saw earlier, passes almost twice closer to Earth than Venus does. Thus, if our planets' retrograde motions were to be caused by such angular shifts, this would violate the basic laws of parallax and perspective - because Eros should be observed to retrograde (against the star background) much more than Venus. As ever, a picture tells more than a thousand words:



Note that the speed differential between Earth (≈30kms / as of heliocentric theory) and Venus (≈35kms) is virtually identical to the speed differential between Earth (≈30kms / as of heliocentric theory) and Eros (≈25kms). In both cases, the speed differential is 5kms. Hence, one cannot argue that Eros' observed, minuscule retrograde is due to some speed differential issues.

You may now be curious to know exactly how Eros is empirically observed as it transits closest to Earth. Once more, Wikipedia provides us with a handy illustration:



You may admit that - as seen from a Copernican standpoint - this observed trajectory of Eros (what with its abrupt, V-shaped retrograde moment) is the most bizarre thing you've ever seen! How can this possibly be reconciled with what would be a simple, linear 'overtaking maneuvre' on the part of Earth? Surely, something else is going on?

Once again, the Tychosium simulator can show us precisely why Eros is observed to behave in such manner - as it passes closest to Earth:



In conclusion, it is the heart-shaped orbital trajectory of Eros (as of the Tychos model) that causes this peculiar, minuscule and V-shaped 'retrograde' of Eros. All of the planets, comets (and the so-called Near-Earth Asteroids) revolving around the Sun are clearly attached to it by some magnetic force - as if attached by a yo-yo string to our star. It is the length and speed of this string that determines the variable shapes of our planets' orbital, spirographic paths - and their variable retrogrades. After all, there's really nothing magical or otherworldly about this apparent 'action-at-a-distance': here on Earth, we can all make small magnets levitate and rotate (just by a little finger push) around a large 'Mother Magnet' - as if attached by invisible yo-yo strings. Of course, what remains to be understood is just what ethereal forces (i.e. that little finger push) have set all of our universe's celestial bodies in motion - and how they are kept rotating in such constant and 'clockwork-like' manner, century after century.

As an anecdotal epilogue to this Eros chapter, I'd like to share this hilarious tale concocted by the ever-so-imaginative NASA scriptwriters. You see, NASA claims to have landed a probe upon Eros back in February 2001, as it found itself at 2AU (i.e. twice the distance to the Sun). As their story goes, the probe would have landed just around Valentine's Day, February 14. Apparently, this silly NASA fairytale wasn't deemed to be complete without an even sillier claim that the probe had captured fairly sharp photographs of Eros from a distance of 2590km (i.e. roughly the distance between Stockholm and Rome...). Now, and here's the kicker: these alleged photographs would have revealed a distinct HEART-SHAPED depression on the very tip of the dildo-shaped Eros. Yup, folks! You gotta love it!



*********************************
NOTE: Eros is now integrated in the Tychosium simulator. To open it, go to the "Planets" menu and check the 'Eros' box. Then, in the "Trace" menu, activate the orbital tracing by checking the 'Eros' box. Push the "Run" button and you will see Eros' lovely spirographic orbital motions. https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here's a fun little post I wrote back in 2012 about NASA's alleged landing on Eros on Valentine's Day... viewtopic.php?p=2374893#p2374893

[simonshack]

*

STONEHENGE "SOLVED" BY THE TYCHOS?

Dear all,

I'm sure you are all familiar with the world famous STONEHENGE site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge

I'm certainly no Stonehenge expert - but the other day I learned that Stonehenge features, basically, TWO MAIN CIRCLES:

"Intriguingly, the diameters of the two main circles of Stonehenge, the Aubrey circle (283 feet) and the Sarsen circle (104 feet) are in the ratio 7:19 to each other."
"SUN, MOON & EARTH" - by Robin Heath (1999): https://archive.org/details/SunMoonAndE ... ew=theater

The above information caught my attention because 283 feet is about 2.72X 104 feet - whereas in my TYCHOS model, the Sun's orbit is 2.642X the size of Earth's PVP orbit (as expounded and illustrated in Chapter 11 of my new TYCHOS book: https://book.tychos.space/chapters/11-earths-pvp-orbit ).

