About the emerging logic of the TYCHOS model

I was inspired to open this thread after reading these thoughts posted by our member Greg in this other forum thread :

In defense of Galileo, at which time science was effectively ‘turned on its head,’ it didn’t make much sense to think of a gigantic Sun star circling a tiny dwarf Earth, especially after the discovery of Jupiter’s Moons and the phases of Venus by Galileo tended to demonstrate smaller objects orbit larger objects.

Then we must conclude that Tycho Brahe’s system looked bizarre, maybe even convoluted, all with the small planets (except the Moon) orbiting the gigantic Sun, and the Gigantic sun orbiting the dwarf Earth.
I am just saying this in trying to understand the conceptual evolution of modern astronomy: perhaps there is a rational? a logic? and if there is a logic then perhaps it could be more convincing for Copernicans to accept a competing model of our immediate universe?

Indeed, the question of ‘logic’ (a word which sadly appears to be, for some reason, increasingly looked down upon in our era) should be - in my view - paramount to any scientific discourse. As I see it, arguments purported to be grounded in sound and superior logic should observe the following criteria:

Any proposed scientific theory should strive to present evidence pointing to a ‘prevailing logic’. By this, I mean to say the sort of evidence which provides - ‘statistically speaking’ - the most plausible and least exceptionalistic hypotheses, on the basis of what can be empirically observed and determined through the means and technology available in any given epoch. In other words, we may say that the proverbial “Occam’s razor” principle comes into play when deciding between competing configurations of our Solar System.

When Tycho Brahe died in 1601, no one had ever observed a single binary star system in our skies. His own geo-heliocentric model though, featured the orbits of the Sun and Mars intersecting - just like all the binary systems that have been discovered since then. Brahe was promptly ridiculed by most of his contemporaries who, out of sheer ignorance, scoffingly objected that the Sun and Mars must therefore - sooner or later - crash into each other.

Fast forward to 2023: we now know that the vast majority (or perhaps all) of the stars in our skies have a smaller companion, the two of them revolving in intersecting orbits around a common barycenter. Yet, and in spite of what must be the most formidable paradigm shift in recent astronomy history, the Sun is still believed to be a so-called single star (with no ‘local orbit’ of its own). Amazingly enough, the public awareness of this major paradigm shift is almost ZERO - and only a handful of ‘alternative’ astronomers are currently debating the glaring oddity that our Sun would NOT have a binary companion. On the other hand, ‘mainstream’ astronomers are finally waking up to the ‘logically absurd’ notion that our Solar System would be “a freak in space” !

Source: We've Never Found Anything Like The Solar System. Is It a Freak in Space? : ScienceAlert

Indeed, the heliocentric model stands out like a sore thumb in our universe!

Since we have now discovered that ALL the stars in our cosmic neighbourhood are ‘locked’ in binary systems, THIS is what our cosmic neighbourhood would look like if the Copernican / heliocentric model were true… (my below graphic is just a bit of a ‘teaser’ aimed at activating your logical neurons):

You may now be asking yourselves: “is it true that the vast majority of the stars in our skies have now been determined to be locked in binary systems?” Well, this will depend upon which modern astronomy data & literature you may choose to believe. Back in 1985, the major expert in binary stars Wulff Heinz declared that at least 85% of them are. Since then, however, modern astronomers have continuously kept discovering new binary pairs - by the thousands, and with no end in sight. Here’s from a 2021 article at the Berkeley Science website:

Binary stars are all around us, new map of solar neighborhood shows

Now, what you need to know is that most of the small companions of larger stars are deemed to be so-called “red dwarfs”. Well, the dim red dwarfs (by far the most common stars in our universe) are ALL invisible to the naked eye - with the plausible exception of Mars which, of course, is the only red “planet” in our skies. Hence, if we haven’t yet determined that a full 100% of the stars are locked in binary systems, this may logically go to explain why this is the case: the remaining 10% or 5% of small binary companions are simply too dim to be detected - even for our best telescopes, Of course, if (or rather when, imo) it will eventually be determined that 100% of the stars in our skies are binary, logic will dictate that the Tychos is the only existing model that makes cosmological sense.

As I first suggested - many years ago - that Mars is the binary companion of the Sun, I was promptly ridiculed by some internet commenters whose knee-jerk reaction would go something like this: “Preposterous! Mars is far too small to be the Sun’s companion! It would totally violate Newtonian physics!!!”

Well, at the time I had to admit that their ‘logic’ was hard to refute. That is, until the day I realized that the diameter of Mars was 205 times smaller than the Sun - and that the diameter of Sirius B is 205 times smaller than Sirius A (the very brightest star in our skies). What a coincidence…

Later on, I also found out that the observed configuration of the Sirius binary system is virtually IDENTICAL to that of the Sun-Mars binary system - in almost every aspect ! (Read about the probable existence of the visually elusive “Sirius C” in this French 1994 study. Yes, Sirius C may well be the “twin” of planet Earth).

