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.
Post Reply
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6783
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:33 pm

Peaker » November 10th, 2019, 9:51 am wrote: Hello Everyone, I have a question.. I just heard about the 'Three Body Problem' listening to a podcast this afternoon and I immediately thought that the Tychos might have something to say about it.

Does the Tychos predict the future locations of three planets?...it seems so. How does the Three Body Problem relate to the Tychos?
Dear Peaker, in chapter 4 of my TYCHOS book (titled "Sirius A and B — “Living proof” in support of the TYCHOS model") I show the below diagram that I found on this website. Your question is quite relevant and timely, since I have been planning to make the following post for the last month or so...


IS THE SIRIUS SYSTEM OUR SOLAR SYSTEM'S "TWIN FAMILY" ?

Image image source: https://www.tychos.info/citation/017B_Pacal-Dogon.htm

"Emme Tolo" is the name given by the Dogon tribe to a third hypothetical body in the Sirius system (which other researchers refer to as "Sirius C") - an elusive / invisible body that may nonetheless exist: in 1994, a French academic study concluded that "Sirius C" may, in fact, quite possibly exist:

"Is Sirius a triple star?" (by Benest & Duvent/ 1994) : http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995A%26A...299..621B

Now, if "Sirius C" is, say, an Earth-like planet covered in dark-blue oceans ("captured" in the barycenter of the Sirius A & B binary system) - it should be easily understandable why it isn't visible even in the best telescopes. Of course, my TYCHOS model proposes that the Sun & Mars are the "equivalents" of Sirius A & B (in fact, the relative diameters of these four bodies are practically IDENTICAL) - and that Earth has been "captured" in the barycenter of the Sun-Mars binary pair.

Even more curious are the allegations that the Dogon tribe somehow knew about a small satellite revolving around Emme Ya Tolo (a.k.a. "Sirius C") which they named Nyan Tolo (i.e. "the Women's star" in their language). Here's a diagram from another website which illustrates how Nyan Tolo (a small satellite which would be the equivalent to our Moon - whose 27-day sidereal period closely matches the women's average menstrual cycle) should be revolving around Emme Ya Tolo :

Imageimage source: https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/univ ... irio07.htm

Sigi Tolo = SIRIUS A____Po Tolo = SIRIUS B____Emme Ya Tolo = SIRIUS C_____Nyan Tolo: a small satellite revolving around Emme Ya Tolo
(Note: that diagram has Emme Ya Tolo and Nyan Tolo revolving around SIRIUS A - unlike the TYCHOS configuration. Nevertheless, I find it quite interesting).

Now, get this, ladies and gents: the other day I bumped into some speculative computations by one Troy Jason regarding the existence of Sirius C - and more specifically - regarding the possible sizes of the two elusive yet long-debated, hypothetical bodies hosted within the Sirius binary system: that is, "Sirius C" (Emme Tolo) - and its lunar satellite "Nyan Tolo":
Troy Jason wrote:
Does the star Sirius C exist?

"According to modern astronomy, there are no known planets in the Sirius star system. However, according to the Dogon tribe in West Africa, the people that described the existence of the star Sirius B; and the DNA pattern of the stars Sirius A and B through space, claims there is indeed an unknown planet in the Sirius system. They call it 'Nyan tolo'. Furthermore, they claim that Nyan tolo is a 'satellite' of a hypothetical star called Sirius C. In addition to the Dogon's claims the Mayan 260 day calendar may mark the orbital period of that same planet (satellite) around the theoretical star Sirius C. The Dogons claim that the Sirius system is not only a binary star system, they believe it's a 'Triple Star System'. They state there's a '3rd Star' that's more voluminous (larger), and four times lighter (less dense) than Sirius B. But, that's not all. They tell us that the Third Star has a satellite ( like Earth's satellite - the Moon).

Now, since the Big Bang theory is one of the most accepted scientific theories in history, even though it's based on 'pure' extrapolations, let's also use 'pure' extrapolations to verify the Sudanese story of "Three Stars and a Satellite" as follows:

Let's use what we know about our solar system, to make some assumptions about the proposed star Sirius C and the planet that orbits as follows:
We know: (365.2425 days - solar year) / (27.3 days - the orbital period of the moon around Earth) = 13.3788 to 1 or orbital period of moon around Earth per solar year.
We can assume: (260 - Sirius year from Mayan calendar) / (20 days - orbital period of satellite around Sirius C from Mayan calendar) = 13 to 1 or orbital period of satellite around Sirius C per Sirius year.
We know: 16 x (6.96 x 10^8m radius of Sun) x (365.2435 days) / 27.29 days = 1.49 x 10^11m or solar system AU.
We can assume: 16 x (1.19 x 10^9m - radius of Sirius A) x (260 days) / 20 days = 2.4752 x 10^11m - Sirius system 'AU'.
We know: 2 x (6.9 x 10^8m)^2 / 1.52069 x 10^11m - Earth's Aphelion = 6.371 x 10^6m - Earth's mean radius.
We can assume: 2 x (1.19 x 10^9m)^2 / 2.4752 x 10^11m = 1.14423 x 10^7m - mean radius of Sirius C.
We know: [(13.3788)] SQRT x (27.29 days) x (6.365 x 10^6m - radius of Earth) / 365.2425 days = 1.737059 x 10^6m - radius of moon or Earth's satellite.
We can assume: [(13)] SQRT x (20 days) x (1.14423 x 10^7m) / 260 days = 3.17352 x 10^6m - radius of Sirius C satellite.
So, from what we know about our solar system, we can predict the approximate radius of Sirius C; the radius of a planet around the Star Sirius; and the Sirius C / planet distance."

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-star-Sirius-C-exist

As you can see (and easily extrapolate / verify for yourself), Troy Jason basically concludes that:

The hypothetical Sirius C may have a diameter of 22,884.6 km.

We see that 22,884.6km is 179.4% larger than 12,756km (Earth's diameter) and that...

...The hypothetical Nyan Tolo (a satellite of Sirius C) may have a diameter of 6347 km.

We see that 6347km is 182.6% larger than 3476.2km (our Moon's diameter)

All this is of course mightily interesting for the TYCHOS model, since (as I have pointed out in my book) the "known" diameters of SIRIUS A and SIRIUS B - or, in any case, their RELATIVE dimensions - are as follows :

SIRIUS A : 2,390,000 km - or 171.77 % larger than the Sun (1,391,400 km)

SIRIUS B: 11,684.4 km - or 172 % larger than Mars (6792.4 km)


In other words, IF it turns out one fine day that Sirius C and its satellite "Nyan Tolo" truly exist (and exhibit the above proportions), we will have to conclude - beyond reasonable doubt - that the Sirius binary system is "the Twin Family" of our binary Solar System :

Sirius A = the twin of our Sun
Sirius B = the twin of Mars
Sirius C = the twin of Earth
Nyan Tolo = the twin of our Moon

Image
image source: the TYCHOSIUM simulator: https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd

A pretty fascinating possibility, isn't it? -_-

Furthermore: since almost all (or quite probably ALL) of the stars in our galaxy are double/binary stars, we may perhaps start (very cautiously) speculating that some (or many?) of them harbor a third body (similar to Earth) at their barycenter - which would be invisible to even our best telescopes due to them being hidden in the glare of their binary hosts. Yooohoo - we may not be alone in this big dark Universe after all! And we might even hope that some (truly) intelligent life is to be found on these "twin sisters" of Earth. Now, how about THAT?

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6783
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:42 pm

*

HALLEY update 1


Dear friends,

This is just a little update of my (slow, yet promising) progress at making sense out of the available official data concerning the most famous of all comets, namely, Halley's comet. As I wrote last week :
simonshack wrote:"Let me just ask everyone for a little patience and keep the Halley comet issue on hold for the time being - until I'll (hopefully) manage to wrap my head around some quite bewildering inconsistencies and contradictions to be found in the vast literature (and the numerous official databases) available for this most famous of all comets. Also, please understand (as I should have pointed out days ago) that the Halley comet currently implemented in the Tychosium is still very much an experimental addition to the simulator."
Well, having now spent more time comparing the various databases available concerning Halley's comet, the mystery remains - and the plot thickens. There appears to be no general consensus regarding Halley's motions. And this, whether we're talking about its short-term periods (e.g. when Halley transits across our Solar System - and remains visible to the naked eye for about 6 weeks) or whether we talk about its secular motions. Yes, the JPL-Horizons (a "NASA.gov" webite) offers alleged / computed day-by-day positions of the comet between the years 1599 and 2200. Yet, none of the existing Copernican simulators of our Solar System (that I know of) appear to agree - by a long shot - with those "official" JPL-Horizons ephemerides.

Let me exemplify these enormous discrepancies with the following example: between May 18 and 20, 1910, Halley's comet was observed to pass right between Earth and the Sun (at the very close distance of 0.15AU from Earth). This 1910 observation was extensively documented at the time, in great detail (EXAMPLE), and there is really very little doubt about its veracity: in short, we can be sure, beyond doubt, that Halley truly passed between Earth and the Sun around May 18/20, 1910.

Now, the JPL-Horizons' data puts Halley's comet in some quite plausible (RA / DECL) celestial positions - between Earth and the Sun - on May 18/20, 1910.

Yet, NONE of the existing online Solar System simulators agree with the JPL data. For instance:

The STELLARIUM (reputedly the most respected simulator among astronomers) has Halley's comet as far away from Earth as 2.58 AU - on May 20, 1910 !

