Question everything

I’ve asked some questions in the Tychosium thread, where they may or may not be in their right place there.

Reading the book brings lots of questions, on different topics, so I’ll just make some space for questions about the things I read in the book, whether crucial to the Tychos model or simply due to some passing remarks made.

Since quite some years now, I’ve been on a quest for the truth of things, and have come to the conclusion that I cannot discard anything off-hand as outlandish or ridiculous. I have my theory for WHY it is like this, but anybody who is interested in the truth can only come to the conclusion that our global western society seems based on lies, lies and more lies. About everything we think is not true, but a lie that serves some people financially and politically.

I’ve been pointed to the Tychos model exactly because of that search for the truth of everything, as I obviously had stumbled upon the Flat Earth Theory, and - having learned not to simply dismiss ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous it may sound - took the approach of: ok, give me your arguments, and I’ll see if they resonate with me, and answer some long-felt nagging discomforts about the topic.
Unfortunately (well, that depends on where you stand), FET did not answer many questions or solve nagging feelings, but on the contrary, raised a lot more questions to which no answers were available. The rational unravelling of the lie that covers the truth seems completely absent, and it felt more like a religion than anything else. Until I am confronted with hard indisputable facts, I’ll pass on joining.

However, there are SOME things that are mentioned in the whole FET debate that raise questions, and the idea that we were racing through space at break-neck speed is one of these things that when pointed out, go sit somewhere in your gut and feel uncomfortable: intuitively there seems something strange that we wouldn’t ever feel ANY sign of that insane speed we’re supposed to be travelling at.

One little point that I encountered and stayed with me was that the inner part of the Earth was never proven to be lava or fire or liquid. It’s simply an assumption, like almost all the things we believe, that is adopted as truth by MSM and pumped into us as children, but is not a FACT. Just like the Big Bang: it’s no more than someone’s idea, that many ran with.

So where does Simon stand on such things? Are there any assumptions that are mainstream that should not be questioned? And why so? What experience do we have that makes us trust anything that’s accepted as the Truth in our society, unless we are able to verify the data and draw our own conclusions?

1 Like

Dear Lieve,

I’m glad that you find the FET unsatisfactory and religion-like… Alas, it currently seems to be going ‘viral’ among a great many self-proclaimed ‘truthseekers’ - yet I’m hopeful that it will, sooner or later, fall flat on its face - along with NASA and their 64-year-old space travel fraud… If you’re interested in my take on the FET ‘phenomenon’, here’s a post I wrote back in 2015:

Rest assured that I’m all for questioning everything - and have done so for the last two decades of my life, but open-mindedness should not be so open as to allow our brains to fall out of our skulls. I truly hope we may leave our discussions here FET-free, so please let’s not start a discussion about it here at the TYCHOS forum. Thanks for your kind comprehension.

As for the lava occasionally spurting out of our volcanoes, I personally take it as a most compelling indication that the Earth is, in fact, an old (and cooled-down) star - just like possibly ALL the planets in our cosmos - as proposed by Jeff Wolynski’s interesting “Stellar metamorphosis” theory (look it up!). The Big Bang? Oh - let’s not even go there! :smiley:

1 Like

Hi Simon,
I think your version of the solar system is the most plausible…well done.
Any thoughts on hollow earth theory?

1 Like

Thanks mikey. In answer to your question; no. But I might have a few thoughts about some hollow brain theory which, however, is unrelated to cosmology - but rather to human stupidity. :slight_smile:

Please read this thread if you are to participate in our discussions - thanks: General rules for joining this forum


I could have written your post myself, Lieve!
Welcome to the forum!

Why is FET so stupid?

Samuel Rowbothams book Zetetic Astronomy from 1865 give us many examples of observations that seem incompatible with a globe model.

If the link below doesn’t function please go to and search rowbotham

I’d appreciate your comments after you have read his book or at least some of the examples of observations.


I truly hope we may leave our discussions here FET-free here at the TYCHOS forum. There are countless other places on the web for debating whether the Earth is pizza-shaped - just not the TYCHOS forum.

Thanks for your kind comprehension.

I felt invited by the topic Question Everything to question the shape of the earth but I now understand that it’s forbidden.

I do believe the observations in Rowbothams book are worth serious consideration and I’m disappointed in your ridiculing though I understand you have invested in your own theory.

I appreciate though that you didn’t just delete my comment but instead took your time to answer.

What is there to discuss on this forum?

Eventually: Argumenting that flat earthers are controlled opposition or just useful idiots is not convincing; one could as well argue that you are gatekeeping a flat earth.

Well, you may consider discussing my TYCHOS model, for instance. :wink:

After all, I’ve spent the last decade or so of my life on it. Are you going to give it a chance - or am I now supposed to engage in FE debates - thus providing yet another platform for the pizza-shaped Earth theory?

