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.
Peaker
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:04 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by Peaker » Sat Mar 21, 2020 9:21 am

Hello All,

In these times of turmoil it pays to remember the good and the true. I thus place a post here on the Tychos to celebrate the rational power that a man can control if he puts his mind to it. He can collect data and assemble a working model and by sharing it, test it: even beyond his own lifetime!

I have just finished my third reading of Simon's book and have learnt a magnificent amount about astronomy, but, as important, about the history of astronomy which had remained hidden from my sight all my life.

Others should post here who have read the book and put down their thoughts.. it is a personal journey for each of us but ends with something stupendous...a vista of beauty vast and unspoilt.

Jupiter, Saturn and Mars rose early in the morning a week ago and I saw the 'ecliptic' plane that they were on so clearly in my minds eye, better than I had ever seen it before. But this time I saw them, ever so slowly, orbiting the Sun which orbits the Earth ....this is the privileged perception of a rational mind.

patrix
Member
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by patrix » Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:12 pm

The TYCHOS year 2 in review

On Friday the 20th of Mars at the Vernal Equinox, Simon's model of the planetary movements – The TYCHOS had its second birthday (of official release).

The year 2019 has been a truly fantastic year for the TYCHOS.

At the beginning of the year, I managed to add astronomical positions to the TYCHOS simulator - Tychosium (Declination and Right Ascension) which makes it possible to compare the planetary positions in the TYCHOS model with observational data, and it checks out remarkably well. Especially considering this is an unfunded one-man research project that has been going on for seven years and that I have assisted in the last three years.

The outer planets – Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus were also added to TYCHOS during the year and the question if they are orbiting the Sun or the Earth was solved. The outer planets are orbiting the Sun as Tycho Brahe claimed in the 17th century. The idea was challenged at the time by Giovanni Battista Riccioli, the author of Almagestum Novum. But with the power of 3D simulation, we can conclude that the geometrical configuration that agrees with observations is a heliocentric one for the outer planets. So the geo-heliocentric model that Tycho Brahe gave birth to (and was later perfected by his assistant Longomontanus who gave Earth a daily axial rotation) still holds with the addition of the PVP-orbit that Simon has discovered.

Another remarkable discovery was that Halley's Comet agrees with TYCHOS and its strict axioms of circular orbits and constant speeds. Simon managed to devise an orbit for Halleys Comet in the Tychosium that agrees with several known historical observations of Halleys Comet. It was discovered during this research that many historical sightings of Halleys, for unkown reasons have been altered or omitted entirely in later records. It was also discovered that several comets that had been identified as other comets during passages of Halleys agree with the suggested orbit in Tychosium and that it is therefore likely that these comets were, in fact, Halley's Comet.

This last year we have also engaged in extended discussions with a seasoned astronomer. This however resulted in mostly demeaning language from his part and various futile attempts to invalidate the TYCHOS model. I think it is quite clear that the Copernican/Keplerian model is indeed an unshakable dogma in the present scientific climate - no matter how much evidence is laid forth to highlight its multiple paradoxes and absurdities; the TYCHOS model resolves each and all of these problems.

Perhaps we should do what a dissident in medicine - Stefan Lanka - did regarding the existence of the measles virus: set up a reward that can be claimed if it can be proved in court that the Copernican/Keplerian model agrees with basic logic and geometry. Simon has demonstrated (beyond reasonable doubt) that it doesn't.

I wish you all a great TYCHOS year! /Patrik

aa5
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by aa5 » Fri Mar 27, 2020 10:17 am

Thanks for your work on it Patrix. I was showing my Dad the Tychos simulator to show to him what I was talking about. He was at first very skeptical of the Tychos ideas, but he is extremely good at visualizing how the curves & mathematics work in relation to something once you show him just some brief examples. (as he is an electrical engineer who is naturally good at moving shapes around in his head)

I showed him the comparison of the Copernican model of the Earth-Mars-Deneb Algedi star alignments. Then I showed him how the Tychos simulator shows it. Using Simon's graphics taken from the different simulators.

I also told him that I don't know if the Tychos is the exact model, but it must be said it seems a far better model than the Copernican model.