Other "established" solar system simulators such as CELESTIA, the JS ORRERY and the SCOPE SOLAR SYSTEM also show Halley to be still VERY distant from Earth on May 20, 1910. For instance, here's how the SCOPE simulator depicts Halley's position on that May 20,1910 date:

Image
SOURCE: https://www.solarsystemscope.com/?c=sidingspring

As you can see, Halley is shown to be NOWHERE NEAR between Earth and the Sun - on May 20, 1910.

The same goes for the JS ORRERY simulator: Halley is shown to be NOWHERE NEAR the Earth and the Sun on May 20, 1910:

Image
SOURCE: https://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/


So the question becomes: WHY don't these famed simulators agree with the "official" JPL data? To be sure, these simulators are the work of a large number of astronomy / computer geeks who pride themselves at solving any sort of computational issues concerning the observed motions of all the celestial bodies in our Solar System. Here is - for instance - the impressive list of contributors to the STELLARIUM simulator :
Image

Hence, we may also legitimately ask ourselves : WHY haven't the STELLARIUM authors simply integrated the JPL data into their solar system simulator?

In any case, these two things are for sure:

1: NONE of the existing simulators of our Solar System can be claimed to correctly / realistically trace the secular or short-term paths of Halley's comet.
2: ALL of these simulators disagree with each other. Here we are in 2019, and NONE can reliably predict the future transits of Halley - with any sort of accuracy.


This leaves us with the TYCHOSIUM (as I will henceforth illustrate) as the most plausible simulator of Halley's secular motions - since it generally agrees (within "tolerable" margins of error) with the historical positions of this most famous comet - as observed and documented in academic literature throughout these last few centuries. According to the current (provisonal / experimental) version of the TYCHOSIUM, the Halley's comet has a quite regular mean/average period of 75.66 years. The supposed "unpredictability" and "chaotic" orbital motions of Halley's comet are, therefore, nothing but a consequence engendered by the fact that this comet's "mysterious" motions (as observed whenever it transits across our Solar System) DO NOT AGREE with Copernican /heliocentric cosmology. This would go a long way to explain why the available data for the secular motions of Halley's comet are starkly conflicting.

In the TYCHOSIUM simulator, the current (experimental) path of Halley's comet does at least show Halley returning REGULARLY every 75.66 years (on average). Here's a diagram I made today by superimposing as many as 10 of Halley's past / and predicted transits - from the year 1456 to the year 2137 :

Image
SOURCE: https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd

We see that the TYCHOSIUM neatly shows Halley's comet REGULARLY returning to our Solar System every 75.66 years - on average. Never, in these last six centuries, has Halley's comet return strayed much away from its habitual 75 / 76-year period.

But here is when things get very, very strange indeed: according to JPL-Horizons (and even Wikipedia), Halley will return in the year 2134 - instead of the year 2137 - as statistically / mathematically expected ! This would be only about 73 years after 2061 !

How could this possibly happen? How could Halley's comet suddenly shorten its REGULAR 75.66-year period into a circa 73-year period (2061 to 2134)?

Well, get this, ladies & gents: not so many years ago (2005), the most "authoritative" Phillip's Astronomy Encyclopedia (which featured a large section about Halley's comet) predicted that Halley's comet would, in fact, return in 2137:

Image

So WHO are we to trust - regarding the predictions for (the 2137 vs 2134) return of Halley's comet? The Phillips Encyclopedia - or the JPL/NASA data?

In any event, the TYCHOSIUM predicts a 2137 return - which is perfectly in line with the observed average periods of Halley's comet for the past six centuries. Anyone who wishes to trust the JPL data - that predicts an absurd 2134 (!?) return of Halley's comet - would have to live in a fantasy world where the basic rules of statistical deduction (as we know them) somehow do not apply! Mainstream astronomers will tell you that the (purportedly) HIGHLY irregular periods of Halley's comet are due to "gravitational perturbations caused by Jupiter, Venus and other planets". Wow... So these perturbations would supposedly (and haphazardly) accelerate Halley's period by a couple of years - making it return in 2134 instead of the statistically-expected 2137? Sorry folks, I don't know about you - but I, for one, find this extremely dubious.

Peaker
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:04 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by Peaker » Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:25 pm

Hello All,

I hope I can add this here, if there is a better place let me know.

My early introduction to astronomy came through my interest in the stone-cirlce sites in Britain. I've since found out that this is called naked-eye astronomy and I like that term. So,over thirty years or so, I got used to many of the terms that Simon uses and many of the 'situations' that arise in the heavens such as the analemma. I didn't know that these situations were not at all settled by modern astronomy because even the most radical thinkers seemed to take Copernicanism very seriously.