For more details regarding the Sirius system go to Chapter 6 of my book

As for the period in which Sirius A & B revolve around each other (estimated to be about 50 years), it still isn’t known whether the Sirius A & B revolutions are locked at a 2:1 ratio (i.e. Sirius B revolving in 50 years - with Sirius A revolving in 25 years) - just like Mars and the Sun. In any case, binary stars have been observed to revolve around each other in infinitely different ways and periods (some of them only in a few hours !).

I would thus rest my case and submit that the TYCHOS model constitutes the most cosmological theory ever devised - given what we know TODAY. If the concept of ‘logic’ still has any meaning in this world of ours, you may agree that the TYCHOS neatly meets its basic criteria. :slight_smile:

Feel free to comment on this post of mine - and if you wish, challenge its logical foundations.


Stars aligned: An atlas of binary stars (UC Berkeley)

“The latest star data from the Gaia space observatory has for the first time allowed astronomers to generate a massive 3D atlas of widely separated binary stars within about 3,000 light years of Earth — 1.3 million of them. (…) Before Gaia, the last compilation of nearby binary stars, assembled using data from the now-defunct Hipparcos satellite, included about 200 likely pairs.”

NOTE that the above animation is far from being an exact / realistic representation of secular (i.e. long-term) stellar motions: while it correctly depicts our skies being populated by countless pairs of binary stars (and their highly sped up ‘proper motions’ in every imaginable x-y-z directions), each of these pairs should be more correctly depicted to revolve around each other in intersecting orbits, just like the Sun-Mars pair and the SiriusA-SiriusB pair.

The biggest stumbling block is Newton.

“Preposterous! Mars is far too small to be the Sun’s companion! It would totally violate Newtonian physics!!!”

People have had this theory of gravity drummed into their brains from such a young age that it is almost impossible to eradicate it. Yet at the same time Einstein (according to the mainstream paradigm) completely dismantled Newtonian physics with a stroke of his magic tensors. It’s quite ironic. On the one hand, you can’t question Newton but on the other hand, they tell you Einstein was correct! It’s quite maddening.

The problem is you are approaching it from a purely logical angle. Gather the facts and then come up with a hypothesis. They have gone about it the other way around and the longer they defend their untenable position the more dogmatic they become. This pattern can be observed in almost ALL branches of modern science.

Until people accept Newton was totally wrong they won’t see through the layers of nonsense built upon his theory of gravity. After all his equation is just a descriptor. It tells you nothing about what causes this force or how it works. The inverse square law existed well before he applied it to his theory. That’s not an act of genius. It’s an act of chutzpah.

However, if you are called Newton, Einstein, or Feynman your own rules don’t apply.

I believe they have been planting stories about a second sun for years now before they pivot to admitting that all stars exist in binary pairs. Hence the stuff about Nibaru etc. So I fully expect them to accept we are in a binary system but they will claim our ‘brown’ dwarf is currently too far away to be observable.


Exactly! :sweat_smile:

1 Like


Dear all,

Today I performed a particularly interesting calculus using the official observational data of Sirius’ celestial motions. Given the many extraordinary similarities between our Sun-Mars binary system and the SiriusA-SiriusB binary system, I was naturally curious to probe whether perhaps the Sirius system even moves at the same or similar ‘precessional speed’ as our own, this being the 1.6km/h attributed to Earth in the TYCHOS model (which I believe, however, to be the rotational speed of our entire system, causing it to complete a 360° ‘clockwise’ revolution every 25344 years).

To be sure, a long and still ongoing debate has been raging for decades (nay, centuries or perhaps millennia) regarding the baffling secular motions of Sirius, the brightest star in our skies, which doesn’t seem to precess like all the other stars but appears to ‘follow the Sun’ (and thus hardly precessing at all):

“For it is remarkable that owing to the precession of the equinoxes, on the one hand, and the movement of Sirius on the other, the position of the sun with respect to Sirius is displaced in the same direction, almost exactly to the same extent.” [R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz, Sacred Science , Inner Traditions (1982)]


In the Wikipedia, the observed annual proper motion of Sirius is given as -1.223” in declination (DECL) and -0.546” in right ascension (RA). Hence, a simple pythagorean calculus yields a hypothenuse length of about 1.34” which thus represents the full distance covered by Sirius (as viewed from Earth) every year:

Now, we know that the angular diameter of Earth – as viewed from the Sun – subtends about 17.6”. In the TYCHOS, of course, the Earth moves annually by a little more than its own diameter. The TYCHOS also stipulates that the stars are 42633 x closer than currently believed and that, therefore, the distance unit commonly referred to as a “light year” is, in actuality, 1.4834 AU. Since Sirius is officially estimated to be 8.7 “light years” away, this would put Sirius (in the TYCHOS) at a distance of about 12.9 AU from Earth (i.e. 12.9 x more distant than the Sun):

8.7 x 1.4834 ≈ 12.9

Hence, for a hypothetical observer on Sirius, the angular diameter of the Earth would subtend…

17.6” / 12.9AU ≈ 1.36”!

This is of course very close to 1.34” which we just saw represents the annual distance covered by Sirius every year – as viewed from Earth. Could all this be purely coincidental? You be the judge.