He was questioning how Mars can influence the Sun's being so much smaller. But I gave him Simon's info on how other Stars have been found to be binary stars. With the closest star being a binary system, having the same ratio of size & distance as the Sun does to Mars.

Regardless it doesn't make any difference whether this 'makes sense' from ideas people had previously learned about how gravitation works between planets.. the reality is the reality. It must then be that those previous theories were wrong in how the relationship works.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Fri Apr 03, 2020 4:48 pm

*


QUORA CENSORSHIP :huh: :rolleyes:


So yesterday I was feeling a little bored and decided to post an answer at Quora to this question that someone had submitted : "WHY IS MARS AN INNER PLANET?"

Here's the answer I submitted :
Image

My above answer evidently remained online for a little while (and was visible to everyone) since it has had 22 views. Problem is, it is now visible only to me - since Quora's "Ministry of Truth" has decided to "collapse it":

"YOUR ANSWER HAS BEEN COLLAPSED"
Image

I have submitted an appeal that goes like this:

"I would appreciate to know precisely what Quora policy my answer has violated. Thanks."

:mellow:

*********************************************************
Update (April 16, 2020): NO reply from the Quora administrators so far...


Update (May 12, 2020): Hooray! Quora has reinstated my post ! https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Mars-an-inner-planet

Peaker
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:04 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by Peaker » Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:59 am

The aberration of light? :)

No, seriously, what are they afraid of? An orderly system?

It appears so.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Apr 15, 2020 12:17 am

*

THE ANALEMMA : AN UPDATE AS TO WHY THE SUN IS ALMOST NEVER "ON TIME"

Dear friends, "Simple Simon" will now further elaborate as to just why the Sun is almost never synchronized with our clocks (which of course tick at a constant rate).

In Chapter 26 of my TYCHOS book (which came out two years ago), I tried to explain and illustrate the analemma to the best of my capacities - and I still stand by everything that I wrote in my book. However, I now realize that the analemma can be explained in a far simpler manner. I just LOVE simplifying things! So here we go:

The "Analemma" is the name given to the 8-shaped pattern that our Sun traces in the sky over the course of a year (that is, if you take a picture of the Sun, say, at noon every day). The problem is, to this day, NO ONE has ever managed to provide a rational explanation as to why this 8-shape is ASSYMETRIC.

Here's a classic diagram of the Analemma. As you can see, the lower part of the Analemma is roughly 2.5 times wider than the upper part:
(This diagram is borrowed from an astronomy site - I have only added the blue and green zones)
Image

Now, there's of course no mystery as to why the Sun moves VERTICALLY (i.e. up and down) in the course of a year : this is due to Earth's 23.5° tilt. The "mystery" is why the Sun would also move SIDEWAYS - and why this sideways / lateral drift is far larger (as viewed from the Northern Hemisphere's) in the winter months than in the summer months.

This sideways drift causes our clocks to be "wrong" almost all of the time! Only on four occasions every year (Dec 24, Apr15, June16 and Aug29), our clocks will be correctly synched with the Sun (say, at noon - when the Sun is at the "mean zenith"). And this is why we have the "Equation of Time".

But WHY are those lateral oscillations of the Sun (summer months versus winter months) heftily ASSYMETRIC?

To be sure, this "specialist" website (which treats the Analemma extensively) provides no clear-cut answers to this crucial question: http://analemma.com/

The TYCHOS model, on the other hand, provides a "graphic" explanation for this crucial question - as illustrated in this new graphic of mine:

Image

The white dots in my above graphic represent an earthly observer / astronomer (let's call him "Joe") who takes a picture of the Sun every 21st day of each month for a full year. Since Joe will be carried around this trochoidal path (caused by Earth moving slowly at 1mph / or 1.6km/h around its PVP orbit), we can see just why he will end up with an ASSYMETRIC 8-shaped pattern of the Sun's yearly motions: between (roughly speaking) April and August, the observer will be displaced laterally by a factor of "1". Whereas between (roughly speaking) November and February, he will displaced laterally by a factor of "2.5".

Yet, Joe will always be "trusting his clock" (which of course ticks at a fixed / constant rate) - as he keeps snapping his pictures at NOON.

