The SSSS - early musings - 2013>2015

[Pilgrim]

The Brahe system was favoured by the Church, the biggest and most damaging hoaxter in history, whose success had been "all witchcraft". No-one frightened the populace more than the Church. So even the ideas that should be most comforting to the human spirit, such as the Brahe system, can and do get used by the worst elements.

Really and empirically true rather than your subjective biased opinions? Please show your evidence or deductive reasoning behind this claim. If you make such a bold claim you need to provide this. "No one frightened the populace more than the Church" Compared to what? Nasty feudal overlords? Disease? Poverty and anything else all throughout history? And the recent past and present, fake wars? Fake news? Banker manipulations? Fake science that billions believe in today? Fake Terrorism etc, show us your numbers and evidence to make such an arbitrary claim. I have no doubt the "church" is corrupt and has stayed far from the bible but to make such an arbitrary claim as you make is logically fallacious and shows your bias. Please stick to real evidence rather than biased and arbitrary irrational and subjective conjecture and include all the parameters of what may "frighten" the populace "to be the most damaging hoax in history" I can think of many more candidates that are even more relevant for the here and now never mind history which would include adding in the larger population that we have now into being deceived and hoaxed which you did not even take into account.

[Selene]

Simon,

already looking forward to your findings and sharp conclusions that "not only the Copernican system is unlikely, it is impossible", I thought what about comparing the different systems/models that are around there?

A quick search gave me 11 more or less suitable different CM's (Celestial Models) or Systems:

1. Copernican System / Heliocentrism - CopS
2. Tychonic System - geo-heliocentrism - TychS
3. Ptolemaic System / Geocentrism or Aristotelian System / Geocentrism - PtAriS
4. Simon Shacks Solar System - geo-heliocentrism - SSSS
5. Egyptian System / geoheliocentric - EgyS
6. Babylonian System - undetermined non-geocentric - BabS
7. Arabic/Averroes / "Concentric System", "spheres" - AVS
8. Arabic/Alhazen System / geocentrism with fixed (non-rotating) Earth - AHS
9. Persian/Al-Biruni System / geocentrism (?) with rotating Earth - PerS
10. Indian System / heliocentrism (since 1838/1855) - IndS
11. Chinese System / "hemispherical dome", & more - geocentrism - ChiS

• Maya/Aztec System / religious
• Inca System / religious
• [st]Flat Earth[/st] (see why)

Not to mention the various religious proposals, e.g. Empyrean System and other interesting works as De Mundo or Philolaus' Counter-Earth...

I will try to fill in the explanations of the observations related to astronomy and geology for the different models (if present). How does each system cope with these and many many more observations?

I've highlighted some cells where strongholds of the models/astronomy are shown, including points addressed by Simon here in the topic. It's a first version, will keep thinking and improving along the way.

Selene

[fbenario]

Simon,

already looking forward to your findings and sharp conclusions that "not only the Copernican system is unlikely, it is impossible", I thought what about comparing the different systems/models that are around there?

A quick search gave me 11 more or less suitable different CM's (Celestial Models) or Systems:

1. Copernican System / Heliocentrism - CopS
2. Tychonic System - geo-heliocentrism - TychS
3. Ptolemaic System / Geocentrism or Aristotelian System / Geocentrism - PtAriS
4. Simon Shacks Solar System - geo-heliocentrism - SSSS
5. Egyptian System / geoheliocentric - EgyS
6. Babylonian System - undetermined non-geocentric - BabS
7. Arabic/Averroes / "Concentric System", "spheres" - AVS
8. Arabic/Alhazen System / geocentrism with fixed (non-rotating) Earth - AHS
9. Persian/Al-Biruni System / geocentrism (?) with rotating Earth - PerS
10. Indian System / heliocentrism (since 1838/1855) - IndS
11. Chinese System / "hemispherical dome", & more - geocentrism - ChiS

• Maya/Aztec System / religious
• Inca System / religious
• [st]Flat Earth[/st] (see why)

Not to mention the various religious proposals, e.g. Empyrean System and other interesting works as De Mundo or Philolaus' Counter-Earth...

I will try to fill in the explanations of the observations related to astronomy and geology for the different models (if present). How does each system cope with these and many many more observations?

I've highlighted some cells where strongholds of the models/astronomy are shown, including points addressed by Simon here in the topic. It's a first version, will keep thinking and improving along the way.

Selene

I like this idea. It should help each of us organize all the different theories and facts (?) we come across.

[Selene]

Simon,

already looking forward to your findings and sharp conclusions that "not only the Copernican system is unlikely, it is impossible", I thought what about comparing the different systems/models that are around there?

...

It's a first version, will keep thinking and improving along the way.

I like this idea. It should help each of us organize all the different theories and facts (?) we come across.

Thanks for the great idea, Selene - looking forward to the completion of your fine celestial model chart.

Thanks fbenario & simon,

trying to avoid the easier Copernican column for now, some basic Wikibrowsing gave me some hints about the other systems and their strongholds. In the timeline I've separated the Relativity-religion from the underlying heliocentric principle, which I considered 1 system in the list.

