Star parallax over the years: a real test implication

Dear everybody!
Have I understood it correctly that all measurements of star parallax is made within the span of maximum half a year? But if parallaxes are detectable within this timeframe then they definetively will be detectable during lets say five or ten years (assuming the tychos model is correct).
And here we have a real test implication for the tychos model. The tychos predicts a constant (“positive”) star parallax every year (and the star sky will change slightly over the years) and the Copernican models predicts zero star parallax if your measuring span is exactly one year.
It would be very easy for Nasa et al to chech this out, if they wanted to.

And furthermore, with oneyearplus measuring of star parallax it would be possible confirm the thychos model by seeing that star parallax is, specifically, zero" in front of us" and “behind us”, positive to the “left” and negative to the “right”.

And I also want to add that I find it very unlikely that Nasa, Esa and the other ones have not already made oneyearplus star parallax measurements. Of course they have but they couldnt make any sense of the reults so they just are quiet about them. Thats what I believe.
With kind regards, Gunnar


Hi Gunnar, welcome to the forum.

Indeed. The measured annual star parallaxes that directly disproves heliocentrism (the negative), is ignored or written off as measuring error or not being actual parallax but so called proper motion (the star is moving). And this despite the fact that almost as much negative parallax has been measured as the positive that is regarded as confirmation of heliocentrism.

Furthermore, the positive parallax isn’t actual confirmation of a motion of Earth around the Sun as explained in detail in the Tychos book, since it doesn’t have the characteristics required.

But since the reason for Bradley to do his observations in the 18th century was likely to find an experimental confirmation for heliocentrism, he came up with a theory that supposedly explained this problem. The so called abberation of light theory. Nevermind that another contemporary astronomer - Airy, disproved this theory.

In conclusion, the annual stellar parallax in fact disproves, and in no way confirms heliocentrism.

Hello Patrik and everybody else!
I admit that my text is a little confused, and that has to do with that i try to say (too) many things at the same time. So now i give it another try, more clearly this time i hope.

  1. The first thing i want to point out is that the heliocentric model gives a very strong test implication: From this model follows two things: Star parallax is caused by the earths orbit around the sun and is expected to be at its largest after exactly a half year and then it diminishes and goes back to zero after exactly one year. Therefore heliocentric astronomists measures the star parallax with a measuring span of exactly a half year. But they seem to stop there. But if you really want to confirm the heliocentric model via the study of star parallax, then you must check out the parallax after one year also, in order to be sure that the halfyear parallax youve measured really is caused by the earths orbiting around the sun. Because if you (that is the heliocentrists) dont find that the parallaxes is going back to zero after exactly one year, then this model is definitely faslified.(or at least, the star parallaxes we see cannot be caused by the earths orbit around the sun). When reading chapter 25 it seems that all measurements of star parallaxes has only been done with the timespan of a half year. So here i want to ask: Is it like that, that noone has ever tried to measure the star parallaxes with both the timespans of a half a year and one full year? Because that would be the most natural thing to do if you want to confirm the heliocentric model.

  2. Another test implication is about the tychos model. When i saw this picture (from chapter 25):

    then I got the idea that if you measured a star parallax with a timespan of, lets say, ten years (or make one measurement every year), then you would be able to see that (assuming that the tychos model is correct) the parallaxes grows with every year, and thus you will have strong argument for the tychos. And you will get rid of the two “errors” that i discuss beneath (Parallax due to the joe-jim-fact, error due to “the seasons” and error due to earths rotation)

  3. Another way of confirming the tychos model through multiyearly measuring star parallaxes is that then you can get away from the thing that causes the confusion regarding star parallax, namely the fact that earths diameter is quite near the distance that the earth makes in its pvp orbit in half year. Then you will be able to study the “real” parallax of the stars and not the parallax that is caused by “the seasons”, as depicted in the picture above from chapter 25. Then you can measure the star parallaxes in several directions and they will be less and less influenced by “errors” due this fact that i called “the earths diameter is similar to the distance of the pvp orbit in half a year” (Maybe we can call it the joe-jim fact? :slight_smile: ) Then the tychos model predicts that exactly all the star parallaxes that we measure “in front of” and “behind” the earth (with respect to the earths motion in the pvp orbit) will be zero or close to zero, and the parallax left of the earth will be positive, and the star parallax right of the earth will be negative. (