I know, this may at first appear somewhat counter-intuitive (and it's taken me years to wrap my head around it). Yet I'm now confident to be able to make this case in front of a "scientific court of law"...

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

Peaker
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:04 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by Peaker » Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:20 am

Thank you Simon, putting this in a slightly different way is beneficial for me.

So I have a question. Did the analemma become known only with the advent of mechanised clocks? Or is there an analog way of working it out from time out of mind?

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Apr 15, 2020 3:22 pm

Peaker wrote:
Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:20 am


So I have a question. Did the analemma become known only with the advent of mechanised clocks? Or is there an analog way of working it out from time out of mind?
Dear Peaker, you may wish to read this interesting paper about the history of the analemma. Short excerpt:

"Around the year 2020 BC the gnomon was already used in Mesopotamia to determine day-time hours, while 60 minutes and even 60 seconds as standard time scales could be measured by sand or water clocks. At roughly the same time obelisks in Egypt served as community sundials."
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... athematics

So yes, the analemma "phemomenon" has been known for quite a while. In fact, it really isn't a phenomenon at all; it's just that ALL time-measuring tools ever devised (from sand/ or water clocks to modern digital chronometers) tick at a constant / fixed rate. Yet, since the Sun revolves around our slowly-moving Earth (at times in the same direction / and at times in the opposite direction as Earth) - and, more importantly, since an earthly observer's annual frame of reference is a peculiar / constantly fluctuating trochoid (see my above graphic), the Sun will naturally keep drifting back and forth / and "out of sync" with any clock that's ever been devised.

A fun, future project (enabled by the TYCHOS) would be to build a clock that actually slows down and speeds up over the course of the year, calibrated to the shape of our trochoidal path and Earth's 1-mph motion (both of which cause our Sun to APPARENTLY accelerate and decelerate*) - and so eliminating the analemma! That is, the analemma would no longer be 8-shaped - but just a straight vertical line (as the Sun would consistently return to the same zenith point in our skies). But does humanity need such a clock? I doubt it. Besides, the 8-shaped analemma is quite beautiful, isn't it? I vote to keep it that way. :)

(* a third contributing factor being that the Sun is a bit closer to Earth in December and a bit further away in June)

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Apr 20, 2020 9:53 pm

*

MORE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM AND THE SIRIUS SYSTEM

Dear friends,

In my TYCHOS book (which was released two years ago, in March 2018), I pointed out a remarkable fact that no astronomer had pointed out before:

The relative diameters of the Sun and Mars are practically identical to the diameters of Sirius A and Sirius B.

That is, the diameters of the two "baby" bodies ( Mars and Sirius B ) are both just about 204X smaller than their "mother" bodies ( the Sun and Sirius A ).

But one question remained: do the ORBITAL SIZES of Sirius A and Sirius B resemble in any way the ORBITAL SIZES of our Sun and Mars?

So let's see: it is commonly-accepted that Mars can transit as as far as 400Mkm from Earth (apogee) - and as close as 56.6Mkm from Earth (perigee).
This means that we have a "furthest-to-closest" ratio of 7:1 ... Here's how it looks in my TYCHOS model:

Image


Today, I finally found a rare "official" diagram that depicts the actual relative SIZES of the orbits of both Sirius A and Sirius B :
(Note: most diagrams to be found - by NASA & co. - only depict the orbit of Sirius B around a "stationary" Sirius A).

Image https://www.pinterest.it/pin/1742330793 ... login=true

Now, before we get on, let me remind you of the French academic study by Benest and Duvent (1994) which concluded that there is most probably a THIRD body within the Sirius system (which "revolves around Sirius A"). They named this THIRD (yet still undected / invisible to our best telescopes) body "Sirius C".

"IS SIRIUS A TRIPLE STAR?" (by Benest & Duvent) : https://www.tychos.info/citation/017A_I ... e-Star.pdf

In my TYCHOS book, I had speculated that this elusive THIRD body ("Sirius C") might be some sort of "twin sister" of planet Earth.

