General questions

Good evening,
I’m wondering if the distance from earth to planets, moon, and sun factored into your research for the Tychos? I apologize if this was addressed and I passed over it. I’m curious your opinion or analysis of “official astronomy’s” distances from earth to moon and other planets? Are these numbers contentious or settled? Does the officialdom consider these numbers settled? Was this critical only when considering the sun and other stars?

I got your first edition, and am currently reading the second edition and am satisfied to find more weird problems in the current paradigm and how they are resolved. I haven’t found good explanations for the stellar parallax issue, nor the speed of earth’s rotation around its axis and orbit, until finding the Tychos. Breaking the sound barrier, centrifugal force, etc., don’t add up. The problem of “falling off the earth” never made sense because the earth is very large, and there isn’t an up or down in space except relative to earth. At such fast speeds, wouldn’t we be “glued” down to earth via centripetal force?

Also curious of your take on Olbers’ paradox? Would the designation as “paradox” simply be debunked in a “stable” Tychos model? I’d love to see a third edition that addresses other problems. From what I have read as a lay-person with no background in astronomy or physics, I am shocked by seeing alternate ideas demonstrated or corroborated with data. I really felt a need to do more digging when I heard about a probe being sent to the sun and taking real video! lol

Also, if it hasn’t already been suggested, it would be great to have better visibility of the trace patterns when zoomed out in the Tychosium.

Thanks again, and great work

Greetings! Then you’ll be happy to know that I, Patrik, am hard at work with a new improved version of the Tychosium which will among other improvements feature better trace lines.

As for the distance and size of the Sun and planets there may be substance to the argument that they are not correct but I’ll leave that to Simon.

As for Earth rotation there seems to be some that argue that wouldn’t the seas fall off due to centrifugal force if we were spinning with a relative speed to space of about 1000 kph? Well the actual rotational speed of Earth is in fact very low. Only one rotation per 24 hours and we have gravity. Imagine rotating a wet tennis ball very slowly. The water will not come off due to centrifugal force.

As for Olbers paradox I’d say tired light could explain this besides all the observed redshift. The Universe does have an infinite number of stars but we cannot see that because most of the light will never reach us.

Hello babayaga - and welcome to the forum.

In reply to your question regarding planetary / stellar distances, allow me to just copy-paste the below extract from Chapter 4 of my upcoming TYCHOS book (2nd Edition):


Let it be clear that the TYCHOS has rigorously respected the currently-accepted distances - as measured by Copernican / Keplerian astronomers - between the bodies comprised in our own solar system. This, because they have (correctly) been using as a baseline for their measurements the diameter of Earth of 12756km (a well-established measurement). However, their determination of the Earth->stars distances is an entirely different matter. This, because they have (incorrectly) used as a baseline the supposed diameter of Earth’s alleged orbit around the Sun - of ca. 300 million kilometers. Since they are using as a baseline this non-existent “300 Mkm lateral six-month-displacement of Earth”, all of their calculations of Earth-to-stars distances are sistematically flawed (i.e. grossly inflated). In the TYCHOS model, Earth only moves by 7018km every six months - instead of 300 000 000 km. This means that the stars are more than 42600X closer than currently believed - a notion that Tycho Brahe would undoubtedly have welcomed and supported. In any case, the notion that many stars (visible to our naked eyes) would be located several thousands light years away has to rank among the most bizarre ideas entertained by this world’s scientific community.

As for the “Olber’s paradox”, the TYCHOS model does away with it quite naturally (since there never even was any such paradox!)… See, since heliocentrists believe that stars as distant as, say, “3000 light years” can still be visible to our naked eyes, there should be untold trillions of stars within reach of our unaided eyes (and they thus figure that it is “paradoxical” that our night skies are dark…) In the TYCHOS, however, the stars are 42633 times closer than currently thought - and those located beyond a certain distance (say, no more than 100 AU or so) are simply invisible to us. In fact, only a few thousand stars are visible to the naked eye:

"You may be surprised to learn how low the number of naked-eye visible stars is. Spoiler alert: the most stars you’ll see with the unaided eye is between 2,600 and 4,500 depending on where you are, local conditions and the quality of your vision " . HOW MANY STARS ARE THERE?

