The SSSS - early musings - 2013>2015

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
Locked
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:24 am

hoi.polloi wrote: Animated "sketch" of the SSSS with orbiting Sun (SWF, 13k, requires Flash Player)

Also, I think the "15 days per second" option ended up moving far too fast, the Earth occasionally lights up wrong and so on, but anyway, again I will correct for this in the next version. This is just for me to get thinking about it.
An absolutely lovely flash animation, Hoi! Thanks muchly for contributing with your thoughts and graphics with - as ever - your incredible talent for thinking 'ever-outer' of the box! :)

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:37 am

*

Tycho Brahe rescues the "SSSS"...

Ok, folks - so this title is a bit tongue-in-cheek. In reality, credit goes to Hoi Polloi for keeping my mind out of the box, making me look back into the geocentric model (or more precisely, the geo-heliocentric model) - which modern science never has actually disproved. As it turns out, to my surprise and delight, my SSSS appears to fit in as a small, missing piece of this cosmic puzzle debated for ages by scores of thinking minds.

Firstly, I owe an explanation to the patient readers of my SSSS theory and musings - as to why I suddenly appeared to 'back off' and (temporarily) locked this thread. Well, it so happened that I couldn't make sense of the seemingly absurd fact that a sidereal year lasts for 366 days - and a solar year lasts for 365 days. To be sure, the current, universally accepted Copernican model (with the Earth orbiting the Sun) does NOT account for / nor explain this phenomenon. Yet, this is exactly what we can observe: the stars revolve around us once more each year than the sun. That's right : 366 times versus 365 times. Moreover - and precisely because of this problem - my SSSS appeared to be fundamentally flawed in relation to the observed motion of the stars. I was pretty dumbfounded for the last few days - and felt a tad guilty and miserable. *Dang*!... - had I just wasted everyone's time on my own forum?

Enter Tycho Brahe. His famously accurate (and all-too-hastily dismissed by the establishment-backed Copernicus and Galileo) geo-heliocentric system proposed that the SUN orbits around the EARTH. I have used a Wikipedia diagram of Tycho's wonderful model to illustrate why the solar year lasts for 365 days - versus the 366 days of the sidereal year, while integrating my SSSS into it (although illustrating the latter's motions properly in 3D-fashion is beyond my graphic softwares' capabilities at this time. You'll just have to imagine it!). Please note that you are viewing the below animated diagrams AS IF YOU WERE LOOKING DOWN FROM POLARIS (our North Star).

This is to illustrate the EARTH's daily rotation:
(minus its own little circular orbit around itself - as per the SSSS)
EARTH rotates daily around its own axis and remains (almost) stationary below Polaris - our North Star - as empirically observed.
Image


This is to illustrate the SUN's yearly rotation (and its 'attached' planets orbiting around it: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. The moon - which revolves monthly around Earth - is missing in this diagram).
The once-yearly rotation of the SUN will subtract one 'day' from our 366-day (sidereal) year.
This would mathematically explain why a "solar year" has 365 days, whereas a "sidereal year" has 366 days !

Image

This would of course also explain why a solar day is slightly longer than a sidereal day: since the Sun orbits around the Earth (in the same direction of our planet's rotation), each solar day will last a little longer (4min) as any given point on Earth 'catches up' with the Sun's progress around the globe. At this point - as far as I'm concerned - I'd say that the Copernican model has more holes than a Swiss cheese. Anyone wishing to defend it is very welcome to do so. This age-old debate has, in later times, been evaded for far too long. Does anyone care about our universe anymore? Has it become a taboo subject?



****************************************************************************************************
Did Kepler poison / murder his mentor, Tycho Brahe - in order to forward the church-backed Copernican theory? So it seems:
http://suite101.com/article/did-johanne ... he-a231745

About SIMON MARIUS - Tycho Brahe's brilliant pupil who disproved Galileo :
Extremely interesting essay by Christopher M. Graney: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0903/0903.3429.pdf

"Simon Marius concluded that the geocentric Tychonic system, in which the planets circle the sun while the sun circles the Earth, must be the correct world system, or model of the universe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Marius

By the way, I think this guy may be right: the Sun is smaller than the Earth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geKZkwvMdQo

Starbucked
Member
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:33 am

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by Starbucked » Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:47 pm

Fascinating stuff!

