Introducing the TYCHOS

Simon Shack's (Tycho Brahe-inspired) geoaxial binary system. Discuss the book and website for the most accurate configuration of our solar system ever devised - which soundly puts to rest the geometrically impossible Copernican-Keplerian model.
Posts: 7150
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:01 pm

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 !).




I never cease to marvel at the amazingly precise observations made by some of the best observational astronomers of yesteryear - as they tried to make sense of this solar system of ours. Their tireless dedication to their noble quest of unveiling the secrets of our cosmos has not been in vain - and I'm proud & glad to have contributed to highlight the significance of their 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 astronomical matters - even though most people will never have heard of him.

I came across his work while browsing the website dedicated to Maurice Allais (the man who definitively 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 dissymetry 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)." ... s/?lang=en
To the layman, this may all sound like a dreadfully complex affair - and I must admit it took me quite a while to wrap my head around what exactly Esclangon's observational program was all about. "An optical 'dissymetry' [or in more correct English, asymmetry] of space"? Hmm... What could this possibly signify?

Well, please stay with me as I attempt to illustrate in the simplest possible manner what exactly Esclangon (unwittingly) observed. As you will see, it all amounts to a spectacular confirmation of one of the major tenets of the Tychos model: 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: ... 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 asymmetry in relation to the meridian.

Esclangon's concluding thoughts: "What is the origin of this assimetry? 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."

As it is, the Tychos model can now offer a categorical explanation for Esclangon's meticulous astronomical observations (which Maurice Allais used, along with Dayton Miller's interferometer experiments, to demolish Einstein's theories regarding the supposed impossibility to measure Earth's velocity in space).

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 14,035.85km 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

We see that 19.2 km (the distance covered by Earth in 12 hours) is 0.1368% of 14,035.85km (the yearly distance covered by Earth). We also see that Esclangon's observed "asymmetry" amounts 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):

And in fact, 0.07" is - lo and behold - 0.1368% of 51.136" - i.e. the annual stellar precession (caused by Earth's 1.6km/h Earth's motion) as of the Tychos model!

We may therefore logically conclude that the amount of "asymmetry" recorded by Esclangon was, in fact, the parallax 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.

Et voilà. What Esclangon observed was, quite simply, Earth's ('clockwise') motion around its PVP orbit.

( The above images are screenshots from the Tychosium simulator: )

Needless to say, Mr. Esclangon had - in his time - no way of realizing the crucial significance of his observations. However, he should now be smiling in his grave!

As a final note, I would like to point out that this (only apparent) "asymmetry of space" observed by Esclangon is most probably what caused Kepler to theorize 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." ... 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 about 1600km/h and moves across space at 1.6km/h, this means that its orbital velocity is 1/1000th of the value of its rotational velocity. One may thus easily fathom how this circumstance would have brought Kepler to assume that all planetary orbits - not only Earth's supposed orbit around the Sun - are (very slightly) elliptical rather than circular.
As I always like to say - at the end of the day - the Tychos model is here to stay.

Posts: 7150
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Sun May 16, 2021 7:32 pm


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).


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.

Posts: 7150
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Jul 10, 2021 6:40 pm


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:
(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.

Posts: 7150
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Fri Aug 27, 2021 3:18 pm



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

Christopher Graney is a contemporary astronomy historian who has authored a number of highly interesting writings concerning the Tychonic system. Graney is a Copernican ‘apostle’, yet in much of his work he appears to keep an open mind towards Tycho Brahe’s world view and that of his various supporters, such as 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 ... eprint.pdf

Indeed, at the dawn of the telescopic era, many eminent 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 collapse 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

*(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 in the context of the Tychos model. According to the Tychos, the distance between Earth and Sirius is 12.92 AU―and not 8.709 light years (LY) as claimed by ‘official astronomy’―due to the Tychos reduction factor (TRF) 42,633. This factor should be applied to all currently ‘established’ star distances, as explained in Chapter 36 of my book.

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 62,341 times farther away than the Sun!

Next, let’s use this well-known and widely accepted optical formula, found on Wikipedia:

“An object of diameter 725.27 km at a distance of 1 astronomical unit (AU) will have an angular diameter of 1 arcsecond.” ... 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 physical diameter of Sirius A can be reckoned to be:

725.27 x 5.33 x 12.92 = 49,976 km (or roughly 50,000 km)

The Sun’s angular diameter being 1920″, Galileo’s estimate of Sirius A’s angular diameter (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 model, Sirius is 12.92 times farther away from Earth than the Sun. Given that the Sun’s diameter is 1,392.000 km, the true physical diameter of Sirius A can be reckoned to be:

1,392,000 / 360 x 12.92 = 49,957 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 highly 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 starsize 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 magnified in telescope lenses by up to 100,000%! I will stand by my opinion that this alleged optical phenomenon (affecting only the stars) is highly dubious and may well have been contrived in order to rescue the Copernican theory from its most abhorrent implication: namely, the utterly preposterous mega-distances to our visible stars.


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. On the other hand, astronomers have estimated the intrinsic luminosity of Sirius to be 25.4 times greater than the sun. Note that both these optical values gauging Sun-vs-Sirius relationships are fairly close to 27).

2 - The Sun/Mars binary pair complete one revolution around each other in roughly 27X less time than the Sirius A/B binary pair (1.85y 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 barycenters (see my Appendix 39). Hence, if the Sun is 27X larger than Sirius A and completes a revolution around its companion (Mars) 27X ‘faster’ than Sirius A revolves around 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. However, this is by no means to say that this ‘rule’ would apply universally, given the vast variety of binary systems (of various sizes and separations) throughout the universe. For instance, the easily observed binary pair composed of the ‘identical 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 leave this final speculation as a mere suggestion for future inquiry.

Posts: 7150
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:49 pm



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.

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." ... 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:



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)."

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.

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

Post Reply