• 3 - Sunspots Ptolemy-Artistotle System - The first clear mention of a sunspot in Western literature, around 300 BC, was by the ancient Greek scholar Theophrastus, student of Plato and Aristotle and successor to the latter. A more recent sunspot observation was made on 17 March 807 AD by the Benedictine monk Adelmus, who observed a large sunspot that was visible for eight days; however, Adelmus incorrectly concluded he was observing a transit of Mercury. A large sunspot was also seen at the time of Charlemagne's death in 813 AD.[16] Sunspot activity in 1129 was described by John of Worcester, and Averroes provided a description of sunspots later in the 12th century; however, these observations were also misinterpreted as planetary transits, until Galileo gave the correct explanation in 1612.
• 5 - Egyptian System - From their existing records, it is known that the ancient Egyptians recorded the names of only a few identifiable constellations and a list of thirty-six decans that were used as a star clock. The Egyptians called the circumpolar star 'the star that cannot perish' and, although they made no known formal star catalogues, they nonetheless created extensive star charts of the night sky which adorn the coffins and ceilings of tomb chambers.
• 6 - Babylonian & Chinese Astronomy - comets
• 7 - Arabic-Alhazen - Geocentric yet critic of Ptolemian System - 11th century
  Alhazen's The Model of the Motions of Each of the Seven Planets was written c. 1038. Only one damaged manuscript has been found, with only the introduction and the first section, on the theory of planetary motion, surviving. (There was also a second section on astronomical calculation, and a third section, on astronomical instruments.) Following on from his Doubts on Ptolemy, Alhazen described a new, geometry-based planetary model, describing the motions of the planets in terms of spherical geometry, infinitesimal geometry and trigonometry. He kept a geocentric universe and assumed that celestial motions are uniformly circular, which required the inclusion of epicycles to explain observed motion, but he managed to eliminate Ptolemy's equant. In general, his model made no attempt to provide a causal explanation of the motions, but concentrated on providing a complete, geometric description which could be used to explain observed motions, without the contradictions inherent in Ptolemy's model.
  Alhazen wrote a total of twenty-five astronomical works, some concerning technical issues such as Exact Determination of the Meridian, a second group concerning accurate astronomical observation, a third group concerning various astronomical problems and questions such as the location of the Milky Way; Alhazen argued for a distant location, based on the fact that it does not move in relation to the fixed stars. The fourth group consists of ten works on astronomical theory, including the Doubts and Model of the Motions discussed above.
• 8 - Arabic-Averroes - 12th century, follows from 7 - Alhazen - Regarding his studies in astronomy, Averroes argued for a strictly concentric model of the universe, and explained sunspots and scientific reasoning regarding the occasional opaque colors of the moon. He also worked on the description of the spheres, and movement of the spheres.
• 9 - Persia/Ottoman - In his The Limit of Accomplishment concerning Knowledge of the Heavens, he also discussed the possibility of heliocentrism
  Another notable Persian astrologer and astronomer was Qutb al-Din al Shirazi born in Iran, Shiraz (1236–1311). He wrote critiques of Ptolemy's Almagest and produced two prominent works on astronomy: 'The Limit of Accomplishment Concerning Knowledge of the Heavens' in 1281 and 'The Royal Present' in 1284, both of which commented upon and improved on Ptolemy's work, particularly in the field of planetary motion. Al-Shirazi was also the first person to give the correct scientific explanation for the formation of a rainbow.
  
  
  a manuscript copy of Shirazi's al-Tuhfa al-Shahiya, 15th century
  
  Ulugh Beyg was a fifteenth-century Timurid Sultan and also a mathematician and astronomer. He built an observatory in 1428 and produced the first original star map since Ptolemy, which corrected the position of many stars and included many new ones.
  
  Other main contributor to the "Persian School of Thought" in the 11th century was famous Avicenna
  He stated:
  He criticized Aristotle's view of the stars receiving their light from the Sun, stating that the stars are self-luminous, and believed that the planets are also self-luminous. He claimed to have observed Venus as a spot on the Sun. This is possible, as there was a transit on May 24, 1032, but Avicenna did not give the date of his observation, and modern scholars have questioned whether he could have observed the transit from his location at that time; he may have mistaken a sunspot for Venus. He used his transit observation to help establish that Venus was, at least sometimes, below the Sun in Ptolemaic cosmology,[78] i.e. the sphere of Venus comes before the sphere of the Sun when moving out from the Earth in the prevailing geocentric model.
  
  He also wrote the Summary of the Almagest, (based on Ptolemy's Almagest), with an appended treatise "to bring that which is stated in the Almagest and what is understood from Natural Science into conformity". For example, Avicenna considers the motion of the solar apogee, which Ptolemy had taken to be fixed.
  Al Sufi - He identified the Large Magellanic Cloud, which is visible from Yemen, though not from Isfahan; it was not seen by Europeans until Magellan's voyage in the 16th century. He also made the earliest recorded observation of the Andromeda Galaxy in 964 AD; describing it as a "small cloud". These were the first galaxies other than the Milky Way to be observed from Earth.
  
  He observed that the ecliptic plane is inclined with respect to the celestial equator and more accurately calculated the length of the tropical year. He observed and described the stars, their positions, their magnitudes and their colour, setting out his results constellation by constellation. For each constellation, he provided two drawings, one from the outside of a celestial globe, and the other from the inside (as seen from the earth).
  
  Al-Sufi also wrote about the astrolabe, finding numerous additional uses for it: he described over 1000 different uses, in areas as diverse as astronomy, astrology, horoscopes, navigation, surveying, timekeeping, Qibla, Salat prayer, etc.
  More Persian scientists & scholars
• 10 - India - "One finds in the Rigveda intelligent speculations about the genesis of the universe from nonexistence, the configuration of the universe, the spherical self-supporting earth, and the year of 360 days divided into 12 equal parts of 30 days each with a periodical intercalary month." - mean longitudes of the planets - true longitudes of the planets;- the three problems of diurnal rotation - syzygies - lunar eclipses - solar eclipses - latitudes of the planets - risings and settings - the moon's crescent - conjunctions of the planets with each other - conjunctions of the planets with the fixed stars - and the patas of the sun and moon.
  In his Tantrasangraha, Nilakantha revised Aryabhata's model for the planets Mercury and Venus. His equation of the centre for these planets remained the most accurate until the time of Johannes Kepler in the 17th century.
  
  In his Aryabhatiyabhasya, a commentary on Aryabhata's Aryabhatiya, Nilakantha developed a computational system for a partially heliocentric planetary model in which Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn orbit the Sun, which in turn orbits the Earth, similar to the Tychonic system later proposed by Tycho Brahe in the late 16th century. Most astronomers of the Kerala school who followed him accepted this planetary model.
• 11 - China - longest history of sunspot registration (364 BC+ !), solar & lunar eclipses, star mapping, supernovas
• 12a - The Motul Dictionary, compiled in the 16th century by an anonymous author (although attributed to Fray Antonio de Ciudad Real), contains a list of stars originally observed by the ancient Mayas. The Maya Paris Codex also contain symbols for different constellations which were represented by mythological beings. & Maya calendar & Eclipse predictions (even for 1991)
• 12b - Incas were not very good predictors of eclipses - "The incas did not possess a system to divide time into hours"

So I corrected the geocentric model of Indian Astronomy into the "Tychonian / Tycho-SSSS" geo-heliocentric system, modified order and filled in blanks for columns 3 & 5-12b based on the information listed above, swapped columns 7 & 8 for better chronology

