The first TYCHOS "de-boonking" video has arrived

This video was recommended to me on youtube:

The thumbnail looks exactly like what you’d see from the TYCHOS simulator, and the wishy-washy explanation comes off as a preemptive sandbagging of heliocentrism against TYCHOS, even though TYCHOS is not mentioned by name. So maybe its better to call it a “pre-boonking” video.

The main talking point is: “technically the earth can be the center, but thats just a shift of the coordinate system”.

cheers to Simon & Patrick, they’re now on defense.

Dear Chocopeluche,

Thanks for the heads up regarding that video by the popular “Science Asylum” Youtube channel.

At one point of the video though, the host - “Nick Lucid” - shows his ignorance regarding the retrograde motions of Mars. He says: “At VERY REGULAR INTERVALS, Mars backtracks a little before continuing on its way”.

Well, Mars certainly does not backtrack / retrograde at “REGULAR INTERVALS”. Instead, what is observed in reality is that Mars retrogrades at quite IRREGULAR intervals - and by variable (angular) amounts. In fact, Mars is observed to retrograde (against the background stars) much more whenever it transits FARTHEST from Earth - and much less whenever it transits CLOSEST to Earth. As it is, this observable and undeniable fact may well be the simplest way of disproving the entire Copernican / Keplerian heliocentric theory! :slight_smile:

You see, in the heliocentric theory, the explanation for the fact that our planets are observed to periodically reverse direction (i.e. ‘to retrograde’) goes like this: “as the Earth overtakes a planet (e.g. Mars), it will appear to move backwards due to an illlusion of perspective”. Well, I myself used to accept that explanation - until I realized what follows (please click twice on my below graphic to enlarge it at full screen):

The heliocentric theory - I’m sorry to say - is dead. The very fact that Mars is empirically observed to retrograde (as illustrated above) completely invalidates its ‘explanation’ for the observed retrograde motions of our planets. The TYCHOS model, on the other hand, is fully consistent with the observed motions of Mars - as shown and traced in the Tychosium 3D simulator.

Needless to say, I will be eagerly awaiting for any direct debunking attempts of the TYCHOS model. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

I would like to comment here on Retrograde Motion(RM) as it was the ‘gateway’ to my understanding of The Tychos. It is as if we need a ‘pamphlet’ considering all aspects of RM, which, once digested gives a new outlook on our Solar System.
I, too, accepted the perspective explanation of RM for over 30yrs and was positively shocked when I learnt it couldn’t possibly be the case! But what is for certain is that one has to ruminate over RM for years to get a real grip on all its aspects(maybe this is true only for my limited IQ), it has to be modelled in the mind of man as we don’t have a ‘henge’ or doorway in physical reality thru which to view it as the ancients did in their neolithic landscape. They were able to map in real time against real world objects(the henges) the glorious Fibonacci movements of the planets in RM. This would apply to the Analemma as well.
That Mars is actually swooping in at some hypersonic speed and, without braking, carving out a huge loop in the night sky should send chills down any real astronomers spine… alas, there few real astronomers left!

2 Likes

Interesting video, especially how it leaves out Tycho Brahe. It does matter if we put the Sun or Earth at the center since as explained above a heliocentric model is geometrically impossible.

2 Likes

Needless to say, I will be eagerly awaiting for any direct debunking attempts of the TYCHOS model.

Assuming the establishment is invested in defending dogma over seeking truth, they won’t debunk TYCHOS head-on, it risks making more people aware of the theory. Rather I see them employing rhetoric to make it seem “ugly” & “complicated”, and ‘false equivalence’ as they tried with the “its a matter of perspective”. Then ‘plea’s to authority’ to keep rationally-minded viewers from feeling cognitive dissonance.

thank you for this diagram, it makes it easier to visualize. Nice for sharing too.

2 Likes

That video didn’t debonk squat. And it certainly did not prove the current scientism trying to explain our universe.
For one, the guy says the idea of geocentrism didn’t occur until Ptolemy. Bullshit. Ancient cultures had that belief long before. Especially the Chinese Taoists.