In the TYCHOS, the Sun's orbital diameter is 299 193 439 km - whereas the Earth's (PVP) orbital diameter is 113 230 656 km:

299 193 439 km / 113 230 656 km = 2.642

So I decided to search for detailed maps of Stonehenge, so as to verify with more rigorous, graphic accuracy the relative diameters of the Aubrey and Sarsen circles.

I found the below map - and superimposed my orbits of the Sun and Earth over the Aubrey and Sarsen circles of Stonehenge. Well... here's what it looks like:



As you can all verify for yourselves (pixel by pixel!), the bigger ring is actually 2.642X larger than the smaller ring (732/277 = 2.642).

And if you now go to the TYCHOSIUM 3D simulator, you'll see that the Sun's orbit is 2.642X larger than Earth's PVP orbit.

Could this be entirely coincidental - i.e. just a matter of random / fortuitous happenstance? Maybe. At the end of the day, it is up for you to decide!...

In any event, this is how the orbital diameters of the Sun and Earth (as proposed by my TYCHOS model) "relate to" the two rings of the famous Stonehenge site.

[simonshack]

*

Dear friends,

I'm of course very pleased about this most supportive article about my TYCHOS model - by Nigel Howitt (a former airline pilot for 25 years based in the UK):


"This is BIG news. An astronomy researcher in Italy, Simon Shack, has found the missing link in a model of the Solar System created by the most famous astronomer you have never heard of – Tycho Brahe. The Tychos model completely disproves the heliocentric (or Copernican) model that we have all been brought up with."

Read full article at: https://lawfulrebel.com/the-tychos-model/

On Nigel's fine blog (LAWFUL REBEL.com) you will find a wealth of thoughtful articles and videos based on the sort of rational-minded approach to truthseeking which I have personally strived to uphold throughout the years - here at Cluesforum. It would therefore seem to be an 'inevitable strike of fate' that our paths have crossed in such a harmonious and resonant way. To be sure, we live in an epoch where the art of rational thinking is constantly being discouraged, 'looked down upon' - and even ridiculed... In fact, the very term 'rational' (as in "a rational thinker") has almost become - in the eyes of the heavily-propagandized masses - a synonym of "a boring and close-minded" person! This, however, should come as no surprise, because a world immersed in a swampy marshland of zany, outrageous, dogmatic - and wholly irrational tales & lies will obviously reject and tag any rational thoughts as 'heretical'. At the end of the day, those blessed with discerning and rational brain matter will survive - and ultimately prevail.

That's right: pools of quicksand have been disseminated along our life paths - yet all we need to do is to learn to recognize their surface texture.

[simonshack]

*

Dear all,

Up to this day, there has been precious little feedback to be found around the internet concerning my TYCHOS model. Thankfully though, the little feedback I've had so far (in relation to my decade-long research efforts) has been quite supportive - especially among those who have evidently spent some serious time reading my book(s). As you may well imagine, I am always eager to receive any feedback (whether positive or negative). So, from time to time, I "google around" to see if I can find any mentions / discussions of the Tychos model which I might (for some reason) have missed. Today I found a long article by one John Rosenberger - the last section of which I mirror below:

ONE MORE THING, OR MAYBE THREE (by John Rosenberger - 2021)

The orderly arrangement of our solar system is today accepted as Copernican. The Copernican Revolution was a paradigm shift from the Ptolemaic model. Competing for acceptance was the Tycho Brahe model.

The Sun, Moon and stars were seen as governing our existence as the creation of eternal souls was happening on Earth. The orderly arrangement of the cosmos revolved around humanity on a planet that is unique among the other planets in our solar system.

According to Ptolemei, the Sun and Mars were in orbit around a stationary Earth. Anomalies like the retrograde motion of Mars were explained by simply adding a small but illogical loop within the larger orbital pathway, though this explanation is obviously wrong to us today. But Ptolemei’s model did see Earth as distinctive in God’s orderly arrangement of planets. I agree with him there. He just didn’t satisfactorily explain the actual arrangement. But then again neither did the Hebrews. Their model of the universe looked more like a metaphor rather than science as we know it.

Far from being stationary, the Earth has two or three movements, depending on which model is correct. Most today believe three. I think the correct view is two. Tycho Brahe also believed the Earth was completely stationary, while the Sun and planets did all the moving. He gave zero motion to the Earth. The current Copernican model gives all three motions to Earth. The revised Tycho model is called the Tychos model. It gives two motions to the Earth and gives one motion to the Sun.