Other links that may be of interest:
- List of Jesuit Scientists - For example, the Jesuits have dedicated significant study to earthquakes, and seismology has been described as "the Jesuit science."
- Jack Eddy - In 1976 Dr. Eddy published a landmark paper in Science titled "The Maunder Minimum" where, using the Nineteenth Century works of Edward W. Maunder and Gustav Spörer, he identified a 70-year period from 1645 to 1715 as a time when solar activity all but stopped. In making the case for the anomaly, he gathered and interpreted data from a wide variety of sources, including first-hand accounts from extant historical observations of the Sun going back to the telescopic observations of Galileo and other contemporary scientists of the 17th and early 18th centuries
- Giovanni Battista Riccioli - Italian astronomer and a Catholic priest in the Jesuit order & introducing the current scheme of lunar nomenclature.
- Angelo Secchi - one of the first scientists to state authoritatively that the Sun is a star - pioneer in astronomical spectroscopy - Secchi was born in Reggio Emilia, where he studied at the Jesuit gymnasium. At the age of 16, he entered the Jesuit Order in Rome. He continued his studies at the Roman College, and demonstrated great scientific ability. In 1839 [21 years old?!], he was appointed tutor of mathematics and physics at the College. In 1841, he became Professor of Physics at the Jesuit College in Loreto. In 1844, he began theological studies in Rome, and was ordained a priest on 12 September 1847. In 1848, due to the Roman Revolution, the Jesuits had to leave Rome. Fr. Secchi spent the next two years in the United Kingdom at Stonyhurst College, and the United States, where he taught for a time at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. He also took his doctoral examination in theology there.

During his stay in America, he met Commander Matthew Fontaine Maury, the first Director of the United States Naval Observatory in Washington. He studied with Maury and corresponded with him for many years.

He returned to Rome in 1850. On the recommendation of his late colleague Francesco de Vico, he became head of the Observatory of the College at age 32.
- Tychonic System - Legacy of the Tychonic system

After Tycho's death, Johannes Kepler used the observations of Tycho himself to demonstrate that the orbits of the planets are ellipses and not circles, creating the modified Copernican system that ultimately displaced both the Tychonic and Ptolemaic systems. However, the Tychonic system was very influential in the late 16th and 17th centuries. In 1616, during the Galileo affair, the papal Congregation of the Index banned all books advocating the Copernican system, including works by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and other authors until 1758. The Tychonic system was an acceptable alternative [to the Church] as it explained the observed phases of Venus with a static Earth. Jesuit astronomers in China used it extensively, as did a number of European scholars. Jesuits (such as Clavius, Christoph Grienberger, Christoph Scheiner, Odo van Maelcote) were the most efficient agent for the diffusion of the Tychonic system. It was chiefly through the influence of the Jesuit scientists that the Roman Catholic Church adopted the Tychonic system, over a period of nine years (from 1611 to 1620), in a process directly prompted by the Galilean telescopic discoveries.

=========

PS, according to this link, both the Chinese and the Babylonians had a geocentric worldview with spherical rotating Earth contradicting the earlier idea of non-geocentrical world view of the Babylonians.

=========

A rough incomplete(!) timeline would look like this:



Selene

Please just change the 'SSSS' entry to "TYCHO-SSSS", as this is what I will call my upcoming model - for which I don't wish to claim too much personal credit for. It is, after all, nothing but a refined / updated version based on Tycho Brahe's lifetime observations (which were ultimately flipped-180°-on-their-head by the Kepler clown) - even though I believe that my efforts contain original ideas / calculations - and hitherto unnoticed, crucial observations.

Ok, fixed that.

[simonshack]

Thanks for the great idea, Selene - looking forward to the completion of your fine celestial model chart. Please just change the 'SSSS' entry to "TYCHO-SSSS", as this is what I will call my upcoming model - for which I don't wish to claim too much personal credit for. It is, after all, nothing but a refined / updated version based on Tycho Brahe's lifetime observations (which were ultimately flipped-180°-on-their-head by the Kepler clown) - even though I believe that my efforts contain original ideas / calculations - and hitherto unnoticed, crucial observations.

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


KEPLER THE FUDGER
- and the Royal Society's aberration boys



At this point, and as a brief 'historical pre-intro' to my upcoming TYCHO-SSSS celestial model, I find it necessary to spend a few words about the men responsible for 'grinding in stone' (for All Times?) the current, universally accepted solar system model. I have chosen but three of those 'heavyweight' individuals for this short exposé although, of course, countless other scientists and important men have contributed in establishing the Copernican model as the ultimate (and 'incontestable') achievement of human intellect. To be sure, anyone questioning the Copernican / Keplerian model today (oh well, at least in the Western world) is roundly shunned and scoffed at - and more often than not, tagged in society as a 'raving crackpot'.

So let's start with Johannes Kepler - the man who wrote the three "Laws of Planetary Motion" - which, among other things, proposed the novel (yet currently accepted) idea that planets do not orbit in circles - but rather in elliptical fashion, and that - while doing so - they periodically accelerate and slow down according to their distance from another celestial body... Yes, this is what we are taught in school, folks - as you probably are all aware of. I will make a long story short and just submit a few relevant excerpts and links to some writings by a few Kepler critics who, as far as I've gathered throughout my readings, are no crackpots - and knew very well what they were talking about.

Here's from the English translator of Kepler's ASTRONOMIA NOVA (a book hailed as "one of the most important works of the Scientific Revolution") - science historian William Donahue:

(Extracts selected by yours truly for your reading pleasure) :



Donahue's 'shocking' exposure of Kepler's fudging caused a (brief / short-lived) media stir, back in the 1990's. Here's from the New York Times :

"After 400 Years, a Challenge to Kepler: He Fabricated His Data, Scholar Says"
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/scien ... gewanted=1

Here's an interesting quote attributed to ARTHUR KOESTLER (Kepler's biographer and author of "THE SLEEPWALKERS - A history of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe"):

Kepler had to fudge to get the orbit of Mercury to agree with Brahe's measurements of it. Koestler has it: "As for Mercury, he frankly resorted to cheating."
http://www.albany.edu/~scifraud/data/sci_fraud_1499.html

Remember that line: "As for Mercury, Kepler resorted to cheating". I will soon be expounding why I now understand that he HAD to.

To be sure, there certainly are reasons to believe that Kepler DID, in fact, murder his master :
Did Johannes Kepler Murder Tycho Brahe? https://suite.io/jenny-ashford/3fny2jz

And for those who are still stuck with the popularly-held notion that folks like Kepler (Copernicus, Galilei & co) led us into the modern, rational era of 'scientific enlightenment' and emancipated humanity from the old, religious dogmas of the Church, here's some rather bizarre, 'godly' views - straight from Mr Kepler's mind...