So, what is there to discuss on this forum? Well, you may start by addressing the 40 points listed in Chapter 31 of my upcoming new TYCHOS book (2nd Edition). I do believe they are worth serious consideration, since they provide plain, rational and logical answers to a wide spectrum of issues that have plagued our world’s most eminent observational astronomers and astrophysicists over the centuries.

Chapter 31: List of puzzles solved by the TYCHOS

If this isn’t ‘your cup of tea’, I can only wonder why you have even bothered registering at this forum.

1 Like

At the end of chapter 31 you invite to try and disprove your model.

Is your invitation directed only to the congregation?

Have you read Rowbothams book?

I’m willing to be convinced that your theory is more accurate than the mainstream one, but first I have to be convinced of the football theory.

No, my invitation is to every living soul on this planet - including dogs and cats.

And yes, before embarking decisively into my TYCHOS research, I did spend some serious time probing / testing out various alternative models, including flat / concave Earth theories. As none of them yielded any sort of sensible explanations for the observations gathered throughout the centuries by our world’s most patient, rigorous and exacting astronomers, I naturally chose to focus on the TYCHOS hypothesis. Since it has now consistently provided - time and again, and to a remarkable degree of precision - solid, demonstrable and verifiable resolutions to a vast number of widely-acknowledged ‘riddles’ of astronomy, the TYCHOS has proven to my satisfaction to be the most plausible configuration of our Solar System in existence today.

Over the years, I have also submitted a number of challenges to Flat Earth proponents, such as the one linked below - yet no one has ever bothered responding to them. Would you like to be the first one, PatrikS? Be my guest! :slight_smile:

I hereby invite you to try and explain & illustrate - under the Flat Earth paradigm - why our Moon is observed just the way it is observed around the world. Good luck!

From where on earth are these photos taken and when?

Can you, on your side, explain the observations in Rowbothams book that obviously are not compatible with a globe earth?

I’m still on the fence and thus not ridiculing the globe model.

The locations and timings for these photos are duly described in my post - did you even bother to read it? Obviously not, so I can only conclude that you are here to waste everyone’s time. Goodbye now.


Wow! You even have the exact coordinates listed! :rofl:

Sorry mate. I shall take my time to read an try to understand.

Hello again Simon,

I have made an attempt to understand your post and your argument seems good.

Does this explanation by Eric Dubay make sense to you? I suppose you are not impressed by him but I’m really here with a sincere purpose to learn.

Well, I’m actually quite impressed by Eric Dubay’s ability to keep a straight face as he delivers his ‘critical thoughts’ - while often (mis)using the word “ridiculous” when attempting to ridicule empirically-verifiable observational facts … :wink:

In the video you linked to he shows two guys (in Sweden and in Australia) looking at the Moon - which he claims is not spherical but ‘disk-shaped’. Now, I won’t go into the numerous reasons why this is a ludicrous idea (I have better things to do with my time!), but here’s what you could do:

Call Eric Dubay one night from Sweden as you are looking at the Moon. Ask him which stars he can observe just above and below the Moon. I predict that he will see the same stars as yourself - only ‘inverted’. Next, ask Eric to explain to you how this could even be possible. I’ll be eagerly waiting for Eric’s answer to your question! :slight_smile:

Thanks for your answer!

I agree he uses the word ridiculous too often and when it comes to the shape of the moon it definitely looks spherical through my telescope: thus the center of the moon becomes more focused than the periphery as you suppose it would if you’re watching a globe.

Well, perhaps I will challenge him in the way you suggest.

Though I believe he is intellectually honest, which means he do believe in his teaching; but one never knows.

As I have just come across this thread now, I thought I would weigh in with my two cents worth.
In an ideal world all men would have a grip on the basic dilemmas of the night sky. I can think of four: Retrograde Motion, the Analemma, the Heliacal Rising of Sirius and Precession. All of these can be observed by any of us during the course of our lifetimes, I mean that they are accessible without instruments and so are part of the ‘commons’.
If I’ve missed something, let me know.
These four things have been part of mankinds discussions for thousands of years and so we should start with these when looking for explanations of our Cosmos. The Tychos is astonishing in that it quickly wraps up these past ‘mysteries’ and goes on to iron out the even more sophisticated ones that need instruments to understand.
There are very, very few serious men out there. Nearly all have a barrow to push. This has become so obvious since the Great Plandemic of 2020 and with the breaking out of World War Woke.
I am grateful for small mercies and Simon’s first edition is that gift(a second edition would be an even better gift) and, really, who would not like to be the man who broke the code, so to speak, on our own Solar System?


While reviewing the very items you mention it occurred to me that there might be an addition to certain themes in the book called “Try This At Home”. And as you rightly point out these things can be personally observed. Once you begin to observe with regularity certain mainstream concepts just begin to seem completely ridiculous.

1 Like