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.

2 Likes

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.

2 Likes

Exactly! :sweat_smile:

1 Like

IS SIRIUS MOVING AT THE SAME SPEED AS OUR SYSTEM?

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)]

https://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/SiriusResearchIntro.shtml

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.

http://orbitsimulator.com/constellations/constellationProperMotion.html

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

*This just in: “PLANETS OF DISTANT SOLAR SYSTEM ORBIT STARS IN COORDINATED DANCE”

Well, well, well, folks… Check this out - apparently a brand new discovery (of November 2023) :

Source: Planets of distant solar system orbit star in coordinated dance, say scientists | Space | The Guardian

Here’s an extract from the above article:

“Not only is their makeup different from planets within our solar system, but their movements appear to be tied together: the team said the time it takes one planet to travel around the star was related to that of the next planet by a neat ratio”

“This system has this very delicate resonant configuration, which has been preserved for billions of years,” said Dr Rafael Luque, co-author of the research from the University of Chicago."

Now, anyone familiar with the TYCHOS model will know that all the bodies in our Solar System are indeed locked in a perfect, ‘coordinated dance’ - as they revolve in resonant orbital periods, all of which are integer multiples of our Moon’s orbital period.

So WHAT exactly is this ‘brand new discovery’ (as advertised in the Guardian) all about? Are astronomers perhaps finally realizing / admitting that the TYCHOS model is the correct configuration of our Solar System? :wink:

2 Likes

Hi Simon,

I saw this article. It’s always the same thing : as a serious alternative based on reason and maths emerge, they are pushing all kinds of bullshit to discredit it.

A good news for the Tychos model, it begins to gain popularity !

There are nearly 100 solar systems less than 20Ly from Earth or 35UA in the Tychos :

Pluto orbits between 29UA and 39UA, with an inclinaison of 17°.

So, is it possible for Pluto (and comets) to occult one of our nearest stars ?

It would be the definitive proof of the Tychos ?

It is astounding to imagine that there are almost 100 stars closer from us than Pluto.

Don’t those stars have to appear more brighter than those mini points in the sky ?

Or are they only all small micro stars ?

At 12.9 UA and with it’s size in the sky, Sirius A is just a big Jupiter ?

A problem or not ?

Dear Tof,
Why would that be astounding? Pluto is completely invisible to our naked eyes - although its average distance from Earh is ‘only’ 34AU. This is about 7905 times closer than the supposed / officially-claimed distance to Proxima Centauri - our very nearmost star, which is also invisible to the naked eye. However, Proxima’s apparent magnitude is considerably brighter than Pluto’s (10 versus 15).

In the TYCHOS, Proxima’s distance would be about 6.3AU (or just about 5.4 times closer than Pluto).

Next, consider the following information we can read on the Wikipedia:

Pluto has five known moons: Charon, the largest, whose diameter is just over half that of Pluto; Styx, Nix, Kerberos, and Hydra. Pluto and Charon are sometimes considered a binary system because the barycenter,of their orbits does not lie within either body, and they are tidally locked.” Source: Pluto - Wikipedia .

Now, in later years, astronomers have found as many as three bodies revolving around Proxima:

Proxima Centauri has two known exoplanets and one candidate exoplanet: Proxima Centauri b, Proxima Centauri d and the disputed Proxima Centauri c.” Source: Proxima Centauri - Wikipedia

So the question becomes. why would it be ‘astounding’ to think that the two bodies formerly believed to be our most distant “planet” (Pluto) and our closest “star” (Proxima) are in fact pretty similar bodies, both of them being surrounded by a number of “moons” - and both having a binary companion?

To be sure, the Proxima “system” is known to revolve (at some good distance) around the Alpha Centauri A/B binary system - much like the Pluto “system” revolves (at some good distance) around the Sun/Mars binary system. :slight_smile:

Dear Tof, as discussed and illustrated in Chapter 23 of my book, Sirius may well be only 12.9 times more distant than the Sun (keep in mind though that the TYCHOS model does not rely solely upon its proposed 42633 reduction factor for the distance to the stars). However, your above question inspired me today to take another look at this particular matter. So let’s first remind ourselves just what is officially claimed - concerning the distance to (and size of) the brightest star in our sky, Sirius:

  • Sirius is officially estimated to be 550000 x more distant than our Sun.
  • The physical diameter of Sirius is believed to be 1.71 x larger than our Sun.
  • Its ‘true’ angular diameter is thus claimed to be 323450 x smaller than that of our Sun.