  4. There is another test implication that is just as interesting. (Parallax (“errors”) due to earths rotation) I didnt realize this when I first wrote this post, but there is another “source of error”, which you can see in the picture above and that is that it also matters what time of the day (read night) you “start” and “stop” parallax measurements. Which further means that it would be possible to measure a daily (nightly) star parallax, just because of the joe-jim fact.
    I mean, if it is possible to measure the displacement of, for example, the viewing point named in the picture as “D” by star parallax measurement, then a displacement of the viewing points caused by the earths daily rotation definitely is measurable. (Lets say you make the first measurement at 1900 o clock and the second at 0500 in the morning,(thats ten hours). then the displacement of the viewing point is almost as big as the earths diameter.
    Thus, if the tychos model is correct (and the picture above), then it should be possible to measure a daily star parallax. And then we will have a very strong argument for that the stars are so close as Simon and the tychos model suggests. And then its really godnight heliocentrism. So here comes another similar question: Has anyone , ever tried to measure star parallax with a (lets say) time span of ten hours?
    I hope this was a little clearer!

1 Like

Hi Gunnar,

Star parallax is a very interesting topic and not only do the existing records of them disprove heliocentrism and confirm the Tychos model. But I think it would be quite possible for a couple of amateur astronomers to not only verify this, but also confirm Simons claim that the stars are about 42000 times closer.

My reasoning is this - In the 17th century Cassini, quite accurately, measured the distance to Mars using parallax and the distance between two points on Earth.

Parallax Background.

I think similar measurements can be done today by photographing the fixed stars, preferably those with the highest known parallax, from two different locations on Earth at the same time and then triangulate using the distance between these locations.

The reason that the stars are assumed to be so distant, as explained in Simons book is that the triangulations are done assuming Earth is moving in a 300 million kilometer wide orbit around the Sun.

1 Like

Dear Gunnar,

What follows is my best answer to the above question of yours.

As I have described in Chapter 26 of my book (in the section titled “ESCLANGON’S DISSYMETRY OF SPACE” ), the eminent French astronomer Ernest Esclangon undertook in 1927 / 1928 a peculiar observational program aimed at measuring, at 12-hour intervals, the ‘absolute’ / relative positions of our surrounding stars.
It was a huge undertaking which involved more than 40000 stellar observations divided into two ‘time groups’:

Sightings made between 9am and 9pm / and sightings made between 3am and 3pm.

To make a long story short, Mr. Esclangon (who was famed for being an exceptionally skilled, rigorous and exacting observational astronomer) found what he called “an optical dissymetry of space” amounting to 0.07 arcseconds – but only for the star groups (in opposed sky quadrants) observed between 3am and 3pm.

As you may know, under the TYCHOS model’s calculations, the value for the annual precession of the stars is 51.136 arcseconds. It is of course beyond dispute that the stars appear to move ‘eastwards’ every year by approximately 50 arcseconds per year – but Copernican astronomers attribute this precession (the famous “Precession of the Equinoxes”) to a supposed “clockwise wobble” of the Earth’s polar axis - the existence of which has, however, been firmly disproven in later years. In the TYCHOS, of course, the annual stellar precession of 51.136" is very simply explained by the slow motion of the Earth around its PVP orbit.

Now, since the Earth (according to the TYCHOS model) moves annually ‘from east to west’ by 14036km, in 12 hours it will move by 19.2 km. Well, here’s what we can easily “observe” (mathematically) :

  • 19.2 km amounts to 0.1368% of 14036 km
  • 0.07” arcseconds amounts to 0.1368% of 51.136” arcseconds

Clearly then, what Esclangon observed was nothing but the east-west half-diurnal motion of the Earth!

