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.

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:20 pm

hoi.polloi » July 1st, 2019, 4:34 pm wrote:Flabbergasted, click on the images for the higher res versions. Don't save the forum thumbnails.

The files Simon posted are 2.78 MB and 3.84 MB but you must open them by clicking on the thumbnails and then saving the high res images that open in a new window.


Oh my goodness - thanks so much dear Hoi for pointing this out, I didn't even realize it was that easy - silly me !

So I've now updated my original post over at the "TYCHOS made easy" thread (download instructions are in red type).

In other words, dear readers, you don't even need to contact me by e-mail to obtain the two brochure files (so far three of you have contacted me - from Brazil, Australia and Japan :) ). I will keep hoping that more Cluesforum readers around the world will find it worthwhile to download, print out and distribute those leaflets - at any suitable locations you might think of. I dare say that you (and your children) won't regret this little "propaganda" effort - in the name of scientific progress on this planet of ours.

And yes, dear Hoi, a video is clearly needed (and, in fact, overdue). Am working on it, slowly but surely...
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:16 pm

*

MY ADDITIONAL TYCHOS RESEARCH - links

My TYCHOS book was released on March 21, 2018. Since then, I have kept publishing a number of additional papers / addendums to the TYCHOS research at Cluesforum.info which you will find by clicking on the below links. This is of course an ongoing research odyssey (which may absorb the rest of my lifetime - *lol*!) given the nature of the subject and the countless questions raised by our Solar System. At this time, those papers are disseminated around various threads at Cluesforum – so I thought it would be in order to compile the below list of links to the same. This is not to say that the various contributions of other Cluesforum members make for any less valuable reading – but I just felt the need to gather in one place a list my own (most relevant) writings, were it only to keep track of them myself!


"PHILOSOPHICAL" CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE TYCHOSIUM (March 24, 2019)


RETROGRADE MOTIONS IN THE TYCHOS – Saturn (March 25, 2019)


THE MOON'S ORBITAL DANCE - IN THE TYCHOSIUM (April, 2019)


VERIFYING MARS - IN THE TYCHOSIUM (April 17, 2019)


VENUS "SEDUCED" BY THE TYCHOSIUM (April 28, 2019)


THE TYCHOS SOLVES "THE GREAT INEQUALITY" (Nov 2, 2018)


QUALITATIVE & QUANTITATIVE PROOF OF JUPITER/SATURN CONJUNCTIONS IN THE TYCHOS (Nov 2, 2018)


WHY THE STARS MOVE IN TROCHOIDAL LOOPS (Nov 20, 2018)


"MARS, THE SUN'S BINARY COMPANION?... Preposterous!" (Nov 24, 2018)


THE TYCHOS CURES NEWTON'S HEADACHE - THE MOON (Dec 12, 2018)


ARE ALL STARS PART OF "BINARY" / "DOUBLE" (or multiple) SYSTEMS? (Dec 23, 2018)


WIKIPEDIA'S PROBLEM WITH EARTH'S SO-CALLED "LUNISOLAR WOBBLE" (Jan, 2019)


THE WONDROUS "SYNCHRONICITIES" of the Sun/Earth/Moon trio (Jan 23, 2019)


ASTRONOMICAL PUZZLES RESOLVED BY THE TYCHOS MODEL (March 8, 2019)


HOW "NEGATIVE" STELLAR PARALLAXES WERE SWEPT UNDER THE RUG (May 5, 2018)


THE GREAT HUBBLE MISCONCEPTION (May 13, 2018)


MANY THANKS, PROFESSOR KAPTEYN ! (Jan 4, 2019)


MARS PARALLAX? WHAT MARS PARALLAX? (April 4, 2019)


MARS vs THE STARS - the Tychosium explains their "bizarre" conjunctions (May 14, 2019)


THE "MISSING" ANGULAR MOMENTUM OF OUR SUN (May 15, 2019)


THE BINARY RESEARCH INSTITUTE "AGREES" WITH THE TYCHOS ! ( May 18, 2019)


ABOUT THE APPARENT SIZE OF THE STARS (June 13, 2019)


ANOTHER REASON WHY THE COPERNICAN MODEL IS UNTENABLE (July 7, 2019)


THE HILARIOUS TALE OF MERCURY'S "ANOMALOUS" PRECESSION (July 10, 2019)

****************
Go to the TYCHOS website: https://www.tychos.info/
Go to the TYCHOSIUM 3D simulator of the Tychos solar system: https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:19 pm

simonshack wrote:I have kept publishing a number of additional papers / addendums to the TYCHOS research at Cluesforum.info which you will find by clicking on the below links.