From the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geKZkwvMdQo .....his calculations put the MASS of the Sun at 1/10th that of the Earth which throws the Earth orbiting the Sun model of the solar system on the celestial trash heap.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:41 pm

*


The SSSS - and the MOON
why the Sun revolves - after all - around Earth

So how do the Moon motions (as observed from Earth) fare in my SSSS model? Pretty nicely, it seems!

Firstly, let's see what astronomic academia tells us about the Moon motions:
The Sidereal and Synodic Months
The sidereal month is the time the Moon takes to complete one full revolution around the Earth with respect to the background stars. However, because the Earth is constantly moving along its orbit about the Sun, the Moon must travel slightly more than 360° to get from one new moon to the next. Thus, the synodic month, or lunar month, is longer than the sidereal month.

A sidereal month lasts 27.3 days, while a synodic month lasts 29.5 days.
http://www.sumanasinc.com/webcontent/an ... ereal.html
Well, that sounds very nice - at first read. But considering that the Copernican model asks us to believe that all this occurs while the Earth is speeding around the Sun at 108.000km/h (with the Moon attached, and spinning around it?) - it utimately sounds quite ridiculous. Let's get real - and see how the SSSS model would fit with the empirical observations which we can all verify with our own eyes. And let me repeat this: WITH OUR OWN EYES. There can be NO serious analysis of our skies if you do not trust your own eyes - no matter how distrustful you are of so-called "academic science". At this time of world history, we need to regain confidence in the things that we can SEE.

In the SSSS, the Moon revolves around the Earth - in the same direction as the more distant Sun. As viewed from above (our North Star), ALL revolve counter-clockwise. Now, from our earthly observational perspective, it takes 27,3 days for the MOON to re-align with any given star. Yet, it takes 29.5 days for the MOON to re-align with the SUN. How can that be? Here is how :

Image

During the time that the MOON revolves around Earth (in one 'lunar month' or 27,3 sidereal lunar days), the SUN will proceed forward. So when the MOON finally completes its monthly circle (against the background stars), it will then have to 'catch up' to the SUN - for another EXTRA 2,2 DAYS. This is why a "synodic" month (as academics call it) lasts for 29,5 days.

Let us average the monthly synodic/sidereal moon rotation period to 28,2 days. We'll find that 2,2 is just about 1/13 of 28,2 - so those 2,2 extra days are almost precisely equivalent to 1/13th of one lunar orbit around earth. Of course, 28,2 solar days (the time the Sun would have moved forward on its wider orbit) is almost precisely the 1/13th part of 366 - the Sun's full annual orbit around Earth.

We may conclude that the angular motions of the Sun's and the Moon's orbits are intimately 'related': the time interval it takes for the Moon (as observed from our earthly perspective) to 'catch up' with the Sun - from one lunar sidereal orbit to one lunar synodic orbit - covers 1/13th of both the Moon's AND the Sun's apparent celestial displacement.

Wow. So in the Copernican model, with the Earth speeding at 108.000km/h around the sun (with the moon on its own, separate / unique orbit around Earth), all the above is supposed to take place by sheer coincidence? That's preposterous. If anyone can explain to me how this inter-relationship between the Moon and Sun orbits occurs in the Copernican model, I am all ears. Until then, I'll be satisfied to have empirically demonstrated that the Sun and the Moon both revolve around Earth.

Let me now re-assert another key point put forth by the SSSS model:

The EARTH rotates around itself 366 times - we see any given star 366 times each year, yet we see the SUN only 365 times. This, because the SUN revolves in the same direction as Earth's rotation - and that is why we see the Sun rising only 365 times each year: the Sun's once-yearly revolution around our planet subtracts one day from these 366 rotations of ours.