People like John Michell, author of 'The Dimensions of Paradise' subtitled Sacred Geometry, Ancient Science and the Heavenly Order on Earth, should have seen through Copernicus quite easily. I have been thumbing my way through this book this morning, after many years on a dusty shelf because he said something about the orbits of the planets I remember. This could be it:

"The conclusion that emerges from these studies is that the ancient philosophers took the key 'New Jerusalem' numbers, 12 and 7, put them together in the form of twelve to the seventh power, established that number in feet as the measure of the moon's circumference, and made it the astronomical standard of measure of the universe."

Here is a clear example of the moon as the central point of the solar system.

Regards,

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6783
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Tue Nov 26, 2019 12:11 am

*

SIDEREAL vs SOLAR DAY - IN THE TYCHOS MODEL

Dear friends,

One of the most basic issues debated by astronomers (ever since the dawn of times) is the observed difference between a sidereal day - and a solar day.

A SIDEREAL DAY is completed when Earth, having spun around its axis approximately once, lines up again with a given star:

"A sidereal day is approximately 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.0905 SI seconds (24 hours - 4 minutes + 4 seconds = 86164.0905 s = 23.9344696 h".
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

A SOLAR DAY (as Earth lines up again with the Sun) takes about 3.93 minutes longer (on average) - i.e. a period that we all agree* to call "24 hours".

* "Conceptually, Mean solar time is based on a fictional Sun that is considered to move at a constant rate of 360° in 24 hours along the celestial meridian. One mean day is 24 hours in length, each hour consisting of 60 minutes, and each minute consisting of 60 seconds. Though the amount of daylight varies significantly throughout the year, the length of a mean solar day is kept constant, unlike that of an apparent solar day." https://www.universetoday.com/78107/solar-day/

Note for now that a solar day is therefore just about 0.27379% LONGER than a sidereal day (24 hours versus 23.9344696 hours).

Well, the other day it just dawned upon me (pun very much intended) that the difference between the two is very neatly accounted for by Earth's 1.6km/h motion around its PVP orbit! Those who have read my TYCHOS book will be familiar with the following two figures concerning Earth's motion in the TYCHOS model:

DAILY distance covered by Earth : 38.428km
YEARLY distance covered by Earth: 14036km (or more precisely 14035.847km)


And in fact, 38.428km is 0.27379% of 14035.847km. In other words, the difference between the sidereal and solar day is explained in the simplest imaginable manner: it is (demonstrably) caused by the daily motion of Earth (38.428km) around its PVP orbit!

Note also that the Sun (travelling at 107.226km/h) covers 2,573,424km in 24 hours - which amounts to 0.27379 % of its orbital circumference of 939,943,910km.

Similarly, the number "1" (as in "ONE DAY"), amounts to 0.27379% of 365.2425 days (the average solar year).

In Chapter 23 of my TYCHOS book you may find the below graphic I made to illustrate the difference between a sidereal and solar day:

Image

As I made the above graphic a couple of years ago, I had not yet realized all of this remarkably exact mathematical consistency of Earth's 1.6km/h-motion (as proposed by the TYCHOS model) with the observed difference between the sidereal and the solar day. The TYCHOS model is truly a "gift that never stops giving"! ^_^

patrix
Member
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by patrix » Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:37 am

TYCHOS model is truly a "gift that never stops giving
Indeed Simon :D

But am I understanding correctly that the difference between the solar and sidereal day will vary during the year since the sun and earth is moving in the same direction during winter?

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6783
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Tue Nov 26, 2019 12:04 pm

*

Dear Patrix, I shall address your question in a minute. Let me first point out that my above post was just to show how both Earth and the Sun move around their orbits each day by the same percentage (0.27379%) of their yearly motions. This neatly explains the 3.93-min difference between the sidereal and the solar day - something that the Copernican model cannot rationally explain. If Earth were to orbit around the Sun (covering more than 2.5million km daily) it would make no conceivable sense that Earth would first line up with a given star (sidereal day) - and would then line up with the Sun (solar day) roughly 4 minutes later, on average.

Here's a diagram from Chapter 23 of my TYCHOS book illustrating the problematic Copernican sidereal-day :
Image

To think that Earth would be moving by over 2.5 Million km each day without the background stars drifting by any noticeable amount (besides those last 4 minutes of earthly rotation) has to be among the most surreal aspects of the Copernican model.

To put this problem into due perspective, let´s see how the sidereal and solar day unfold in the below 3-frame sequence:

Image

The above animation describes what is observed, in reality, from one day to the next: in 23h56m, an earthly observer will line up again with the same given star. At such a point and time, the Sun will have moved Eastwards by approx. 4 minutes of RA (Right Ascension). Four minutes later, we see the stars drifting by 4 min of RA Westwards. Ergo, the entire amount of our daily, Westward stellar drift will appear (to an earthly observer) to occur in the last 4 minutes of earthly rotation. In other words, Earth might just as well be stationary while only rotating around its axis. Many astronomers in ancient times understandably believed this to be true. This wasn’t because they were stupid, but because this is what matches careful and patient observation of the behavior of the heavens.

