Initial thoughts


For the past five years I’ve become acquainted with many of the recent innovations in empirical science. In particular, the Structured Atom Model (SAM) model, the Electric Universe (EU) model, the Electric Sun model, the SAFIRE project and now the TYCHOS model. This sure is an exciting time!

I’ve read the 2nd edition of The TYCHOS book and what initially comes to mind is what, besides the Tychosium, can be done in order to prove the model? For the moment, I’m pondering on the stars’ relation to the planets in the night sky and if it would be possible to map them using images from e.g Juno, or any other satellite that is not in close proximity to Earth and if this could yield anything useful in terms of proof to the model.

Finally, regarding the printing of the 2nd ed. book, as discussed in the Magnetic Reversal New podcast. Maybe Curtis press can be of help?
”…publishes and globally distributes thought-provoking texts.”

Thank you for bringing the matter to the public.
Per B.

1 Like

Hello Puginesque and welcome to the forum.

Yes, we do indeed live in exciting times - as ever more inquisitive minds finally start considering that several mainstays of current scientific knowledge may need to be revised - or outright abandoned. To be sure, some basic pillars of modern astronomical knowledge (e.g. the supposed heliocentric configuration of our own Solar System) still rely upon ideas and ‘axioms’ conceived almost 500 years ago - as if nothing new has been discovered since then! Of course, this isn’t the case - for a vast number of new findings have been made thanks to increasingly advanced observational instruments.

For instance, we now know that ALL of our closest stars (within telescopic or spectroscopic range) are binary; that is, they all revolve in intersecting orbits around a smaller companion (or more) in relatively short periods ranging from a few hours to a few dozen years. Yet, to this day, it has never occurred to anyone that our Sun should therefore - in all logic and from a purely probabilistic perspective - have a companion too. This is, of course, precisely what the TYCHOS model proposes - and one can only wonder why this most sensible notion has never been hypothesized (nor much less put to the test) by our world’s scientific community.

As expounded in Chapter 6 of my book, the very brightest star system in our skies (the SiriusA-SiriusB binary pair) exhibits a long series of remarkable similarities with the Sun-Mars binary pair. For instance, not only are the diameters of the two pairs proportionally identical (at a 205:1 ratio) - but the intersecting orbits of Sirius A&B (as observed from Earth-based telescopes) also appear to be proportionally identical (at a 1:7 ratio) to those of Sun and Mars as posited by the TYCHOS model - and as traced in the Tychosium simulator

You then raise a very good question which, if you don’t mind, I would ideally reformulate as follows:

“If earth-based telescopes have been able to determine the orbital configurations of Sirius A & B (which are reputedly some 8.7 LIGHT YEARS away), why then do we not have any satellites (such as the “Juno satellite” or the “James Webb Telescope”) showing just how the orbits of our OWN Solar System are configurated?”

Well, all I can suggest is that you submit this fair question to NASA - or to any other space agency. They should probably know. :slight_smile:



Hi Simon,

Thanks for the forum. I’ll take this opportunity to ask you some questions about the Sun-Mars binary hypothesis.

If the orbit of Mars ‘intersects’ with the orbit of the Sun, in what way is that unique? Don’t the orbits of Mercury and Venus also technically intersect, in the online simulator, with the Sun’s orbit?

Moreover, I cannot get my head around this supposed binary system, as it does not appear to behave in what we would conceive as the orbits of two mutually orbiting spheres, as can be observed in the different binary star system animations from the Wiki page on binary stars:


Mars appears to orbit around the Sun, and not in some type of double orbit around a barycentre.

In the tychosium simulator, the orbit of Mars is displaced outside of the supposed barycentre of the two orbiting spheres; how is this possible?

Thanks for your answer.

As someone who’s learned astrology and how to read natal charts lately, I can’t explain how satisfying The Tychos is! I too, have “found” all the recent innovations you listed, but The Tychos is like the cherry on top or the icing on the cake or maybe more like the mortar between the bricks. It’s that important and feels that correct.
Dr. Velikovsky would be extremely intrigued!
I sure hope smarter minds than mine find a way to measure and “prove” Tycho Brahe was right…or wrong! I’d be quite pleased with some truth after all this time!
Very exciting indeed.

1 Like

Hi Greg - and welcome to the forum.