Image


TIDAL FORCES


The MOON revolves around the Earth on a smaller orbit than the Sun's - and slightly oblique (about 5°) to the Sun's ecliptic. Every month the Moon crosses the Earth's ecliptic twice, once travelling north (at the north Node) and once travelling south (at the south Node). Now, for all we know, the MOON (and the Sun, albeit less so) are responsible for the ocean tides. This seems to be true - as the tides do indeed follow the lunar cycles. So let us hypothesize how these tremendous forces may play a role within the SSSS paradigm:

If the MOON (and the Sun) are responsible for the ocean tides, would this perhaps explain why - according to the SSSS - the Earth (while rotating on itself) drifts slightly up, down and from side to side? Could it be that the combined forces of the MOON (with its offset-of-centre orbit) and the SUN (with its solstice-peaking perihelions and aphelions) causes our planet to be "pulled & pushed" around in a small, doughnut-shaped circle - as per the SSSS model?
Image
(In the above diagram, the red dot represents the lunar apogee and the MOON represents its perigee. The two alternate every 14 days or so.)

In any case, our ol' friend Isaac would have probably agreed with this notion:
NEWTON’S BARYCENTRE COMPUTATION
"Newton had discussed in Part I how two orbs circling each other will rotate about their common centre of gravity. Thus the distances of Moon and Earth from it will be, he estimates, in the ratio of 40:1 approxi­mately, i.e. the Earth orbits once a month around a point outside itself!"

"In 1873 the Earth/Moon mass ratio was taken as 81.4: 1 by Proctor, this being a mean value of esti­mates obtained by the astronomers Stone, Leverrier and Newcomb (10). They were derived not only from parallax observations, but also from the magnitude of nutation (the 18.6-year motion of Earth’s axis due to rotation of the lunar nodes)."
http://dioi.org/kn/newtonmoonerror.htm
I have now clarified for myself several questions I have had regarding the "solar system". Whether my SSSS theory has any merit or not, I think it provides plausible answers to a number of obscure areas of our universe - as we 'know' it. In any case, it would be interesting to see if my SSSS would hold up to academic scrutiny - or if it can be easily dismissed as 'preposterous'.

TO SUM IT UP:
- The SUN revolves around the Earth in a counter-clockwise direction (as seen from our North Star) - every year.
- The MOON revolves around the Earth in a counter-clockwise direction (as seen from our North Star) - every month.
- The EARTH rotates around itself in a counter-clockwise direction every day - while circling in a small, "doughnut" orbit - as per the SSSS.

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

Apogee and Perigee of the Moon :

http://www.moonconnection.com/apogee_perigee.phtml

And the Moon orbit forms an analemma too! http://twanight.org/newTWAN/photos.asp?ID=3003707

elmoastro
Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:41 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by elmoastro » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:21 pm

This is a brilliant thread. It's going to take some serious thought to get my head around your model but I see the logic in it clearly. For me, my observation tells me the sun and moon are MUCH closer than science dogma states. I'm fascinated by the moon and I look at it through a 10" Celestron any chance I get. Notice that in every picture of the earth from space, the Earth planet has a smooth round edge when viewed from space. When we view the moon, we are viewing "from space" or "out there". When I look at the moon through my telecscope (moon being supposedly much smaller, ~237K miles away), I can clearly see the rough edges of lunar contour and craters on the perimeter edges. I can't get that level of detail looking across town much less a moon so far away. Point being, my own observation tells me I shouldn't be able to see at least as much detail here on my home planet as I do the moon, given the supposed distance difference.

Currently, distance to sun is calculated using the distance to Venus (!!??!!) as a trigonometric factor by bouncing a radio signal off Venus. Umkay. And every calculation assumes a flat, 2-D plane. The mass components of planets is another troubling variable. Mass figures are backed into using the gravitational constant equation. But as the electric universe model becomes more and more apparent, the mass numbers become fiction. Mass of the sun? Come on. Moon? I mean, some outlier theories say it's hollow (along with the Earth)! I'm not going there, but mass numbers are just as suspect as distance numbers.

Anyhow, my 2 cents. Back on waivers...