All three circuits should be explainable by any model: the daily sunset and sunrise, the annual return of the seasons and the Great Year. The Great Year cycle takes 26000 years before the Earth returns to the same exact position. We also have to account for the two more familiar tours lasting 24 hours and 365 days. The modern Copernican model accounts for all three phenomena by giving all three motions to our planet.

According to the Copernican model, the return to the same North Star sky every 26000 years is because our planet is wobbly. Earth is pictured like a spinning top on a table. The top is not completely upright but has a slow wobble. It’s a very slow wobble, which causes the axis to point to the same exact place in the heavens every 26000 years. The Tychos model sees no need for the wobble, rather it explains the Great Year phenomenon by noting a small Earth orbit around nothing. This orbit is about one mile per hour and takes 26000 years to complete.

The second motion is the daily motion of our planet, which should be acceptable to us modern scholars. The land on Earth is traveling 9000 miles per hour [actually more like 900 mph - ed} at the equator and slows to nothing as we approach the poles. It would be an astronomically greater distance and speed for the Sun to orbit the Earth once a day. If you say that the zero friction of outer space would sheer off the Earth’s atmosphere if it were spinning at such a speed, then what about the atmosphere of the Sun at a much greater speed and distance? The fly in your car doesn’t even notice that you are traveling 100 miles per hour, unless you take the top of the car off and introduce friction. There is no friction on the Earth from outer space. Even rockets have to push off of themselves outside of our atmosphere. While the fact that the pendulum doesn’t change it’s arc at the poles or at the equator isn’t absolute proof of the earth’s rotation, I do agree with the Copernican model on this one. The Earth revolves on it’s axis once a day. The Sun doesn’t literally rise and set. Though we naturally speak that way still.

The third question is whether the Sun moves to the other side of the Earth every six months or vice versa? Parallax readings, or the lack thereof, confirm the former. Our sky doesn’t largely return to us every six months. It remains the same because we barely moved. The same exact sky actually returns to us every 26000 years, as we slowly but steadily trek through the 12 astrological ages. And even Plato could detect this incremental change in the stars. But the believers in the modern Copernican model, with our modern instruments, say the stars are so far away we can’t accurately detect our great biannual change in the sky, as the Earth purportedly moves to the other side of the Sun. Yet the readings that unbelievably can’t even detect these starry parallaxes, that should so obviously appear to us every six months, are sorted through with great bias. The readings that seem to so slightly confirm their model are called accurate and the ones that don’t are called errors.

This bias is largely due to peer pressure and a disorderly arrangement scientists have with their funding sources. The scholarly consensus should no longer be questioned, even though we now have computer technology and telescopes that they never dreamed of when they conceded to the purveyors of the Copernicus model. Should’t we double check their work for accuracy now that we are more than able?

Now consider this: most stars are paired up with another star in binary orbit around their dual center of mass. We hadn’t yet discovered this fact when we ‘decided’ that our solar system was in the Copernican model. Even 50 years ago we thought binary systems were rare. We now say that even our Sun ‘was’ probably a binary star at one time, but it’s companion in orbit is long gone and now the Sun has ground to a halt. Since the status quo is stuck on the heliocentric model of our universe, they will never even consider Mars as our Sun’s enduring binary companion. That would add motion to our Sun.

The binary star model that has become the status quo of the universe is rejected for our own personal solar system by the political and scientific status quo here on Earth. We have become stubborn and immovable on the subject. Even though the general rule now is that stars are moving rather than stationary, it’s not being applied to our closest star. The Sun remains a still and lonely exception in the universe of stars, even as we are discovering that most if not all stars are in motion and form a binary center of mass.

The planets are said to orbit around our fixed star, yet we are having an increasingly difficult time finding stationary stars with our modern day telescopes. What we thought was a single star turns out to be two or even three stars in orbit around their combined center of gravity. Maybe our Sun isn’t the progressively more rare exception and the Tychos model is right. Our Sun is a moving star too, like most if not all stars are. If the Copernican revolution managed to overcome some of our previous blindness then we can continue to move forward and do it again, unless we are done with human revolutions and choose compliance over true science.