Shortly after his first book appeared [Kepler's "Harmonice Mundi" - 1618], he wrote in a letter: "Since God established everything in the universe along quantitative norms, he endowed man with a mind to comprehend them. For just as the eye is fitted for the perception of colors, the ear for sounds, so is man's mind created not for anything but for the grasping of quantities." In the Harmonice mundi he wrote merely a variation on the same theme as he spoke of geometry which "supplied God with a model for the creation of the world. Geometry was implanted into human nature along with God's image and not through man's visual perception and experience."
http://biography.yourdictionary.com/johannes-kepler

"...not through man's visual perception and experience" ??? Well, I solemnly beg to disagree. This Kepler guy wouldn't have lasted long on this forum.

****

But enough (for now) about Kepler and his trickery. Let's have a look at the two fellows whose principal claim to universal fame is to have discovered, by looking into a telescope strapped to a chimney in Molyneux's house, the so-called Aberration of Light, hailed as "the first definite evidence that the earth moved and that Copernicus and Kepler were correct."

Introducing Sir James Bradley and his sidekick Samuel Madden Molyneux - of the Royal Society:



Now, the irony of this 'grand discovery' (a most questionable one in itself, as we will see) is that it was entirely derived / extrapolated (or one may justly say, 'concocted') out of a - quite spectacular - failure : in fact, what Bradley was originally trying to observe (so as to confirm the Copernican-Keplerian theory - with its earth zapping along space at 108.000km/h, round a 300 million-km-wide circle) was the stellar parallax that would be expected - if we were indeed travelling around a ring with a circumference of almost one billion kilometers (940million) every year. Yet, none of the expected parallax was found. Instead, Bradley and his friend observed a minuscule, near-circular motion (with a circa 40 seconds of arc diameter) of the star above London that they had chosen to monitor (Gamma Draconis). They later found the same 40"arc 'wobble' (as they called it) in hundreds of other stars. In fact, as we know today, even the North Star (Polaris) has that very same, minuscule circular wobble!

"Bradley and Molyneux were surprised to find that rather than detect a parallax they detected an unexplained wobble of the star. Moreover, similar wobbles were found by Bradley using another high-precision telescope for some 200 other stars." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Molyneux

Yet, instead of concluding (or even attempting to verify!) that the wobble they observed was, perhaps, quite simply due to the (stationary) earth rotating on itself (and seasonally following the yearly revolution of the sun) they came up with their "Aberration Of Light" theory. You may read more about "AOL" in this article - if you're interested. As it goes, it purports to prove that we are moving at hypersonic speeds across space - a claim supported to this day by very flimsy evidence - whereas numerous other experiments (think Michelson-Morley, George Airy, Trouton-Noble et al) have all failed to confirm that this is the case.

I will stop here for now - even though I could go on for much longer about the countless lesser or greater problems raised by the Copernican-Keplerian model: I need to get on with my own contributions to make some sense of it all !

[simonshack]

*

Selene,

I agree with Hoi's decision to move your last post to the Derailing Room - however, here's the link to it for anyone interested. The thing is, I found those two videos you embedded about Tycho Brahe rather silly - and I'd rather not 'promote' them here on this thread. To be sure, all that really matters to me are Tycho's legacy of impressively accurate, empirical observations - and the geometrical soundness and logic of his basic, celestial model. I really couldn't care less about Tycho's personality / partying / or whether or not he shagged the royal mother. You'll have to ask yourself (when watching the first video you posted) : WHY this character assassination of Tycho Brahe, in 2014 ?

On the other hand, I thank you for reminding me of a few important things / details / caveats I should probably clarify regarding my general stance towards Brahe and my choice of calling my upcoming, personal variant of his 'geoheliocentric' model the "TYCHO-SSSS".

As it is, it would probably be more correct to call it the "SEMI-TYCHO-SSSS" - or even the "LONGOMONTANUS-SSSS". Let me explain: the term 'semi-tycho' is often used to describe a variant tychonian model which includes a daily (a.k.a. 'diurnal') rotating earth - as opposed to the whole star field rotating around us - as Tycho apparently believed until his death. In fact, I suspect that this may have been Tycho's most unfortunate error - and one of the prime reasons for his model to be met with skepticism by many of his contemporaries - along with their utter misunderstanding of Tycho's Mars trajectory (which intersects the sun's orbit), which they thought would "make Mars and the Sun collide". As I will amply / mathematically demonstrate - such a collision cannot possibly occur, luckily so for us earthlings !

Let it be said that Tycho Brahe was the last great astronomer of this world who observed the "full picture" of our skies (and spent his entire life doing so, in the most ideal / comfortable conditions - and with the aid of most ingenious measuring apparels) - before the advent of the telescope which, for some aspects may have improved the astronomers' 'performance', yet - for other aspects - may have "narrowed" their vision and understanding of the cosmos.

As for Longomontanus, let me lazily / conveniently just quote this brief paragraph from the oft useful / time-saving W-pedia:

"However, it was Longomontanus who really developed Tycho's geoheliocentric model empirically and publicly to common acceptance in the 17th century in his 1622 astronomical tables. When Tycho died in 1601, his program for the restoration of astronomy was unfinished. The observational aspects were complete, but two important tasks remained, namely the selection and integration of the data into accounts of the motions of the planets, and the presentation of the results on the entire program in the form of a systematic treatise. Longomontanus, Tycho's sole disciple, assumed the responsibility and fulfilled both tasks in his voluminous Astronomia Danica (1622). Regarded as the testament of Tycho, the work was eagerly received in seventeenth-century astronomical literature. But unlike Tycho's, his geoheliocentric model gave the Earth a daily rotation as in the models of Ursus and Roslin, and which is sometimes called the 'semi-Tychonic' system."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christen_ ... gomontanus

As a last note, I will just cite / acknowledge in a few words the various proponents of model's similar to Tycho's (anyone interested can thus look them up for themselves). Firstly, it is said that Tycho was inspired by the North African Martianus Capella (ca-.365-ca.340), who first described a system in which Mercury and Venus are placed on epicycles around the Sun, which circles the Earth (Btw, a little-known fact: Copernicus, who actually cited Capella's theory, even mentioned the possibility of an extension in which the other three known planets would also circle the Sun). Other proponents of tychonian variants were Paul Wittich, Nicolaus Reimers (aka "Ursus"), Helisaeus Roeslin, Valentin Naboth and Simon Marius.

The most perplexing / almost absurd aspect of the whole heliocentric-vs-geocentric debate throughout the times is that the serious / decently objective / 'academic' (for lack of better terms, sorry...) literature on the subject seems to be - by and large - in full agreement about the fact that the geocentric observational data was far superior (to the heliocentric) both in sheer accuracy - and in predicting the various, related celestial models of the kind. Yet today, the afore-mentioned (and many more) thinkers / astronomers are all but forgotten - and have been confined to the dustbin of history...