I had long been thinking of gathering all your addendums in one place (at least until they can be included in the second edition of your book), so that list of links came in very handy. There is a bit of formatting to do, but I will try to give each addendum a booky pdf look. Also, a Portuguese language version of the folder is underway.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:21 pm

*

THE TYCHOS : "BINARY DEVELOPMENTS"

Dear friends,

It is remarkable how, as I continue to delve into both past and present astronomy literature, a steady flow of old and new information keeps piling up, slowly but surely, in support of my proposed TYCHOS model. Of course, as the author of the same, I fully realize that you might suspect me of being blinded by confirmation bias - but that's ok, and I can't do anything about that. Ultimately, it is up to the objective reader to judge whether this is the case (me being biased) - or if the following "old & new" developments may concur to consolidate the TYCHOS and its fundamental principles.

One of the main contentions of the TYCHOS model is, of course, that we live in a double/binary system composed of the Sun and Mars (with Earth located at their common barycenter). I have pointed out the fact that the vast majority of the stars in our skies (85% and counting) are double / or multiple binary systems. Moreover, I have highlighted the facts that the very brightest star in our sky, Sirius, is composed of the large Sirius A and the tiny Sirius B, that the latter is 204X smaller than its host (Sirius A) - and that Mars is [coincidentally?] also 204X smaller than its host (our Sun). Consequently, there can be no offhand rejection (due to Mars being "too small")* of the notion that Mars is the Sun's binary companion.

*Mind you, most astronomers will tell you that - according to Newtonian computations - Sirius B (which is reckoned to be slightly smaller than Earth) must be 400,000X heavier than Earth, so that's why it can be "gravitationally bound" with the huge Sirius A. However, we can be sure that no one has ever put Sirius B on a scale to verify its weight!

Another common objection that most people will have is: "but, but... Mars is not a star, it's a planet!" Well, no one can deny that Mars is the ONLY "planet" in our Solar System which is reddish / orange - just like the most common celestial bodies in our universe, i.e. the so-called red dwarfs.
Hmm, wait a minute... Could Mars perhaps --- be an old (orange) "red dwarf"?

Image

I can now hear someone objecting: "But hey, Sirius B isn't a red dwarf, it's supposed to be a WHITE dwarf!"
True, but white dwarfs are reckoned to be simply younger celestial bodies... which eventually will turn into red dwarfs :

Image

Notoriously, many red (and brown) dwarfs are so dim that they remain invisible - even to our best telescopes. Now, if 85% of our visible stars (that we see as single points of light) are in fact double stars, could the remaining 15% possibly be (mistakenly) considered as "non-binary" due to their companions being so dim as to be undetectable - even by our current technology? At the beginning of the 20th century, this was certainly the case (see below extract from a 1908 astronomy book) - but what if our modern spectroscopic instruments haven't yet overcome this particular limitation? :
"In observations of spectroscopic binaries we do not always get a double spectrum. Indeed, if one of the components be below a certain magnitude, its spectrum will not appear at all; and so we are left in the strange uncertainty as to whether this component is merely faint or actually dark. It is, however, from the shiftings of the lines in the spectrum of the other component that we see that an orbital movement is going on, and are thus enabled to conclude that two bodies are here connected into a system, although one of these bodies resolutely refuses directly to reveal itself even to the all-conquering spectroscope."