Well, let us now postulate that "Sirius C" truly exists. Here's how it would "interact" with Sirius B... at a ratio of 7:1

Image

I know, some folks might argue that the above-illustrated 7:1 ratio isn't quite exact - since we see (from Earth) the Sirius system at an angle.

Still, isn't this quite remarkable? And doesn't it warrant further study? Are there any professional astronomers out there who may consider helping out?

I don't know about you, but in my humble opinion, the idea that the Sirius system might be some sort of "TWIN SISTER" of our own solar system is quite fascinating.

patrix
Member
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by patrix » Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:04 pm

simonshack wrote:
Mon Apr 20, 2020 9:53 pm
Still, isn't this quite remarkable? And doesn't it warrant further study? Are there any professional astronomers out there who may consider helping out?

I don't know about you, but in my humble opinion, the idea that the Sirius system might be some sort of "TWIN SISTER" of our own solar system is quite fascinating.
Exellent find Dear Simon. Yet another confirmation of the Tychos model.

My thought as well. Come on in! The water is warm and there's plenty of room. It's almost as if you have created a new field of astronomy. Perhaps we should dub it geoastronomy? Since this is about figuring out the proportions of, and motions in our universe that makes geometrical sense. Current astronomy seems to be mostly about shoehorning everything into a Heliocentric model and Newtonian "physics". None of which makes much sense.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Aug 24, 2020 9:07 pm

*

THE TYCHOS PROBES THE MAJOR METEOR SHOWERS

Image

Dear friends,

There's probably no more fascinating celestial spectacle than the so-called "shooting stars" that we've all occasionally witnessed in our lifetimes. Amateur astronomers know where and when to look for even more spectacular events known as "meteor showers". These events (which can last for a couple of days or up to several weeks) occur on a regular, annual basis in various parts of our skies and, fairly reliably, at the same periods of the year. Most people will have heard of the largest known meteor showers - such as the Geminids, the Perseids, the Orionids or the Aquariids which are all named after the constellations, i.e. the celestial spots / areas (also known as the "radiant points") from which they appear to originate and to spread out from - in all directions.

Historically, these meteor showers have been a cause of great perplexity among astronomers and cosmologists. The obvious, principal questions were: "what causes them - and why do they occur every year at virtually the same place in the sky?" Let me use a few selected excerpts from Wikipedia so as to outline the current understanding of the nature of meteor showers:
"The actual nature of meteors was still debated during the 19th century. Meteors were conceived as an atmospheric phenomenon by many scientists (Alexander von Humboldt, Adolphe Quetelet, Julius Schmidt) until the Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli ascertained the relation between meteors and comets in his work "Notes upon the astronomical theory of the falling stars" (1867).(...) A meteor shower is a celestial event in which a number of meteors are observed to radiate, or originate, from one point in the night sky. These meteors are caused by streams of cosmic debris called meteoroids entering Earth's atmosphere at extremely high speeds on parallel trajectories. (...) Most meteors are smaller than a grain of sand, so almost all of them disintegrate and never hit the Earth's surface. A meteor shower is the result of an interaction between a planet, such as Earth, and streams of debris from a comet. Comets can produce debris by water vapor drag, as demonstrated by Fred Whipple in 1951, and by breakup." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_shower
In other words, meteor showers are currently assumed to be caused by Earth, as it supposedly hurtles at 30 km/s around the Sun, colliding with streams of debris left over from comets which periodically visit our solar system. However, there are a number of problems with this assumption:

1. Comets which enter our solar system rarely - if ever - stray right across (i.e. intersect) Earth's orbital plane, whether it be the Copernican or the Tychosian one. Cometary orbits are almost invariably tilted in relation to Earth's orbital plane and very few - if any - pass right through Earth's celestial path. That is, most of all comets (which are all quite small-sized celestial bodies measuring a few kilometers in diameter) pass either "above" or "below" our planet and are unlikely to leave any significant amounts of debris trails precisely along Earth's orbital path.

2: Even if some comets would intersect Earth's (Copernican) orbit, it would take no more than a few seconds or minutes for Earth to pass through their debris trails as it (supposedly) travels at 30km/s - or 90X the speed of sound. How then could large meteor showers that last for several weeks possibly be explained?

