Earth's PVP orbit

Simon, I had quite a difficult time parsing the last paragraph of section

11.2 The PVP orbit: Earth’s path below our north stars on p. 93.

See my comments in bold, as well there are three questions. Can you comment on this please?

“In about 11500 years, Earth’s axis will, according to official predictions , be tilted by 22.9°, as opposed to the current 23.4°, for a total axial rotation of 46.3° (22.9 + 23.4) in relation to the 180° northern celestial hemisphere.

This 3.7° difference between 50° (the presently observed angular difference between Polaris and Vega ) and 46.3° (50 - 46.3 = 3.7) can be accounted for by Earth’s 113.2 Mkm displacement along its PVP orbit.

This is because, the Earth-Vega distance is estimated to be 37 astronomical units (AU).

(37 x 149 597 870.7 = 5 535 121 215.9km)

What about the correction factor?

The PVP orbit’s diameter of 113.2 Mkm (0.757 AU) (149 597 870.7 x .757 AU = 113 245 588 km) amounts to approximately 2.05% of 37 AU. (.757 / 37 = .020459 x 100 2.05%)

The 3.7° difference observed above amounts to approximately 2.05% of 180°.”

(180 x .0205 = 3.69)

Does this mean that the officially predicted 22.9 degree tilt is simply an illusion?

Also, earth would travel 1690.83 km in 44 days (38.428 x 44 = 1690.83 km). Wouldn’t this distance have an impact on the angles as well?

Dear schoepffer,

Re: your 1st question:

(37 x 149 597 870.7 = 5 535 121 215.9km)
What about the correction factor?

The actual sentence in my book goes like this:
“This is because, in the TYCHOS model, as we shall see later on, the Earth-Vega distance is estimated to be ∼37 astronomical units (AU).”

So the reduction factor of 42633 is already included in the 37AU figure. (Officially, Vega is believed to be 25.04 LIGHT YEARS away (which is about 42633 x farther than 37 AU).

Re: your 2nd question:

(180 x .0205 = 3.69)
Does this mean that the officially predicted 22.9 degree tilt is simply an illusion?

Perhaps - perhaps not. It’s hard to tell because Vega has a proper motion of its own that will displace it in our skies by roughly +0.7° in RA and +1° in DECL in 12672 years (i.e. half a Great Year). For now though, the current version of the Tychosium shows that Vega will indeed be at ∼86° of DECL in the year 13727 - just as officially predicted:
" Vega was the northern pole star around 12,000 BCE and will be so again around the year 13,727, when its declination will be +86° 14′ ". Source: Wikipedia

The below image is a double (superimposed) screenshot from the Tychosium: the yellow 90° line is our polar line - in the year 13727. The white 86° line is a ‘virtual’ line that represents the position of Vega in the year 13727:

So to answer your question with precision, we shall have to wait until the future version(s) of the Tychosium which - hopefully one fine day - will also include the peculiar proper motions of each of our surrounding stars…but please understand that this is an unrealistic enteprise for Patrik and I to undertake on our own and on a ZERO budget!

Re: your 3d question:

Also, earth would travel 1690.83 km in 44 days (38.428 x 44 = 1690.83 km). Wouldn’t this distance have an impact on the angles as well?

Oh well, there you go again asking for ultra-precision! :smiley: Consider this: 1690 kilometers represents a mere 0.000475% of the PVP orbit. This is a negligeable amount compared to the distance covered by the Sun in 44 days, i.e. 113 230 656 kilometers, or 12.05% of its own orbit !

Simon, thanks.

This is what I assumed, but the paragraph is confusing.

As you write, “Conceptual graphics can be somewhat challenging to translate in the mind, but they are the best I can do to ‘materialise’ the train of thoughts that led me to formulate the PVP orbit in the TYCHOS model.

Indeed, I appreciate your effort of course, but referring to a number that the reader is unaware has a reduced value that will be explained later, is like putting the cart before the horse. I left that part of the sentence out on purpose precisely because of that. Of course the critics will have a knee-jerk reaction and say that 37 AU is not what wikipedia tells them the distance to Vega is, and perhaps label you a ‘crackpot’! :rofl:

Seriously though, I was having a hard time following your train of thought on this proof. But since it is the first proof of the PVP orbit I wanted to try and get my head around it thoroughly. I do recall nodding my head in agreement later on in the book at other proofs of the PVP that were easier for me to quickly grasp and btw, absolutely confirmed in my mind beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have the PVP orbit correct.

This one left me scratching my head. I now understand how you derived it, but it relies on Neave and a reduction factor to work. You are probably correct but the reduction factor is still speculation for now.

Agreed, dear Schoepffer - but as I wrote on page 168 of the book…

“In fact, probably the greatest difficulty of composing this book has been to arrange its contents sequentially.” (…) “The only remedy I see is to read the book from cover to cover or to read it more than once!”

There was, for instance, no way I could have placed Chapter 23 (which introduces the 42633 reduction factor) BEFORE Chapter 11. It certainly was a tough book to write! :slight_smile:

This one left me scratching my head. I now understand how you derived it, but it relies on Neave and a reduction factor to work. You are probably correct but the reduction factor is still speculation for now.

The (now defunct) Neave planetarium was just one of many heliocentric planetariums to be found on the web back in 2018 (as I published the 1st edition of the book) - all of which largely agree with each other. I could have used any other planetarium (e.g. the famed Stellarium) to determine the 44-day period needed for the Sun to hypothetically move between Polaris and Vega.

The reduction factor may be speculative, as you say, but I would encourage you to do a search for the number “42633” in the PDF of my new book. You will get about 30 ‘hits’, several of them putting the 42633 reduction factor to the test against various official / well-known astronomical figures & values - my ‘favourite’ being that to be found on page 207 of the book. It is about the value of 19.4 km/s which is officially considered to be “the speed of our Solar System relative to the stars”:

• 19.4 km/s × 3600 = 69840 km/h, and 69840 km/h / 42633 ≈ 1.638 km/h
• Orbital velocity of the Earth in the TYCHOS model = 1.601169 km/h
Next, let us apply our 42633 reduction factor to the “4 AU/year” displacement estimate of the Paris Observatory:
• 4 AU ≈ 598 400 000 km, and 598 400 000 km / 42633 ≈ 14036 km
• Annual displacement of the Earth along its PVP orbit = 14036 km

Just a matter of coincidence(s)? You be the judge. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Dear Simon, yes it was several of the later proofs, like I said, that really solidified the Tychos as I finished reading it last week. And as I said in an earlier post, once you had the PVP orbit the rest just sort of “shakes out”.

It’s really quite intuitive after that and somewhat anti-climatic when it ‘clicks’. For God’s sake you derived the 4cm ‘recession’ of the Moon! And if that isn’t ulta-precision, then I don’t know what is! :smiley:

One thing I can tell you that astronomy and science do not want and that is simplicity. Your addition to Longomontanus-Brahe’s model deals with the solar system in a methodical and logical way that children can understand. This they cannot have, too many institutions and too many paychecks rely on the exasperatingly complex and oft times contradictory ‘model’ they’ve concocted to keep people baffled, on purpose.

Astronomy isn’t going back, but the Tychos is here to stay, as you say. The weightier system will prevail because there isn’t two systems, there’s only one true solar system. Simple.

2 Likes

Haha, yes - I must say that I’m rather pleased about that one. :blush:

1 Like