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.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:41 pm

*

SWEDISH PRESENTATION OF THE TYCHOS MODEL :)


Dear all, here's the video of Patrik's presentation of the Tychos model (with English subtitles) in Sweden this summer.

Patrik is of course our forum member "Patrix" and my closest partner-in-crime in this enthralling TYCHOS research. Without Patrik, there would be no Tychosium (the wondrous 3D simulator of the TYCHOS model) and I would still be struggling with plain text, graphics and diagrams trying to illustrate my working solar system...

I dearly hope some of you English-speakers will sit through this most excellent 51-min presentation by Patrik - in spite of the extra effort reading the subtitles.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYaqxiNocy0

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:16 am

*

THE SUN'S "MYSTERIOUS" 6°OR 7°AXIAL TILT

Dear friends,

As mentioned in Chapter12 of my "Tychos" book (2018), astronomers are still today totally baffled as to why the Sun's axis appears to be tilted at 6° or 7°degrees. You may wonder why there's still no firm consensus among academics about this tilt (is it 6° or 7°?), but then again, the science of astronomy is what it is: a big mess. Hence, allow me henceforth use primarily the higher figure of 7°for the purposes of this short exposé - and in the interest of clarity.

Make no mistake: the observable fact that the Sun's axis is tilted at an angle (with respect to the entire Solar System's plane) is no petty matter. For why would this be? Isn't the Sun supposed to be the "central driveshaft" of our system? Shouldn't therefore all our planets (including Earth) be neatly revolving around the plane of the Sun's equator? Well, they don't. And this fact is an absolute mystery for academic astronomy or, in other words, a still unresolved quandary which - all by itself - falsifies Newton's sacrosanct gravitational "laws". As recently as 2016, an academic study admitted that it's "such a deep-rooted mystery and so difficult to explain that people just don't talk about it". The study went on bizarelly speculating that this tilt of our Sun's axis might be caused by what they call "Planet Nine" (a hitherto unseen / entirely hypothetical celestial body...) :
"All of the planets orbit in a flat plane with respect to the sun, roughly within a couple degrees of each other. That plane, however, rotates at a six-degree tilt with respect to the sun—giving the appearance that the sun itself is cocked off at an angle. Until now, no one had found a compelling explanation to produce such an effect. "It's such a deep-rooted mystery and so difficult to explain that people just don't talk about it," says Brown, the Richard and Barbara Rosenberg Professor of Planetary Astronomy.

Brown and Batygin's discovery of evidence that the sun is orbited by an as-yet-unseen planet—that is about 10 times the size of Earth with an orbit that is about 20 times farther from the sun on average than Neptune's—changes the physics. Planet Nine, based on their calculations, appears to orbit at about 30 degrees off from the other planets' orbital plane—in the process, influencing the orbit of a large population of objects in the Kuiper Belt, which is how Brown and Batygin came to suspect a planet existed there in the first place."
Source: https://phys.org/news/2016-10-curious-t ... t.html#jCp
It bears mentioning that this "deep-rooted mystery" has been around for about 400 years - ever since Cristoph Scheiner published (back in 1630) his massive treatise "Rosa Ursina", where he described and illustrated his meticulous observations of the sunspots. Here's one of Scheiner's drawings showing how (a pair of) sunspots could be seen moving around the solar sphere in the month of March:

Image

Now, please realize that what I have marked as a 23°tilt is just due to our own Earth's axial tilt. What concerns us here - in this particular analysis - is the tilt marked by my yellow arrows (and blue arcs). It's hard to make out exactly what amount of tilt they show, but they certainly indicate that the Sun's South Pole (in the month of March) tilts TOWARDS us earthly observers. And, in fact:
"The Sun's axis tilts almost 7.5 degrees out of perpendicular to Earth's orbital plane. (The orbital plane of Earth is commonly called the ecliptic.) Therefore, as we orbit the Sun, there's one day out of the year when the Sun's North Pole tips most toward Earth. This happens at the end of the first week in September. Six months later, at the end of the first week in March, it's the Sun's South Pole that tilts maximumly towards Earth."
Source: https://www.tychos.info/citation/057B_T ... s-Axis.htm
So far so good. We know that the Sun's South pole tilts towards us in March - and away from us in September. We may now wonder how the Sun is tilted in the months of December and June. Well, we may once again use Cristoph Scheiner's old observations to answer this question. Here's how Scheiner saw and graphically documented the sunspots' angular motions in January and July:

Image

(Note that if Scheiner had observed those sunspots in December and June - rather than in January and July - he might have recorded a 7° tilt instead of a 6° tilt.)

Well, ladies and gents, here's when I will humbly - yet proudly - present the results of my own efforts at understanding this "mysterious" 7° tilt of the Sun's axis.