As you suggest, we could of course try and patiently repeat such demanding observational efforts (such as Esclangon’s 40000 sightings) - but let it be remembered that Mr. Esclangon has already done it for us, as long ago as 1928! Of course, the poor man never managed to explain his own findings - nor to make any sense out of them - since he was a heliocentric convert…

In my next post, I will elaborate about the formidable difficulties faced by Copernican astronomers as they try to make any sense out of their stellar parallax observations / determinations.

The truth is so precious it must be surrounded by a body-guard of lies… just quoting someone famous here. Ah, the Precious Truth… such a privilege to know…!!!


To further elaborate Simon’s figures:

24hr x 365 days = 8760 hrs in a year

14036 km / 8760 hrs = 1.6022 km/hr x 12hrs = 19.22km

Simon’s graphic from CH 19 does a good job of illustrating your statement.

And you also write:

What would be even more illustrative and I would like Simon’s commentary on this as well, let’s pull out and take a look not at earth’s yearly seasonality but at earth’s Great Year seasonality. For wouldn’t it be the case that as the earth travels in it’s PVP orbit that precession will eventually reverse course?

Patrick wrote :

I think similar measurements can be done today by photographing the fixed stars, preferably those with the highest known parallax, from two different locations on Earth at the same time and then triangulate using the distance between these locations.


I think it will be the final acid test of the Tychos !

So, we just have to find 2 astronomers in 2 different points on Earth to make a measure of Sirius or Sagitarius at the same time.

I get a little telescope, but not enough to do it.

So, could we find 2 good astronomers with good telescopes to do it ?

A canadian or north american one and a sud american with a minimum of 7018 km between the 2 points ?

Idealy, we will have to find the same result as an official measure between the 6 months regular measures ?

Nota 1: I think that those measures had been done by mainstream telescopes, but they are hidding it !

It is so easy for them !

Nota 2 : with the Tychos model, all the orbits or journeys of vessels send toward planets are fake !

Could you elaborate on the 2nd note?

I will participate, I live in North America.

This Sextant is the best bang for the buck that I have been able to find. I do not have one and I do not know how to operate one, but I will get one and learn to do this.

Davis Sextant


Look at that :

Trajectories in the héliocentric model are all fake !

So, imagine “newtonian” trajectories in the Tychos > IMPOSSIBLE !

Even Hubble is a fake.

Its so famous pictures are coming from the Keck 1 & Keck 2 VLT in Hawaï.

Compare the dates of little Hubble with those of the monsters Kecks.

The miraculous spatial magic repairs of Hubble = upgrades of the monstrous Keck 1 then 2.

Thankyou for the reply, Too

I agree that the trajectories you speak of are suspect. Obviously the implications for The Tychos are ENORMOUS. Everyone I know just wants beer and skittles like Rip Van Winkle did, see where it got him.

Can you make your remark re the Keck Observatory a little clearer? And what ‘dates’ are you referring to?

First light of Hubble in 1990, but Houston, with a problem

First light of Keck 1 in 1990, but with only 36 segments.

Correction of Hubble in 1993

Keck 1 began first scientific observations in 1993

Keck 2 in service in 1996

Interferometry with the 2 KECK > upgrades of Hubble !

All servicings and upgrades dates of Hubble and the Kecks are the same !


Pictures of Hubble and Keck on the net are the same !

You could do the same thing with all the spatial telescopes vs first lights of all the VLT on earth !

Imagine a picture of our moon taken with a 10 meters mirror VLT !

I suspect they have a software able to mix all the datas in all the wavelenghts to generate the pictures of all the planets and moons of our solar system.

There is not even a proble travelling in the solar system > impossible, not enough fuel, impossible trajectories calculations.

Gravity assist is stupid !

So, if some pictures are real and taken in situ, they have to be from an exotic technology with exotic propulsion.

But, BALLOONS are doing the job too :

Its not an old technology !