Extract from ASTRONOMY TO-DAY, by Cecil D. Dolmage (1908) https://www.gutenberg.org/files/28570/2 ... 8570-h.htm


Consider this: the discovery of a companion of our NEARMOST STAR was announced as recently as August 2016!
Proxima Centauri B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_b
Then, in November 2018, it was announced that the Barnard's star (a nearby star that moves faster than any other) also has a companion!
Barnard's star B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard%27s_Star_b

If the companions of these two NEARBY stars were only detected as recently as 2016/2018, what does this tell us?

To underline the gist of my line of reasoning, let me quote a short paragraph from Chapter 1 of my TYCHOS book:

"If it eventually emerges that 100% of our visible stars are locked in binary systems, our “lonely” single-star system (as per the Copernican model), would stand out as a uniquely exceptional, one-of-a-kind cosmic anomaly. It therefore stands to reason, from a purely statistical perspective, that our own star (the Sun) is likely to be part of a binary system."

I really don't think anyone needs a Phd in astronomy in order to understand the issue at hand... Indeed, if our Sun were to be the ONLY (non-binary) SINGLE STAR in our entire universe, it would be a most bizarre "exception to the rule"! As it is, other people have noticed that our Solar System (that is, the heliocentric one - as imagined by Copernicus) would stand out as a very strange, lone oddity in our universe. Here's from an article at Sciencealert.com (November 2018):
"Our Sun is a solitary star, all on its ownsome, which makes it something of an oddball. But there's evidence to suggest that it did have a binary twin, once upon a time. Recent research suggests that most, if not all, stars are born with a binary twin. (We already knew the Solar System is a total weirdo. The placement of the planets appears out of whack compared to other systems, and it's missing the most common planet in the galaxy, the super-Earth.)" https://www.sciencealert.com/we-may-hav ... -twin-star


That's right folks, this quite recent research (published on Phys.org in June 2017) submits that ALL stars are born in pairs :

"New evidence that all stars are born in pairs " https://phys.org/news/2017-06-evidence- ... pairs.html
Image

The above article justly cites Pavel Kroupa's 1991 research which basically concludes that the best "fit" for stellar mass function is that all star systems in our universe are binary.

Wow - that is pretty interesting, isn't it? If ALL stars are born in pairs, how and why did our Sun separate from its original companion? Did our Sun get a divorce on the grounds of its partner's bad behavior? Did they split due to some perturbations / turbulences messing up their primordial, magnetic relationship? Oh, well - it happens all the time between human beings, doesn't it...

Jokes aside, if it were found that ALL the stars in our universe have a binary companion, this would have truly profound implications. I am sure that everyone of you has heard of "dark matter". It is an elusive / invisible "substance" that ALL modern astrophysicists and cosmologists are nowadays (desperately) trying to find in our universe. They actually contend that about 80% (or more) of our universe is made of this hitherto undetectable "dark matter" (or, in other words,"Mathematically Missing Matter") because the presumed, highly scattered distributions and apparently inexplicable motions of our universe's stars / celestial bodies appear to violate both Kepler's and Newton's sacrosanct "laws" - as well as their cherished "Big Bang" theory.

Here's from the Wikipedia page titled "Galaxy rotation curve" :
"Since observations of galaxy rotation do not match the distribution expected from application of Kepler's laws, they do not match the distribution of luminous matter. This implies that spiral galaxies contain large amounts of dark matter or, in alternative, the existence of exotic physics in action on galactic scales."
(...)
"These results suggested that either Newtonian gravity does not apply universally or that, conservatively, upwards of 50% of the mass of galaxies was contained in the relatively dark galactic halo."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve


Well, here's what the world's top expert in stellar analyses/ distributions, Jacobus Kapteyn, concluded many years ago (around 1920):

"...if all stars were binaries there would be no need to invoke ‘dark matter' in the Universe."
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... iverse#pf7

This is all for now, folks. More to come. -_-
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby Altair on Mon Sep 02, 2019 11:24 am

I must admit that at the beginning I was rather skeptic about Tychos, but after reading more about that it's becoming clear that what becomes unsustainable is the heliocentric copernican system. For me, the elephant in the room was simonshack's explanation about the sizes and distance from Earth of stars as per the copernican model.