2 Likes

This is quite amusing. As someone who got a BSc in Physics with Astrophysics decades back, I can see the usual gaslighting here What he doesn’t mention is that the heliocentric model was largely inspired by the translation of the Hermetic texts in the 15th Century from Greek into Latin. Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, Newton, and all the other magicians were deep into this stuff. I would argue they had a significant influence on the founding of the Royal Society, which remains a cult organization. After all, Copernicus cites Hermes Trismegistus in ‘De Revolutionibus’ and Newton translated ‘The Emerald Tablet’.
Whenever you see the quote in ‘De Revolutionibus’ they never give the full quote.
“In The Center Of All Rests The Sun. For Who Would Place This Lamp Of A Very Beautiful Temple In Another Or Better Place Than Where It Can Illuminate Everything At The Same Time? As A Matter Of Fact, Not Unhappily Do Some Call It The Lantern; Others, The Mind, And Still Others, The Pilot Of The World. Trismegistus Calls It A “visible God”; Sophocles’ Electra, “that Which Gazes Upon All Things.” And So The Sun, As If Resting On A Kingly Throne, Governs The Family Of Stars Which Wheel Around.”
In other words, they rarely give you the reference to Hermes Trismegistus.
“For the sun is situated in the center of the cosmos, wearing it like a crown” - Hermes Trismegistus, Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius.
It’s all voodoo science. Copernicus has done the exact opposite of Simon here. He created a model that was inspired by religious belief and assumed it was true and then started to make the observations expecting them to fit the model. Only of course we know they don’t.
Great work, Mr. Shack.

4 Likes

Hello stateless - and welcome to the forum.

Thanks for your kind words and for an interesting post - please fell free to share more of your knowledge with us. For instance - and since you got a BSc in Physics with Astrophysics decades ago - I’d be curious to hear if you recall any admiited / unresolved problems within Astrophysics that your professors might have mentioned and discussed at the time. As I understand it, the major riddle haunting modern astrophysicists has to do with the observed velocities of the various bodies orbiting in distant galaxies - which are (apparently) so formidably fast as to be in stark conflict with Newtonian theory. As you may know, the TYCHOS stipulates that our surrounding stars and galaxies are about 42633 times closer than currently believed - so this might readily go to explain why such humongous velocities are being observed (i.e. wrongly estimated / inflated).

Hi Simon,
My current understanding is that they have ‘invented’ dark energy and dark matter to account for the lack of matter which if it did exist would explain why the stars they observe rotating in far-off galaxies are not flung away from the galaxy as predicted by Newton’s inverse square law. I think you are correct here in your assumption. Of course, if they are much closer then the matter required decreases, presumably inversely proportional to the distance. This is another reason your model makes so much more sense. You don’t have to invent something you cannot see!
Personally, I am convinced you are correct. First off G in Newton’s equation has been shown to not be constant, just like C in Einstein’s BS equations. I don’t know if you are aware of Rupert Sheldrake’s magnificent TED talk he gave a few years ago that got pulled? Well worth a watch.

I haven’t seen this. I am about to watch it. It’s some guy talking to Sheldrake about his banned TED talk.

Anyone I love the model. I told my brother about the site and he said it’s the most fascinating thing he has read in a long time. I have to agree with him.

2 Likes

Thanks for bringing up Rupert Sheldrake, certainly a most interesting ‘alternative thinker’.

At one point in the second video you posted above, they discuss the growing ‘disunity’ in various branches of knowledge & science (maths / biology / cosmology, astronomy, etc.) and how this fact is - at various degrees - mostlly ignored by academia (i.e. the “established” scientific circles) which keep upholding a dogmatic stance in the face of new discoveries.

At 1.16:40 of that video, Rupert Sheldrake says : “Within cosmology it is quite interesting because the mainstream of cosmology and astronomy seems to have got stuck in theoretical physics - string theory seems stuck - they seem stuck with untestable hypotheses like the multiverse, dark matter and dark energy and 95% of reality unknown to us - they’re stuck…”

Needless to say, I fully ‘resonate’ with Rupert Sheldrake’s above statements . :slight_smile:

1 Like

Absolutely. It’s all magic maths and has nothing to do with reality. The whole shebang. It’s amazing how people get caught up in it all. Mind you, I was for a while. That’s how the magic works. You NEVER learn about the history of physics or cosmology in a standard physics degree.
By the way, it was your chapter on Halley’s Comet that really intrigued me, so I looked more into the 1759 sighting.
As you mention in Germany, a wealthy potato farmer and amateur astronomer named Georg Palitzsch was credited to have first observed the return of the famous comet, on December 25, 1758. Then
18th January 1759 - Gottfried Heinsius (Gottfried Heinsius - Wikipedia) reads about the sighting in his local paper the Dresdner Anzeiger.
21st January 1759 - Charles Messier sights the comet for the first time. Commanded by Delisle not to make any official statement about the sighting, the discovery of the comet remains a secret.
24th January 1759 - Heinsius publishes his report of the sighting and claims it is Halley’s comet (no mention of this in the English version of Wikipedia note). He is so confident in himself that he includes a table (ephemeris) giving the coordinates of the comet indicating how he believes it will move in the sky over the next three months. This is acknowledged by Messier much later on but he makes no mention of Heinsius being the person who compiled the report and included the ephemeris. Neither does Messier mention the fact that the author of the report claimed it was Halley’s comet he had discovered. This is extremely odd. Messier would probably have known Heinsius personally. They had both worked for the same man, Joseph-Nicolas Delisle.
Article published by Gottfried Heinsius claiming discovery of Halley’s comet - published 24th January 1759
'Anzeige, daß der im Jahre 1682. erschienene und von Halley nach der Newtonianischen Theorie auf gegenwärtige Zeit Vorherverkündigte Comet wirklich sichtbar sey; und was derselbe in der Folge der Zeit für Erscheinungen haben werde' - Details | MDZ
Messier acknowledges many years later the publication of Heinsius’s pamphlet of the 24th January 1759 but does not mention Heinsius was the author nor the claim it was Halley’s comet
Messier's "Notes on My Comets"
I translated the first part of Heinsius’s text (It uses the old German alphabet of course, so it’s a bit painful) published on 24th January 1759.
“The comet which astronomers have hitherto so eagerly awaited, that which was visible in 1682, and which, according to Hally’s Newtonian theory, was the first of all comets to be predicted with reliability to the present time, has actually appeared; although it cannot be seen otherwise than through binoculars. However, as time goes by, it will become even more impressive, and it will rightly be counted among the so-called great comets”
Since Heinsius published his report only three days after Messier first discovered the comet, it is almost certain that Heinsius was also the first professional astronomer to see the comet and identify it as Halley’s Comet. This fact is hard to ignore when retelling the story of the comet’s discovery during this period. You can scour the Internet and you will find no reference to Heinsius linking him to this momentous event, except perhaps a passing reference that he may have seen the comet sometime in 1759.
I found out about Heinsius sighting the comet in January 1759 by going to the German Wikipedia entry of Georg Palitzsch. Johann Georg Palitzsch – Wikipedia
None of this is mentioned in the English version. What a surprise. So why is Heinsius not credited with being the first professional astronomer (not Messier) to spot the comet and publish about it?

2 Likes

Good Heavens - what a great find, dear Stateless ! I had never heard of Gottfried Heinsius !

Firstly, let me just tell you how glad I am that you’ve taken interest in my Chapter 30 - about Halley’s comet. In fact, I believe that Ch.30 provides the proverbial ‘clincher’ for the TYCHOS model. And since this forum thread is about “debunking the TYCHOS” - I encourage any aspiring debunker to try and dismiss or disprove each and every single argument presented in that final (and most extensive) section of my book. Good luck!

As for why Gottfried Heinsius’ appears to have been widely ‘scrubbed’ from the history books, I have my own well-founded suspicions as to why this is the case:

Hensius was clearly a much more ‘eminent’ figure than the potato farmer Georg Palitzsch - since he even taught mathematics with Leonard Euler (considered as one of the greatest mathematicians of all times). So to have him confirm Palitzsch’s sighting of Halley’s comet was NOT a desirable thing… Why so - you may ask? Well, because in December 1758 Halley’s comet was transiting in a part of the sky where it was NOT supposed to be (according to Isaac Newton / Edmond Halley and all)!


Now, dear stateless, you wrote:
“He (Heinsius) is so confident in himself that he includes a table (ephemeris) giving the coordinates of the comet indicating how he believes it will move in the sky over the next three months.”

Will you please help me find this ephemeris table? I’m sure you realize what a ‘gem’ that would be - although I fear it will not be found via any google searches…