Of course, the TYCHOS model submits that Earth moves by a mere 38.4 km per day, which is hardly a noticeable amount of lateral displacement to the naked eye! Those 4 min. of RA are the consequence of Earth having rotated by 360° in 23 hours 56 minutes, thus needing another 4 minutes to line up again with the Sun which, in the meantime, has moved Eastwards by approx. 4 minutes of RA.

*************************
In answer to your question : yes, there will be throughout the year some (ever-so-small) variations of the length of the solar/sidereal days due to Earth moving alternately in the same or in the opposite spatial direction as the Sun - six months at a time. The Sun will thus appear to "accelerate and decelerate" in relation to our (uniformly-ticking) clocks - and this is precisely the reason why, in order to "compensate for this problem", our elders had to implement the "Equation of Time":

"Apparent time, and the sundial, can be ahead (fast) by as much as 16 min 33 s (around 3 November), or behind (slow) by as much as 14 min 6 s (around 11 February)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time

As thoroughly expounded and illustrated in Chapter 26 of my book, this is what causes the small lateral East/West component of the Analemma (the far larger vertical North/South component being caused, of course, by Earth's axial tilt). The Analemma is the name given to the pretty "8"-shaped pattern that the Sun traces in our skies over a year. The below timelapse-composite is the work of a patient photographer who snapped pictures of the Sun for a full year (at the same time of day):

Image
Author: Anthony Ayiomamitis http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Solar-Analemma-102816.htm

As you know, I like to call the Analemma "Earth's speedometer" - since it can be calculated that the mean annual amplitude of its lateral East/West component (as distributed over our four seasons / celestial quadrants) amounts to 7.86min. This 7.86 value is about 0.00149% of 525,948 minutes (the number of minutes in a solar year); this neatly reflects my proposed 1.6km/h orbital speed of Earth - since 1.6km/h is just about 0.00149% of 107,226km/h (the Sun's orbital speed).

As it is, unlike the Copernican model, the TYCHOS model can neatly demonstrate / account for our Earth's daily & yearly motions both qualitatively and quantitavely. :)

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2232
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by fbenario » Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:12 am

simonshack wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 12:04 pm
Image
Anyone identify this location?

Beautiful picture of the Temple of Poseidon at Sounion, Greece, Simon. Made my day.

Peaker
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:04 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by Peaker » Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:43 pm

Hello All, I have a question regarding this most recent post by Simon. I’m on my second reading of The Tychos and am getting a good grip on most but not all of its topics.

This is one I’m not ‘getting’🤓.

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

Is there another way of you putting this?

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

Regards,

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6783
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:01 pm

Peaker wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:43 pm
I guess what is baffling to me is when you say that the movement all takes place in the last four minutes. I can’t see that . . . I see the star moving incrementally over the whole 24 hr period. Do Copernicans say that the movement takes place in the last four minutes of the day? Is there another way of you putting this?

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

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

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

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

Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peaker
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:04 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by Peaker » Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:17 pm

Thankyou for this reply, Simon

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

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

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

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

Looking forward to the second edition.

Garry

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6783
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Dec 07, 2019 11:47 pm

*

HALLEY’S HOLLOW HISTORY


Dear friends,

I say, Good Heavens again! The history of Halley’s comet is full of deep, gaping "black holes"!

This is, in any case, the preliminary - yet incontestable - conclusion of my current, ongoing research. For the last few weeks I have been looking into the available data and literature concerning our most famous comet. Quite frankly, I never thought this would be such a fascinating (and ultimately quite fruitful) discovery journey. And this, in spite of the most frustrating nature of this investigation - what with the pervasive, starkly contradictory information concerning the past appearnces of Halley’s comet in our skies. In fact, I'd venture to say that the utter chaos surrounding the historical record of Halley's comet is an archetypal example of the sort of unsettled cosmological issues which have precipitated astronomy into its current state of limbo. What I am about to expound should be, at the very least, a matter for further investigation by astronomy historians - were it only to alert our world's astronomers as to the shaky ground on which their assumptions and calculations are based upon.

Before we get on looking into the comet’s incredibly warped historical record, please know that the current / modern-day academic consensus regarding Halley is that its orbital motions are "in a chaotic state" and therefore, its recurrence in our skies cannot be exactly calculated / predicted :
"The prevailing view among astronomers is that the orbit of Halley’s Comet cannot be calculated exactly because the orbit would be chaotic on a time scale of only seventy years. " https://astronomynow.com/2016/07/01/cha ... explained/

“In a chaotic state”? "On a time scale of only seventy years?" This is a quite hilarious contention / state of affairs (as we soon shall see, Halley regularly returns every 75.6 years or so): if its orbit truly is "chaotic on a time scale of only seventy years" (as officially claimed), we might as well give up ANY efforts aimed at predicting its periodicity. Astronomers studying Halley's comet would just be a bunch of fools wasting our time and money! As it is, the "chaotic nature" of Halley might well just reside in the minds of the Copernican/Keplerian disciples. Here follows an example of how those mainstream academics will simply discard and "forget" any inconvenient (yet historically-documented) empirical observations which won't “fit” with their proposed heliocentric calculations (based on assorted "planetary perturbations" which would haphazardly speed up or slow down Halley's comet, sometimes by a couple of years or more !).