3. All known comets have vastly different periods (e.g. Halley's comet: 76 years. Comet Encke: 3.3 years). Indeed, the famous Perseid meteor shower is believed to be caused by the Swift-Tuttle comet which has a period of... 133 years! How then would this possibly explain the annual recurrence of the major meteor showers (and their fairly constant / reliable intensity) ? Is this cometary debris just supposed to linger for years, decades or even centuries-on-end around the same place of the sky?

On the face of it, it would seem most unlikely that cometary debris trails are the cause of meteor showers - especially the larger, long-lasting ones. You may now ask, "what could possibly be an alternative explanation?" Well, let's take a look at this issue throught the "lens" of my proposed Tychos model of our solar system.

Firstly, I'd like to submit once more an animated gif that I've used to illustrate my theses in a couple of earlier occasions. The below animation is to be found at the Binary Research Institute's website and shows how a binary system composed of two bodies revolving around their common barycenter will occasionally cause "meteor showers" - as the respective debris trails of the two bodies collide:

Image

The above animation should give you a rough (yet inexact) idea of what I'm about to propose and illustrate in consummate detail - regarding the possible cause for our annual meteor showers (or at least for our major meteor showers) as viewed under the Tychos model's core paradigm, what with the Sun and Mars being binary companions revolving around planet Earth.

The basic premise of my working hypothesis is quite simple: the (major) meteor showers may be caused by the debris trails perennially circulating around the Sun's and Mars's orbits (both bodies constantly shedding small particles along their orbital paths). As these two slightly oscillating orbits occasionally intersect (both in Right Ascension and in Declination), these solar and martian orbital particles will collide and send "meteorites" in all directions (and, of course, towards Earth).

What follows are four animations depicting how 4 of our largest meteor showers (The Gemenids, the Perseids, the Orionids and the Aquariids), as they would "play out" in the Tychos model, for which I've been using sequential screenshots from the wondrous Tychosium 3D simulator.


We shall start with the famous GEMENIDS meteor shower. It recurs every year roughly between December 4 and December 17, peaking on December 14.
- The observed "radiant point" of this shower is located around 7h30min of RA (Right Ascension).
- As we can read on Wikipedia, the average speed of the Gemenid meteors is 35km/s.
This means that, if the impact (between the Sun's and Mars's orbital wakes) occurs at the distance of 1 AU (i.e. 150 Mkm - the distance between the Sun and Earth), the Gemenid meteors will employ about 7 weeks to reach Earth's atmosphere. Hence, in this case, we should expect this impact to occur in the last days of October.

And, in fact :
Image


Let's now look at the famous PERSEIDS meteor shower. It recurs every year roughly between July 17 and August 24, peaking on December 12.
- The observed "radiant point" of this shower is located around 3h of RA (Right Ascension).
- As we can read on Wikipedia, the average speed of the Gemenid meteors is 58km/s.
This means that, if the impact (between the Sun's and Mars's orbital wakes) occurs at the distance of 1 AU (i.e. 150 Mkm - the distance between the Sun and Earth), the Perseid meteors will employ about 4 weeks to reach Earth's atmosphere. Hence, in this case, we should expect this impact to occur in the last days of July.

And, in fact :
Image


Let's now look at the famous ORIONIDS meteor shower. It recurs every year roughly between October 2 and November 7, peaking on October 21.
- The observed "radiant point" of this shower is located around 6h24min of RA (Right Ascension).
- As we can read on Wikipedia, the average speed of the Orionid meteors is 67km/s.
This means that, if the impact (between the Sun's and Mars's orbital wakes) occurs at the distance of 1 AU (i.e. 150 Mkm - the distance between the Sun and Earth), the Orionid meteors will employ about 3.7 weeks to reach Earth's atmosphere. Hence, in this case, we should expect this impact to occur in early October.