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Animated SSSS 2

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:40 am

Simon et al,

I have been fascinated by your new information and so I have constructed a newer SWF version to look at. I added procession so that I can test my own sub-theory that the Earth is more absolutely still than relatively still. Please bear in mind I haven't gotten the Moon's phases down, nor corrected yet for the exact timing of the Moon and Sun's orbits. If I tweak the values, it should be more or less perfected. However, I didn't do that yet. So please take a look and see if it's more or less accurate for you. (I even shoved in there a rather pointless leap day consideration for lack of more significant info.)

But again, if something breaks (like the leap day) let me know and I will remedy it in the next version. Also, let me know if I should add any measurement features such as sidereal time, and how you would have me do that, please. I don't think I will ever be able to release a mock-3D one like that Neave star chart, but perhaps in time, if the model catches attention and continues to hold up to scrutiny, others will build much better versions than my sorry rudimentary thing, Simon. (Apologies.)

[st]SSSSs (Simon Shack Solar System sketch) v2 (SWF, 26k, requires Flash Player)[/st]

UPDATE (See below): SSSSs (Simon Shack Solar System sketch) v2.2 (SWF, 34k, requires Flash Player)
orbit4_grab.JPG
One thing I found was that if I add Procession at approximately 100 times the value of Days per Second, the Earth does not have to rotate as quickly as you assume, but instead bobs around in the SSSS arena daily as much as it rotates daily, which to me makes just as much sense as the SSSS slowly progressing over a year. I also haven't added the potential feature of keeping the SSSS "arena" rotating more around the Earth itself, in case the real movement of everything is still centered more around Earth's core than an invisible axle at Earth's surface level.

Since:

a. we don't know what the stars/cosmos are
and
b. we're continuing to completely ignore the fact that we do not measure enough centripetal forces to account for a spinning Earth

I feel these questions and calculations are still outstanding. Sorry if I keep hammering that point in, but I'd rather spin the cosmos than ignore this problem, until something else can be suggested in your model besides the unexplained shield. (Though the shield is an interesting idea, it's as challenging for me as inverting the Earth into the shell model).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Animated SSSS 2

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Jul 27, 2013 1:05 pm

hoi.polloi wrote: So please take a look and see if it's more or less accurate for you.
Dear Hoi - thanks so much for your continued assistance and suggestions ! :)

Ok, so here are the relative values I'd like to see factored into your beautiful SWF:


ONE YEAR > ONE SUN REVOLUTION
Basics of the system: 1 revolution of the Sun = 366 Earth rotations around itself = approx 13 Moon revolutions around Earth.

- Earth spins on itself 366 times. Let us use the perfect monthly average of 30,5 days to synch it with the SUN's motion (30,5 X 12 = 366). So every 30,5 revolutions of the Earth should correspond to the SUN moving ahead for 1/12th of its yearly orbit /circumference.

- The Moon revolves around Earth roughly* 13 times each year. We can use the optimal average of 28,16 days to synch it with the Earth's motion (28,16 X 13 = 366). So every 28,16 Earth rotations should correspond to one Moon revolution around Earth.

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

(* It is actually more complex than that, but let's just approximate for now these figures for the next version of your SWF.)
The complexity required in an accurate lunisolar calendar may explain why solar calendars, with months which no longer relate to the phase of the Moon, but are based only on the motion of the Sun against the sky, have generally replaced lunar calendars for civil use in most societies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synodic_mo ... odic_month

Also:
Why does a full moon cycle last almost 14 lunations rather than just the 12.37 lunations of a year? This would be the case, if the moon's orbit kept a constant orientation with respect to the stars, but the tidal effect of the Sun causes the orbit to precess over a cycle just under 9 years. In that time, the number of full moon cycles passed becomes one less than the number of sidereal years passed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_moon_cycle

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sat Jul 27, 2013 5:32 pm

The absolute frame for the Moon in this model is the star field, so why don't I just try to make the Moon take 27.3 days to go around once? Wherever the Earth is in comparison to the Moon should match up to your figures since Earth's taking 366 days to do its own sidereal motion.

I am debugging it a bit now and I should have something much less crappy tomorrow. Thanks for thinking it looks nice though! :)

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:56 am

Okay, I think I finally fixed it. The formula I used was:

Each Earth day creates 1/27.3 of a 360-degree sidereal orbit for the Moon. This means that my little virtual Moon should travel a 13.16813 degree segment of its course each 366th of a year ("day").