THE "FORGOTTEN" 1305 HALLEY TRANSIT
According to modern mainstream astronomy, Halley's transit of 1305 ... never took place! Instead, modern official tables report that Halley's comet flew across our Solar System in 1301(i.e. about 4 years earlier!). However, there appears to be solid evidence that this 1305 passage truly occurred : in fact, Edmond Halley himself used it in his original calculations - and one may find several texts mentioning this 1305 passage, such as this :

EXTRACT 1:
Image Source:https://books.google.it/books?id=RE0EAA ... &q&f=false

Here's another example mentioning the 1305 passage of Halley's comet (from a 1986 paper):
EXTRACT 2:
Image

Curiously, in more recent Halley literature we may actually find "denials" of the very occurence of Halley's 1305 transit, such as in this 2003 paper which bluntly asserts (without any supportive evidence) that the observed 1305 transit "was proved not to be correct":
EXTRACT 3:
Image Source: https://books.google.it/books?id=6Hpi20 ... &q&f=false

To this day, I have not been able to find (in the available literature) any explanations / justifications as to why the 1305 passage would be “incorrect”. Au contraire, I have found several writings corroborating the same, whereas - oddly enough - the modern, official listing of Halley’s passages now report a “1301” transit :

THE OFFICIAL LIST OF HALLEY'S HISTORICAL TRANSITS
(as generally-accepted by modern-day astronomers)

Image

Now, and here's when it gets truly astonishing, this "1305 versus 1301" discrepancy is by no means the ONLY such instance of inexplicable contradictory historical records of Halley's passages: as I delved deeper into the extant literature on the subject, I found a French astronomy paper published in the Revue BRITANNIQUE (dated 1835) which lists a number of Halley's transits (duly supported by detailed historical accounts) which were observed in these years :

-130(BC) / 323 / 399 / 550 / 930 / 1005 / 1230 / 1305 / 1380
As you can see, NONE of these dates are listed in the modern official tables of Halley's historical transits! We must ask ourselves: what's going on here? Did the French know more about Halley's comet than the rest of the world? Is this French 1835 paper a hoax? Well, if it's a hoax, I myself certainly played no part in it. To be sure, this French account of the historical passages of Halley's comet is strongly supportive of Halley's behavior in the TYCHOSIUM simulator - as I shall presently illustrate.

Revue BRITANNIQUE (1835): https://books.google.it/books?id=Y9EaAQ ... e&q&f=true
EXTRACT of same paper saved for posterity: http://septclues.com/TYCHOS%20SLIDESHOW ... cle_01.jpg

Note that the French paper justly points out the regular 75.5-year periodicity of Halley's comet (or the 151-year period intercurring between any three transit dates). It appears that, back in the days, no one was conjecturing about any sort of imponderable, random irregularity (or "chaotic state") of Hallley's periodicity!...

I was obviously curious to check just how the above dates (from 130BC to 1380AD) would be displayed in the TYCHOSIUM simulator. Well, here are the results:
Image

Last week I also performed this other TYCHOSIUM test - using the more recent Halley transits (1456 through 2137) which official astronomy generally agrees with:
Image

The TYCHOSIUM : https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd
(NOTE: In the TYCHOSIUM, you will have to activate Halley's comet by clicking on the "planets" drop-down menu - and checking the "Halleys" box. You may also wish to activate the "trace" function for Halleys - and enjoy the charming looping path traced by the comet - much like all the other bodies in our Solar System).

As you can see, the current version of the TYCHOSIUM, with its (still experimental) orbital path of Halley's comet, does a pretty fair job simulating Halley's ancient transits as listed and documented in that 1835 paper from the Revue BRITANNIQUE (all the way back to 130BC!), as well as the more recent transits that officialdom generally agrees with. Keep in mind that Halley does not return in an integer number of years* - as its mean orbital period appears to be somewhere between 75.5 and 75.7 years : thus, it will not always return on May 20 - which is just a "control day" of sorts that I picked to compose my above graphics of superimposed Halley transits (spanning from 130BC to 2137AD). Hence, my above graphics are only meant to show that the TYCHOSIUM does at least place the comet in the vicinity of our Solar System at each given date - which is more than can be said about any other existing simulator of our Solar System. I would encourage everyone to verify for themselves that all the above dates shown in my above graphics are separated by a fairly constant & regular average period of ca. 75.6 years (or multiples thereof). For instance, between the first date (130BC) and the last date (2137AD), we have a timespan of 2267 years. We see that 2267/30= 75.56 years.