Thanks for the reply, looking forward to the improved model. It was great to discover your guys’ work around the time of the Jupiter/Venus/Moon conjunction, March 22-25, as it helped explain the conjunction seen around the world, mostly northern hemisphere I’m guessing? Interesting analogy of a wet tennis ball - the proportion of water to total earth size/mass does seem very crucial not to mention the orbital speed.

Thanks for referencing this for me, your book contains a lot of information.
Forgive me if this is mentioned in the book too, but I’m curious the “periodicity” of various conjunctions of planets. Patrik, that could be a neat tool too, like a table which allows the user to input any variety of conjunctions and see when the “next” conjunction of a given combination of planets would be and whether it would be visible on northern or southern hemisphere. Just my thoughts!

Another problem I’ve had with heliocentrism is whether or not we really return to the same place in space each year. The PVP orbit states we are not in the same location year after year. I went to 2500 BC in the Tychosium, about the time the Giza Pyramids are thought to have been built. It is said that Thuban was the north star then. Sure enough the pole aligns with Thuban. Do you have any thoughts about a “procession” or “cycle” of northern and southern pole stars? The sky appears without a primary north star from about 11,000 BC, when Vega “drifts” left, to about 3,000 BC, when Thuban arrives. Given the time you spent researching, what did you find in the area of periods in antiquity or before when earth had no obvious north star? Are there western or eastern stars that have been used for navigation, etc., like we’ve been told the north star was? It seems your guys’ work proves Heraclitus right: one never steps in the same river twice. Sorry to ramble, great work, thanks for replying.

Thank you for the encouragement. It really means a lot. This type of programming is really a challenge for me but I’ve done so much progress with it during the six years I’ve been assisting Simon and as a bonus I understand the Tychos model very well now.

Yes the Polestar shifts and this is the reason that Simon’s discovery, which I seriously call the most significant astronomical discovery in 400 years, is named the PVP-orbit which stands for Polaris Vega Polaris. Earth, which together with the Moon, forms the center of our system moves at about 1 mph around the PVP-orbit which makes our pole stars shift slowly.

Actually, there have been several other ‘primary north stars’ over the ages - for a full list go to Wikipedia’s Pole Star entry.

Please know that the Tychosium currently only has a most provisional and incomplete ‘star sphere’ - so do not expect to find all those former north stars in the TS simulator just yet. Patrik is working on it though - but remember, he’s only one (overworked) programmer, so give him time ! :slight_smile:

3d Autocad was tough for me so I can’t really grasp the variables existing in the Tychosium model. Very neat!

Thank you. Yes to get a clue on 3d programming which I’ve not done much before has of course been a struggle and then there’s the thing with transforming XYZ coordinates into Declination, Right Ascension and Elongations relative to the slightly moving Earth. Another struggle was to make a perpetual calendar that’s correct. Built in date functions in JavaScript and other programming languages don’t work with dates hundreds or thousands of years in the past or future.

But the motion in Tychosium is actually very simple. Especially compared to other planetariums like Stellarium and JS Orrery. Only constant speeds and circles but no epicycles and only a few deferents. And with this simple configuration Simon has been able to create the most observationally correct model ever devised.

1 Like


I made the below graphic in response to the most frequently-asked sort of questions I’m getting these days regarding the TYCHOS model, namely:

"What does the Earth revolve around? What exactly is at the center of its PVP orbit? Is the Earth just revolving around a random / arbitrary point in space? "

The answer to that last question is “no”; as you can see in my new graphic, the ‘secular center’ of our Solar System is constantly visited by none other than Mars - the Sun’s binary companion.

(double-click on image to enlarge it)

It is important to realize that the above graphic was put together by simply superimposing 4 screenshots from the Tychosium simulator, each of them separated by 6336 years - for a total of 25344 years (my proposed duration of a “Great Year”). No modifications or adjustments were made to ‘embellish’ the diagram - what you see is what the Tychosium actually traces (as can be verified by anyone familiar with the Tychosium’s functions). Note also the stunning fact that even the eccentric orbits of Venus and Mercury (which of course constantly oscillate back and forth) appear to return every 6336 years (or 1/4 of a Great Year) in similar positions with respect to the Sun.