In conclusion, this would seem to support the ‘reduction factor’ of 42633 (for the Earth-stars distances) as proposed by the TYCHOS. Moreover, if Sirius moves annually by the same (or slightly shorter) distance as the Earth, this would help resolving the age-old ‘mystery’ regarding the heliacal rising of Sirius which keeps recurring around almost the same mid-July dates – and has done so for millennia. Here’s a table showing how Sirius has kept rising just before the Sun, only ‘losing a little ground’ (a mere 4 days) over a timespan of 4000 years (between 3500BC and 500AD):

“The heliacal rise of Sirius and ancient Egyptian chronology” - by Bradley E. Schaefer for Journal for the History of Astronomy(opens in a new tab)

And yes, this may be such an important new discovery that I may have to integrate it in my upcoming 2nd Edition of the TYCHOS book… :slight_smile:

You may now ask:

“What about the elusive ‘Sirius C’ which, according to the TYCHOS, may possibly be the ‘twin sister’ of planet Earth? Has it been observed telescopically yet?”

No it hasn’t - but in 1995 a French independent / yet academic study concluded that its existence is highly probable. More interestingly perhaps, its existence was already being debated back in 1910 (i.e. long before NASA/JPL “took control” over the realm of astronomical observations). Here’s what we can read in a paper by Arthur K. Bartlett (1910):

Source: 1910PA.....18...81B Page 81

Your next questions might be:

“And what about the TYCHOS speculation that the Sirius system might be the ‘double-double’ binary companion of our Solar System? Are there even any ‘popular / anecdotal’ indications that this might be the case? Has star Sirius, for instance, ever been observed to transit on the opposite side of our Solar System?”

Apparently yes - and this is also mentioned in that paper by Arthur K. Bartlett. Of course, it is very difficult to imagine how ‘Stone Age traditions’ could possibly have survived for millennia - but as Bartlett wrote in his 1910 paper, “there is said to be a tradition that Sirius was seen by the men of the Stone Age on the opposite side of the Galaxy to that on which it is now located”. You may make of this what you will, but the fact remains that - as far as I know - no star other than Sirius has been claimed (in any academic literature - or of popular lore) to have been transiting “on the opposite side of our Galaxy”…

1 Like

All quite fascinating and deeply inspiring, Simon, keep up the discoveries!

There is a web page at OrbitSimulator that purports to show the evolution of stellar proper motions over the long term and has a gif animation of the constellation Canis Major (in which Sirius is located) from about 20,000 BC to 45,000 AD.

edit: trying to add the gif through imgur.com but doesn’t seem to be working. The animation is here.


Would this simulation tend to confirm the lack of precession of the star Sirius?

What makes it so challenging to determine if Sirius precesses or not? (why is it a controversy)

1 Like

Dear Greg, two short answers to your above two questions:

  • Yes, that simulation (showing Sirius ‘descending’ towards our system) is probably a fair approximation of its secular motions - as seen from Earth. However, it certainly fails to resolve the (heliocentric) mystery as to why the heliacal rising of Sirius has kept recurring around mid-July for over 4000 years (only ‘slipping’ by 4 days or so). According to the Copernican ‘lunisolar wobble theory’, the Earth’s polar axis would ‘wobble clockwise’ by as many as 56° in 4000 years, meaning that Sirius’s heliacal rising should have ‘slipped’ by roughly 55 days - instead of only 4 days!

  • Ergo, it is no wonder that it is a controversy - yet it is one that is very far from being resolved (by Copernican astronomers). For instance, here’s how the French ‘scientist’ Jean-Baptiste Biot proposed to resolve the very pesky problem :

“The fact that Sirius seems to maintain its position relative to the position of the sun was a surprise to most scientists (aware of precession), when it was first noticed by the French scientific community following the Egyptian discoveries of Napoleon (and the Dendera Zodiac) in the early 1800’s. Perhaps to save the lunisolar theory of precession, or at least to make sense of physics as then taught, physicist, astronomer, mathematician Jean-Baptiste Biot (21 April 1774 – 3 February 1862) proclaimed that this phenomenon was an oddity of the latitude and horizon around Dendera, meaning it just seemed as if Sirius was immune to the effects of precession. And to this day this is the assumption of many astronomers and astrophysicists.” BRI | Sirius Research Group

That’s right: Sirius would be “IMMUNE” to the effects of precession ! :roll_eyes: Mon Dieu!

As for how the TYCHOS proposes to solve the ‘mystery’ - and to illustrate in the Tychosium simulator just why Sirius doesn’t appear to precess much at all - you will have to wait for the next level of development of our simulator, as Patrik and I will hopefully manage to implement plausible secular orbits for the double-double binaries of Sirius and our Solar System. Si Dieu le veut! :slight_smile:

In the meantime, you might wish to take a look at this section of Chapter 20 of my upcoming book titled " The 811000-year cycle of our Solar System and the Sirius System" in which I speculate about the possible orbital configurations of the two binary systems: Chapter 20: The 811000-year Mega Cycle – Nextra

Hi Simon,
I’m looking into the 1680 comet sighting. Is it OK if I open a new topic and post some questions I have in there?

Sure - please go ahead.