* According to my best estimates, Halley's comet has a long-term cycle of (an integer number of) 227 years.

In any event, that French paper goes to show that something fishy is at play with the historical records of Halley's comet. What to make of this? Evidently, someone has been fiddling with the historical records of Halley's comet. The question is: WHY ?
Surely, NO modern data concerning Halley's comet can possibly be trusted - least of all those released by NASA through their JPLHorizons website.



ELUCIDATING THE CURIOUS "TWO-COMET THEORY"

Now, if you have read the above EXTRACTS 2 & 3 carefully, you'll have noticed that there was a peculiar "two-comet" theory being speculated back in the days. Huh? TWO Halley comets? One at perihelion and the other at aphelion? What could possibly have spawned such a bizarre theory? Well, according to the TYCHOSIUM, whenever time Halley's comet returns in Earth's neighborhood, it will actually make TWO fly-bys of Earth (within less than a year): due to its looping motion, it will always transit both in conjunction with - and in opposition to the Sun. This conjunction/opposition sequence alternates (from one transit to another) as described in my below list of "TYCHOSIUM observations" :

SOLAR CONJUNCTIONS AND OPPOSITIONS OF HALLEY’S COMET - according to the TYCHOSIUM:
1304-06-17 Halley in conjunction / 1305-04-08 Halley in opposition
1379-07-24 Halley in opposition / 1380-05-23 Halley in conjunction
1455-07-11 Halley in opposition / 1456-04-28 Halley in conjunction
1531-06-21 Halley in conjunction / 1532-04-09 Halley in opposition
1606-08-03 Halley in opposition / 1607-06-07 Halley in conjunction
1682-07-22 Halley in opposition / 1683-05-12 Halley in conjunction
1758-07-05 Halley in conjunction / 1759-04-23 Halley in opposition
1834-06-13 Halley in conjunction / 1835-04-09 Halley in opposition
1909-07-26 Halley in opposition / 1910-05-19 Halley in conjunction
1985-07-11 Halley in conjunction / 1986-04-27 Halley “below” Earth


Now, consider this: whenever the comet passes in conjunction with the Sun (i.e. swamped in the Sun's glare), it will more often than not be totally invisible by earthly observers. Similarly, whenever the comet passes in opposition to the Sun, it may ALSO be fairly hard to detect : this, because the comet's tail will then be directed AWAY from the earthly observer. Notoriously, what we can see is the comet's tail (which is always directed AWAY from the Sun) - since the comet itself (its so-called "nucleus") is very dark and reflects almost no sunlight at all:

"[Halley's] nucleus is an irregular object about 16 x 8 x 8 kilometers and very dark, with an albedo of about 0.03." https://www.planetary.org/multimedia/sp ... comet.html

In fact, all comets (not only Halley's) are at their brightest when they transit in "quadrature", i.e. neither in conjunction or in opposition. However, some acute observers of yesteryear may have noticed this "double-passage" of Halley's comet - and this goes some way to explain why that "two-comet" theory was speculated back in the days.

Far more importantly though, we may now clearly envision that the reason why Halley's comet is believed to have an IRREGULAR orbital period is due to this alternation of its passages (in solar conjunction and in solar opposition). Astronomers have thus had to come up with some explanation for these apparent fluctuations of its return in our skies - thence, the "perturbation" theory.

In reality, Halley's comet has a fairly regular & constant period of about 75.6 years - although its actual appearance in our skies will fluctuate due to the irregular alternation of its passages in solar conjunction or in solar opposition.


ABOUT HALLEY'S 1910 TRANSIT
The 1910 passage of Halley's comet appears to be a well-documented and fairly spectacular event which left a memorable impression. In 1910, it passed quite close to Earth (only 0.15AU or so) - and there are many accounts as to how Earth may "perhaps have passed through its tail" - although this was successively refuted / disproved. In any case, there is no doubt about the actual occurrence of the famed 1910 transit of Halley's comet. As I searched for historical documentations of the 1910 passage, I found this extremely interesting diagram that plots the approach of Halley'scomet - as observed (telescopically) between October 1908 and December 1909 :

Image Source: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_ ... %27s_Comet

Here is the reason why I find the above diagram extremely interesting: in the TYCHOSIUM simulator, the "flattened S-shaped" approach of Halley's comet between October 1908 and December 1909 (as viewed from an earthly perspective) appears to be very much similar in form and shape. Judge for yourselves :
Image
Although it still needs some further fine-tuning, the TYCHOSIUM simulator already appears to be the only existing 3-D simulator capable of visualizing ACTUAL ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS of a comet's path (as well as planetary retrograde motions) as viewed and documented from planet Earth throughout the ages.