One of my objections to Tychos was how could then be possible that current astronomy programs like Stellarium and others (I suppose professional astronomers would have better tools) accurately reflect astronomic events like eclipses, occultations and the like, if they were based upon false assumptions. But after some digging, it turns out that these programs "cheat" in some way: they calculate astral bodies position based in interpolation polynomics. So, we first compile the observed real positions of said bodies over an extended period of time assuming an eliptic orbit, which fits almost, but not quite, the real one. Those 'minor' deviations are then corrected by developing a polynomial that adjusts to the real positions. The more terms added, the better the precision.

OK, that's what I've found in a quick search, but of course I'm willing to stand corrected.
Altair
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby nokidding on Mon Sep 02, 2019 1:06 pm

Dear Simon, I wonder if you would disagree with the following statement:

'The Planetary motions and periods observed against the stars demonstrate that the Barycentre of our planetary system (including the Sun and all the planets, moons and orbiting debris) is the point at the centre of the PVP orbit.'

Barycentre means 'Centre of Mass' without stipulating what is included. Any two objects within the system have a Centre of Mass eg Earth / Moon barycentre. Sun / Mars binary barycentre is another, but it is only the Centre of Mass of the whole system which is fixed in relation to the stars.

This is only a comment on descriptive language, not the Tychos itself.

nokidding
nokidding
Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:30 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:31 pm

*
Dear Altair, you wrote:

"...But after some digging, it turns out that these programs "cheat" in some way: they calculate astral bodies position based in interpolation polynomics. So, we first compile the observed real positions of said bodies over an extended period of time assuming an elliptic orbit, which fits almost, but not quite, the real one. Those 'minor' deviations are then corrected by developing a polynomial that adjusts to the real positions. The more terms added, the better the precision."

Precisely. You may wish to check out this tutorial site for more insights as to how they "do it":
"How to compute planetary positions" : https://stjarnhimlen.se/comp/ppcomp.html

In fact, the enormous amount of "terms" needed for Copernican planetarium builders to make our planetary motions somehow "fit and agree" with the various, ACTUAL / OBSERVED planetary motions is quite horrifying (or one may perhaps say "hilarious"...). For instance, here's what we can read on Wikipedia regarding our Moon's positions:
"The number of terms needed to express the Moon's position with the accuracy sought at the beginning of the twentieth century was over 1400; and the number of terms needed to emulate the accuracy of modern numerical integrations based on laser-ranging observations is in the tens of thousands: there is no limit to the increase in number of terms needed as requirements of accuracy increase." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_theory


See, the fact that Patrik and I were able to build the Tychosium 3D planetarium simply by using (1) the AVERAGE speeds of each planet/moon of our Solar system and (2) their known perigees / apogees and (3) placing them on UNIFORMLY CIRCULAR paths around adequately eccentric (not to be confused with "elliptical") orbits at CONSTANT SPEEDS - goes to show what an Ockham's razor type of solution the TYCHOS model is.

The extreme computational complexity required to make a Copernican interactive planetarium "work" is, as far as I can see, due to the simple fact that no one is aware of the true motion of Earth - as it slowly cruises at 1.6km/h around its PVP orbit, covering 14036km per year.


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

Dear Nokidding,

you are touching an extremely interesting point - and one that (I would certainly agree) needs to be further discussed and clarified: what does "barycentre" mean, in the TYCHOS system? Well, let us first remind ourselves that Tycho Brahe's system was (correctly enough) named "geo-heliocentric". That is, TWO centers. As I see it, the "GEO" center is occupied by Earth (and is therefore the "mobile barycentre" of the Sun/Mars binary duo) whereas the "HELIO" center is occupied by the Sun (and is therefore the "mobile barycentre" of all the so-called superior planets - i.e. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto/Charon).