[Selene]

*

Selene,

I agree with Hoi's decision to move your last post to the Derailing Room - however, here's the link to it for anyone interested. The thing is, I found those two videos you embedded about Tycho Brahe rather silly - and I'd rather not 'promote' them here on this thread. To be sure, all that really matters to me are Tycho's legacy of impressively accurate, empirical observations - and the geometrical soundness and logic of his basic, celestial model. I really couldn't care less about Tycho's personality / partying / or whether or not he shagged the royal mother.

Simon,

of course fine about the videos, but I also posted an updated scheme which was treated equally where the effort of cutting the post in two and move the videos to the 'Derailing' Room was minimal.

But in the grand scheme of things, that's a microscopically unimportant point.

The point is, and that is also the idea behind the scheme and timeline, is that you are honest in your arguments, keep them the same for all points you address.

If your argument is "NASA or Church/TPTB-supported" or "the personal life and attitude of the main scientist", then all the systems (within their own time perspective; we cannot hold the Babylonians responsible for not having discovered Uranus) have to confront these same arguments.

The first three systems in revolving Renaissance Europa, chronologically Ptolemean geocentrism, Tychonian geo-heliocentrism and Copernican-Kepler elliptic-gravity-driven heliocentrism all have been supported by The Powers That Were of the times. So if your argument is "spoilt by power structures", then they all are "guilty".

They may still differ in guiltiness (hence all the boxes to compare these systems), and that is something to investigate. If you make that argument part of your these.

The same for "private life of the founding father" of a system. If your argument against Kepler and Copernicus is "they were crooks, basterds and worse, here look at these facts from private lives", then Mr. Brahe cannot escape that same scrutiny, can he?

Position him in the present:
- born in noble family
- wealthy as a Carlos Slim/Bill Gates/Steve Job heritage
- all the time for his experiments
- deeply involved (pun intended, but Simon, we can both look beyond the format and juicy stories of this spoonfeeding cherrypicking videos, right?, it's the warm connection with the powers that counts -if you make that your argument-)
- got his own island, free to do what he wanted to
- lived like a rock star, FIFA praeses or king
- had a "fake nose" (of whatever material, Hg-rich or not)??

He fell pretty beyond the normal and would fall the same way now.

So, either it's "I don't care he was banging the queen intimately involved in the power structures of the time" and Keplers crookedness, Copernicus' morning moodiness, Averroes' drinking problems in muslim world* and Aristotle's love for virgin boys are also not of importance, or they all do.

*fiction, but you get the idea

It does not discredit any of his no doubt scientific discoveries and work, Simon. If you'd produce a band song I don't like and I'd comment on it, it would not in any way discredit your work on September Clues, the thousands other topics here or the Semi-Tycho-SSSS (is there a better name to come up with? No songtext of yours that contains a betgettter name/acronym/etc.?)...

On the other hand, I thank you for reminding me of a few important things / details / caveats I should probably clarify regarding my general stance towards Brahe and my choice of calling my upcoming, personal variant of his 'geoheliocentric' model the "TYCHO-SSSS".

Well spotted. That is indeed my intention.

And in any case with whatever you publish under the so bold (litterally) words you spoke, please double, triple, quadruple check everything.

Reading between the lines of nonhocapito, I see that he fears a bit that you can get haunted by your publication and I think he has a very fair point (or me, seeing it in his words).

You don't want to be the fallen rockstar exposing all the media fakery and getting f(r)amed for a system that cannot stand the tests against the main stream view (but not only held amongst "MSM-loving people").

You experience a world filled with more shills than me, but be aware about what you publish on this. You know best, but don't get haunted by it.

And again, I admire you doing it and going through all the effort.

As it is, it would probably be more correct to call it the "SEMI-TYCHO-SSSS" - or even the "LONGOMONTANUS-SSSS". Let me explain: the term 'semi-tycho' is often used to describe a variant tychonian model which includes a daily (a.k.a. 'diurnal') rotating earth - as opposed to the whole star field rotating around us - as Tycho apparently believed until his death. In fact, I suspect that this may have been Tycho's most unfortunate error - and one of the prime reasons for his model to be met with skepticism by many of his contemporaries

I try to understand what you're saying about the basic celestial objects:

Tychonian - Titan Tycho/Badass Brahe - "geo-heliocentrism":
- Earth is static (does not rotate, nor orbit?)
- Moon moves around** Earth
- Sun moves around Earth
- Planets move around Sun
- Stars/firmament move around Earth (and all the other celestial objects)
- Distance to and sizes of Sun and stars are considerably less than in Copernican model

"Semi-Tychonian-Longomotanus" - you - "geo-heliocentrism":
- Earth is dynamic (rotates, but not orbits?)
- Moon moves around Earth
- Sun moves around Earth
- Planets move around Sun
- Stars/firmament are/seem static with respect to us
- Distance to and sizes of Sun and stars are considerably less than in Copernican model

**I used the words "moves around" and not "orbits" as to me the latter gives a "Copernican feel", how did Brahe describe it himself?

Both these systems would be called "geo-heliocentric" (the Earth is the center of 1 part of the objects and the Sun another) yet are completely different. I am not arguing with an "official" term as "semi-Tychonian", but such a drastic difference, I wouldn't call "semi-", but ok.

It's the differences that matter and so the difference between the columns in the updated sheet below. Based on the simple stuff I found until now, only the Arabic scientist Alhazen in the 11th (!) century proposed a non-rotating Earth, apart from Brahe who lived 500 years later.

That would make Tychonian unique and your Celestial More Bad Ass Than Tychonian-model less unique but more firm I'd say.

- along with their utter misunderstanding of Tycho's Mars trajectory (which intersects the sun's orbit), which they thought would "make Mars and the Sun collide". As I will amply / mathematically demonstrate - such a collision cannot possibly occur, luckily so for us earthlings !

Great, looking forward to it, but again: please take all the time you need. And more.

Let it be said that Tycho Brahe was the last great astronomer of this world who observed the "full picture" of our skies (and spent his entire life doing so, in the most ideal / comfortable conditions - and with the aid of most ingenious measuring apparels) - before the advent of the telescope which, for some aspects may have improved the astronomers' 'performance', yet - for other aspects - may have "narrowed" their vision and understanding of the cosmos.

Definitely. And I share the same amazement and interest.

Your system would be the first proposed working celestial system after the invention of the telescope.

