# The TYCHOSIUM 3D simulator

It’s good to be back on the forum again. I had put things Tychos on hold until I had received and read the second edition but I burst forth now with renewed interest!

Your argument is well structured Simon and I can see the need to proceed in the way you outline. The key point being that Mars crosses the same line of RA on its journey.

In your dot points, there are three. I would like another dot-point between the second and third to develop further this notion that the relative speed of the two planets creates diverging vectors. Are you saying that the higher speed of Earth would create ‘converging’ vectors?

I am surprised that Tezel is the only one doing time-lapse photography of this retrograde.

Well, dear Peaker - here’s the thing: If the Copernican / heliocentric simulators would show converging “A” and “B” vectors, then they could possibly claim that this is why Tunc Tezel’s images show Mars transiting at these almost identical “A” and “B” celestial longitudes (and thus aligning with more or less the same stars). However, since the A and B vectors (as drawn in Copernican simulators) are clearly diverging (by more than 3° !) - this cannot possibly be reconciled with Tunc Tezel’s images.

Hope this clears it up!

Thanks again, yes, it does clear it up very well. The solution is subtle and requires some thought but the pieces of the puzzle come together well.

I think that this “problem of Mars” is a good entry point for the layman but as there are two parts to it a) the strange pattern in Mars orbit and b) retrograde motion, it can’t be grasped immediately and has to be worked out over time.

No one I know personnally has any idea of either of these two concepts but then, no one I know can see the stars thru the city light.

1 Like

I agree that Mars is a good entry point and with some basic understanding of geometry anyone can understand that the current model is not possible because of how Mars observably moves. And thank you Simon for pointing out that the size change of Mars during its retrograde is a weak argument.

1 Like

Just one further comment on the size change(magnitude?) of Mars in Tezel’s retrograde time-lapse photos. The argument is weak, yes, but not without some merit as the change in magnitude would occur at a different rate in each of the models. It would take some very fine photos to map this change however.

While we are on the subject: The question of Mars orbit could be explored a little more deeply.
Simon, you recently sent me the paper on the Mayan Codex by Bricker et al. which I read with great interest. A couple of questions arise.

The shortness of the eighth Martian year is put down to the absense of the retrograde in that year. How does the Heliocentric model explain this? When a person goes to Wikipedia etc. he finds only an average. How is this justified by astronomers? What is their rationale?

As well, did Tycho Brahe (or others) write about the strange orbital pattern of Mars? Just when (historically) did this become known the astronomers? In other words-- is their a history of this understanding in the literature other than the Mayan Codex?

Dear Peaker,

What must be understood is that the reason why the heliocentric model was accepted back in the days has everything to do with Kepler’s “mathemagics”. It was Kepler who introduced the fancy notions of “variable orbital speeds” and “elliptical orbits”. In such manner, he was able to ‘stretch and squeeze’ Tycho Brahe’s observational data at will…

As illustrated in my below diagram (from the JS Orrery - a Copernican simulator), Kepler must have felt satisfied when he reached a ‘solution’ to the mysterious “SHORT ESI” of ca. 546 days: as you can see, Copernican simulators show the vectors between Earth & Mars pointing in the same GENERAL DIRECTION on 7 successive occasions (the LONG ESI’s of ca. 707 days) and, the eight time (after only 546 days) - again in the same GENERAL DIRECTION. The problem is, the Copernican model would have Earth & Mars each time, in wholly different positions - perpendicularly to that star (in my example, the star Deneb Algedi). Note that, interestingly enough, the 8th time around (see positions 7 and 8) the Earth will find itself at the exact opposite side of its (supposed) orbit around the Sun! So there you have it: Kepler’s “mathemagics” (somehow) did the trick!

.

In stark contrast (and, as you may admit, far more ‘elegantly’), the TYCHOS model has Earth & Mars re-aligning at the exact same line of sight towards that star…on all 8 occasions! And this, “in spite” of the fact that the Tychosium simulator has DONE AWAY with Kepler’s fancy “variable speeds and elliptical orbits”! In other words, the critics of the TYCHOS model would have to chalk all of this up (i.e. that perfectly straight line of sight towards that star AT ALL TIMES) to some sensational / miraculous / astronomical coincidence…

And yes, as you go to Wikipedia (or any other ‘official’ source) you’ll only find that “687-day” value for Mars’s sidereal period. Yet, in reality, Mars never reconjuncts with any given star in 687 days - which is just the averaged value of 707 + 707 + 707 + 707 + 707 + 707 + 707 + 546 = 5495 / 8 ≈ 687.