And, in fact :
Image


Finally, let's look at the famous DELTA AQUARIIDS meteor shower. It recurs every year roughly between July 12 and August 23, peaking on July 30.
- The observed "radiant point" of this shower is located around 23h20min of RA (Right Ascension).
- As we can read on Wikipedia, the average speed of the Delta Aquariis meteors is 41km/s.
This means that, if the impact (between the Sun's and Mars's orbital wakes) occurs at the distance of 1 AU (i.e. 150 Mkm - the distance between the Sun and Earth), the Delta Aquariid meteors will employ about 6 weeks to reach Earth's atmosphere. Hence, in this case, we should expect this impact to occur in mid-June.

And, in fact :
Image

Please note that those "impact zones" that I've marked in my above animations are actually meant to be "INITIAL impact points", as the gradual / sweeping collisions between the slightly tilted (by only about 2°) orbital paths of the Sun and Mars (and their respective debris) would likely protract for a number of days or weeks - unlike current theory, which holds that meteor showers are caused by Earth swiftly smashing into tiny trails of cometary debris (which would have momentarily "cut through" Earth's orbital path). As it is, this would nicely go to explain why meteor showers can last for several weeks. All in all, I would humbly submit that this hypothesis of mine holds water and supersedes current theory in terms of sheer plausibility and empirical probation.

One last thing I'd like to add is a possible explanation as to why a few meteor showers are observed to enter our skies at a higher declination than 23.5° - which would be the expected maximum angle at which meteors arrive, if they were ejected from the Sun/Mars orbital planes (for instance, the Perseids meteor shower is apparently observed to arrive from as high as 58° of declination / celestial latitude). Well, this is when you need to envision how the orbits of the Sun and Mars (which are mutually inclined by about 2°) will, in the Tychos model, be constantly oscillating slightly "up and down" in relation to each other.

The following animation (created with "timelapse screenshots" from the Tychosium simulator) should give you an idea how the Mars orbit will, on occasions, oscillate "upwards" as it intersects the Sun's orbit - thus causing the Mars/Sun orbital debris to be "thrown upwards" in a parabolic trajectory towards Earth (the timeline used for this animation is consistent with the Perseid meteor shower which peaks every year in August) :

Image

The above animation should also help you understand why we do not have meteor showers all year long: they only occur whenever the orbital paths of the Sun and Mars intersect in BOTH celestial longitude (a.k.a. "Right Ascension") and in celestial latitude (a.k.a. "Declination"). Of course, there may be other causes for some other, random meteors (or "shooting stars") to enter our skies from time to time (given the enormous amount of near-earth asteroids crowding our skies), but the major annually-recurring meteor showers are, in my opinion, most likely caused by the orbits of the Sun and Mars regularly intersecting throughout the year.

I rest my case and, as I like to say, the Tychos model is here to stay. :)



...

Peaker
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:04 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by Peaker » Wed Aug 26, 2020 9:48 pm

Hello All,

You know, regardless of anything, I have just really enjoyed learning about the meteor showers from this post. In the past my eyes would have glazed over if anyone had brought up these for discussions. The real thing I would have loved, seeing them for real, but a dinner party discussion wouldn't have cut it. However i find myself remembering every word of the post because you, Simon, gave it context....much missing in the past.

Thankyou

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:51 pm

Charles Fort wrote extensively on the absurdities and contradictions of modern scientists, with astronomers taking the front seat. He humorously excoriated Keplerism and Newtonism and the over-emphasis on mathematics in detriment to actual observation. He did not intend to provide solutions or found schools, but amused himself presenting evidence for concepts vehemently rejected by mainstream astronomers. Below are two excerpts from his book "New Lands", published in 1923.

On the "radiation points" of meteor showers (p. 82-84):
At the meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society, Jan. 11, 1878, was read a paper by W. F. Denning. It was, by its implications, one of the most exciting documents in history. The subject was: "Suspected repetitions in meteor-showers." Mr. Denning listed twenty-two radiants that lasted from three to four months each. In the year 1799, Humboldt noticed that the paths of meteors, when parts of one display, led back to one point of common origin, or one point from which all the meteors had radiated. This is the radiant-point, or the radiant. When a radiant occurs under a constellation, the meteors are named relatively. In the extraordinary meteoric display of Nov. 13-14, 1833, there was a circumstance that was as extraordinary as the display itself: that, though this earth is supposed to rotate upon its axis, giving to the stars the appearance of revolving nightly, and supposed to revolve around the sun, so affecting the seeming motions of the stars, these meteors of November, 1833, began under the constellation Leo, and six hours later, though Leo had changed position in the sky, had changed with, and seemed still coming from, Leo.