You also justly mentioned "the centre of the PVP orbit" - which I also used to think might be considered as the "main barycentre" of our Solar System. However, consider this: Earth remains, at all times, at the (bary?)centre of the Sun/Mars binary pair. It' s just that, over a 25344-year period, it revolves around its PVP orbit - due to the (clockwise) precessional motion of the Sun/Mars "dance" which sort of drags Earth around. Now, as I show and illustrate in my book, the centre of the PVP orbit is periodically "visited" by Mars (when it transits in "closest opposition" at an average distance of 56.6Mkm from Earth which is, lo and behold, smack in the middle of my proposed 113.2Mkm PVP orbit!)... Well, since Mars does this, I wonder how we could possibly consider the centre of the PVP orbit as "the barycentre of the Sun/Mars binary pair". Over to you. Help is always welcome ! :)

Image
Note: in the above screenshot from the Tychosium, Mercury & Venus (the Sun's two moons) and Phobos & Deimos (Mars's two moons) have been removed for graphic clarity.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby nokidding on Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:08 am

As I understand it a free floating system always revolves around the centre of mass because it needs energy from outside to do anything else. If the centre of mass accelerates, some exterior force must be making it. (Circular motions accelerate towards the centre). So the centre of the PVP orbit is the system barycentre by Conservation of Energy.

The whole system could move in a straight line at constant speed, but the Precession of the Equinox is the only observable relative motion against the stars.

If you say the Earth is the Centre of Mass of the whole system you then have to correct this with ‘the wobble’. The ‘wobble’ is the PVP orbit. It does the same thing as the Copernican ‘wobble’. Both are on the cone that the Earth’s axis describes. Copernican Earth is at the apex of the cone ( if you accept the no parallax rubbish), Tychos Earth is on a section.

Perhaps clearer just to state that the Centre of Total Mass (or System Barycentre) is at the centre of the PVP orbit.

I don’t see that Mars crossing the axis of system rotation challenges the above. Mars is there momentarily because of the positions and momentum of all the other bodies.

nokidding
nokidding
Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:30 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:35 am

*
Dear Nokidding,

thanks for your thoughtful input - it is very much appreciated. Yes, I can see how (as you put it) "the Centre of Total Mass (or System Barycentre) is at the centre of the PVP orbit". However, I still feel that Earth itself may be called "the barycentre of the Sun/Mars binary pair" - whereas the Sun acts as the "barycentre of the superior planets", although I'll gladly discuss this further and stand corrected as I well may have to - following some deeper head-scratching as to how to properly define our Solar System's barycentre(s)!

Also, since you mention the 'wobble' (quote:"The ‘wobble’ is the PVP orbit. It does the same thing as the Copernican ‘wobble’"), I just wish to clarify once more to all readers that Earth does not wobble in the TYCHOS model. What is known as "the Third Motion of Earth" (or "Lunisolar wobble"), as required by Copernican heliocentric theory, has been proven to be non-existent by a number of independent researchers. This is of course catastrophic for the Copernican theory, since it deprives it of any explanation for the famed, all-important - and readily-observable - "Precession of the Equinoxes" which causes the entire star field to drift Eastwards (in relation to Earth's equinoxes) by about 50.3 arcseconds annually, ultimately causing our Pole stars to change over longer periods of time.

To be sure, it took me some serious amount of time to wrap my head around Earth's precise orbital motion & axial tilt - and had to eat some humble pie along the way, as duly admitted and illustrated here: viewtopic.php?p=2406075#p2406075

In the TYCHOS model, the explanation for the "Precession of the Equinoxes" is breathtakingly simple: Earth does not wobble, it only physically moves around an orbit that causes our stars to appear to move eastwards - and consequently, also causes our North & South pole stars to change over time:

Image
Please peruse the TYCHOSIUM 3D planetarium for further verifications of the TYCHOS model.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby nokidding on Wed Sep 04, 2019 9:04 am

Let us consign 'The Wobble' to a black hole, I am sorry to have raised it, just my sense of humour.

