First thanks for the amazing work you and others have done on the model and website, I have pondered many years in readings of Tychos and Riccoli and it is amazing that this community exists to bring to light the truth we uncover.
One of the questions I think a lot about is whether the Earth rotates and I see this community has decided there is more weight supporting a rotation than of a rotation of the celeestial sphere, a deviantion from Brahe’s view but in line with many other adopters of Brahe who came later.
The strongest argument I have found for this is the null results of repeated Michelson Morley experiment designed to test aether in orbital rotation about the sun, but the positive results in the later Michelson Pearson in a diarnul earth rotation.
Beyond that I guess the second argument is just one of the idea of the entire universe rotation in 24hr at scale and distances at assumed masses and speeds of todays celestial would be considered impossible. However my understanding in Tychos model is all celestial objects are much smaller than claimed in modern astronomy, which makes me wonder if it is still possibility.
Is the door still open on the possibility of a rotating universe rather than earth, or is there such solid evidence that Tychos community is firm in this discrepancy from Brahe?
Well, Hypercube, after a quick reading of your question, I would like to add something here.
I would say this, look at the big picture or the overall model that Simon presents. It’s a model and as such it has to integrate with all the other parts. ALL the other parts.
Does this help?
Hello Hypercube - and welcome to the forum.
There are multiple reasons that concur to demonstrate - beyond reasonable doubt - that the Earth rotates around its axis once a day. You may read here about how it has been experimentally verified, but there are also some basic (non-experimental) reasons founded on plain logic and common sense which support Earth’s daily rotation. For instance:
ALL the visible bodies in our universe without exception are observed to rotate around their axes (at widely different rates of speed). Would the Earth be the sole exception to this rule? Why?
ALL star systems are observed to have so-called ‘proper motions’ of their own, moving ever-so-slightly (on average ~0.1 arcsec/year) in every conceivable direction in Euclidian space. Everything suggests that they all move independently of each other - and nothing suggests that they all revolve in unison around the Earth every day, as if ‘attached on one giant, rotating dome’.
Each year however, a much larger west-to-east ‘slip’ (about 50.3 arcsec/year) of our entire star firmament is observed. This is commonly known as the “precession of the equinoxes”, a motion attributed by heliocentrists to a supposed wobble of the Earth’s axis (which has, however, recently been proven not to exist!). In the TYCHOS, of course, the “precession of the equinoxes” (or ‘general precession’) is simply caused by - and the direct consequence of - the Earth’s 1-mph-progression around its PVP orbit.
To any attentive readers of the TYCHOS book it should become self-evident that a non-rotating Earth makes no rational sense - and would lack any explanation for the observed, looping motions of the stars. As a matter of fact, the TYCHOS provides the only rational / geometric explanation as to why all stars are empirically observed to trace annual trochoidal loops - as illustrated in this short animation posted at ESA’s official website:
For a full explanation as to why the stars are observed to move in such a curious manner, please do consult Chapter 21 of the TYCHOS book. In short, as Earth revolves around its axis while slowly moving forward along its orbit, an earthly observer (monitoring the motions of a given star over a full year) will be carried around a trochoidal path. Unaware of his own looping frame of reference, the earthly observer will wrongly conclude that the star itself is proceeding around a looping / trochoidal path.
Needless to say, if the Earth were not rotating around its axis, none of this would make any sense - and we’d be left with no plausible explanation as to why the stars appear to move as they do. The bottom line being: neither heliocentrists nor geocentrists can offer such an explanation - only the TYCHOS model can.