There was no parallax along the great base line from Canada to Florida.

Then these meteors did come from Leo, or parallax, or absence of parallax, is meaningless.

The circumstance of precise position maintained under a moving constellation upon the night of Nov. 13-14, 1833, becomes insignificant relatively to Denning's data of such synchronization with a duration of months. When a radiant-point remains under Leo or Lyra, night after night, month after month, it is either that something is shifting it, without parallax, in exact coincidence with a doubly shifting constellation, which is so unthinkable that Denning says, "I cannot explain," or that the constellation is the radiant-point, in which case maintenance of precise position under it is unthinkable if it be far away--

That the stars are near.

Think of a ship, slowly sailing past a seacoast town, firing with smokeless powder, say. Shells from it burst before quite reaching the town, and all explosion-points are in line between the city and the ship, or are traceable to one such radiant. The bombardment continues. The ship moves slowly. Still all points of exploding shells are traceable to one point between the ship and the town. The bombardment goes on and goes on and goes on, and the ship is far from its first position. The point of exploding shells is still between the ship and the town. Wise men in the town say that the shells are not coming from the ship. They say this because formerly they had said that shells could not come from a ship. They reason: therefore shells are not coming from this ship. They are asked how, then, the point of explosion could so shift exactly in line with the moving ship. If there be a W. F. Denning among them, he will say, "I cannot explain." But the other wise men will be like Prof. Moulton, for instance. In his books, Prof. Moulton writes a great deal upon the subject of meteors, but he does not mention the meteors that, for months at a time, appear between observers and a shifting constellation.

There are other considerations. The shells are heard to explode. So then they explode near the town. But there is something the matter with that smokeless powder aboard ship: very feeble projectile-force, because also must the shells be exploding near the ship, or the radiant-point would not have the same background, as seen from different parts of the town. Then, in this town, inhabitants, provided they be not wise men, will conclude that, if the explosion-point is near the town, and is also near the ship, the ship is near the town--

Leo and Lyra and Andromeda--argosies that sail the sky and that bombard this earth--and that they are not far away.
--------------------------------------

On the "intellectual superiority" of astronomers (p. 39-41):
In the English Mechanic, 33-327, is a letter from the astronomer, A. Stanley Williams. He had written previously upon double stars, their colors and magnitudes. Another astronomer, Herbert Sadler, had pointed out some errors. Mr. Williams acknowledges the errors, saying that some were his own, and that some were from Smyth's Cycle of Celestial Objects. In the English Mechanic, 33-377, Sadler says that, earnestly, he would advise Williams not to use the new edition of Smyth's Cycle, because, with the exception of vol. 40, Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, "a more disgracefully inaccurate" catalogue of double stars had never been published. "If," says one astronomer to the other astronomer, "you have a copy of this miserable production, sell it for waste paper. It is crammed with the most stupid errors."

A new character appears. He is George F. Chambers, F.R.A.S., author of a long list of astronomical works, and a tract, entitled, Where Are You Going, Sunday? He, too, is earnest. In this early correspondence, nothing ulterior is apparent, and we suppose that it is in the cause of Truth that he is so earnest. Says one astronomer that the other astronomer is "evidently one of those self-sufficient young men, who are nothing, if not abusive." But can Mr. Sadler have so soon forgotten what was done to him, on a former occasion, after he had slandered Admiral Smyth? Chambers challenges Sadler to publish a list of, say, fifty "stupid errors" in the book. He quotes the opinion of the Astronomer Royal: that the book was a work of "sterling merit." "Airy vs. Sadler," he says: "which is it to be?"

We began not very promisingly. Few excitements seemed to lurk in such a subject as double stars, their colors and magnitudes; but slander and abuse are livelier, and now enters curiosity: we'd like to know what was done to Herbert Sadler.