2 Likes

Hi Simon,
It’s in the link I included in the previous message. Here it is again.
https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/details/bsb10874157
You can download it as a PDF. Otherwise, click on the brown image of the pamphlet and you will get the download option. If you have any problems ping me and I can mail it to you. I’ve downloaded it obviously. I wouldn’t be surprised if it disappears at some point when some of the Copernicans realise its relevance.
On page 6 of this document, you will find the ephemeris.
On page 6 also we can also see he clarifies that he saw it on the 18th January 1759. So he definitely saw it before Messier. The data in the ephemeris are based on the longitude and latitude coordinates of the comet at midnight of the 27th going into the 28th of January for the first reading etc. That is my understanding. You may want to get it translated by a professional who specialises in old German to modern German. Actually, it’s probably worth it!
Excerpt from page 6 starting after the ephemeris.
"Nunmehr sollen die Umstände folgen, in welche unser Comet nach der Theorie von Zeit zu Zeit geraten wird; Und die Erzählung soll sich vom 18th Januar 1759 anheben (clearly means anfangen in modern German). An diesem Tage stund der Comet in seiner wirklichen Bahn um 125/100 des Radii der Erdbahn von der Sonne, und um 148/100 eben desselben Radii von der Erde ab; daher ist es kein Wunder, daß der Comet damals so klein, schwach am Lichte and ohne allen Schweif erschien, so daß er nur durch Ferngläser gefunden und gesehen werden konnte.
allowing for some leeway due to the passage of time and the changes in the way the language is used! He’s not writing in modern German.
“So let’s follow the circumstances of the movements of the comet according to theory. The story begins on 18th January 1759. On this day the comet was 1.25 times the radius of the Earth’s orbit from the sun and 1.48 times the same radius from the Earth itself. Therefore it is not surprising the comet appeared so small and faint without a tail so that it could only be seen with binoculars.”
Then he goes on to state the perihelion will occur on the 14th March 1759. He puts the comet on the 17th of February at its furthest point from the Earth at 1.68 times the radius of the Earth’s orbit and at .78 times the radius of the Earth’s orbit from the sun.

1 Like

Thanks, dear stateless - I have now downloaded that PDF and have started reading it (with my limited German reading skills). So far, I haven’t found what I was looking for, namely the celestial location (ephemeris) in which Heinsius would have spotted Halley’s comet on January 18, 1759. You would have thought that this would be the very first thing any astronomer would specify when spotting a new object in the sky… Similarly, I still haven’t been able to find any ephemeris data of Palitzsch’s far more famous sightings of Halley’s comet on December 25 and 28, 1758. Have you?

As for the ‘predictive table’ of Halley’s motions between Jan28 and March13 1759 (published in Heinsius’s Jan24 1759 pamphlet), please know that it is totally and utterly ‘out of whack’ with modern tables (such as those generated by JPL/NASA). Yet, that table is cited and acknowledged in Messier’s memoirs… This 1759 pasage of Halley’s comet truly couldn’t be a messier affair (pun intended) and I now have more questions than I had before. For instance:

  • Why would Heinsius have chosen to publish that paper anonymously - under the bland moniker
    “from a lover of star science”? After all, Halley’s feverishly-awaited 1759 passage was all about confirming Isaac Newton’s and Emond Halley’s hallowed theories! Was Heinsius perhaps worried about his own reputation - if it later had turned out that Halley’s comet didn’t behave as expected? To be sure, his pamphlet is full of praise for their predictions (although the two are not mentioned by name) - even though it was written a full three months before the comet’s perigee passage on April 26!

  • Also, why would that Munich State Library’s website (where you found Heinsius’ pamphlet) list as ‘contributors’ to that pamphlet Edmond Halley and Isaac Newton? A bit odd, isn’t it? Makes you wonder whether the two somehow ‘had a hand’ in it…

  • And of course, WHY would Messier’s master Joseph Nicolas Delisle have expressly forbidden his young assistant to announce his early January 21 sighting of Halley’s comet? Was it perhaps because the comet then found itself in a completely unexpected part of our skies?

In any event, and in spite of all the messy and contradictory data surrounding Halley’s 1759 passage, the comet transited in perigee (closest to Earth) around April 26 - just as it did exactly 227 years later - in 1986. And every existing astronomy ephemeride tables (including the TYCHOSIUM simulator) agrees with that.

1 Like

Hi Simon,
Yes, I realise the data in that pamphlet is a little threadbare. I still think it’s quite an important document though as it shows Heinsius was the first professional to spot the comet.
My theory about why he wrote the pamphlet under the moniker of ‘von einem Liebhaber der Sternwissenschaft’ is pure speculation mixed in with a bit of supporting evidence.
It looks like you may need to brush up on your Russian too though just немного!
https://www.ras.ru/win/db/show_per.asp?P=.id-50040.ln-ru.dl-.pr-inf.uk-12