1 Like

Correction : Proxima Centauri and not Sagitarius

Dear Simon, Thanks for your answer. This is getting a little advanced for me and im getting a little confused here. So im trying to be a good student and not being afraid of puting stupid questions.
As far as i can see, Your answer about Mr Esclangons “optical dissymetry of space” is concerning the changes in sky due to earths path along the pvp-orbit. And i have a little trouble to take in this “dreadfully complex affair”. But i will try. But for now i have one question: It seems that the obsevations have been made during both the day and night. So it is possible to look at the stars during the day? Another thing i find strange is this: How can it be possible to see changes (star parallaxes i guess) in the sky with a displacement as small as 19,2 km when it is generally said to be hard to measure any star parallax (with displacements up to the size of the earths diameter.) Does this mean that Mr Esclangon had some special equipment that noone else used/uses?
But my question was about parallax caused by the earths (diurnal) rotation. None of the answers in this thread have adressed this my question explicitly, so im starting to doubt my brain, but to me it really seems that an implication of the tychos model and your picture i added above, is that it should be possible to, repeatedly, measure a daily (nightly) star parallax. And then you just need one “camera” (i dont have any idea of how advanced equipment you need to do this) situated somewhere near the equator and take one picture at 19.00 and the other at 05.00.

Well, Top, you kicked a goal there! Yes, it all makes sense now. I long suspected the Hubble was a fake but had no idea the ‘Keck’ even existed.

When the Hubble was first launched we all thought we’d all see great images of the lunar surface, only to be told it was too close for the Hubble to focus on! This was the '90s after all and we had yet to undergo the ‘great awakening’ precipitated by the WTC false-flag.

But, Tof, develop these ideas a little further as it’s all tied in to this subject(the tychos).

…you will notice the auto-correct is giving hell with the spelling of Tof :grinning:


Dear all, I just realized that I’ve never shared with this forum’s readers the account of an experiment that Maxeem (a.k.a. “hoi polloi”) and I somewhat ‘wishfully’ submitted to the USNO in Flagstaff, Arizona, back in the summer of 2018. Here’s Wikipedia’s USNO page:

United States Naval Observatory Flagstaff Station (NOFS): United States Naval Observatory Flagstaff Station - Wikipedia

You may read all about our proposed experiment at Cluesforum which in fact contains all the early TYCHOS model discussions - prior to the creation of the TYCHOS forum in the summer of 2022 :

“Shack-Polloi Parallax Reversal Test” :

Unsurprisingly - and perhaps quite predictably - we never received any reply from the USNO, but I think this forum’s readers ought to know that we at least gave it a bold & honest try!

For those interested, here’s the actual PDF that we submitted to the USNO:

USNO experiment.pdf (52.4 KB)

To those who may wonder, Maxeem / hoi polloi is my former closest collaborator who took on the editing / proofreading / layout of the 1st Edition of the TYCHOS book (2018) and even arranged in mid-2018 a 'mini-tour" of Tychos presentations in various venues around the USA (Minnesota, California, Arizona). Maxeem also managed to get us a stand / showcase table at the big 3-day ALCON astronomy conference in Miinneapolis - certainly the highlight of our little ‘Tychos presentation tour’.

Dear Guruk-hai,

I’m glad that you keep submitting questions regarding Esclangon’s experiment and will happily further clarify what I hope all readers and forum members will eventually realize: namely, that Esclangon effectively (yet unwittingly) demonstrated - to a formidable degree of precision - the TYCHOS model’s explanation for the “precession of the equinoxes” (which the International Astronomical Union now calls “General Precession”). In fact, Esclangon’s extensive and meticulous 11-month-long experiment (which involved over 40000 sightings!) actually performed what we are all talking about here in this forum thread : namely, to try and quantify the Earth’s diurnal (or semi-diurnal) motion via stellar parallax measurements. The latter, however, require such outstanding levels of expertise / observational equipment / skills and sheer patience that are, in my honest opinion, just out of reach for any budding amateur astronomers on a grassroot budget.