I also added a Moon Phase checker to make sure things are looking like they do from Earth's perspective. Every time the Moon Phase advances, the arrow extending from Earth (representing a single longitudinal location on an Earth latitude - i.e.; one immobile "spot" on Earth) has "observed" the Moon (day or night) and marks the difference in angle between the shadow and the Earth's relative location to the side of the Moon which always rotates to face us. (For lack of a better understanding, though it seems peculiar the Moon should always wobble its single Moony face at us at all times, without spinning).

Sorry if I'm not making very clear sense right now. My brain is filled with code and formula fragments. Need to shake off this project for a while, until the next update. Thanks for the help getting it closer to the SSSS and our annual observations, Simon.

Here is the file again (I overwrote it) so this will have updated the previous post as well:

SSSSs (Simon Shack Solar System sketch) v2.2 (SWF, 34k, requires Flash Player)

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:08 pm

*
Great work, Hoi! Let's keep perfecting your lovely SWF step by step.

I've been looking at Venus lately - which is that 'weird' planet which keeps baffling everyone with its peculiar clockwise rotation and its so-called 'retrograde motion'. Here's an interesting sentence - from a science blog:
"So almost everything in the Solar System revolves and rotates counterclockwise (from the North), but Venus? Uranus? We just don’t get it, at least, not yet. Even in something as well-studied as our Solar System, we still have plenty of unexplained mysteries."
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... there-are/
Well, this long-debated 'mystery' appears to have a remarkably simple explanation - when viewed through the SSSS model... As seen from any given point from Earth, Venus (which rotates clockwise around itself AND clockwise around the SUN) will obviously appear to travel MUCH slower as it follows our counterclockwise rotation (see A to B phase below):

Image

As VENUS enters the B to A phase, it will suddenly appear to 'stop' - and accelerate 'backwards' at ENORMOUS speed : the combined speeds of its own orbiting velocity (now going 'rightwards') added to the ('leftwards' going) speeds of Earth's rotation & the SUN's displacement along its counterclockwise orbit around us. VENUS will only need about 2 months to complete (from our earthly perspective) the B to A phase - as opposed to the 17 months needed to complete (from our earthly perspective) the A to B phase.

So much for the age-old 'mystery' of the so-called "retrograde planet motions"! :)

*******************
VENUS - the 'upside-down' planet: http://www.idialstars.com/usd.htm

The funny thing is that VENUS is reputedly also an 'upside-down' planet, i.e. its 'North and South poles' are inverted. Well - that explains it all then, regarding its puzzling clockwise rotation! If you watch the SUN + VENUS SYSTEM from the opposite pole, you'll see that VENUS actually rotates counterclockwise around itself and the SUN - just like ALL good planets should do!



***********************************************************************************************************************
!!!!!! EDIT (July 30, 2013) : Whoops! I got this part of my SSSS reasoning upside down myself! VENUS actually does revolve counterclockwise (yet rotates on itself clockwise). Please read on, I have now cleared this up - further on in this thread. I apologize for the confusion - but I'll leave this post up for now, so as not to be accused of whitewashing my own errors !
:P

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:30 am

I should probably try and clarify a little my VENUS diagram above.

Fact 1: as observed from Earth, Venus appears to slowly 'overtake' the SUN (moving from 'right to left') - for a period of about 17months ( A > B ). VENUS then appears to 'stop' - and reverses its direction for a period of 2 months ( B > A ) - [only to reverse direction again for another 17month-phase - and so on and so forth].

Fact2: The Synodic period of Venus is 584 days, approximately 19 months. http://thu8an.blogspot.it/2013/02/venus.html


The A > B phase (approx 17 months):

Now, let's just use round, easy figures and say that the SUN travels around its orbit at 100.000km/h - and Venus at 120.000km/h*. To an observer on Earth, of course, the SUN will always be the 'fix' reference point - returning over the observer each day at noon appearing as if it had hardly moved at all : this, because Earth's rotation follows the SUN's angular displacement around the celestial sphere. VENUS will therefore appear to travel slightly faster than the SUN - and will seem (from our earthly perspective) to proceed at a pretty slow rate, as it 'catches up' to the SUN - eventually 'overtaking' it, over a 17-month period.