And no, to my knowledge, this issue (of the SHORT ESI of 546 days - as of the Mayan Codex) is not being discussed in any modern astronomy literature… Of course, Kepler must have known about it though! As for Tycho Brahe, I would imagine that the strange motions of Mars tortured him for years - or else he wouldn’t have given Kepler his observational data of Mars. The two didn’t like each other and were always bickering, but perhaps Brahe was hoping that Kepler would help him solve the pesky Mars riddle… Instead, Kepler eventually flipped his master’s excellent and near-perfect Solar System model on its head!

Thankyou, once again, for your patience Simon.

I understand this topic better each time. The problem the layman has is that he is not immersed in the data on a daily basis and so revision is necessary. So it is with me, I read The Tychos three times in a row but that was two years ago.

So, Kepler’s hypothesis re Mars put an end to any further discussion of ‘the problem of Mars’ many hundreds of years ago and the ancient knowledge of it has become fossilised, so to speak? With hardly a written account beyond what we see in the Dresden Codex?

Can I mention Nick Kollestrom here. He wrote the book on the London 7/7 bombings. You may know of him as I’ve mentioned him before on Cluesforum. I bring him up as he was a Chemistry History Professor… I never knew there was such a thing but it seems there is. Well, where are the Astronomy History Professors? We could use one.

While I’m mentioning Kollestrom- I did email him re The Tychos and had several exchanges but to no avail. He was an astrologer as a young man and wrote a nice book on the retrograde of Venus which is still in print so you would think he should know better. But every man has something to protect and I let him off without a struggle. He would have been tickled pink to learn of your work.

To be fair to Prof. Kollerstrom… he may know of your work and love it! But never let on, you may have many fans in academia who will never divulge that fact. A man chooses the limb he going to be hung on.

correction

…hanged on

“Well, where are the Astronomy History Professors?”

Several months ago, I subscribed to this e-mail discussion group:

“HASTRO-L History of Astronomy Discussion Group”

Their members all clearly seem to be deeply versed in the History of Astronomy - and boy, are they active! In fact, my e-mail inbox gets regularly submerged (on a daily basis) by their intense discussions and debates. So far, I have only posted a couple of replies there - and kept relatively low-key about the Tychos model - as I prefer to first get the 2nd Edition of the book available in elegant, ‘academic-looking’ pdf and book form. However, please feel free to join the HASTRO-L discussion group - as I’m certainly going to need some support over there - once the “shit hits the fan”, so-to-speak!

In fact, I encourage ALL readers of this forum to join HASTRO-L (if they are so inclined)!

1 Like

…have sent off my email to HASTRO-L

There is one other strong argument you made against Copernican Retrograde Motion in a post on Cluesforum. It was regarding the relative distance of Mars from Earth at the time of retrograde and had to do with the duration of the retrograde itself. If I recall, in reality the closer Mars is to us, the longer the span of time needed to complete the retrograde.

I just thought I’d mention that here to complete the picture. Or is there even more arguments to be made?

Dear Peaker, good to hear that you joined the HASTRO-L discussion group!

As for the issue you mention about Mars’s retrograde - it’s all explained and illustrated in Chapter 5 of my book (see link below). But no, it has nothing to do with the “span of time needed to complete the retrograde” (as you wrote). It’s about the amount of PARALLAX that one would expect between a closer and a farther object - in relation to the background scenery : see, what is actually observed is that, when Mars (in opposition) passes CLOSEST to Earth, it retrogrades much LESS (against the background stars) than when it passes (in opposition) FARTHEST from Earth. However, it should be the other way around if the Copernican explanation for the retrograde ‘effect’ were true !..

## ABOUT THE SOLAR APEX AND THE SOLAR ANTAPEX

Amazingly enough, the Tychosium simulator shows the Sun moving across space just like has been determined by centuries of observations and calculations which seeked to determine the Sun’s so-called apex and antapex.

In the last few centuries, astronomers have dedicated humongous efforts to determine the spatial progression & direction of the Sun - in relation to our surrounding stars. What they call the “solar antapex” is the point in the sky from which the Sun appears to be receding - whereas the “solar apex” is the point in the sky towards which the Sun appears to be approaching. To make a long story short, it has now finally been determined that the Sun is receding from a celestial point (at RA 6h28m - roughly in the direction of star Sirius) and approaching a celestial point (at RA 18h28m - roughly in direction of star Vega). Source: SOLAR APEX - at Wikiwand

Well, this would be in most excellent accordance with the TYCHOS model - which has the Sun moving precisely in such manner. My below graphic illustrates that, in the TYCHOS, the Sun would indeed (over a 12672-year period, i.e. half a TYCHOS Great Year) be MOVING AWAY from RA:6h28m - and MOVING TOWARDS RA:18h28m. Et sic probatio (or, if you will, Q.E.D.):

The TYCHOS, as I like to say, is here to stay!