To address your first question (a FAQ, in fact!) I have made the below graphic. As you can see, the main reason why Mars is unique (and cannot be considered as a “3d moon of the Sun”) is because Mars - and Mars only - will transit at the opposed side of the Earth (vis-à-vis the Sun). Now, since it does so only every OTHER year or so (instead of every SINGLE year), many people will - understandably - initially find it difficult to “see” the binary nature of the Sun-Mars pair. Once you realize this, however, it should become obvious that they make up a binary system - its peculiar 2:1 “ratio” notwithstanding:

As it is, I would argue that the current / official definition of a ‘binary system’ (as illustrated, for instance, in that Wiki page you linked to) is rather ambiguous & questionable - and needs to be revised. Of course, there are many different types of binary systems in our universe - but only the example “e” (in that Wiki page) resembles the sort of orbital configuration described in most of the more ‘serious’ astronomy literature that I have come by over the years. As for the question of such two binary bodies (revolving around each other in intersecting orbits) needing to be of “similar mass”, I also address this in my book: how exactly do we know the “masses” of the Sun and Mars? Isn’t the sun made up of 98% helium & hydrogen - i.e. the lightest gases we know of? And isn’t Mars made up of mostly rock and iron? With this in mind, I don’t find it unreasonable to imagine that - in spite of their very different sizes / diameters - the two might have similar “masses / weights”.

As for your barycentre question, please know that the grey dot in your above screenshot (from the Tychosium simulator) represents the centre of the Earth’s 25344-year PVP orbit - and not the actual “centre of mass” of our Solar System which, in the TYCHOS model, would most likely be the Earth itself (under the Newtonian principles). At the end of the day - and regardless if Newton had it right or not - the TYCHOS model is in excellent geometric accordance with all the empiric / observational data gathered by astronomers throughout the centuries - something that cannot be said about the Copernican / heliocentric model (as thoroughly expounded in my book). This fact alone should disqualify the latter as a credible configuration of our Solar System.


1 Like

Hello Janice - and welcome to the forum!

I’m glad that you find the TYCHOS satisfying - I certainly share that feeling with you ! :slight_smile:

And yes, Tycho Brahe was indeed (almost) right - and I’ve spent this last decade proving it. I’m confident that truth and reason will ultimately prevail and, to me, the “icing on the cake” will be if - by some sort of miraculous ‘collective awakening’ - this will happen within my short, allotted lifetime on this planet. I’m not holding my breath though! :smiley:

1 Like

Thank you for the welcome, Simon!
I’m glad you’re not turning blue. HA! :grin:
You may find this funny, but I named my newest kitten Tycho. Of course, despite our Okie accent, we pronounce it properly here; Tea-ko.
And I too, hope reason and truth will bubble up to the surface and become an unstoppable flood in the collective conscious. Once it does, the implications are beyond profound…and it’s just that reason it’s kept hidden from us all.

1 Like

Hello everyone and thank you Simon for the in-depth reply.

In an attempt to find images of stars, seen from other perspectives than from Earth’s, I found one from Voyager 1 called Solar System Portrait, which is claimed to be ”the first ever portrait of our solar system as seen from the outside”, yet it seems to be the only one. There are also a few images of the Martian night sky from Curiosity, although it is said that there’s usually too much dust in the Martian atmosphere to view the stars.

Regarding the weight of the Sun, I came to think about the slingshot manoeuvre, for accelerating spacecraft, and if the Sun had ever been used for this purpose. It seems not and this, according to the current understanding, is due to the strong magnetic fields and lack of angular momentum (the Sun being stationary in the center of our solar system). I must admit I do not fully understand the mechanics of this, so I cannot argue against it. Maybe someone could elaborate more on this? Regardless, we are left with no confirmed value of the weight of the Sun.

Per B.

1 Like

Isn’t this a bit odd? According to NASA, ESA and several other space agencies we’ve explored a great deal of space and even sent humans to the Moon. We can look at a live feed from ISS filming the Earth. But despite all this, no time lapse of the heliocentric system taken by a probe/satellite exists?

Compare it with someone buying a drone. The first thing they do is to fly over their home and take pictures of their house and garden.