Heinsius was made an honorary professor of the Russian Academy of Science in 1745 after he had served under Joseph-Nicolas Delisle in St Petersburg from 1736 - 1744. As you mentioned before Euler worked alongside Heinsius there. So clearly Delisle and Heinsius knew each other extremely well. According to the above Heinsius quarreled with Delisle after he got back from Siberia after having left the institution he was heading with Heinsius in charge. It was clearly a bitter disagreement as Heinsius was dismissed. As you mention in the chapter on Halley’s comet, Delisle was an exacting boss and it may well be that Heinsius didn’t want to provoke his ire by jumping the gun and claiming to have discovered the comet before Messier especially as he probably didn’t want to get into a fight with his old boss. I would assume Delisle had considerable influence and could have made it difficult for him in his academic career. Therefore he wrote the pamphlet under a pseudonym to give himself plausible deniability if the case arose where the whole thing went pear-shaped.
Either way, my guess is that somehow or other Delisle caught wind of Heinsius’s publication and gave him strict orders to keep his mouth shut to put it in the vernacular. Science they are both members of the same club/cult and Heinsius was a junior member he obeyed without question. I believe he did spot the comet in the wrong part of the sky and they needed to cover this up until the end of March as you wrote in your chapter on Halley’s comet.
If you go to the end of Heinsius’s document you will see there is an additional threadbare ‘ephemeris’ composed in identical style to that on page 6. Here though it looks as though Heinsius claims he got this information from a friend. The strange thing is he seems to claim this data was calculated and not based on observed data and of course it starts on 30th March 1759. Most odd.
The whole story stinks. Why is it not possible to get Messier’s original data from the French authorities? I assume you have tried this? If I have a bit of free time I’ll see if I can find something on Palitzsch’s sighting for you though I am doubtful of finding anything.

3 Likes

Hi Simon,
Don’t bother looking for Palitzsch’s ephemeris. It was ‘conveniently’ destroyed during the seven year’s war! Apparently the Prussian army bombed Dresden in July 1760 and with it Palitzsch’s library and everything in it including whatever he had related to his sighting of the comet.

“Palitzsch verlor in den Kriegswirren die Aufzeichnungen zu „seinem“ Kometen und später auch seine Bücher. Bei dem „Bombardement“ der Innenstadt im Juli 1760 durch preußische Kanonen
(zwischenzeitlich waren die österreichischen Truppen eingezogen) wurde seine Bibliothek,
die zum vermeintlichen Schutz in der Stadt bei einem Bekannten untergebracht war, ein Opfer der Flammen.”
It does make you wonder.

2 Likes

No way !!! :dizzy_face:

I need to add this explosive information to Chapter 30 my upcoming book!

Palitzsch lost the notes on “his” comet in the turmoil of war and later his books as well. During the bombardment of the city centre in July 1760 by Prussian cannons, his library - which was supposedly being sheltered in the city at an acquaintance’s house - fell victim to the flames.

My goodness…I’m so glad to have you ‘onboard’, dear stateless. Here I was, searching madly for Palitzsch’s crucial ephemerides of his sighting of Halley’s comet (which I believe would definitively shatter Newton’s and Halley’s cometary theories - and more) only to learn that his library was burned down only a year or so after the comet’s 1759 passage!

Yes - it certainly makes you wonder.

Moreover, your finding that Heinsius and Delisle knew each other extremely well - and had a fallout - is another golden piece of information. Thank you so much for your fine contributions - and keep them coming!

2 Likes

Not a problem. It’s quite a fascinating story. Now whether or not Palitzsch’s books as well as his notes on the comet were actually destroyed in the bombing of Dresden we will never know. Either way I’m damn sure they have made sure those notes never see the light of day. By the way Simon, are you going to issue a hard copy of the second edition sometime? Given the state of censure nowadays there’s nothing better to have than a real copy of a book. Especially the Tychos.

4 Likes

Amazing finds @stateless3 ! I just read this and simply had to say that.

Hear, hear. And the next book will be out soon. By Jove! :slight_smile: But it’s also amazing what we now can find using the internet. As someone wrote elsewhere “Watching the roman empire collapse again, but this time by memes and wifi” :slight_smile:

And it’s interesting to see how much effort that has been put into keeping observations and data that compromises the heliocentric model, out of view. For centuries! I’m way past honest mistakes and wishful thinking at this point. It’s been deliberate deception all along. At least at the higher level. And the last century this has resulted in physics being turned into relative quantum mysticism, since actual experimentally confirmed physics now disprove heliocentrism through the MM-experiment.

Truly interesting times. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

This was an amazing string of posts. Quite the rabbit hole! As is all of the long history of the Copernican model. I’m amazed there aren’t scores of astrophysicists like stateless3 out there questioning it. On the other hand, maybe I shouldn’t be surprised given the current state of our society. Simon and Patrik, thanks again for all the hard work and persistence.

And I’m patiently waiting for that hard copy option too!

2 Likes