Hello, I’m totally new here, and have no scientific background, so I hope my functioning brain will suffice to qualify to ask questions.
Do correct me if these questions needed to go in another topic altogether.

I am extremely grateful for the work that Simon and Patrik have done and do, and I’m so happy that someone very recently pointed me to the existence of the Tychos solar system model. I’ve been admiring the beauty of the Tychosium for hours now.

I’m working my way through the book, and am not as far as I would want to be yet, but I already have some questions (apart from some typos that I spotted).

1. The issue of the collision of the Sun and Mars seems a very odd thing to discuss, as it seems obvious that if Mars orbits the Sun, then obviously its orbit moves with the Sun and can never collide: by the time the Sun reaches the intersection, Mars’s orbit has moved as much and is no longer intersecting with the Sun’s orbit, or if it is, at a totally different location.
It seems very simple: if the Sun orbits the Earth, and Mars orbits the Sun, then Mars’s orbit is a “secondary” orbit and hence on a different “plane” than the Sun’s “primary” orbit.
In fact, as the Tychos shows, the Earth’s orbit is the primary orbit, the Sun’s is the secondary, and Mars’s is the tertiary.
Or am I seeing this all wrong?
It seems to me that this model is like Disney’s Mad Tea Party merry-go-round, where on a large revolving disk, there are three smaller independently revolving disks, on each of which are 6 round cups which spin around their axes. When all of that stuff starts spinning, the trajectories of all cups will become these beautiful trochoidal patterns, but if you would draw the orbit of the large disk and the orbits of the smaller disks, they would obviously overlap. However, none of the cups has ever crashed into another one obviously.

2. Circular orbits and constant speeds: yay! Somehow that seems the only logical possibility: planets and stars don’t have gas and brake pedals like a car.
However, I imagine this to mean that each planet goes around its circular orbit at a constant speed, no?
Seems no, to my utter surprise (and dismay: this seems counter-intuitive).
When I focus the Tychosium on the Sun, I expect all of the trochoidal stuff to be done by the Earth (if at all), and to simply watch all the stars making their rounds around the Sun at a constant speed. But here I see only the Sun’s moons do that: all planets from Mars onwards slow down and accelerate, and from Jupiter onwards they even REVERSE! How on earth is THAT possible? Isn’t that the kind of Keplerian movement the Tychos was going to do away with??

Hello Lieve - and welcome to the forum.

Firstly, please let me know about the typos you’ve spotted - as I’m currently finalizing the book’s manuscript before sending it to the printers! You can e-mail me personally about this at simonshack@libero.it - thanks in advance for helping out with the proofread!

Regarding your 1st question (concerning primary, secondary, tertiary orbits, etc) I would rather say that the Sun’s orbit is the primary ‘driving force’ of our system - with Mars as its ‘sparring partner’ in their binary dance around the Earth which, in fact, only gets slowly ‘dragged’ around its PVP orbit due to the Sun’s and Mars’ combined ‘clockwise’ processional motion (which is completed in 25344 years). This motion is probably due to our entire system revolving around the Sirius binary system.- as tentatively illustrated at the end of Chapter 6 of my book.

Regarding your 2nd question: no, in the Tychosium the planets all maintain constant speeds at all times. What may appear like “decelerations & accelerations” are only optical illusions caused by a given planet alternately moving towards the viewer or perpendicularly to the viewer. And yes, of course the planets periodically reverse course (i.e. “retrograde”) - and that’s no illusion, it’s simply what they will physically do (for natural geometric reasons) as they revolve around the revolving Sun. Now, as I illustrate at the end of Chapter 5, the official ‘explanation’ for the planets’ observed retrograde periods is downright impossible - as it violates the most elementary laws of perspective.

Also, please note that if you focus on the Sun in the Tychosium (by checking “Sun” in the “Look at” box), the Sun will remain static on the screen; therefore, what the Tychosium will simulate is what you would see if you were standing on the Sun. Hence, since the Sun moves around its large orbit ‘from left to right’ (in relation to any given star) for six months - and then ‘from right to left’ in the successive six months, you would indeed see the stars oscillating back and forth (from left to right or viceversa) - just as simulated in the Tychosium.

1 Like

Thanks for welcoming me into your forum!

I have to study your reply to the second question before I get what I’m seeing actually ;-).

I’ll find the typos back and send to you, it’s not that many, just a few small things that happen always when having large amounts of text.