Our Sun’s binary dance with Mars places the Sun on the other side of the Earth every 6 months. Only Venus and Mercury remain with the Sun alone as it moves. The other planets in our Earth system orbit the dual center of gravity called the barycenter, created by the Sun and Mars together. Only Mars is in a binary orbit with the Sun. The two ‘planets’ closest to the Sun are Venus and Mercury, so they orbit the Sun’s singular center of gravity. They are also tidally locked to the Sun, making them moons of the Sun rather than planets. That makes Earth the relatively stationary and unique one with reference to the Sun, in an orderly arrangement suitable to life in the cosmos. God’s creation does focus on and exalt humanity. Even some fallen angels didn’t like this arrangement.

http://thebettercovenant.org/index.php/ ... angements/

Now, Mr. Rosenberg has quite evidently read my TYCHOS book (there can be no doubt whatsoever about this fact!) - yet he makes no mention about it. I wonder why this could be? Shouldn't he at least have provided a link to my Tychos research - so as to source this information that he shares with his readers? I can now only hope to hear from Mr. Rosenberg as to why he thought this was unnecessary (I have not been able to find his e-mail address).

[fakeologist]

*

Dear all,

Up to this day, there has been precious little feedback to be found around the internet concerning my TYCHOS model. Thankfully though, the little feedback I've had so far (in relation to my decade-long research efforts) has been quite supportive - especially among those who have evidently spent some serious time reading my book(s). As you may well imagine, I am always eager to receive any feedback (whether positive or negative). So, from time to time, I "google around" to see if I can find any mentions / discussions of the Tychos model which I might (for some reason) have missed. Today I found a long article by one John Rosenberger - the last section of which I mirror below:

He has no commenting, no contact info - is this just a discrediting spook operation to take your theory into a dark place? It appears you couldn't contact "Mr. Rosenberger" if you wanted to.

Reminds me of another nemesis quoted here: https://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.p ... 8#p2365938

Steven Rosenbaum's sinister "Camera Planet" collection...

[simonshack]

He has no commenting, no contact info - is this just a discrediting spook operation to take your theory into a dark place? It appears you couldn't contact "Mr. Rosenberger" if you wanted to.

Reminds me of another nemesis quoted here: https://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.p ... 8#p2365938

Steven Rosenbaum's sinister "Camera Planet" collection...

Precisely my thoughts, dear Ab...

Mind you, in this case we have a Rosenthing actually hinting at my research (albeit not sourcing it), whereas that Camera Planet's Rosenthing did nothing of the sort - so I guess we could consider this as a 'rosy development'... However, as I sang in my song "Something Fishy" (2017):

SOMETHING FISHY
Roses, thrown in your face
Is not a sign of loving
NOT a sign of loving
Roses, thrown in your face
Is not a sign of loving
https://thesocialservice1.bandcamp.com/ ... hing-fishy


Jokes aside, I dread the thought that my TYCHOS research may one day suffer the same fate as that of Tycho Brahe's own efforts - since his lifetime work was ultimately 'hijacked', distorted - and flipped on its head - by that fishy Kepler spook. Galileo then went on to completely ignore Tycho Brahe's model which, at the time, was the 'ruling' solar system model - widely accepted by the world's scientific community (and for very good reasons).

[animus]

ONE MORE THING, OR MAYBE THREE (by John Rosenberger - 2021)
[...]

Now, Mr. Rosenberg has quite evidently read my TYCHOS book (there can be no doubt whatsoever about this fact!) - yet he makes no mention about it. I wonder why this could be? Shouldn't he at least have provided a link to my Tychos research - so as to source this information that he shares with his readers? I can now only hope to hear from Mr. Rosenberg as to why he thought this was unnecessary (I have not been able to find his e-mail address).

I googled him and found this:

Discerning the Behavior of the Suicide Bomber: The Role of Vengeance
John Rosenberger
Journal of Religion and Health volume 42, pages 13–20 (2003)

Abstract
Deliberate suicide used to achieve some end in group conflict is a relatively rare but always dramatic behavior. Motivation for such behavior is complex occurs usually at both the group and individual levels, and can have multiple meanings. The author examines suicide bombing as it has occurred recently in both the 9/11 event and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, notes that it appears to be a behavior motivated mainly by the singular intent to destroy a particular people, and concludes that it is a 'depressive equivalent' behavior rooted in the desire for vengeance. He identifies such behavior, given this motivation, as a crime by the leaders of the groups planning such acts against those they send on suicide bombing missions. He exhorts civilized society to bring these criminals to justice in order to prevent such acts.