Firstly, you'll need to know about the perceived tilts (as seen from Earth) of the orbits of Venus and Mercury. Officially, their orbits are tilted as follows:

Orbital tilt of VENUS: 3.4°
Orbital tilt of MERCURY: 7°

In my Tychos book I stated that Venus and Mercury are the two moons of the Sun - rather than two "planets" (as they are currently called) revolving around the Sun - much like our own planet Earth is supposed to do. In fact, I had also (intuitively) envisioned that these tilts were correlated with the Sun's "mysterious 7°tilt that no one likes to talk about". Well, it is one thing to intuitively claim something - but is quite another matter to prove it. So here we go: in the last few weeks, I have been doggedly refining the settings (for Venus & Mercury) in the Tychosium3D simulator. As I finally achieved a satisfactory "balance" of their orbital motions (which proceed at constant speeds and around perfectly circular, non-elliptical orbits), I was marvelled to find - at the end of my toggling of the Tychosium's data settings - that their orbits are, in fact, tilted in similar fashion as the Sun's axial tilt! When viewed from a given angle, this common tilt (of the Sun's axis and its two moons, Venus & Mercury) remains almost perfectly constant, century after century.

Here's how the Sun's axis and its two moons (Venus & Mercury) are tilted in June and December:

Image

And here's how the Sun's axis and its two moons (Venus & Mercury) are tilted in March and September:

Image

As you can see, the orbital tilts of Venus & Mercury (the Sun's two moons, according to the Tychos model) are firmly "locked", at all times, to the Sun's axial tilt.
One could hardly wish for a better indication in support of the contention that Venus and Mercury are the two lunar satellites of the Sun.

You may now ask: "why is the orbit of Venus reckoned to be tilted at 3.4° whereas the orbit of Mercury is reckoned to be tilted at 7°? Well, the answer is simple. The astute observer perusing the Tychosium simulator will readily notice that Mercury's orbital tilt bobs "from side to side" (or "up and down") as it revolves around the Sun and returns to perigee (i.e.closest to Earth) in only 116.88 days, whereas Venus revolves around the Sun far slower, returning to perigee in 584.4 days. Consequently, the observed orbital tilts of Venus and Mercury are recorded as being 3.4°versus 7° - yet it has never occurred to anyone that these tilts are intimately correlated to the Sun's axial tilt of 7°.

As I like to say, the Tychos is here to stay. :)

Peaker
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:04 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by Peaker » Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:46 pm

Hello All,

There is only one word to describe the feeling of following this section of the website and that is . . . Delight!

I have a question about The Tychosium for Patrix regarding retrograde motion and it's this: can the camera view be programmed to observe the Retrograde Motion of Mars from Earth?

It follows on from this that a mechanical model could also be built, a kind of orrery, to track the same relative motion of the two planets. Any clockmakers out there?

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:04 pm

Peaker wrote:
Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:46 pm
Hello All,

There is only one word to describe the feeling of following this section of the website and that is . . . Delight!

I have a question about The Tychosium for Patrix regarding retrograde motion and it's this: can the camera view be programmed to observe the Retrograde Motion of Mars from Earth?
Dear Peaker - I'm delighted that you find it delightful ! :)

As for your question about viewing the retrograde motion of Mars in the Tychosium, I can tell you that Patrik is still working at the "camera view" programming which will allow you to watch our solar system as if you were standing in your garden (I shudder at the complexity of the task!...). For now though, you can always imagine yourself flying behind Earth in a magic spacecraft ( :lol: ) by orienting the Tychosium 3D-view as shown in my below screenshot of the simulator (remember to activate the trace function for Mars in the "TRACE" menu). For the below screenshot, I chose the date 2003-08-28 which featured the closest Mars opposition of the last 60,000 years... a quite exceptional event: Mars passed as close to Earth as 0.37AU) :

Image

The TYCHOSIUM 3D SIMULATOR: https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd

Yup, Mars truly retrogrades ... physically. -_- And yes, it's high time to bring in the clockmakers!

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:56 pm

*

THE STRANGE SAGA OF "STELLAR ABERRATION"


Image

Dear friends,

I'd like to share with you this strange yet hilarious (or perhaps tragicomical) tale behind the concoction of a supposed phenomenon that every good astronomer knows as "stellar aberration". With the laymen & laywomen readers in mind, I will recount this story in simple words - but perhaps the more technically-minded of you and/or those versed in scholarly astronomy, may wish to first have some fun reading the howlers to be found on the below-linked Wikipedia page. You may possibly never have read such lame, cringy and painful attempts to justify the unjustifiable.

"STELLAR ABERRATION": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_a ... ormation).