So, what to make of all this? And how should we put in words an answer to the recurring question : “What does the Earth revolve around?” Suggestions from this forum’s members are welcome! :slight_smile:

One may perhaps say that the orbit of Mars plays a kind of “pivotal / barycentric role” of our entire system - although it may not be a satisfactory answer for those enamored with Newton’s ‘universal laws of gravitation’… Be it as it may, I have made this other version of the new graphic which includes an insert (at bottom left) showing how Mars does indeed regularly transit at 56.6 Mkm from Earth, i.e. ‘smack in the middle’ of my proposed PVP orbit (as thoroughly put to the test - in every imaginable way - in the upcoming 2nd Edition of my Tychos book )

(double-click on image to enlarge it)

Again, suggestions are welcome as to how one might best describe & caption this new graphic which I probably won’t resist including in my new book… In fact, one of the main purposes of this forum is to have people participating and helping out presenting the TYCHOS model to the world in the most articulate and compelling manner. Here’s your chance to be part of the impending / inevitable “Tychosian revolution” :slight_smile:


Excellent illustrations. From the very beginning of looking into the TYCHOS the term barycenter has been one I had to learn the meaning of. I have no problem with calling it the Barycenter, but i have also been calling it the Centroid. which is not quite the exact right term but i like that it is a shorter word with a meaning that is self evident. Plus the added fact that it is similar to hemorrhoid. :wink:

1 Like

I have a question about the Analemma.
Was awareness of the Analemma only possible after clocks were invented? In other words, how can the position of the Sun be recorded at the same time each day without a clock of some sort. I sundial wouldn’t suffice … am I right?
Having written this just now, it seems to me that a sundial would suffice as it would tell when the sun had reached its highest point for the day.
Any thoughts?

Dear Peaker,

I found this interesting paper titled:

Analemma, the Ancient Sketch of Fictitious Sunpath Geometry—Sun, Time and History of Mathematics

Thank you Simon, that was an enjoyable read. It left a few things out but it added to my overall understanding.

I will assume that each point or dot on your analemma represents the zenith or midday sun on that day each month and so the gnomon would be the tool to use to plot the figure eight( and the columns of a nearby temple, slender and tall, would provide the grid against which to plot.

This word ‘gnomon’ is a good one. As it truly ‘knows’ something, and it knows it instantly and everywhere at the same time! The same is true for the plumb-bob. No wireless network needed… or maybe it were true to say that it taps into a universal broadband called the Unified Field… :smiley:

There is something miraculous in the simplicity of the gnomens and in all naked-eye astronomy. Another form of gnomen comes to mind just now; that of the Pythagorean Triangle. Small digression here: such triangles with whole number ratios were used as gnomens.

1 Like

Hi Simon,

I was watching a video from the youtube channel Archaeoastronomy Database and the channel presenter was discussing the meaning of the recently discovered (in 2018) prehistoric archeological site of Dronehenge, Ireland. I was kind of surprised seeing the intersecting circles of what looks like the tychonic geo-heliocentric system in the imprint alignments.

There are probably many ways to interpret this but still interesting.

The video in question (possible intersecting circles discussed from 2:25 to 3:00):

Hi, Greg thanks for the interesting Dronehenge video.

Back in April 2022 I took a look at the famous Stonehenge site. Here’s what I found.
see my original 2022 post at Cluesforum


Everyone familiar with the Stonehenge site will know that it is basically composed of TWO MAIN CIRCLES. Here’s from a paper by Robin Heath:

“Intriguingly, the diameters of the two main circles of Stonehenge, the Aubrey circle (283 feet) and the Sarsen circle (104 feet) are in the ratio 7:19 to each other.”
“SUN, MOON & EARTH” - by Robin Heath (1999): SUN MOON AND EARTH : ROBIN HEATH : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The above information caught my attention because 283 feet is about 2.72X 104 feet - whereas in my TYCHOS model, the Sun’s orbit is 2.642X the size of Earth’s PVP orbit (as expounded and illustrated in Chapter 11 of my new TYCHOS book.

In the TYCHOS, the Sun’s orbital diameter is 299 193 439 km - whereas the Earth’s (PVP) orbital diameter is 113 230 656 km:

299 193 439 km / 113 230 656 km = 2.642

So I decided to search for the most detailed maps of Stonehenge, so as to verify with more rigorous graphic accuracy the actual relative diameters of the Aubrey and Sarsen circles.

I found the below map - and superimposed my orbits of the Sun (in yellow) and Earth (in light blue) over the Aubrey and Sarsen circles of Stonehenge. Well… here’s what it looks like:

As you can all verify for yourselves (pixel by pixel!), the bigger ring is actually 2.642X larger than the smaller ring (732/277 = 2.642).