- Does it (still) stand the scrutiny of all Earth-based (non-NASA-spoilt) (amateur) astronomical observations?
- Would you be able to predict next solar and lunar eclipses***?
- How does your SSSSemiTycho system see the origin of the Earth, being in a geo-heliocentric setting, unique as the (other) -sorry, heliocentric speak- planets move around the Sun, while he does that around the Earth****?

***not now, in any future, I mean, is your model suitable for it in the long term? The unaided by telescope geocentrists of China, maya and Babylonian world could do it, as well as the Copernican heliocentrists and the geo-heliocentrists of India and Brahe himself.
****I realise it's a reverse argument because our views about Earths origin are derived from the celestial model, not the other way around, but for a geologist to accept a non-heliocentric view of the skies would be a hard nut to crack...

As for Longomontanus, let me lazily / conveniently just quote this brief paragraph from the oft useful / time-saving W-pedia:

"However, it was Longomontanus who really developed Tycho's geoheliocentric model empirically and publicly to common acceptance in the 17th century in his 1622 astronomical tables. When Tycho died in 1601, his program for the restoration of astronomy was unfinished. The observational aspects were complete, but two important tasks remained, namely the selection and integration of the data into accounts of the motions of the planets, and the presentation of the results on the entire program in the form of a systematic treatise. Longomontanus, Tycho's sole disciple, assumed the responsibility and fulfilled both tasks in his voluminous Astronomia Danica (1622). Regarded as the testament of Tycho, the work was eagerly received in seventeenth-century astronomical literature. But unlike Tycho's, his geoheliocentric model gave the Earth a daily rotation as in the models of Ursus and Roslin, and which is sometimes called the 'semi-Tychonic' system."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christen_Sørensen_Longomontanus

Thanks Simon. The Lengthy Longomontanus-Brahe Badass System... hmmm, a better name is needed again.

As a last note, I will just cite / acknowledge in a few words the various proponents of model's similar to Tycho's (anyone interested can thus look them up for themselves). Firstly, it is said that Tycho was inspired by the North African Martianus Capella (ca-.365-ca.340), who first described a system in which Mercury and Venus are placed on epicycles around the Sun, which circles the Earth (Btw, a little-known fact: Copernicus, who actually cited Capella's theory, even mentioned the possibility of an extension in which the other three known planets would also circle the Sun). Other proponents of tychonian variants were Paul Wittich, Nicolaus Reimers (aka "Ursus"), Helisaeus Roeslin, Valentin Naboth and Simon Marius.

Great, will dive into it.

Do you know how the link with the Indian astronomers was? Did Tycho Brahe take his geo-heliocentrism from the Kerala School, did he find the confirmation of his own views there or were they 2 congruently yet diachronously evolved ideas?

The most perplexing / almost absurd aspect of the whole heliocentric-vs-geocentric debate throughout the times is that the serious / decently objective / 'academic' (for lack of better terms, sorry...) literature on the subject seems to be - by and large - in full agreement about the fact that the geocentric observational data was far superior (to the heliocentric) both in sheer accuracy - and in predicting the various, related celestial models of the kind. Yet today, the afore-mentioned (and many more) thinkers / astronomers are all but forgotten - and have been confined to the dustbin of history...

Again here, the same benchmarks.

At the first glance I gave the systems, it keeps amazing me that with all different types Geocentric, geo-heliocentric and heliocentric predictions could be made.
Predicting solar and lunar eclipses can only be done with confidence with a working model. It is essentially the test for it; the predictive behaviour of a hypothesis turning into theory.

Contrary to my former world view and the one still shared by the majority that it is a "very sensitive complex system, can only be explained with 1 celestial model" all three types seem to have these capacities.

I couldn't imagine a geological analogue where the foundational model can be so different and still explain and predict all observations. It's like there were 2 other models for plate tectonics and all three would stand the test in explaining the obvious South America-Africa puzzle and all related geophysics, geology and biology. And all scientific, no creationistic crap... Hmm...

If there are holes in the Copernican-Kepler-Newtonian (non-Einstein relativity religion spoilt, just the relation between the solar system, the stars and us) system that is already big big news. If there are impossibilities as you stated, even more.

More and more questions will come, not only from me but you get butchered by the people who know you, Simon Shack, as the serious researcher on 9/11 and all the other hoaxes here, who proposes a sky turning tuned Tycho model... Be prepared for that.





I've put the discovery of the moons of Jupiter by Galileo as a stronghold of both the Copernican and the Tychonian models around in the early 17th century. Do you know what influence Tycho had on the model Galileo used to discover these moons, a pretty amazing change in view of the skies...?

Can it be attributed to Tycho or has that to be Copernicus and Kepler and are there other moons discovered which rely on Tychonian/geo-heliocentric models? The outer moons of the big planets Jupiter and Saturn, discovered long after the deaths of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Longmontanus, Newton and Capella, appear to have different behaviour around their planets than the inner moons...

From the end of the 19th century, dozens of much smaller Jovian moons have been discovered and have received the names of lovers, conquests, or daughters of the Roman god Jupiter, or his Greek equivalent, Zeus. The Galilean moons are by far the largest and most massive objects in orbit around Jupiter, with the remaining 63 moons and the rings together comprising just 0.003% of the total orbiting mass.

Of Jupiter's moons, eight are regular satellites, with prograde and nearly circular orbits that are not greatly inclined with respect to Jupiter's equatorial plane. The Galilean satellites are nearly spherical in shape, due to having planetary mass, and so would be considered dwarf planets if they were in direct orbit about the Sun. The other four regular satellites are much smaller and closer to Jupiter; these serve as sources of the dust that makes up Jupiter's rings.The remainder of Jupiter's moons are irregular satellites, whose prograde and retrograde orbits are much farther from Jupiter and have high inclinations and eccentricities.

Iapetus is the third-largest of Saturn's moons. Orbiting the planet at 3.5 million km, it is by far the most distant of Saturn's large moons, and also possesses the greatest orbital inclination, at 15.47°

This predictive behaviour of planet moons again is a good test of the system.

I've coloured reddish the cells for Calendar for Copernican and Ptolemean and as a stronghold for Tychonian, something you explained earlier in this topic.

In the end, all cells for the "SSSS-Semi-Tychonian Model" (SSSSSTM is too much, Simon...) should be convincingly considerably greener than those for not only the Copernican but also all other columns of interest, in particular the Indian and one of the geocentric (Ptolemean?) models...

Selene

PS: I consider the Tycho Brahe "rock star" life an admirable one.