But let me get on narrating how the fanciful theory of "stellar aberration" came about, as promised, in a clear and concise manner. In fact, the tale of James Bradley's "discovery of stellar aberration" almost reads as a children's bedtime story. So here we go:

Once upon a time, back in 1725, the soon-to-become Astronomer Royal James Bradley was looking at a star called "Gamma Draconis" with his state-of-the-art telescope crafted by George Graham, London's leading instrument maker. The telescope was fitted into his chimney, for this northern star he chose to observe happened to regularly transit just above London where he lived. At 33 years of age, Bradley was already an experienced astronomer and he had duly calculated just how his chosen star should move against the more distant stars. He looked and looked, for several weeks - but the star didn't seem to move much in relation to the background stars. However, after a month or so, he finally saw that the star had moved a tiddly weeny bit. As he checked his calculations however, he realized - to his great dismay and astonishment - that the star had moved in the very opposite direction that he had predicted! Together with his assistant Molyneux (a very wealthy man who had financed their ambitious star-watching project), they feverishly checked and re-checked their equipment - but couldn't find anything wrong with it. The two inquisitive men were vexed and baffled. So they decided to undertake a massive survey of the skies, over several years. In all, they eventually looked at the motions of 200 other nearby stars and, to their growing consternation and distress, they found that ALL those stars were moving in the very opposite direction that they'd expected! Sadly, Molyneux soon passed away - stepping into his grave without an answer to the upsetting mystery. The task to resolve the pesky puzzle was thus left to Bradley. As the story goes, the solution to the riddle came to him during a boat trip on the river Thames.

Here's how the astronomy historian, Thony Christie - a.k.a. "thonyc" - recounts Bradley's "Eureka Moment" (in a blogpost dated 23-09-2020, that is, only two days ago):
"Molyneux died in 1728 before Bradley solved the puzzle. The solution is said to have come to Bradley during a boat trip on the Thames. When the boat changed direction, he noticed that the windvane on the mast also changed direction. This appeared to Bradley to be irrational, as the direction of the wind had not changed. He discussed the phenomenon with one of the sailors, who confirmed that this was always the case. The explanation is that the direction of the wind vane is a combination of the prevailing wind and the headwind created by the movement of the boat, so when the direction of the headwind changes the direction of the windvane also changes. Bradley realised that the direction of the light coming from the stars was affected in the same way by the movement of the Earth orbiting the Sun. He and Molyneux had discovered stellar aberration and the first empirical evidence of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun."
https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2020/09/23 ... -part-xlv/
To make a long saga short, Bradley (who was later promoted to Astronomer Royal) then concocted a fantastic theory which goes a bit like this: the stars are seen to move in the "wrong" direction (i.e. opposite to what we might expect if Earth revolves around the Sun) because the "light particles" they emit are just like raindrops slanting at an angle towards the face of a walking man. But let me quote again from the recent blogpost by the "Renaissance Mathematicus" Thony Christie :
"Bradley realised that the direction of the light coming from the stars was affected in the same way by the movement of the Earth orbiting the Sun. He and Molyneux had discovered stellar aberration and the first empirical evidence of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. The more common phenomenon used to explain aberration uses rain. When one is standing still the rain appears to fall vertically but when one in walking the rain appears to slant into one’s face at an angle. The same happens to starlight falling onto the moving Earth."
Fantastic, huh? Believe it or not, ladies & gents, but Bradley's "stellar aberration" poppycock theory is still today held by academia as one of the strongest empirical proofs in support of the heliocentric model which, of course, stipulates that Earth revolves at hypersonic speed around the Sun - along with the (utterly failed) Michelson-Morley and Dayton Miller interferometer experiments expressively meant to detect Earth's supposed 107,000 km/h orbital velocity (see my Appendix 40 titled "The many attempts to measure earth’s orbital speed and how they support earth’s velocity of 1.6 km/h as of the Tychos model").


Alright, so my bedtime story is now over. Sweet dreams. As you wake up tomorrow morning, you may wish to take a good look at this graphic I made today. Hopefully, with a good cup of tea or coffee in your hand, you'll readily see why the 18th-century Astronomer Royal James Bradley saw the stars moving in the "wrong" direction...


Image

It never ceases to amaze me how the purported "definitive proofs" of the heliocentric theory have been based on empirical observations that contradict the same.

As I always like to say, dear friends, the TYCHOS won't go away. This said, you are free to keep hurtling around the Sun at 90X the speed of sound - if that's your thing.

***************************************************************************************************************************************************
For more detail about what James Bradley actually observed, please read my Tychos Appendix 5:
WHY THE STARS MOVE IN TROCHOIDAL LOOPS: http://septclues.com/TYCHOS%20Appendix% ... x%2005.pdf

Post Reply