I think my only point is that when we say Barycentre we need to qualify it with 'barycentre of what?'. The barycentre of anything but the system as a whole will presumably move relative to the stars.

nokidding
nokidding
Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:30 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby Altair on Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:31 am

simonshack » September 2nd, 2019, 9:31 pm wrote:*
Precisely. You may wish to check out this tutorial site for more insights as to how they "do it":
"How to compute planetary positions" : https://stjarnhimlen.se/comp/ppcomp.html


Really interesting... All in all, it all boils down to assuming elliptic orbits for all celestial bodies, and as they don't adjust too well, introduce some 'perturbations' in the calculus. Talking about the Moon:
9. Perturbations of the Moon
If the position of the Moon is computed, and one wishes a better accuracy than about 2 degrees, the most important perturbations has to be taken into account. If one wishes 2 arc minute accuracy, all the following terms should be accounted for. If less accuracy is needed, some of the smaller terms can be omitted.

First compute:
Ms, Mm Mean Anomaly of the Sun and the Moon
Nm Longitude of the Moon's node
ws, wm Argument of perihelion for the Sun and the Moon
Ls = Ms + ws Mean Longitude of the Sun (Ns=0)
Lm = Mm + wm + Nm Mean longitude of the Moon
D = Lm - Ls Mean elongation of the Moon
F = Lm - Nm Argument of latitude for the Moon
Add these terms to the Moon's longitude (degrees):
-1.274 * sin(Mm - 2*D) (the Evection)
+0.658 * sin(2*D) (the Variation)
-0.186 * sin(Ms) (the Yearly Equation)
-0.059 * sin(2*Mm - 2*D)
-0.057 * sin(Mm - 2*D + Ms)
+0.053 * sin(Mm + 2*D)
+0.046 * sin(2*D - Ms)
+0.041 * sin(Mm - Ms)
-0.035 * sin(D) (the Parallactic Equation)
-0.031 * sin(Mm + Ms)
-0.015 * sin(2*F - 2*D)
+0.011 * sin(Mm - 4*D)
Add these terms to the Moon's latitude (degrees):
-0.173 * sin(F - 2*D)
-0.055 * sin(Mm - F - 2*D)
-0.046 * sin(Mm + F - 2*D)
+0.033 * sin(F + 2*D)
+0.017 * sin(2*Mm + F)
Add these terms to the Moon's distance (Earth radii):
-0.58 * cos(Mm - 2*D)
-0.46 * cos(2*D)
All perturbation terms that are smaller than 0.01 degrees in longitude or latitude and smaller than 0.1 Earth radii in distance have been omitted here. A few of the largest perturbation terms even have their own names! The Evection (the largest perturbation) was discovered already by Ptolemy a few thousand years ago (the Evection was one of Ptolemy's epicycles). The Variation and the Yearly Equation were both discovered by Tycho Brahe in the 16'th century.
The computations can be simplified by omitting the smaller perturbation terms. The error introduced by this seldom exceeds the sum of the amplitudes of the 4-5 largest omitted terms. If one only computes the three largest perturbation terms in longitude and the largest term in latitude, the error in longitude will rarley exceed 0.25 degrees, and in latitude 0.15 degrees.


And this is still a very simplified version. Let's see what they have to say for the planets:
The "great Jupiter-Saturn term" is the largest perturbation for both Jupiter and Saturn. Its period is 918 years, and its amplitude is 0.332 degrees for Jupiter and 0.812 degrees for Saturn. These is also a "great Saturn-Uranus term", period 560 years, amplitude 0.035 degrees for Uranus, less than 0.01 degrees for Saturn (and therefore omitted). The other perturbations have periods between 14 and 100 years. One should also mention the "great Uranus-Neptune term", which has a period of 4220 years and an amplitude of about one degree. It is not included here, instead it is included in the orbital elements of Uranus and Neptune.

For Mercury, Venus and Mars we can ignore all perturbations. For Neptune the only significant perturbation is already included in the orbital elements, as mentioned above, and therefore no further perturbation terms need to be accounted for.


Now, if we also have to consider that the elliptic orbits are due to gravitation around the Sun as per Newton's laws, it's particularly strange that the "perturbations" seem to occur at fixed intervals, and not when other massive body disrupts their otherwise perfect elliptic path. Moreover, if this were the case, we'd see not only temporary alterations, but due to the accumulative effect the whole solar system would be a mess of randomly orbiting bodies.