Indeed, and, according to your analogy, perhaps that Voyager image is merely the product of the very first flight, i.e. to the outskirts of the solar system, and not of its scientific value? BTW, here’s link to the image: Solar System Portrait

On the mass/weight of the sun again; it seems to exist two methods to retrieve it. One is through Newtonian mathematics involving the centripetal force of the Earth, the other is the best-fit formula, based on density, which boils down to a complex formula and a series of constants derived from “astronomical observations and our knowledge of the physics of stars”. Both methods yield approximately the same result. Hence, without a proper account for the origin of those constants, one could argue that these, as well as the formula, are simply derived from the first method.


1 Like

Hello from Montana USA
Thanks for putting this forum online. Very cool. I am excited to discuss the tychos, and because I am not an astrophysicist I will probably just watching and learning as much as possible. I hold a masters degree in Art so i am highly qualified to comment on anything and everything. The Tychos model has been providing a great way for me to challenge the way people think about everything. I have had some great conversations with friends and strangers about it. my actual name is Mike and I have a dog named Frankie.


Hi Simon,

Thanks for your reply. Do you have any link to an explanation or an experimental demonstration of such a non-equal binary orbital system (with a 2 to 1 or more ratio) that could help understand how it works?

Dear Greg,

In actuality, the Sun-Mars long-term ‘orbital ratio’ is precisely 2:1. The only reason why it seems to be slightly unequal (over shorter periods of time) is because of the eccentricity of Mars’s orbit. However, in 25344 years (i.e. one “Tychos Great Year”), the Sun will return to the same place in our skies - and in 50688 years (i.e. two “Tychos Great Years”), Mars will return to the same place in our skies.

I invite you to peruse the Tychosium simulator so as to verify this for yourself:

As you open the Tychosium, the default date is 2000-06-21. Open the “positions” menu and you’ll see that the Sun is at about 6h02m of RA. Now, go to the date 27344-06-21 (i.e. 25344 years later) and you’ll see that the Sun is back at about 6h02m of RA.

Next, return to the default date (2000-06-21) and you’ll see that Mars is at about 6h14m of RA. Now, go to the date 52688-06-21 (i.e. 50688 years later) and you’ll see that Mars is back at about 6h16m of RA.

The Sun and Mars are thus ‘locked’ at a perfect 2:1 ratio. Now, WHY is this so? Well, that’s a separate question which needs further study - and one that I do not pretend to have an answer for.

Hello Greg,

You might look into the works of Michael Zingale. Check out these animations (scroll down to Binary Star Orbits) or his YT channel.


Dear Puginesque,
As I have illustrated / demonstrated at the end of Chapter 5 of my book, the Copernican / heliocentric “explanations” for the retrograde motions of Mars violate the most basic laws of perspective: if they were true, Mars would have to retrograde LESS as it transits furthest from Earth - and MORE as it transits closest to Earth. Instead, the exact opposite is empirically observed !

Basic Law of Perspective

I have submitted this via e-mail to Michael Zingale - and hope to hear from him soon. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Ok, my bad. Thanks for the clarification! I guess I’ll have too read it once more to allow for the details to sink in properly.

1 Like

What I’ve found utterly disturbing when I started looking into this a few years ago, is that Keplarian/Newtonian celestial mechanics and mass calculations are nothing more than assumptions that never have been properly scientifically confirmed. No controlled experiment has ever been carried out that confirms that objects affected by a constant gravitational or electromagnetic force, can move in elliptical orbits at varying speeds. It’s perfectly doable on the other hand to make objects orbit in circular orbits at constant speeds, which is also the axiom used in the Tychos model and Tychosium.

And I also find the Newtonian assumption that the Sun has about 99.9% of the mass of the entire Solar system rather questionable. Yes the Sun is large but it’s also according to spectography made up of helium and hydrogen which are very light substances.

Demonstration of circular constant speed orbits with magnets at 4 min 20 sek


Welcome! My father’s name and my youngest sister as well, are named Frankie. My two dogs are Bubba Dog and Peter J. Howandog. :wink:

1 Like

Haha yes, as only a BFA holder I am merely moderately qualified.

1 Like

This whole thing is returning me to a luminiferous aether concept, and making me suspect that Newtonian gravity may not exist. Instead it might be something more along the lines of Wal Thornhill’s electric gravity concept. Gravitational theory has failed on too many counts to be credible. In addition, given that the true motion of the planets has failed to be leaked by whistleblowers, it would appear that all space operations outside the moon’s orbit are big lies. It’s all done with simulations and computer art.