Would it be possible for earth to rotate around moon instead?

first of all thank you for your work. i found about your work a few days ago and it’s actually amazing tycho’s vision of how it works ended up so well buried that i never even heard about it till now.

anyway, while reading your book and playing with the simulator i’ve pondered about… what if everything you describe is correct, except the earth revolves around the moon?

that would mean the pvp orbit is of the moon, while in this version if my quick math was correct the earth would move around moon with 1km/s. which, in turn, would make stars closer but not that close as in your version but more like 30 times closer than heliocentric model.

So my question is there any obvious or not so-obvious reason that would discard such a possibility?

Also a 2nd question on a different topic. I’ve been interested in synodic cycles since i discovered that on my 32th birthday, mercury venus and mars were all in the same exact place as when i was born. it really felt there s such a strong resonance linking our solar system. at some point i stumbled upon a main belt asteroid called 4426 Roerich, which oddly enough was also in same place in the 2 above charts and which is found it has a synodic cycle of 32 years, so it will always meet up with venus at least in 32 years.
And i’m still trying to figure it out how a small rock in the main belt out of many there is so perfectly in synch with venus from earh’s perspective

Hello Andreidita,

You are of course free to propose a model in which the Earth revolves (at 1km/s) around the Moon. However, your model would have to match (or supersede) the agreement and accuracy that the TYCHOS model’s proposed 1.6km/h motion of our planet provides in relation to the observed displacements of our surrounding planets and stars (over the centuries / millenia). All I can do is to wish you good luck with that! :slight_smile:

As for the 32-year cycle that you mention: yes, Mars and Venus regularly conjunct (almost EXACTLY) every 32 years. Here are, for instance 4 successive Mars-Venus conjunctions:

  • June 21, 2000
  • June 22, 2032
  • June 23, 2064
  • June 23, 2096

I strongly doubt however that Mercury was also conjuncting with Mars and Venus on your birthdate and your 32nd birthday (but feel free to submit these two dates - and we shall see!)

I don’t know what “2 above charts” you are referring to (in relation to 4426 Roerich), but I wouldn’t be surprised to find even more instances of cosmic 32-year (i.e. 2 X 16) conjunctions, since our entire solar system ‘clockwork’ appears to be ‘regulated’ by the number 16 (and multiples thereof): Chapter 16: Our Cosmic Clockwork and the “16 factor”

First, thank you for your reply.

Regarding first topic, i don’t have any intention to create a new model :). I do think that you bring conclusive evidence that the currently accepted heliocentric model isn’t true based on the contradictions with empirical facts like the retrograde movements etc.

what i was wondering was meant as taking place inside the Tychos model. Namely to have everything else exactly how you described, with the only exception of swapping earth and moon. And wether doing such swap you could still explain the empirical data the same in the Tychos model.

regarding the 2nd question, i think i didn’t express myself very clearly. what i mean was that each of those planets were in almost same postion relative to the stars (zodiac degrees) at the 2 dates 32 years apart.

the dates are 1980-10-22 and 2012-10-22.

when writing this i just checked them using also tychos 3d and i find it interesting. You are right, venus and mars are in almost the same place also relative to sun and earth not just zodiac. Mercury has different position relative to earth/sun, BUT still pretty much the same place relative to the zodiac.

On those 2 dates also 4426 Roerich is in same spot relative to the zodiac. in it’s case i did check quite a few charts jumping 32 years and seeing always both venus and this roerich in pretty much the same places. As if there is some resonance that links them.

One more thing i would like to add is that maybe it would be useful to have all the contradictions in the heliocentric model put together in one place to be easily verifiable by anyone. Cause they are quite well buried and trying to find mentions of them i wasn’t very succesful :slight_smile: (i don’t mean in your book, but outthere on the internet). For example it might be a good way to reach out to people so they find about Tychos, by having some video focusing on why current heliocentric model is flawed. Although if it’d get too popular it will probably be banned from youtube for spreading ‘fake news’ about our solar system

1 Like

Dear andreidita,

If you read my book with care (especially Chapter 13 & 14) it should become clear to you why our Moon is circling around the Earth - and not vice versa. Your point about 4426 Roerich having some resonance with Venus sounds interesting - and time permitting, I will be looking into it. As you probably know, our solar system is pervaded by various orbital resonances (most of which would make little sense within the heliocentric model’s configuration)…

As for your good suggestion to make a video highlighting the ‘bullet points’ that bring down the Copernican / heliocentric model, this is certainly among my (and Patrik’s) future plans - so stay tuned. In the meantime, I would suggest that you peruse (and diffuse) Chapter 31 of my book which, in fact, succinctly summarizes in one place as many as 38 issues (or ‘puzzles of astronomy’) which afflict the heliocentric theory - all of which the TYCHOS model effectively resolves. :slight_smile:

1 Like