Author information
Affiliations
Department of Psychiatry and Religion, Union Theological Seminary, NYU School of Medicine, USA

John Rosenberger

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 2208626691

I think you can consider his mentioning your Tychos a compliment. Spare time must be valuable to the people from the nutwork as well, and apparently they are spending some of it reading your research.

Congratulations by the way on your second edition. Providing free access for everyone must have been a tough decision considering the time and energy you have invested. But it does speak volumes about your character and will also help spread valuable information to more curious-minded people more rapidly.

Diving into astronomy is still on my to-do-list but I need to put it on hold for a little longer. Did you work out the origin of that number or factor yet that we talked about in our emails four years ago? Sadly, I have lost all of my emails last year, so I can't look up our previous discussion about it. As I recall, there was some circular math involved that had bothered me. (In case you have already made a post about it, I apologize for not reading the entire thread.)

[simonshack]

I googled him and found this:

Discerning the Behavior of the Suicide Bomber: The Role of Vengeance
John Rosenberger
Journal of Religion and Health volume 42, pages 13–20 (2003)

Abstract
Deliberate suicide used to achieve some end in group conflict is a relatively rare but always dramatic behavior. Motivation for such behavior is complex occurs usually at both the group and individual levels, and can have multiple meanings. The author examines suicide bombing as it has occurred recently in both the 9/11 event and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, notes that it appears to be a behavior motivated mainly by the singular intent to destroy a particular people, and concludes that it is a 'depressive equivalent' behavior rooted in the desire for vengeance. He identifies such behavior, given this motivation, as a crime by the leaders of the groups planning such acts against those they send on suicide bombing missions. He exhorts civilized society to bring these criminals to justice in order to prevent such acts.

Author information
Affiliations
Department of Psychiatry and Religion, Union Theological Seminary, NYU School of Medicine, USA

John Rosenberger

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 2208626691

I think you can consider his mentioning your Tychos a compliment. Spare time must be valuable to the people from the nutwork as well, and apparently they are spending some of it reading your research.

Congratulations by the way on your second edition. Providing free access for everyone must have been a tough decision considering the time and energy you have invested. But it does speak volumes about your character and will also help spread valuable information to more curious-minded people more rapidly.

Diving into astronomy is still on my to-do-list but I need to put it on hold for a little longer. Did you work out the origin of that number or factor yet that we talked about in our emails four years ago? Sadly, I have lost all of my emails last year, so I can't look up our previous discussion about it. As I recall, there was some circular math involved that had bothered me. (In case you have already made a post about it, I apologize for not reading the entire thread.)

Dear Animus,

I well remember the good points you made regarding some 'circular maths ' which I had in my 1st Edition of the TYCHOS book. Please know that I've now redacted / removed them from the 2nd Edition of the TYCHOS book - and actually wish to thank you for your 'proof-reading time' and quite valid critique. In fact, the other day I went back reading your emails from four years ago - just to make sure that I had duly addressed your specific points.

And yes, I decided to provide free access to my 2nd Edition because life is short - and because my current priority is to diffuse my findings rather than monetizing them. Of course, it would be nice to have a few more readers of my book realizing its worth and validity - and that it is the result of nearly a decade of unpaid efforts. For instance, perhaps Dr. Rosenberg (who has evidently read it - and holds it in high regard) might one day consider sending me a sizeable donation - were it only to prevent me from slipping into poverty and become a depressed suicide bomber with a desire for vengeance against the civilized society?...

Fear not, though - I'm the most peace-loving person you can imagine - and intend to stay that way!

[simonshack]

*

SIRIUS - OUR SOLAR SYSTEM'S "TWIN"?

Dear all,

I wish to share with you a few amazing facts regarding Sirius, the binary system which I have good reasons to believe is the "twin" of our own (Sun-Mars) binary Solar System. I wish to thank our forum member Nefilimp for sending me the link to a 3.5-hour documentary titled "Secrets in Plain Sight" - by Scott Onstott.

(Disclaimer: I'm not asking you to watch the entire 3.5 hour docu - although I did so myself! No offense meant to Scott - but he does overreach sometimes!)