Late in the year 1876, Herbert Sadler was elected a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society. In Monthly Notices, R.A.S., January, 1879, appears his first paper that was read to the Society: Notes on the late Admiral Smyth's Cycle of Celestial Objects, volume second, known as the Bedford Catalogue. With no especial vehemence, at least according to our own standards of repression, Sadler expresses himself upon some "extraordinary mistakes" in this work.

At the meeting of the Society, May 9, 1879, there was an attack upon Sadler, and it was led by Chambers, or conducted by Chambers, who cried out that Sadler had slandered a great astronomer, and demanded that Sadler should resign. In the report of this meeting, published in the Observatory, there is not a trace of anybody's endeavors to find out whether there were errors in this book or not: Chambers ignored everything but his accusation of slander, and demanded again that Sadler should resign. In Monthly Notices, 39-389, the Council of the Society published regrets that it had permitted publication of Sadler's paper, "which was entirely unsupported by the citation of instances upon which his judgment was founded."

We find that it was Mr. Chambers who had revised and published the new edition of Smyth's Cycle.

In the English Mechanic, Chambers challenged Sadler to publish, say, fifty "stupid errors." See page 451, vol. 33, English Mechanic--Sadler lists just fifty "stupid errors." He says that he could have listed, not 50, but 250, not trivial, but of the "grossest kind." He says that in one set of 167 observations, 117 were wrong.

The English Mechanic drops out of this comedy with the obvious title, but developments go on. Evidently withdrawing its "regrets," the Council permitted publication of a criticism of Chambers' edition of Smyth's Cycle, in Monthly Notices, 40-497, and the language in this criticism, by S. W. Burnham, was no less interpretable as slanderous than was Sadler's: that Smyth's data were "either roughly approximate or grossly incorrect, and so constantly recurring that it was impossible to explain that they were ordinary errors of observation." Burnham lists 30 pages of errors.

Following is a paper by E. B. Knobel, who published 17 pages of instances in which, in his opinion, Mr. Burnham had been too severe. Knowing of no objection by Burnham to this reduction, we have left 13 pages of errors in one standard astronomical work, which may fairly be considered as representative of astronomical work in general, inasmuch as it was, in the opinion of the Astronomer Royal, a book of "sterling merit."

I think that now we have accomplished something. After this we should all get along more familiarly and agreeably together.

Thirteen pages of errors in one standard astronomical work are reassuring; there is a likeable fallibility here that should make for better relations. If the astronomers were what they think they are, we might as well make squeaks of disapproval against Alpine summits. As to astronomers who calculate positions of planets--of whom he was one--Newcomb, in Reminiscences of an Astronomer, says--"The men who have done it are therefore, in intellect, the select few of the human race--an aristocracy above all others in the scale of being." We could never get along comfortably with such awful selectness as that.
https://ia801005.us.archive.org/9/items ... 00fort.pdf

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sun Aug 30, 2020 11:38 pm

A couple more quotes from "New Lands". Fort seems to have considered professional astronomers more like civil servants than sincere aficionados willing to stay up all night for the sake of stargazing:
- An astonishing thing, like a red moon, perhaps with spokes like a wheel's, might, if reported from nowhere else, be considered something that came from outer space so close to this earth that it was visible only in a local sky, except that it might have been visible in other places, and even half past eleven at night may be an unheard-of hour for astronomers, who specialize upon sunspots for a reason that is clearing up to us.

- June 8, 1868. I have not the exact time, but one does suspect that it was early in the evening, an object that was reported from Radcliffe Observatory, Oxford.

- If nightwatchmen and policemen, who do stay awake nights, should be given telescopes, something might be found out.

- We have at times wondered how astronomers spend their nights.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:24 pm

*

DAVID MATHISEN'S VIDEO ABOUT THE TYCHOS MODEL

David Warner Mathisen is the author of a series of fascinating books focusing on the star myths of ancient history.

Patrik and I have been exchanging e-mails with David lately - and he has now published a fine video in which he presents and illustrates the Tychos model in a most concise and articulate manner. Needless to say, I'm very happy about this - and feel lucky about having such eloquent individuals helping out introducing the Tychos model to the general public. As David says at the end of the video: "the truth is up there - and I'm convinced that the truth will prevail". :)

Enjoy !


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

Post Reply