[Selene]

Simon, just like you the great ideas and thinking start surfacing at the interface of land and sea, the surface geological-geomorphological area we call beach, and back at base these brain waves need to be spread...

I've regrouped the Celestial Models into 5 categories/types based on what you wrote and the little (many interests at the same time and a life outside of CF ) I've read so far about the Celestial Models...

Can you please check if I did the right positioning of the planets, Sun and Moon in your Longomontanus-SSSS Model and also the (Indian-)Tychonian if you can help me out there?







Legend:

• the yellow boxes with the bigger question marks reflect my highest curiosity in Simons Model
• the pale green boxes indicate points covered but no strongholds of the Celestial Model (CM)
• the light green boxes indicate strongholds and discoveries of that CM
• the darker green boxes indicate an intrinsic stronghold of a scientific theory; predictions. The Dynamic Heliocentric current main stream view model certainly seems to comply; a 'parallel universe' question remains if Uranus, Neptune, (the outer "new/dwarf planets", Kuiper belt objects and Van Oort cloud) and all the moons discovered after Galileis first discovery in 1610 could have been discovered using a different Celestial Model
• the light bordeaux cells indicate weaknesses of each Model, so far only limited to the leap day/seconds problem in the Copernican-Kepler Model

Also, I am trying to improve the clarity of my posts, if anyone doesn't understand, need more info, has suggestions or other requests, let me know. It is ongoing research, never carved in Cretaceous limestone nor any "final version".

Selene

Science is by definition never settled, Antropogenic Global Warmorons

[simonshack]

Selene,

No need to rush it (that is, your 'great cosmic chart'), and hey, I haven't released my model yet! And lol - no, that's not a correct drawing of the upcoming TYCHO-SSS (please just call it that way - after all, Tycho did most of the work - not Longomontanus). Anyhow, it's coming along really well, if you ask me - even surprisingly so - but as we say in Italy : "chi va piano va sano".

[Selene]

Selene,

No need to rush it (that is, your 'great cosmic chart'), and hey, I haven't released my model yet! And lol - no, that's not a correct drawing of the upcoming TYCHO-SSS (please just call it that way - after all, Tycho did most of the work - not Longomontanus). Anyhow, it's coming along really well, if you ask me - even surprisingly so - but as we say in Italy : "chi va piano va sano".

Oh please Simon, the Southern Italian and similar lifestyle, common in most parts of the non-Norwegian or other North-West European world, is what binds, not separates us....

My enthusiasm shouldn't be felt like pushing or rushing in any way. I am trying to get my head around the complex subject and patiently await any good feedback from anyone. And busy with numerous other interests as well. Like you.

If you want me to obscure your model behind the curtain of future CF discoveries, I certainly will.
But can you at least tell me where I am wrong on Tycho and his Indian friends? Or any other reader, but I consider you an expert, which in my vocabulary is a good thing, no matter what Massachusetts mankind or anyone else may think of that.

Selene

chi va piano va sano is totally understood and agreed upon from my side didn't I say so; don't rush your publication!?

I do not consider my contributions in this "musings about Earth and its relation to the celestial bodies surrounding it-category" within CF the final thing, it's work in progress and for now the non-(religulous, non-empirical, unverifiable by normal human beings) Einsteinian Copernican-Kepler-Newtonian-Galilei model to me explains best all observations. But my mind is open to be convinced of other models.

[Painterman]

In case it hasn't been mentioned (and if it has, it bears repeating), the orthodox view of Tycho's model vs. the Copernican model is that they give the same predictions about where in the sky the main bodies of the (so-called) solar system will appear. Thus, deciding in favor of one or the other of these models would seem to require looking deeper into space. However, often-cited stellar parallax doesn't really resolve matters, because this phenomenon can be present in the Tychonic system as well with a bit of tweaking.

Let us posit that, like the non-earth planets in their Tychonic orbits, each star maintains a constant distance from the sun. In other words, we hypothesize a principle whereby the distances from the sun to the planets and stars don't change – i.e. in the first approximation, ignoring orbital eccentricity, etc. This principle, a rough equivalent of gravity, applies to the planets in an obvious way. Let's apply it also to the stars.

Accordingly, as the sun follows its annual circular course around the earth, each of the otherwise (nearly) stationary stars keeps its distance from the sun constant by duplicating the sun's motion in its respective local region of space. As the stars, like distant versions of the planets, match the motion of the sun, the result is the same stellar parallax predicted by the Copernican model.

[smj]

I'm afraid I've become a jaded bastard that has no use for concepts such as stellar parallax. The dramatic 2,000 year quest for it, from Hipparchus to Bessel and beyond (way feckin' beyond) seems to me to be the same ole hustling Ψentific narrative I've grown accustomed to. I have my doubts as to whether the clever ancients that so kindly catalogued the heavens for us ever even literally existed. From Hipparchus to Ptolemy and his Almagest to John of Holywood and his Tractatus de Sphaera to even William Pickering and his harem's Havard's Classification Scheme; I'm inclined to call bullΨence.
http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?page= ... =HIPPARCOS
http://www.bgfax.com/school/distance_history.pdf
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almagest
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_de_Sacrobosco
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/t ... t-9287444/

Earlier in this thread Simon went over the absurdity of James Bradley's accidental discovery of the aberration of light that was the result of his quest to demonstrate stellar parallax; I find Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel's übermenshlich effort to determine parallax just as absurd. The narrative would have me believe that Bessel was able to measure the separation between two stars down to less than two hundred thousandths of a degree- which is according to the fine folks at the Carnegie Institute of Science, the equivalent of measuring "the width of a pizza in New York as observed from San Francisco". The clever son-of-gun did this in 1838 while making the requisite adjustments for Bradley's nutation and aberration as well as for precession and atmospheric refraction and for any variance due to his telescope of course. All this with a six month interval between measurements to account for the supposed orbit of spaceship earth...
https://cosmology.carnegiescience.edu/timeline/1838

...here's ole Bessel's miraculous rig...


https://cosmology.carnegiescience.edu/t ... -telescope

Now since Ψence has progressed we don't rely on superhuman Ψentists to determine parallax anymore. We rely on supersilly spaceships like the High precision parallax collecting satellite (called Hipparchos of course) to determine parallax. The Hipparchos spaceship catalogued over 100,000 stars, 200 more times accurately then ever before we're told...


http://wwwhip.obspm.fr/hipparcos/le-sat ... -satellite
http://sci.esa.int/hipparcos/

...The flimsy flying piece of shit helped our Ψentific geniuses make the sweet new Hipparcos and Tycho catalogues...
http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?proje ... arch_tools

This is important stuff we're told, the type of stuff that Cambridge hustlers get prizes for...