That’s right: we are actually told that the very bright and large point of light in the sky that we call Sirius is just an illusion, its apparent (and quite spectacular) size being ‘artificially inflated’ several hundreds of thousands times by ‘the phenomenon of atmospheric diffraction’ (which would only affect starlight - and not the light emanated by our surrounding planets…). Ok, anyone is free to accept this bizarre official explanation - but let us try and put this extraordinary ciaim to the test, shall we?

For the purpose of this test I have selected a section of a high-quality night sky photograph credited to Tom Wildoner (the full photograph can be found here).


As can be readily verified by yourself in any good image editing software, the approximate pixel sizes of the diameters subtended by the apparent ‘disks’ of the Moon and Sirius are respectively:

Moon → roughly 34 pixels
Sirius → roughly 4.5 pixels

In simple mathematical terms, this means that our Moon (which is of course similar in size to our Sun as viewed from Earth) appears to be approximately 7.55 x larger than Sirius (34 / 4.5 = 7.55).

Now, Sirius’ physical diameter is estimated to be (perhaps correctly so) about 1.71 x larger than the Sun. So let’s perform some more simple maths and see how distant Sirius would be if it were 1.71 times larger than the Sun (based on its empirically-observed dimension in relation to the Moon) :

7.55 X 1.71 = 12.9105 AU

In other words, dear Tof, you are left to choose between these two alternative ‘belief options’ :

1: Sirius is truly 550000 x more distant than our Sun - but the reason why it appears so large in our skies is just an illusion caused by atmospheric diffraction (as of official, ‘mainstream’ science claims). Yet, for some reason, the light emitted by our planets is hardly affected at all by atmospheric diffraction…

2: Sirius may well be only 12.9 x more distant than the Sun and also be about 1.71 x larger than the Sun (as of the TYCHOS paradigm) - and this can be roughly verified with a sharp night sky photograph.

Whatever you choose to believe is truly up to you, dear Tof. But if you should choose “option 2”, be prepared to be scoffed at by assorted ‘science experts’ who will invariably protest and lecture you that “comparing the actual pixel sizes of celestial bodies in a night sky photograph is a totally ridiculous enterprise ! Photographs do not depict reality! Stars - and stars only - will always appear hugely larger than they truly are!”… :roll_eyes:

Merci Simon.

Je réponds en Français, mon anglais est pourri.

Mais vous pouvez répondre en anglais, pour le confort des autres intervenants.

Je ne suis pas un opposant au Tychos, bien au contraire, mais je le pousse dans ses retranchements, acid test.

Je n’avais pas imaginé que Pluton et ses lunes puissent être à elles seules un système binaire !

ça change tout !

Nom de Zeus Marty !

Ayant un télescope, je me demandais : comment une étoile comme Sirius, à 12.9UA donc, entre Saturne et Uranus hors de l’écliptique, puisse apparaitre presque “aussi petite” que Jupiter dans le ciel, alors que Jupiter est 10 fois moins grosse que le soleil, et que Sirius est 1,71 officiellement plus grosse que notre étoile ??

J’ai acheté le Tychos, raison et logique obligent, OUI, notre système est binaire !

Mais l’orbite PVP mérite un passage à l’acide !

Si l’orbite PVP est valide, elle doit cocher toutes les cases.

Proposition : si la Terre ne se déplace que de 7018km en 6 mois, normalement, nous devrions mesurer la même parallaxe à Sirius mesurée par l’astronomie officielle (299 millions de km) qu’une parallaxe prise entre Oslo et Kinshasa (7167km) au même moment exact ?

(Mesures prises obligatoirement sur les méridiennes, et pas les latitudes à cause de la rotation de la Terre).

Nous devrions pouvoir mesurer les parallaxes aux étoiles proches de nous de la même manière que nous mesurons les parallaxes aux planètes du système solaire, puisque ces étoiles SONT dans notre système ou assimilé (héliosphère) même si pas dans le plan de l’écliptique ?

Ne serait-ce pas le test parfait pour confirmer l’orbite PVP avec déplacement annuel de 7018 km en 6 mois ?

La parallaxe mesurée tous les 6 mois devrait être la même qu’une parallaxe prise entre deux points distants sur Terre et sur le même méridien de 7018 km au même moment ???

Comment aucun astronome sur terre ne s’est rendu compte de cela ?