*NASA in fact has Venus' orbital speed at about 35km/s (approx 126.000km/h) and Earth's at 30km/s(108.000km/h).


The B > A phase (approx 2 months)
As VENUS reaches point B and reverses direction, it will now appear to 'overtake' the SUN in the other direction at tremendous speed (220.000km/h) - the combined orbital velocities of the SUN and VENUS. As observed from any given point on Earth, the B > A phase will thus appear to elapse in far shorter time - approx 2 months - since the observer's reference point (the SUN) will continue to move in its original direction and speed.


*****
SYNODIC PERIOD: The time required for a body within the solar system to return to the same or approximately the same position relative to the Sun as seen by an observer on the Earth. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary. ... dic+Period

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:10 pm

*

Holy Planets! I have now taken a good look at Mercury - and it all seems to fall into place ( SSSS-wise, that is). :)

Pardon my excitement folks - but I trust that those who care following this 'mad' space-exploration of mine can appreciate this latest chapter - regarding the motion of the 'craziest of all planets' : MERCURY. You see, just like his sister Venus, Mercury exhibits to us earthly observers that same odd forward / backward 'dance (the so-called "retrograde motion") - apparently decelerating and accelerating as it circles the SUN. Unlike Venus, Mercury revolves around the SUN counterclockwise (as seen from above our North Pole) and is, of course, closer to it. Mercury's 'dance' is even more 'jagged' (timewise) than Venus - yet it retains that awesome, clockwork-like perfection of all celestial bodies. This universe of ours is truly a marvel of precision-engineering. This simple diagram illustrates how MERCURY moves around us - while circling around the SUN:

Image
SYNODIC PERIOD of Mercury: 115.877 days (approx 4 months)

MERCURY's motion from A to B will obviously appear to elapse faster (from our earthly perspective), since it will travel IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION of our visual 'space-time' reference - the SUN. As Mercury enters the B > A phase, it will employ more time to complete its second half-circle as it catches up and overtakes the steadily 'forward-moving' SUN.

The above is Mercury's motion under the SSSS model - which so far seems to 'jive' with the available observational data that we have of our "solar system". As it is, I have tried my very best to comprehend how this 'behaviour' of Mercury could possibly be explained under the Copernican model - but have utterly failed to make any sense of it (especially as to how the "retrograde motion" is explained and 'justified'). If any seasoned / experienced astronomers can see glaring flaws in my SSSS model so far, I very sincerely welcome them to join this discussion and enlighten me as to whatever I may be missing - in terms of interpreting empirical celestial observations gathered throughout the centuries. To be sure, I now realize that my SSSS is turning out to be a 'revival' of sorts of Tycho Brahe's lifelong convictions and a tribute to his famous geo-heliocentric model. So be it : I'm in no pursuit of personal fame and glory - and will be glad just to help reinstate Tycho's long-forgotten legacy.

********
NOTE: yes, the observed transitions of Mercury (in FRONT of the Sun) occur - as expected by the SSSS model - during its A > B phases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Mercury This can be verified by anyone familiar with the below-linked NEAVE PLANETARIUM.

Again, I will provide this link to the NEAVE PLANETARIUM - for those who wish to personally get a hang of how our planets interact with each other in the skies: http://neave.com/it/planetario/

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:27 am

Uhm, 17 months? Are you sure about that? 17 months versus 2 months is a much more surprising ratio than it appears in the model when I try to plug it in. Where exactly are point A and point B located? They must be more than 180 degrees apart on the far side (from Earth) and more acute on the piece of the orbit Earth faces right? If so, then what we'd want is for Venus to be far enough from the Sun that its orbit bisects the Sun's orbit around Earth so that a significant chunk more of Venus' path is outside the Sun's orbit of Earth. Does that make sense? Otherwise it doesn't matter what direction it's orbiting; 180 degrees at any steady speed will take the same amount of time either direction.

