This system is interesting, even more so when you understand a little astrology. One realizes that the current heliocentric system is adapted to a certain “symbolic convenience”.
1 Like
Hi Michael - and welcome to the forum.
I’m guessing that you are referring to the “monotheistic Sun worship”…
And indeed, why would it be so difficult to imagine Mars being a ‘2nd star’? After all, the vast majority of the stars in our skies are (old) red dwarfs - many of which are invisible to the naked eye as they do not shine with their own light (like our young Sun).
Now, Sirius B (the binary companion of Sirius A) is officially reckoned to be a white dwarf. Yet, in my book, I propose that Sirius B is the “twin” of Mars - so shouldn’t Sirius B logically also be a red dwarf? Well, that’s when you need to know that , the only difference between a white dwarf and a red dwarf is their age, red dwarfs being much older:
This would seem to suggest that our Solar System might be much older than the Sirius System. But back to the main issue: could Mars be a 2nd star (rather than a ‘planet’)? Of course it could: it is, after all, the only reddish / orange body in our Solar System and has all the looks of a red dwarf.
1 Like
[quote=“Simon, post:2, topic:163”]
After all, the vast majority of the stars in our skies are (old) red dwarfs - many of which are invisible to the naked eye as they do not shine with their own light (like our young Sun).
Hello and welcome Mchael85.
I am going to post this link to the work of Jeffery Wolynski here, I think it is referenced somewhere else in this forum, but his hypothesis is very interesting, and may be pertinent here.
2 Likes
I thought the binary stars actually orbit the center of mass between them, so not a star in the center.
Is this thought wrong?
No, I wouldn’t say that your thought is downright ‘wrong’, since this is what we’ve been told for centuries.The question is: can we be sure that this is actually the case? How hard would it be to imagine that no object has ever been observed (even with our top telescopes / spectrometers) to be located at the center of a binary system - due to it being swamped in the glare of the larger star of the binary pair?
Here’s an illustration I made for Chapter 6 of my book, showing how / why the elusive Sirius C would be invisible to us - much like the Earth would likely be invisible / undetectable for a hypothetical observer living on Sirius C:
If you think about it, haven’t we also been told for centuries that all the bodies of our Solar System revolve around another body (i.e. the Sun)? So - pray tell - what kind of logic would dictate that binary stars revolve around NOTHING AT ALL?
Simon, the work you’ve done to make this book is impressive! I have a question about what object planet Earth is classified as under the Tychos model. As I understand, a satellite cannot have a moon but Earth has one. Does this mean that we are a cold former star?
1 Like
Indeed, there is a school of thought that holds that all celestial bodies in the universe are nothing but stars at different stages of their evolution. Under this interesting theory, the Sun would be a relatively young star - whereas the Earth would be a much older star (which certainly appears to have fiery stuff still burning in its nucleus - which occasionally spurts out from our volcanoes!).
Moreover, as pointed out in the below-linked paper :
"Older stars are still mislabeled by mainstream as planets/exo-planets. They orbit the
> opposite direction their host star is rotating.The backwards orbits completely falsifies any
> notion of a coherent one direction disk forming Earth sized objects." https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Astrophysics/Download/4572
In the TYCHOS model, of course, the Earth indeed orbits in the opposite direction of its host star’s (the Sun) rotation!
1 Like
The table below includes retrograde data for the four outer planets and Mars, starting with the outermost of them all, Neptune. This data is taken from the JPL Horizons application managed by NASA. For each planet, the number of minutes of Right Ascension the planet travels during its retrograde motion is given. In addition, the number of days spent in retrograde motion and the mean distance of the planet from Earth are listed. For Mars, the closest approach is also listed and the reason for this will become clear shortly. As can clearly be seen the number of days a planet spends in retrograde motion decreases the closer it is to the sun. At the same time, the number of minutes of RA moved across the sky in retrograde motion increases. This rate of increase in the number of minutes spent in retrograde motion is about a factor of 1.6 between Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, and Jupiter. However, this pattern can no longer be observed when viewing the data for Mars. Although the number of minutes in retrograde motion increases for the period from 30/10/22 – 13/01/23 it decreases for the previous two periods even as Mars approached much closer to Earth in both cases. See the Closest Approach column. This is in direct contradiction of what we would expect if Mars was being overtaken on the inside by the Earth as commonly explained in standard textbooks. The pattern for the other planets is clear. There is an increase in the time spent in retrograde as the planet nears the Earth but a decrease in the time it spends in retrograde. What is self-evident is that Mars is not behaving like the other planets.
As per the Tychos, this clearly indicates Mars is not a ‘normal’ planet. In fact, the Tychos explains this data.
Of course I had to make an error. No one is perfect. I should have said…
“There is an increase in the extent of retrograde motion as the planet nears the Earth but a decrease in the time it spends in retrograde.” Apologies.
Not so, dear stateless:
As illustrated in Chapter 5 of my book, whenever Mars retrogrades as it transits closest to Earth (for instance in August 2003), BOTH the extent of the retrograde and the time spent ‘moving backwards’ are at their minimum values - whereas when Mars transits furthest from Earth they are at their maximal values:
Yet, if the Copernican theory for why planets periodically retrograde were true, the exact opposite would be expected.