Ne pourrions nous pas trouver deux astronomes bien équipés pour effectuer ces mesures ?

But if you should choose “option 2”, be prepared to be scoffed at by assorted ‘science experts’ who will invariably protest and lecture you that *“comparing the actual pixel sizes of celestial bodies in a night sky photograph is a totally ridiculous enterprise !

Hi Simon,
Let’s check if the “pixel size” method actually valid.
If it is valid, it should also apply to other celestial bodies.
In that photo, Jupiter is almost the same size as Sirius.
Jupiter’s radius is about 0.1x of sun.
Calculate the distance to Jupiter using the “pixel size” method yields:
(34px / 4.5px) * 0.1 * 1au = 0.75au,
which is obviously a wrong result.
Similarly, Rigel has a radius ~76x of sun, apply the same calculation, we get
(34px / 4.5px) * 76 * 1au = 574au.
Rigel’s distance is estimated to be 260pc = 53628849au, dividing by the TYCHOS “reduction factor” 42633 we get 1257au, which differs a lot.
For Betelgeus, we get
(34px / 4.5px) * 1180 * 1au = 8915au.
Betelgeus’s distance 197pc = 40634166 au, divided by 42633 is 953au, also differs a lot.

Dear Tof and mizusato,

Thanks for submitting your thoughts, calculi and assorted queries and objections with regard to the issue of star distances – as tentatively proposed by the TYCHOS model. However, let me once more reiterate for clarity that the TYCHOS model does not pretend to have settled the question of star distances, nor much less that of the telescopically-perceived star sizes - as specifically stated in Chapter 23 of my book,:

“To be sure, much more study is needed in the field of optical astronomy, a branch of human knowledge rife with controversy still today. The long-debated question of the perceived telescopic star disk sizes and how they are affected by assorted optical phenomena is far from settled.” Chapter 23

This said, the fact remains that, even if my proposed 42633 reduction factor is incorrect (or in need for adjustment due to optical / atmospheric / luminosity issues affecting the perceived sizes of the various more or less distant stars), their officially estimated sizes and distances are far more questionable and, quite frankly, downright absurd.

As mentioned in my last post above, Sirius is believed to be 550000 x more distant than the Sun! Yet, on a high-quality night sky photograph it appears to be only 7.55 x smaller than the Moon (which of course is roughly the same size as the Sun). So, dear Tof and misuzato, does this extraordinary official claim not merit your attention, questioning and critique? And doesn’t my proposed 42633 reduction factor seem a little more reasonable? Perhaps the fantastic notion that Sirius (the VERY BRIGHTEST STAR in our skies) would be more than HALF A MILLION times more distant than our Sun is quite OK with you guys? If so, let me know - but do explain why you think this is a plausible Earth-to-Sirius distance.

Furthermore (if “only half-a-million times” doesn’t impress you), consider this :

“Deneb is one of the brightest stars we can see with the naked eye.” “Night Sky: Look Northeast For Deneb” - by Steven Glazier

Well, the distance to Deneb is officially believed to be, according to the French Wikipedia 1550 LY – whereas the English Wikipedia has it at 2615 LY. Other official sources you may find will tell you that Deneb is 3227 LY away… So much for astronomic accuracy, folks!

But let’s say that the English Wikipedia has it right (2615 LY). Well, that’s about 165 MILLION TIMES further away than the Sun! Yet, Deneb is one of the brightest stars we can see with the naked eye! I can only hope that no functional human brain can buy into this raving absurdity proposed and implied by heliocentric astronomy.

In any event – and to clarify once again - the TYCHOS model paradigm (i.e. its fundamental tenets and geometric configuration of our Solar System) does not rely solely upon the exact distance to the stars - or their actual physical diameters. More study is needed to ascertain just how their sizes and distances have been determined under the heliocentric paradigm which, however, is certainly marred by far more questionable issues than the TYCHOS model itself.

1 Like

Mon cher Tof,

Votre idée est bonne: soit, mesurer la ‘parallaxe de latitude’ d’une étoile entre deux points sur Terre situés environ 7018km l’un de l’autre (sur l’axe Nord-Sud) - et voir si cette parallaxe correspond avec la ‘parallaxe de longitude’ semestrielle (sur l’axe Ouest-Est) observée pour la même étoile.