"Professor Michael Perryman, the scientific leader of ESA's Hipparcos mission, and a founding father of its successor mission, Gaia, has been awarded the 2011 Tycho Brahe Prize from the European Astronomical Society. The prize recognises the extraordinary work accomplished by Perryman in shepherding the field of astrometry to its successful leap into space-based observations and demonstrating the importance of measuring stellar positions for a plethora of astronomical applications."
http://sci.esa.int/hipparcos/48776-mich ... ahe-prize/

...of course nasa took the esa hustle to a whole 'nother level as they're wont to do...
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/april/n ... hF6yGK9KSM

[ProperGander]

Modern astronomy is a mess. It is a patchwork theory derived from different sources and time periods. Some of it even makes use of geocentric concepts. The basic heliocentric model, for example, puts the Sun at the center of the Universe and this contradicts the Big Bang model. The 'fixed stars' which all seem to be magically at the same distance from the Earth do not fit in with a big bang, explosion type model, either.

The Earth is supposed to move quite a considerable distance around the Sun over the course of the year and all that was measured with optical equipment was some slight parallax, which took the astronomers centuries to accomplish.

Of course, whether or not stars or any other celestial body, like planets, can be seen beyond a certain altitude, is questionable. Things like the importance of the measurement of the perihelion of Mercury are given a prominent position in the history of science, but the fact is when one considers things like atmospheric refraction, one sees that there are other explanations for the apparent bending of light around the Sun. One can also come up with other explantions for the apparent retrograde motions of the planets. (planet means ‘wanderer’)

The other problem is that the constellations retain their shape throughout the year. Not to mention that these constellations are supposed to have retained their shapes for for centuries or more, or so we are told. The Earth in this model, spins on its axis and revolves around the Sun and these compounded motions do not cause the constellations to change shape at all. This is not what one would expect in a three dimensional "Big Bang" Universe. Further, there is no apparent motion of these celestial bodies. When parallax is discussed, there is a tendency to ignore the shapes of the constellations and the observation that their shapes remain the same. This, along with the solstice, might be the best argument for a geocentric type model of our Universe. (Universe is an interesting word, a verse is part of a song or poem and uni means one. This word could simply mean 'the first verse' of a story.)

The idea of 'fixed stars' contradicts the Big Bang Theory. Even in modern times, these stars are considered to be motionless and the Earth is considered to be moving, or at least that is how these stars tend to be described by mainstream sources.

The Newtonian and Kepler mechanics for planetary motion are also problematic. The Moon, for example, ignores these 'laws'. The Moon's position goes from North in the sky to South and back again, like the Sun. The Earth does not exhibit such motion with regards to the Sun. The Newtonian explanation for a body in orbit requires one to accept that a body can be projected at a speed which will cause it to fall around the Earth due to this speed somehow matching the Earth's curvature. This concept is absurd and flies in the face of what we can demonstrate here on Earth with centripetal/centrifugal and ballistic experiments. In this model, gravity is the centripetal force and the inertia as represented by Earth's rotation is the fictitious 'centrifugal' force. If gravity disappears, we fly off in an apparent straight line. It is also odd since this explanation ignores the fact that an object is supposed to be drawn towards the center of the Earth due to what we term 'gravity'. The solstices also show how these theories are problematic. The sun 'stands still' for days during these periods. The Sun is seen to return to the same apparent altitude day after day until it begins to make the journey back in the other direction.

Allot of this is not science but fantasy. And as it turns out most of what we think as the genre "science fiction' is actually 'fantasy'.
(*From what I understand, Kepler was among the first science fiction writers, imagining living creatures on other planets.)

From Newton's Principia : the mathematical principles of natural philosophy:
“If a leaden ball, projected from the top of a mountain by the force of gunpowder with a given velocity, and in a direction parallel to the horizon, is carried in a curve line to the distance of two miles before it falls to the ground ; the same, if the resistance of the air were taken away, with a double or decuple velocity, would fly twice or ten times as far. And by increasing the velocity, we may at pleasure increase the distance to which it might be pro jected, and diminish the curvature of the line, which it might describe, till at last it should fall at the distance of 10, 30, or 90 degrees, or even might go quite round the whole earth before it falls ; or lastly, so that it might never fall to the earth, but go forward into the celestial spaces, and proceed in its motion in infinitum. And after the same manner that a projectile, by the force of gravity, may be made to revolve in an orbit, and go round the whole earth, the moon also, either by the force of gravity, if it is endued with gravity, or by any other force, that impels it towards the earth, may be perpetually drawn aside towards the earth, out of the rectilinear way, which by its innate force it would pursue; and would be made to revolve in the orbit which it now describes ; nor could the moon with out some such force, be retained in its orbit. If this force was too small, it would not sufficiently turn the moon out of a rectilinear course : if it was too great, it would turn it too much, arid draw down the moon from its orbit towards the earth. It is necessary, that the force be of a just quantity, and it belongs to the mathematicians to find the force, that may serve exactly to retain a body in a given orbit, with a given velocity ; and vice versa, to determine the curvilinear way, into which a body projected from a given place, with a given velocity, may be made to deviate from its natural rectilinear way, by means of a given force.”
(see pages 74-75)
https://archive.org/details/newtonspmathema00newtrich

This cannot be duplicated on Earth. An object is either flung off in what appears to be a straight line, or it is subject to centripetal/centrifugal force. There is no in between, 'sweet spot'.

I think it easier and advisable to critique the various theories and to not get personally attached to any one of them. It might be impossible to prove any of it and that might be the real 'secret'. Imagine if the truth is simply the Socratic conclusion of 'knowing not'.

[simonshack]

ADMIN NOTICE (simon) - December 4, 2015: This thread only represents the initial musings and thought processes which, starting back in late 2012, motivated me to embark into the admittedly 'madly-ambitious' endeavor to try and answer and resolve (at least for myself!) the many questions posed by the universally-accepted heliocentric, Copernican /Keplerian solar system model. Naturally, many of my initial, tentative theories had to be discarded as I went along my 'astronomical learning curve' - yet all errors were made in earnest and certainly were never meant to confuse, mystify or disinform. I am locking this thread indefinitely (yet will keep it posted 'for the historical record') to avoid confusion with my upcoming, far more developed cosmic model (provisionally named "TYCHO-SSSS") which, I dare say, has satisfactorily resolved all of the major problems with the Copernican model which, as I will thoroughly demonstrate, is not only problematic - but downright impossible.