So there should be some better explanation of what point A to point B is in both Mercury's and Venus' cases.

By the way, I found this handy table:
Planet Synodic Period (days) Sidereal Period
Mercury 116 88 days
Venus 584 225 days
Earth - 1.0 year
Mars 780 1.9 years
Jupiter 399 11.9 years
Saturn 378 29.5 years
Uranus 370 84.0 years
Neptune 368 164.8 years
Pluto 367 248.5 years
http://www.livephysics.com/physical-con ... s-planets/

My main question as far as building this model is concerned is: should the Sun's rotation change? In other words, is the relative point to which the planets are returning in their 360 degree motion on the move? If so, this would definitely better explain the longer time it takes for Venus to orbit since it's making a more-than-360-degree orbit to "catch up" to some Sun-latitude, whereas Mercury would run into it faster.

In short, I think before we get to other planets, these questions about Sun rotation and degrees of planets' orbit in "our view" (Earth's view - where are point A and point B) should be answered. Not just about the Sun's position in its proposed orbit but the Sun's rotation. It will help me build a more accurate SSSSs model as well.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Tue Jul 30, 2013 2:16 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Uhm, 17 months? Are you sure about that?
Whoops! Thanks for bringing that up, Hoi - I just noticed my VENUS post above is in error (Venus actually does revolve counterclockwise - although it rotates clockwise). However, as you will see, this doesn't change the overall concept of how I believe the SSSS goes to explain the "retrograde mystery". To be sure, no Copernican 2D diagram has ever properly explained why we see VENUS doing this 'dance':

Image
http://www.lunarplanner.com/HCpages/Venus.html

As it is, my above two posts (VENUS and MERCURY) were just a rough way to conceptually visualize how the two planets' motions appear from an earthly observer. Here is now an updated diagram which should provide a better 'feel' for what I believe is how those planets physically move about our skies. As you may well imagine, it is nigh impossible to illustrate bidimensionally the actual 3D-motions that any observer will experience when looking up at the skies from Earth - especially as far as timelapses of any given motion is concerned. However, I hope this next diagram will be a step forward to help visualize the concept I have in mind :

Image

Hoi, please know that Venus's orbital speed (35km/s) is only slightly faster than what is said to be Earth's orbital speed (30km/s). Of course, in the SSSS, the Sun would be the body travelling at 30km/s. Thus, it will take Venus an awfully long time to cover the B > A distance, as Venus 'catches up' and overtakes the Sun (as seen from an earthly observer) - while Venus will cover the A > B section in far shorter (solar) time, since Venus will now travel in the opposite direction of the observer's reference point (the Sun).

The A and C points represent the moments in time in which any earthly observer will see the motions of Venus and Mercury reversing their lateral displacements in the sky (from right>left / to left>right).


I also added the Moon revolving around Earth in order to point out what seems to be an 'orbital rule' : any planet/celestial body revolving around another body, will have that central body "off-center" of its orbit. As we see in my above diagram, this rule appears to be true for all the three orbits illustrated (Moon / Mercury / Venus). I am not ready to express any solid take on this, but I have a hunch that Copernicus, in order to make his system work, had to 'invent' the concept of elliptical orbits. More about this later.


********
KIND AND GENTLE ADMIN REQUEST TO ALL: Please do not post on this thread unless it is of relevance to contribute to this current line of research. All we are doing here is to test a theory - and curt comments devoid of depth or substance are not welcome here. Thanks.

agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by agraposo » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:42 am

I found some nice diagrams from Andreas Cellarius Harmonia Macrocosmica (1660).
Scanned original book here: http://www.rarebookroom.org/Control/gelmcs/index.html

Ptolemaic system
Image
Tychonic system
Image
Copernican system
Image

Which is right? I don´t know, but at least Kepler's laws are derived mathematically from Newton's gravitational laws. Which kind of physical theories would explain the tychonic system? Despite the apparent movements of celestial objects, there should be an underlying physical theory that explains the dynamics (including masses, forces, etc., not only the apparent movements).

Locked