Here is another example of the TYCHOSIUM's ability to reproduce actual observations. The below graphic compares the 1986 transit of Halley's comet - as featured on WIKIPEDIA - with a TYCHOSIUM screenshot of the same 1986 transit of Halley's comet:
Image

The same Wikipedia graphic compared with the TYCHOSIUM (of the April 1986 passage of Halley's) - from another viewing angle:
Image

ABOUT HALLEY'S 1985/1986 TRANSIT
Let me now illustrate what the TYCHOSIUM simulator can tell us about the very latest transit of Halley's comet (in 1985/1986).
In 1985 (between February 20 and August 20), Halley's comet would have made a fly-by as it transited (perhaps unseen?) in solar conjunction, as illustrated here:
Image

In 1986 (between January 20 and May 9), Halley's comet would have made a fly-by as it transited (more visibly) in solar opposition, as illustrated here:
Image
Note that, during this particular transit, Halley probably passed "below" Earth. In fact, there are many testimonies to the fact that scores of eager comet-watchers travelled to remote locations in the Southern Hemisphere in order to witness its passage (although they were all dreadfully disappointed by what they saw: just a tiny speck of light in the sky). As it is, the last passage of Halley's comet is widely known to have been a "flop". Halley has been, in fact, slowly fizzling out over the years.

Now, you may ask yourselves why I chose to illustrate the two above / particular time periods of Halley's 1985/1986 passages. The reason for this choice goes as follows: as I tried to find any PROFESSIONAL OBSERVATIONAL DATA of these 1985/1986 passages, the only relevant data I could find (it was actually sent to me by an Australian astronomy student who questions my TYCHOS model) was this observational data - now published on NASA's Astrophysics Data System - which was apparently gathered by a few Italian observatories:
Image Source: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full ... 5.000.html

As you can see, this Italian observational data of Halley's 1985/1986 passages feature "big black holes" precisely during the crucial / closest transits of the comet !

Incidentally, on January 28,1986 - just as the comet re-emerged from behind the Sun - the infamous "Space Shuttle Challenger disaster" played out on TV.
"Among the prescribed duties of the five astronauts and two payload specialists (represented by the seven stars of the U.S. flag) was observation and photography of Halley's Comet, backdropped against the U.S. flag in the insignia." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-L


In conclusion... I do not pretend to formulate any sort of firm conclusion regarding Halley's comet. However, it is painfully evident that the historical records surrounding our most famous comet are totally unreliable and have, for some reason, been grossly distorted. Why this has happened is a matter open to speculation - yet it is beyond the scope of the present writeup to hypothesize about the possible motives or circumstances that may have caused this utter mess. Suffice to say that, as the author of the TYCHOS model, I will henceforth ignore any objections (as to my proposed secular motions of Halley's comet) based on the official timeline of the comet's (supposedly "chaotic") recurrence in our skies.


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

EPILOGUE

Of course, dear ladies and gents, modern-day astronomers will tell you that comet Halley actually makes a "U-turn" as it flies across our inner Solar System, like so:

THE SUPPOSED "CIGAR-SHAPED" ORBIT OF HALLEY'S COMET:
Image

That's right, folks: as current theory has it, all comets would be travelling around cigar-shaped trajectories - as illustrated above! Not only that, but comets are also believed to violently accelerate as they enter our inner Solar System, making a sharp U-turn around it - and to gradually slow down as they recede from it. Then, about 38 years later (in comet Halley's case), the comet would - for some unfathomable reason - decide to make another sharp U-turn (this time at a very slow rate of speed) and start its return-journey towards our Solar System... And all of this while our little Solar System would be moving around our galaxy at the speed of 800,000 km/h !!! Quite frankly, I have no idea how any sane brain on this planet can fail to question such utterly grotesque, "long-established scientific theories". I must suspect that most people are blinded by the towering "authority" of a few Untouchable Gods of Science (e.g. Sir Isaac Newton) who, some hundreds of years ago, decided for all of us that "hey, that's the way it is, folks! You gotta believe it - because I say so: comets move around EXTREMELY ELONGATED, ELLIPTICAL, cigar-shaped orbits! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?" Well I, for one, certainly cannot see what sort of forces of nature would cause comets to fly around cigar-shaped paths. Sorry, Isaac - but no cigar from me.

Let us never forget that Edmond Halley was the man who financed the publication of Isaac Newton's "Principia"(a world-changing text if there ever was one) - and that Halley's own discoveries concerning the comet that took his name were universally hailed as a "glorious confirmation of Newton's theories". Science has truly become a far more dogmatic cult than any form of religion. Religious creeds are, at least, still multiple and diverse (although I don't subscribe to any). Official scientific "truths", on the other hand, are almost unanimously embraced by academic circles worldwide - and by many billions of inhabitants of this planet. Let's hope that this infrangible dogmatism soon comes to an end - lest we become the laughing stock of the entire universe.

Post Reply