En fait, Jean-Dominique Cassini et Jean Richer eurent une idée un peu semblable quand ils décidèrent de mesurer la parallaxe de Mars depuis Paris et Cayenne (distants environ 7000 km).

image

“In 1672, [Cassini] sent his colleague Jean Richer to Cayenne, French Guiana, while he himself stayed in Paris. The two made simultaneous observations of Mars and, by computing the parallax, determined its distance from Earth. This allowed for the first time an estimation of the dimensions of the solar system: since the relative ratios of various sun-planet distances were already known from geometry, only a single absolute interplanetary distance was needed to calculate all of the distances.” Wikipedia - Giovanni Cassini

Une idée que l’on pourrait donc conceptuellement appliquer à la recherche TYCHOS! Mais bien sûr, il faudrait pouvoir compter sur l’aide des grands observatoires (car la parallaxe en question sera minuscule) qui ne sont hélas guère accessibles à tout le monde . Aussi - pour la ‘parallaxe de longitude’ mesurée en six mois - il faudra tenir compte avec grande exactitude de la variation de l’inclinaison de la Terre, chose qui n’est pas facile à déterminer avec la nécessaire précision. En outre, il faudra déterminer avec grande exactitude - à la seconde près ! - la durée de “six mois” que l’expériment de mesuration devra respecter (vu que la Terre tourne autour de son axe - et une seule seconde d’erreur pourrait fausser / invalider l’expériment)…

Malheureusement, je crains qu’une telle entreprise ne soit à la portée d’aucun astronome amateur - même équipé des meilleurs télescopes sur le marché…

De toutes façons, merci pour la bonne idée!

Merci Simon.

OUI, considérer que l’on puisse voir à l’œil nu des étoiles à des centaines d’années lumière est débile.

Je ne conteste pas le moins du monde cette évidence !

Vu depuis Pluton, notre étoile apparait comme une parmi d’autres du fond du ciel :

J’ai bien noté que lors de ce débat au XVIIème, il a été décidé que la taille extraordinaire que devaient avoir ces étoiles était de la volonté de Dieu, et depuis lors, personne ne s’est sérieusement penché sur cette aberration !

Concernant la mesure de parallaxe avec du bon matériel, il est évident qu’il faille mobiliser des observatoires officiels pour ce genres de calculs.

Je rappelle au passage que les plus gros miroirs pour télescopes qu’un particulier puisse s’offrir n’excèdent pas 70cm.

L’orbite PVP répond à toutes ces questions.

Je fais partie de ces rares personnes qui pensent que les mathématiques sont ontologiques.

Elles sont la réalité sous-jacente à tout phénomène manifesté.

Notre univers n’est que maths appliquées.

Notre système et tous les autres ne peuvent échapper à cela.

Le Tychos va dans ce sens.

Il nécessite une autre physique que la “gravité”.

Si nous parvenons a expliquer les mécanismes expliquant l’extrême lenteur de l’orbite PVP, nous aurons la solution à TOUT.

Visiblement, le couple Terre-Lune est “locké” sur le barycentre du couple Soleil-Mars, lui même “locké” sur le couple Sirius A et B.

Comme vous le dites, l’orbite PVP, extrêmement lente, est possiblement explicable s’il on prend en compte la danse de notre système avec celui de Sirius A et B, mais avec une autre physique !

1 Like

This amazing paper on electrogravity :

A “Miles Mathis” like work.

An answer for the physics of the binary stars systems ?

I’ve not the physics and maths level to do the job, but it seems it could be the point.

Simon does not think it is possible for amateur astronomy but I think that it is. A very quick perusal of YTuber’s home observatories convinces me that this level of accuracy shall soon be achieved if not already. The mounts are poured concrete pedestals sunk into the ground, immovable. I do not think size determines accuracy, I believe it is far more reliant upon other conditions. If you read the men who first began observing with the world’s largest telescopes you will see that their primary angst was due to conditional aberrations in their equipment brought on by temperature, humidity, foundation settling, etc. Tycho himself mentions that even with naked eye observing how critical it was to manufacture the equipment out of the proper materials to mitigate the effects due to the cold in Hven. Therefore, as Patrik and I have concluded, it is very important to have some amateur astronomers with state of the art equipment join in this forum! Please extend the invitation to anyone you might know.

1 Like

Hi Simon,

Can we eliminate the ‘problem’ of atmospheric diffraction by using images from the Hubble or Webb space telescopes? Obviously, images of Sirius have been taken from outside our atmosphere, so do they confirm or refute the alleged angular size of Sirius?