To be sure, Ernest Esclangon was no amateur in his field…

He was the director of the Paris Observatory, the Strasbourg Observatory and of the International Time Bureau. Among his peers, his attention for detail and scrupulous enquiry became legendary. His 1928 paper titled “Sur l’existence d’une dissymétrie optique de l’espace” (which is the paper which concerns us here) bears testimony to his rigorous scientific approach aimed at attaining maximum observational precision (with the use of highly-advanced and sophisticated autocollimation techniques. I happen to be fluent in French (and, by now, fairly well-versed in matters of observational astronomy…) and I can tell you that Esclangon’s paper describes what must have been a most impressive example of conscientious and meticulous observational undertaking.

Before we get on, let me submit this slightly modified version of one of my favourite TYCHOS graphics:

As you can see, the TYCHOS model shows that there are TWO components responsible for what is now being referred to as the 'General Precession":

  • The TP component determines the vast majority of the annual precession (14036km per year)
  • The RP component determines only a minuscule amount of 'extra precession" (1.58km per year *)

[* 1.58km is 1 / 25344th of 40075km, i.e. the Earth’s circumference]

(Note for now that the RP component is only 0.011265% of the TP component. Note also that, without the PVP orbit, 99.988735% of the observed precession would be unaccounted for!)

The TYCHOS model stipulates that the annual precession amounts to 51.136" arcseconds.
This means that the diurnal (i.e. 24-hour) precession amounts to (51.136 / 365.2425) 0.14" arcseconds.

Now, Mr Esclangon’s extensive experiment found a semi-diurnal (i.e. 12-hour) “dissymetry” of 0.07"!

In other words, Esclangon’s massive observational enterprise exactly confirmed the expected 12-hour precession of Earth - as of the TYCHOS model. It really is as simple - and marvellous - as that! Yet, this 0.07" shift observed by Esclangon always remained an inexplicable mystery to him - and in the introductory section of his paper he voices his concern that his puzzling findings might undermine both Einstein’s relativity and the famous Michelson-Morley experiments! (Esclangon was, after all, a ‘mainstream heliocentrist’).

But wait, you may now ask - “WHY didn’t Esclangon ascribe (and thus justify) this 0.07” shift to the supposed “wobble” of the Earth’s axis (as proposed by the Copernican theory)"?

Well, here is why: IF the Earth’s polar axis were truly wobbling clockwise (as we have been told), in a 12-hour period it would only wobble by the ridiculously small / negligible amount of 0.00216km (or 2.16 meters)!

Let’s do the maths (within the TYCHOS model’s paradigm):

Esclangon’s “dissymetry” amounted to 0.07" - corresponding to 19.2km of TP precession.

On the other hand, the RP precession would only amount to (0.011265% of 19.2km) : 0.00216km

Of course, Esclangon was wholly unaware of the TP component of stellar precession - and was only ‘aware’ of its RP component, which is identical to the supposed yet provably non-existent clockwise wobble of the Earth’s polar axis. Therefore, Esclangon had no reason whatsoever to think / or conclude that his 0.07" dissymetry could be attributed / ascribed to the latter.

I will now sign off - but not without tipping my hat to the wonderful findings of Mr. Esclangon!

P.S. Yes, dear Guruk-hai, some stars can indeed be visible (with telescopes) in ‘daylight’ - or a few hours after sunrise or before sunset: How can I do astronomy during the day? | BBC Sky at Night Magazine
And why are you surprised that Mr. Esclangon was able to measure a 19.2-kilometer shift? After all, his “dissymetry” measurement of 0.07" arcseconds corresponds to 0.0000054% of 1 296 000" arcseconds (i.e. 360°) - and, lo and behold, 0.0000054% of 355 724 597km (the circumference of my proposed PVP orbit) amounts to 19.2 km ! So again, to answer this question of yours: “None of the answers in this thread have adressed this my question explicitly, so im starting to doubt my brain, but to me it really seems that an implication of the tychos model and your picture i added above, is that it should be possible to, repeatedly, measure a daily (nightly) star parallax.” Well, I can only hope that you will now fully appreciate and understand that Esclangon’s experiment did exactly that!

Thank you for the notification of the experience at USNO.

Local orbit of the sun around its barycenter, or the proof of the PVP orbit of earth ?