I have another question, something that has bothered me since very long, as it is for me crucial to the gullibility of the mainstream population (like me) who are never taught anything seriously and only get narratives that suit political agendas.
It’s the fact that we cannot show astronomical realities on scale. We NEVER see real models of our solar system (of any conviction), as either the distances fall out of focus space or the volumes of the bodies become invisible.
To help people understand how utterly little we know about the facts of things we take for “known facts”, like the moon landings, I’ve asked several people to draw a real scale model of Earth and the Moon, in which distance and size are BOTH to scale. Hardly anybody gets anywhere close to reality, and people draw the most ludicrous things, with the Moon being very very close to Earth. They don’t realise that if that were the case, at least 1/4 of the night sky would be taken up by the Moon alone.
I am convinced that this is not an accident, but a very deliberate gap in our education, intended to keep people confused and dumb about the most basic aspects of our lives upon planet Earth.

Now my question is: why do YOU, who is going against all MSM narratives and educational nonsense, not give humongous warnings that NONE of the pictures in the book NOR the Tychosium, give correct on-scale representations of the sizes of the celestial bodies? I can guarantee you that almost all “normal” people will assume they look at EXACT scale models, both in size and in distance.

Dear Lieve,

Firstly, let me get one thing out of the way: you are right that ALL existing solar system simulators feature larger planetary sizes (in relation to their orbits) - but that’s simply due to graphic constraints which, I think, everyone can easily appreciate and understand (the planets would be so small as to be unmanageable / invisible on the scale of a computer screen. It is simply impractical!). I thus didn’t feel it necessary to mention this well-known issue in the book - “normal people” notwithstanding.

However, please know that, in the Tychosium 3D simulator…

• The sizes of all the planetary orbits are to scale relatively with each other (with the sole exception of our Moon’s orbit - due to graphic constraints: it is about 39.2X larger than in reality so as to make it reasonably visible in the simulator).

• The sizes (diameters) of our Moon, the Earth, Venus, Mercury and Mars are all to scale relatively with each other.

Moreover, in the book, I have respected wherever possible the relative sizes of our celestial bodies. But again, this isn’t always practical when illustrating certain cosmological issues.

Quite frankly, and all in all, I don’t think this ‘limiting’ aspect of illustrating the TYCHOS principles (or those of any other model, for that matter) is any cause for concern. We all need to “adapt our spatial senses” when dealing with the dimensions of our surrounding cosmos.

ABOUT THE LONG-TERM MOTION OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM - and how the official observations support the TYCHOS model’s tenets

Dear all,

I would like to further comment upon the graphic I posted earlier in this thread, namely this one:

As we saw in my above post, it is officially agreed upon that the Sun is moving (or ‘processing’) roughly in the direction of star Vega - towards a point in the sky situated in the Hercules constellation. Astronomers call this point the “solar apex”. Here is how it is defined in the Etymological Dictionary of Astronomy and Astrophysics :

" Solar Apex: The point on the celestial sphere toward which the Sun is apparently moving relative to the local standard of rest. Its position, in the constellation Hercules , is approximately R.A. 18h, Dec. +30°, close to the star Vega. The velocity of this motion is estimated to be about 19.4 km/sec (about 4 AU/year)."

We shall now see how those two officially-estimated values (19.4km/s and 4 AU/year) provide some truly spectacular corroboration of two of the TYCHOS model’s most ‘radical’ propositions, namely the snail-paced orbital speed of the Earth (1.6km/h) and the much closer distance to our stars. The readers of my Tychos book - 2nd Edition will know that the Tychos model stipulates that the stars are 42633 times closer than currently believed (see Chapter 23).

So the question is: since Copernican astronomers measure the Sun’s motions against the ‘background canvas’ of the stars (which they reckon to be 42633 X more distant than they are in reality), could those two officially-estimated values be “off” (i.e. inflated) by a factor of 42633? Well, let’s see what values we obtain by dividing them by our 42633 ‘reduction factor’:

We shall first convert 19.4km/s to km/h : 19.4 X 3600 = 69840 km/h
Now, 69480 km/h / 42633 = 1.63km/h (or very nearly the Earth’s orbital speed in the TYCHOS!).
Next, let’s divide 4 AU (598 400 000km) by 42633:
598 400 000km / 42633 = 14036.07km (or near-exactly the distance covered by Earth each year!)

You may agree that this is spectacularly supportive of the TYCHOS’ core tenets.

1 Like

Hello Again,

I am continuing to talk to my friend re Retrograde Motion. He has sent me a link from YT as all good friends do. This link is from a channel called Starwaders where he does a short explanation of Retrograde which I think is just plain wrong in the most obvious way. Could someone here check to see if I’m right.

This Starwaders chap builds a paper model but, from what I can see, this model would require that Mars retrograde once each Earth Year. Am I right?