It's really puzzling that nobody has noticed this so far... or they did and just fixed the problem and renounced to find any explanation.
Altair
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:07 pm

*
Altair wrote:

"It's really puzzling that nobody has noticed this so far... or they did and just fixed the problem and renounced to find any explanation."

Well, dear Altair, instead of "renounced to find an explanation" I'd rather say: "concocted ad hoc solutions so as to avoid 'splaining"... -_- . It would appear that a lot of contemporary science gets away with similar subterfuge...

Nokidding wrote:

"I think my only point is that when we say Barycentre we need to qualify it with 'barycentre of what?' The barycentre of anything but the system as a whole will presumably move relative to the stars."

Exactly, dear Nokidding: Just WHAT is our system moving against? As it is, this will be the subject of my next post / writeup - stay tooned ! :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby nokidding on Sat Sep 07, 2019 9:37 am

The Tychos does not need the concept of barycentre to stand up, it’s enough to stay within terms of primary observation and say: ‘The observations and cyclic periods indicate that relative to the stars our system rotates around a fixed axis at the centre of the PVP orbit.’

But it would be great if you could work out a barycentre of the whole system independently – ie not just saying it must be the Barycentre because it’s fixed.

Would it be true to say that the vector sum of the momentums of all the planets should sum to zero at the barycentre? Is it as simple as that?

We could take a snapshot at various times along the PVP orbit and work out the momentum on a radial line from the PVP centre for each planet and the Sun.

The problem is the supposed mass of the planets was derived using Kepler, but if the figures are close enough perhaps it could be a useful exercise. Pretty amazing if it did sum to zero in every epoch!

nokidding
nokidding
Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:30 am

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby Altair on Sun Sep 08, 2019 11:01 am

I've made some research about the Moon's motion, in particular the evection anomaly, and it's quite fascinating that such a gross 'misalignment' can be accepted at all in science. First a disclaimer: I'm not an astronomer, just familiar with some basic notions. I've also found very clarifyiing this post: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1989&p=2409064&hilit=evection#p2409064

First, this is the definition of evection in Wikipedia:
Evection causes the Moon's ecliptic longitude to vary by approximately ± 1.274° (degrees), with a period of about 31.8 days. The evection in longitude is given by the expression , where D is the mean angular distance of the Moon from the Sun (its elongation, and .... is the moon's mean angular distance of the moon from its perigee (mean anomaly).[3]


Please note that it's defined in terms of ecliptic longitude. And ecliptic coordinates are referred to the Sun's position relative to Earth in the vernal equinox, that is, the sun position on that day is taken as the reference (0º) for the longitude.

Ecliptic coordinates are used for giving the position of solar system bodies. This includes the Moon, obviously.
I thought that if Tychos is correct, the Moon's path relative to Earth should show no anomalies, other than being a slightly eccentric circle, and it should coincide with the 'mean Moon'. However I wasn't able to find any raw data of this kind, that is, the Moon's position according to only Earth references, so all I have is just this intuition.

So if we find no anomalies in Moon's orbit when observed from Earth, and related only to Earth equatorial coordinates, but there are anomalies when translated to the ecliptic coordinate system, that clearly means that it's the later what is wrong: that would be like plotting the position against a moving grid! So it should be no wonder that Moon and planets show so many perturbations and anomalies.

A more detailed mathematical analysis should be performed, but maybe it would take us to the conclusion that if Tychos is correct, then the entire ecliptic coordinate system should be adjusted, because our celestial "north" is not as stable as thought and it's affected by the PVP motion.
Altair
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: Introducing the TYCHOS

Unread postby simonshack on Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:55 pm

*

THE EXELIGMOS EXPLAINED


Our Moon has an important 54.09-year cycle known as the “exeligmos”. Here’s how Wikipedia describes it:

“An exeligmos (Greek: ἐξέλιγμος — turning of the wheel) is a period of 54 years + 33 days that can be used to predict successive eclipses with similar properties and location. For a solar eclipse, after every exeligmos a solar eclipse of similar characteristics will occur in a location close to the eclipse before it. For a lunar eclipse the same part of the earth will view an eclipse that is very similar to the one that occurred one exeligmos before it.”