And if you now go to the TYCHOSIUM 3D simulator, you’ll see that the Sun’s orbit is 2.642X larger than Earth’s PVP orbit.

Could this be entirely accidental - i.e. just a matter of random / fortuitous happenstance? You decide… But do keep in mind that the diameter of the Earth’s PVP orbit was calculated by yours truly - and that I have by now thoroughly demonstrated (in many different ways) the correctness of the same.

In any event, this is how the orbital diameters of the Sun and Earth (as proposed by my TYCHOS model) “relate to” the two main rings of the famous Stonehenge site.

1 Like

Hi Simon,

Yes I read your very intriguing article about Stonehenge and had thought about it when watching the video about Dronehendge; I dare to say your Tychos model will put a new perspective on the burgeoning science of archaeoastronomy, if only as a conceptual model true to naked-eye observational astronomy and thus highly useful as a tool to decipher the mysteries of ancient culture archeological sites. I am hoping this angle will help garner interest in your model.

There are so many opportunities to introduce the geo-heliocentric model indirectly through learning about ancient astronomy. For example what a course or conference it would be to present the Mayan Dresden codex and Mayan count system and demonstrate its validity through the Tychosium simulation of correct Mars retrogrades.

Have you thought of sending your Tychos book to researchers in archaeoastronomy? As it is viewed with scepticism by a large section of today’s scientific community (though not without curiosity), archaeoastronomy may be more open to new ideas, especially models that agree with the accumulated historical knowledge of naked-eye observational astronomy since many researchers are aware current models are deficient in the precision of long-term predictions.

1 Like

As a long time reader of Robin Heath’s work I have emailed him several times looking for a response to Simon’s work… no luck so far. He does have his own website and there is an email address on it. Maybe others will have more luck than I.

Here I would like to propose a corollary, let’s call it the Dawson Corollary(after David): That any patterning of the solar system using stone or wood in the landscape must, perforce, reflect the very same structure of that system. Smiley Face.



Dear all,

I wish to clarify once and for all something that evidently causes confusion in the minds of most people. Namely, the difference between ECCENTRIC and ELLIPTICAL orbits. The latter were of course ‘invented’ by Kepler - in his mathematical battle to make his master’s Tycho Brahe’s exacting observational tables “check out” with his heliocentric / Copernican paradigm and beliefs.

Not only did Kepler have to contrive his calculi by giving variable / fluctuating speeds to the motion of Mars (the only celestial body he ever studied in any depth, an obsessive enterprise which he called “my War on Mars”) - but he also had to introduce the (illusory) ELLIPTICAL nature of Mars’s orbit (which he then summarily extended - without any further verification - to all the planets of our Solar System). Incredibly enough, Kepler’s dubious ‘mathemagics’ were embraced by the worldwide scientific community - and still are to this day.

The TYCHOS model, of course, does away with Kepler’s contrivances and demonstrates that all of our planets revolve at constant speeds around perfectly circular - yet ECCENTRIC - orbits. In fact, Mars has the most eccentric orbit (vis-à-vis the Earth) of all our Solar System’s planets, since it is the binary companion of the Sun - and the only ‘inner’ body of our system that can transit (unlike Venus and Mercury) both in conjunction and in opposition to the Sun.

Let’s now fast-forward to our current days: today, astronomers working in our world’s largest observatories are continuously discovering what they call “exoplanets” (i.e. bodies revolving around distant stars). As we may read in their papers, one of the most ‘baffling’ issues regarding these “exoplanets” is that they appear to be have highly eccentric orbits around their host stars - “much unlike what we have in our own Solar System”.

Well, in the TYCHOS model, the orbit of Mars is indeed highly eccentric in relation to the Earth which is - quite possibly - the actual ‘barycenter’ of our Solar System. Hence, what modern astronomers are calling “highly eccentric exoplanets” may well be binary companions with orbital eccentricities similar to Mars.

I’m curious how a circle/circular orbit would exhibit eccentricity and not be an ellipse.
Granted, I’m not a mathematician and, this is screenshot is from wikipedia, but it states that circles have 0 eccentricity and that any “circle” with eccentricity between 0-1 would be called an “ellipse.”

What I gather from the 1:7 ratio is simply that the orbit has a larger circumference.
Is eccentricity here meant the difference in orbital circumference?
If this is right, then wouldn’t the moon be considered as very low eccentricity?
Thanks, just want to understand this better!