As those familiar with my Tychos book will know, Sirius A and the much smaller Sirius B are proportionally identical (at a 205/1 ratio) to our Sun and Mars.

I already knew that the Great Pyramid of Giza has 'funnels' oriented towards the heliacal rising of Sirius (much like many other ancient stone structures around the world). I also knew that the ancient Egyptians used Sirius's heliacal rising to determine the beginning of their calendar year. However, what I personally didn't know (until yesterday) is that Washington D.C. has its most famous avenue oriented towards the heliacal rising of Sirius:

https://youtu.be/DHhgLnIvuAs?t=1900

I also didn't know that the City of Paris (France) has its longest and most famous avenue oriented straight towards the heliacal rising of Sirius!

THE "AXE HISTORIQUE OF PARIS" (pointing to SIRIUS's heliacal rising); https://youtu.be/DHhgLnIvuAs?t=11747

Clearly, Sirius (also known as the "star of Isis") has been worshipped by our planet's rulers for a very, very long time. But WHO cares about Sirius today? Almost NO ONE! I suppose we are ALL supposed to live our lives in total ignorance of our 'twin solar system', namely: the Sirius system (which may possibly contain the elusive 'Sirius C' - the "twin of planet Earth" which, according to some modern studies MOST PROBABLY exists).

Here's a link to my (recently updated) Chapter 6 of the new TYCHOS book, titled: "IS SIRIUS THE 'TWIN' OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM?". Enjoy the read! https://book.tychos.space/chapters/6-sirius

[simonshack]

*

Dear all,

Last night, Patrik and I were interviewed by David Mauriello (a.k.a. "Diamond") on his popular 'Magnetic Reversal' podcast show.

If you're interested in my TYCHOS model of our Solar System, I would recommend you to set aside a short hour of your lives - and watch it all.

As I dare say, the TYCHOS won't go away. Alea Jacta est...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CskJD1zaZV4

Guys and gals - things are starting to move. Hang in there!

[simonshack]

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2022 ... -star-dies
Put here as place holder needs to be moved to Tychos

Dear all,

Today our veteran forum member pov603 posted (in the Chatbox) the above link to this formidably interesting article from the BBC website (dated Sept2, 2022):

Here follow a few selected extracts from the article which reports about some very recent astronomical / observational studies (2020-2021) which basically conclude - or, in any case, present very strong evidence - that any given star that we can see 'exploding' in our skies (and turns into what is known as a 'planetary nebula' or a 'supernova') must necessarily have a binary companion. They call this brand new theory (or discovery) the "binary hypothesis"...

"WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A STAR DIES?"
"At the end of their lives, sunlike stars metamorphose into glowing shells of gas –  perhaps shaped by unseen companions."

By Dana Mackenzie -2nd September 2022

"The galaxy is studded with thousands of these jewel-like memorials, known as planetary nebulae. They are the normal end stage for stars that range from half the Sun's mass up to eight times its mass. (More massive stars have a much more violent end, an explosion called a supernova.) Planetary nebulae come in a stunning variety of shapes, as suggested by names like the Southern Crab, the Cat's Eye and the Butterfly. But as beautiful as they are, they have also been a riddle to astronomers. How does a cosmic butterfly emerge from the seemingly featureless, round cocoon of a red giant star? "

"Observations and computer models are now pointing to an explanation that would have seemed outlandish 30 years ago: most red giants have a much smaller companion star hiding in their gravitational embrace. This second star shapes the transformation into a planetary nebula, much as a potter shapes a vessel on a potter's wheel."
(...)
"The binary hypothesis accounts very well for the first stage of metamorphosis of a dying star. As the companion pulls dust and gases away from the primary star, they do not immediately get sucked into the companion, but form a swirling disk of material known as an accretion disk in the orbital plane of the companion. That accretion disk is the potter's wheel."

"New and innovative telescopes have revealed that some red giants are surrounded by spiral structures and accretion disks before they turn into planetary nebulae – just as expected if there were a second star pulling material off the red giant. In a couple of cases, astronomers may have even spotted the companion star itself."

Read more at: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2022 ... -star-dies

Note that the discovery is credited to "NEW AND INNOVATIVE TELESCOPES" - and not to any fancy "space telescopes" orbiting at hypersonic speeds ...

Amazing, isn't it?



Thanks so much for this fabulous find, dear pov603 !