In other words, one could say that the exeligmos is the “master cycle” of the Moon’s complex dance around Earth – at the completion of which the Moon returns facing / occulting the Sun in a similar manner as 54.09 years earlier.

No one really knows why this recurring 54.09-year cycle exists – nor much less what causes it. Copernican astronomers can only acknowledge its existence as a matter of fact (since it has been observed for millennia), yet no specific causality for the occurence of the exeligmos has ever been put forth in astronomy literature.

We shall now see how the TYCHOS model can provide a most logical elucidation of the peculiar kinematics responsible for the recurrence of the exeligmos cycle, i.e. the causality for its very existence.

Firstly, I will have to remind the reader of some basic figures related to the Earth-Moon system as proposed / computed within the TYCHOS geoheliocentric model - as well as of some generally-accepted values of the Moon’s orbital dimensions:

In the TYCHOS, Earth (and its satellite, the Moon) moves by 14036km every year along its PVP orbit (estimated circumference : 355,724,597km). The Earth-Moon system proceeds in a “clockwise” direction (as opposed to the “counter-clockwise” direction of all the main bodies of our Solar System), completing one revolution around the PVP orbit in 25344 years. The Moon’s mean perigee (as it passes closest to Earth) is known to be about 355,000km – whereas its mean apogee (as it passes furthest from Earth) is about 404,300km. From this, we may gauge an estimate of the Moon’s “mean orbital diameter”, i.e. approximately 355,000km + 404,300km = 759,300 km.

Since we know that the exeligmos "makes our Moon return to the same place” in 54.09 years (as described above) and since the Earth-Moon system covers 14036km annually (in the TYCHOS model), we may easily calculate how much both of them (Earth & Moon) will have moved along their PVP orbit in such a 54.09-year period :

14036km X 54.09y ≈ 759,207 km

This is of course very close to 759,300 km, i.e. the approximated mean orbital diameter of the Moon. Wow... Interesting, isn't it?

Let us now see what this would look like in the TYCHOS model. As ever, an image speaks more than a thousand words :

Image

One can thus most intuitively envision why the exeligmos cycle exists : it is the natural kinematic consequence of the Earth-Moon system's 1.6km/h motion. Every 54.09 years, the two of them will cover a distance equal to the Moon's orbital diameter and, therefore, the Moon will return in a similar Earth>Moon>Sun alignment as 54.09 years earlier. Simple as that.

To be sure, the Copernican / Keplerian heliocentic model has NO causal explanation whatsoever for the occurence of the exeligmos.

On the other hand, the TYCHOS model can illustrate just why the exeligmos cycle exists - in the simplest imaginable manner.

Lastly, let us doublecheck whether the TYCHOS model can reconcile (mathematically speaking) the exeligmos with the proposed duration of the TYCHOS' Great Year (of 25344 solar years):

As mentioned above, the estimated PVP orbit's circumference is 355,724,597km - and the distance covered by the Earth-Moon system over one exeligmos is 759,207km (as of the TYCHOS estimates). This means that the number of exeligmos' occurring over a TYCHOS Great Year will be:

355,724,597km / 759,207km ≈ 468.55

If we now multiply this number by 54.09 we obtain:

468.55 X 54.09 = 25343.8695 (or almost precisely 25344 years - the duration of the Great Year as proposed by the TYCHOS).

In any event, only the TYCHOS model can provide a causal explanation for the very existence of the Moon's exeligmos cycle. In the TYCHOS, the exeligmos cycle of 54.09 years turns out to be a direct consequence of Earth's orbital speed of 1.601169 km/h - since Earth will cover the Moon's orbital diameter in a 54.09-year time period. The odds for all this to be "just coincidental" are, of course... astronomical!
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to The TYCHOS model

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests