zotero-db/storage/PR6D7UXM/.zotero-ft-cache

“Chi va piano va sano — e va lontano.”
(Old Italian adage)

All original content © copyright Simon Shack 2023
With illustrations by the author
All other content is copyright the respective owners and is used for purposes of scholarship. According to the “Fair Use” clause of International Copyright Law, the author declares that the use of photos, illustrations and information in this academic research are used for purposes of “criticism, comment, reporting, teaching, scholarship and research” according to Section 107 of Title 17 of the US Code. — Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use, U.S. Copyright Code.

is book is dedicated to Kerstin & Eyvind who brought me to this wondrous planet.

CREDITS
Book Design and Layout Per Berglund Copy-editing and Revisions Jesper Sampaio Computer Programmer of the Tychosium 3D Simulator 1 Patrik Holmqvist Webmaster and Curator of the TYCHOS Online Forum 2 Timo Rajala Cover Image Simon Shack
1h ps://ts.tychos.space 2h ps://forum.tychos.space

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

iii

PREFACE

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ix

CHAPTER 1 A BRIEF HISTORY OF GEO-HELIOCENTRISM

1

CHAPTER 2 ABOUT BINARY STAR SYSTEMS

7

CHAPTER 3 ABOUT OUR SUN-MARS BINARY SYSTEM

17

CHAPTER 4 INTRODUCING THE TYCHOS MODEL

27

CHAPTER 5 MARS, THE “KEY” THAT KEPLER NEVER FOUND

33

CHAPTER 6 IS SIRIUS THE ‘TWIN’ OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM?

45

CHAPTER 7 THE COPERNICAN MODEL IS GEOMETRICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

57

CHAPTER 8 THE SUN’S TWO MOONS, MERCURY AND VENUS

67

CHAPTER 9 TILTS, OBLIQUITIES AND OSCILLATIONS

73

CHAPTER 10 REQUIEM FOR THE ‘LUNISOLAR WOBBLE’ THEORY

85

CHAPTER 11 EARTH’S PVP ORBIT

91

CHAPTER 12 THE RELATIVE MOTIONS OF THE SUN AND THE EARTH

101

CHAPTER 13 OUR SYSTEM’S ‘CENTRAL DRIVESHAFT’: THE MOON

109

CHAPTER 14 CURING NEWTON’S HEADACHE: THE MOON

125

CHAPTER 15 ASTEROID BELTS AND METEOR SHOWERS

135

CHAPTER 16 OUR COSMIC CLOCKWORK AND THE ‘16 FACTOR’

145

CHAPTER 17 ‘THE GREAT INEQUALITY’ SOLVED BY THE TYCHOS

153

CHAPTER 18 URANUS, NEPTUNE AND PLUTO PROVE THE PVP ORBIT

161

CHAPTER 19 UNDERSTANDING THE TYCHOS GREAT YEAR

165

CHAPTER 20 THE 811000-YEAR MEGA CYCLE

173

CHAPTER 21 A MAN’S YEARLY PATH AND THE ANALEMMA

179

CHAPTER 22 DECONSTRUCTING BRADLEY AND EINSTEIN

189

CHAPTER 23 ARE THE STARS MUCH CLOSER THAN BELIEVED?

199

ii Contents

CHAPTER 24 DAYTON MILLER AND THE SPEED OF EARTH

211

CHAPTER 25 THE NEGATIVE STELLAR PARALLAX DEMYSTIFIED

217

CHAPTER 26 PROBING KAPTEYN, HUBBLE AND ESCLANGON

231

CHAPTER 27 THE ‘MOMENTOUS’ INCONGRUITY

245

CHAPTER 28 BARNARD’S STAR CONFIRMS THE TYCHOS

249

CHAPTER 29 EROS AND TYCHOS: LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT

253

CHAPTER 30 HALLEY’S COMET: THE GREAT DECEIVER

259

CHAPTER 31 41 ENIGMAS SOLVED BY THE TYCHOS

295

EPILOGUE

303

APPENDIX I

305

APPENDIX II

307

FOREWORD
is book is a sincere and well thought through e ort to present the true con guration of our Solar System. With an easily readable style, Simon Shack makes the complexities of astronomy accessible to the layperson by guiding the reader through the subject in a refreshingly logical and informative way.
He initially demonstrates that the heliocentric model of the Solar System, widely credited to Nicolaus Copernicus, is geometrically impossible. With simple geometry and elementary mathematics, a number of glaring contradictions are revealed. You will be introduced to the many fudge-factors and the questionable reasoning that have been used to explain away anomalies and contradictions over the centuries. He then shows that none of these antics are necessary to make his model work. e TYCHOS is fully consistent with all empirical observations made throughout the centuries, without any contradictions. Logically speaking, this is very powerful evidence of its correspondence to reality.
In short, Simon Shack shows that our planet does not revolve around the Sun, but is instead located at the centre of a binary system dominated by the Sun and Mars. ese move around each other in what could be described as intersecting orbits. At the same time, the Sun orbits the Earth, while all the other planets orbit the Sun. All the while, the Earth moves at a relative snail’s pace spinning its way around its own 25344-year orbit.
e basis of this con guration was rst proposed in the 16th century by Tycho Brahe, the most rigorous and proli c observational astronomer of all times. Curiously, his work is o en either ignored or unfairly disparaged. Using his meticulously recorded data, Tycho Brahe inferred that the Sun and Mars move around each other in a manner that we would identify today as a binary pair. Binary star systems were unknown in the 16th century, since the telescope had not yet been invented. Simon Shack con dently began with Brahe’s proposed system (though rejecting its geostationary component) for the simple reason that the vast majority of visible star systems are now telescopically observed to be binary. He then added his own idea of the Earth’s PVP orbit in a fantastic feat of conceptual integration that accommodates and explains the precession of the equinoxes, and many other phenomena in what can be considered the nal piece of the puzzle. is work also methodically demonstrates how the basic principles of the TYCHOS are strongly supported by numerous modern astronomical discoveries which have been either overlooked, misinterpreted, or perhaps even willfully ignored by the world’s scienti c community.
It is crucial for any serious investigator of truth to separate the most fundamental question of ‘what is it?’ from the logically subsequent question of ‘how does it work?’ First, we must identify what we are looking at. We must ask questions such as ‘what shape is it?’, and ‘how does it move?’, to rst establish identity. Only then can we proceed to address the question of how it works and what forces might account for its structure and motion. It is therefore necessary to put aside considerations of how the planetary motions are achieved, such as Newton’s theory of gravity, and refrain from using this theory as reason to doubt the nature of an integrated and consistent model of what can be observed in the night sky.
It is o en claimed that the ideas of men possessing no conventionally recognised quali cations can be dismissed out of hand, but this is both illogical and disingenuous. It is the evidence and the rational argument that should be the focus of investigation. Scienti c method regards the falsi cation of a theory as an essential means to increasing the certainty of what is claimed as truth. Anomalies and contradictions with any theory are the red warning ags of error. ey are the signal that assumptions must be questioned and that a metaphorical ‘return to the drawing board’ is required. Yet many experts and astronomers routinely shrug o anomalies and contradictions. ey nd it hard to question the assumptions of previous generations precisely because their quali cation is the sum of all those assumptions made to date. Simon Shack is a scienti cally

iv Foreword
minded researcher who is not similarly encumbered with reluctance to go ‘back’ down to the metaphorical basement and revisit those most fundamental assumptions. He can ask the forbidden questions and is armed with the essential tools to answer them; curiosity, an ability to think logically, and a keen interest in the subject ma er. He is both intellectually quali ed and intellectually free.
In 2018 Simon presented the rst dra of his book to Swedish so ware developer and IT specialist Patrik Holmqvist. Patrik made computer simulations of the proposed TYCHOS model that later became the Tychosium 3D—the rst simulator of our Solar System whose geometric con guration correctly replicates the empirically observed celestial positions of our planets in relation to the stars. He later commented: “I
gured that somewhere along the road, some insurmountable problems with the model would inevitably surface.” But this hasn’t been the case. So far, step by step, all observations, experiments and cross-veri cations have con rmed the TYCHOS model’s validity.
In our bankrupt Western culture, innovation has become sti ed and genuine scienti c advancement effectively thwarted. Simon’s book and Patrik’s Tychosium 3D simulator provide a valuable resource for astronomers and researchers across the world. is work represents an inspirational return to rational thinking and presents what I consider to be a truly historical step forward in our understanding of the Solar System.
As you dive into the TYCHOS, I encourage you to peruse the Tychosium 3D simulator and spend time ge ing familiar with its functions. It’s a great tool to help visualize, comprehend and appreciate the awesome geometric beauty of our binary Solar System along with its spirographic, mandala-like orbital pa erns. Enjoy your journey into what I believe is the most reasonable and factually accurate interpretation of our Solar System ever devised.
Nigel Howi September 2022

PREFACE
e TYCHOS model is the result of almost a decade of steady research into ancient and modern astronomical literature, data and teachings. It all started as a personal quest to probe a number of issues and incongruities that, in my mind, a icted Copernicus’ famed (and almost universally accepted) heliocentric theory. e TYCHOS model is based on, inspired by—and built around—both modern and time-honoured astronomical data.
As I gradually came to realize that the Copernican/Keplerian model presented some truly insurmountable problems as to its proposed physics and geometry, I decided to put to the test, in methodical fashion, what was once its most formidable adversary, namely the geo-heliocentric Tychonic model devised by Tycho Brahe— arguably the greatest observational astronomer of all times. A er his untimely death in 1601 (at age 55), Tycho Brahe’s favourite assistant Christen Longomontanus perfected his master’s lifetime work in his Astronomia Danica (1622), a monumental treatise regarded as Tycho Brahe’s testament. e most striking feature of Tycho Brahe’s Solar System was that the orbits of the Sun and Mars intersect—as they both ‘dance’ around the Earth.
Tycho Brahe, however, apparently believed for most of his life that the Earth was completely immobile, not even rotating around its own axis. is unlikely notion was amended by Longomontanus in his Astronomia Danica by giving Earth a diurnal rotation. is is known today as the “Semi-Tychonic model”, and my TYCHOS model is, in fact, nothing but a revised and ‘upgraded’ version of the same (the two are geometrically identical). Most notably, the TYCHOS propounds and demonstrates that our rotating planet isn’t stationary in space but that it has, in all logic, an orbit of its own, just like all the celestial bodies that we can observe in our skies. In short, the essential soundness of Tycho’s (or rather, Longomontanus’) original model led me to envision the missing pieces of their rigorous yet incomplete work. If Tycho Brahe and his trusty assistant had been aware of what modern astronomers have learned in later decades, there is no doubt in my mind that they would have reached similar conclusions to those presented in this book.
In the latest decades of astronomical research, a particular realization stands out for its paradigm-changing nature: the vast majority of our visible stars have turned out to have a smaller, binary companion. anks to modern, advanced telescopes and spectrographic technologies, such binary pairs—formerly believed to be single stars—are now being discovered virtually every day, with no end in sight. In fact, since the so-called companion stars are o en too small and dim to be detected, it is quite plausible that 100% of the stars in our skies are binary systems. In binary systems, a large star and a smaller celestial body revolve in relatively short, mutually intersecting local orbits around a common barycentre.
e TYCHOS posits that the Sun and Mars constitute a binary system, much like the vast majority (or perhaps all) of our surrounding stars. In our system, the Earth is located at or near the barycentre of the revolving Sun-Mars binary duo; it orbits ‘clockwise’ at the tranquil ‘snail-pace’ of 1 mph (or 1.6 km/h), completing one orbit in 25344 years—a period commonly known as ‘the precession of the equinoxes’. It is noted for pertinent comparison that the Sirius binary system is composed of two bodies (Sirius A and Sirius B) whose observed, highly unequal diameters are, remarkably enough, proportionally identical to those of the Sun and Mars.
Aside from Tycho Brahe’s unequalled body of empirical observations, my work has relied and expanded upon a number of lesser-known, overlooked or neglected teachings that were e ectively ‘obliterated’ by the so-called Copernican Revolution. e early insightful architects who laid the groundwork for what should be our correct model for the Solar System include Nilakantha Somayaji (author of the Tantrasangraha, 1501) and Samanta Candrasekhara Simha (a.k.a. Pathani Samanta, 1835-1904), in addition to ancient Mayan, Aztec, Sumerian, Greek, Arabic and Chinese astronomers. Alas, their work and ndings have long been eclipsed by a celebrated clique of modern science icons (e.g., Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein), all of whom have been

vi Preface
shown—in one way or another—to have engaged in deception, plagiarism or quackery, if not outright fraud. Having said that, I do realize that my TYCHOS model is primarily based upon the work of an astronomer from the Western world, Tycho Brahe—yet nothing suggests that he ever engaged in anything else than earnest and rigorous observations of the planetary motions in our skies, for his entire lifetime.
Unfortunately, in spite of the unprecedented accuracy of Brahe’s lifelong observational enterprise, his proposed geometric con guration of our Solar System was ultimately ipped on its head by his young and ambitious assistant, Johannes Kepler: in what must be one of the most ruinous setbacks in the history of science, shortly a er Tycho’s untimely death, Kepler went on to steal the bulk of his master’s laboriously compiled observational tables only to tweak and distort them through his tortuous algebraic e orts so as to make them appear compatible with the paradigm of the diametrically opposed, heliocentric Copernican model.
As few people will know, Kepler was ultimately exposed (in 1988) for having crudely manipulated Brahe’s all-important observational data of Mars; Brahe had speci cally entrusted him with the task of resolving the ba ing behaviour of this particular celestial body, and Kepler’s laws of planetary motion were, in fact, almost exclusively derived (‘mathemagically’, one might say) from his harrowing “war on Mars”, as he liked to call it in his correspondence with friends and colleagues. Just why Mars presented such exceptional di culties should become self-evident in the following pages.
Kepler’s Laws are wonderful as a description of the motions of the planets. However, they provide no explanation of why the planets move in this way. [1]
It is a widespread popular myth that Johannes Kepler was the man who brought on the era of “rational scienti c determinism” to the detriment of dogmatic religious belief. However, as pointed out by J. R. Voelkel in his 2001 treatise “ e Composition of Kepler’s Astronomia Nova”, nothing is further from the truth:
He [Kepler] sought to redirect his religious aspirations into astronomy by arguing that the heliocentric system of the world made plain the glory of God in His creation of the world. us he made the establishment of the physical truth of heliocentrism a religious vocation. [2]
Paradoxically, the so-called Copernican Revolution was hailed as “the triumph of the scienti c method over religious dogma”. Yet, when challenged by the likes of Tycho Brahe about the absurd distances and titanic sizes of the stars that the Copernican model’s tenets implied, the proponents of the same invoked “the omnipotence of God”.
Tycho Brahe, the most prominent and accomplished astronomer of his era, made measurements of the apparent sizes of the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets. From these he showed that within a geocentric cosmos these bodies were of comparable sizes, with the Sun being the largest body and the Moon the smallest. He further showed that within a heliocentric cosmos, the stars had to be absurdly large—with the smallest star dwar ng even the Sun. Various Copernicans responded to this issue of observation and geometry by appealing to the power of God: ey argued that giant stars were not absurd because even such giant objects were nothing compared to an in nite God, and that in fact the Copernican stars pointed out the power of God to humankind. Tycho rejected this argument. [3]
Indeed, if you had been questioning the Copernican model back in its heyday, you might have been called “a person of the vulgar sort”, since, according to Copernicans, you were questioning God’s divine omnipotence!
Rather than give up their theory in the face of seemingly incontrovertible physical evidence, Copernicans were forced to appeal to divine omnipotence. ‘ ese things that vulgar sorts see as absurd at rst glance are not easily charged with absurdity, for in fact divine Sapience and Majesty are far greater than they understand,’ wrote Copernican Christoph Rothmann in a le er to Tycho Brahe. ‘Grant the vastness of the Universe and the sizes of the stars to be as great as you like—these will still bear no proportion to the in nite Creator. It reckons that the greater the king, so much greater and larger the palace be ing his majesty. So how great a palace do you reckon is ing to GOD?’ [4]

Preface vii
It can hardly be denied that the Copernican model is marred by a number of problems and oddities which, objectively speaking, challenge the limits of our human senses and perceptions. In any event, there is nothing intuitive about the Copernican theory; it is safe to say that its widespread acceptance relies upon the authority accorded to the edicts of a few prominent luminaries who, about four centuries ago, established for all mankind the de nitive con guration of our Solar System. Since then, a myriad of questions have been raised as to the validity of its foundational tenets—yet such criticism keeps being dismissed and condemned as nothing short of heretical by the scienti c establishment. Indeed, the fundamental premises of the Copernican model have been subjected over the years to countless critiques and falsi cations, all of which have been ‘patched up’ by assorted ad hoc adjustments. The Copernican/Keplerian ‘carousel’: pretty—but impossible Let us now remind ourselves of the Copernican model’s simple geometric con guration, ‘starring’ the Sun as occupying the centre of a multi-lane ‘carousel’ of planets revolving around our star in concentric/elliptical orbits. Here it is, as presented to us since our school days:
e Copernican con guration.
e Copernican model undeniably appeals to our natural senses, what with its plain and orderly layout; there is a clear ‘middle’, and what’s more: there is an object occupying the middle, which happens to be the brightest object in our skies: the Sun. e problem is that its geometric layout gravely con icts with empirical observation—unless you are willing to reject the core principles of Euclidean space. To wit, it simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny as it implies impossible planet/star conjunctions and retrograde planetary periods. It cannot therefore possibly represent reality, as will be amply demonstrated in the following chapters.
e Copernican model is outright non-physical since it violates the most elementary laws of geometry and perspective.
e current Copernican theory (which claims that the Sun needs some 240 million years to complete one orbit) clashes with the observable fact that the overwhelming majority of our visible stars appear to have small ‘local’ orbits of their own, with relatively short periods. For instance, Sirius A and B revolve around each other in about 50 (solar) years, the Alpha Centauri A and B binary pair do so in 79 years, while the Polaris A and B binary pair do the same in just 29.6 years. Other recently discovered binary systems exhibit even shorter ‘mutual orbital periods’ of only a few months, weeks, days, or hours. None of our visible stars are observed to have orbits in the range of hundreds of millions of years. Moreover, no star system has ever been

viii Preface
observed to resemble the ‘Copernican carousel’ (as illustrated above), with a central, ‘ xed’ star surrounded by bodies revolving in neat, concentric circles.
I will venture to say that the TYCHOS model satis es both sides of the age-old heliocentric vs. geoheliocentric debate, since it proposes an ideal and ‘unifying’ solution that may appeal to both parties—if only they would agree to sit down for a rational discussion. In the TYCHOS, the Earth is neither static nor immobile; nor does it hurtle across space at hypersonic speeds. Nor is our planet located smack in the middle of the Universe “by the will of God”. Instead, it is simply located at (or near) the barycentre of our very own li le binary system. All in all, the TYCHOS harmoniously combines elements from both of these competing cosmological models and even revives Plato’s ideal concept of uniform circular motion:
In fact, for Plato, the most perfect motion would be uniform circular motion, motion in a circle at a constant rate of speed. [5]
Yes, this book is a quite unorthodox scienti c publication, much unlike those conventional academic papers we are all accustomed to. I make no apologies for it and can only hope it will be appreciated for its earnest a empt to a ract a larger audience to the wondrous realm of astronomy, interest in which, sadly, appears to have reached an all-time low amongst the general public (for a number of reasons which would deserve a separate study). To ease explanations, I have done my best to illustrate the TYCHOS model’s tenets visually, with the aid of colourful graphics and diagrams, much in the manner of a children’s school book; I have also striven to use the simplest possible maths at all times to make the text accessible to the widest possible readership—including myself: I have always found complex equations exceedingly tedious, abstract and inadequate to describe our surrounding reality. Fortunately, the core principles of the TYCHOS model can be expressed and outlined with a bare minimum of computations—all in the good tradition of Tycho Brahe’s philosophical outlook which the great astronomer succinctly summarized in this famous maxim:
So Mathematical Truth prefers simple words since the language of Truth is itself simple.
e TYCHOS model is built upon the mostly unchallenged raw data collected over the ages by this planet’s most dedicated and rigorous observational astronomers. Yet, it also integrates and highlights numerous recent studies and discoveries, many of which appear to have been ‘swept under the rug’ by our world’s scienti c establishment. Its tenets have been developed around a holistic and methodical reinterpretation of ancient, medieval and modern astronomical knowledge, combined with a few ‘lucky strikes’ of my own. I will kindly ask all freethinking people of integrity to carefully assess its core principles with an open mind, devoid of any prejudice or preconceptions. If you can overcome the rst and most obvious thought hurdle (i.e., “how could all our world’s astronomers possibly be wrong?”), I trust you’ll enjoy the journey across the richly illustrated pages of this book which, a er all, presents a fully working geometric con guration of our Solar System while resolving a great many puzzles of modern astronomy.
Simon Shack
References
[1] Kepler’s Laws and Newton’s Laws, Holyoke College, Massachuse s h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/005A Kepler-Newton.htm
[2] e Composition of Kepler’s Astronomia Nova by J. R. Voelkel (2001) h ps://tinyurl.com/Voelkel-Astronomia-Nova-1
[3] Regarding how Tycho Brahe noted the Absurdity of the Copernican eory regarding the Bigness of Stars, while the Copernicans appealed to God to answer that Absurdity by Christopher M. Graney (2011) h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/003A Tycho-Noted-Absurdity.pdf
[4] e Case Against Copernicus by Dennis Danielson and Christopher M. Graney (2014) h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/003B Case-Against-Copernicus.pdf
[5] e Geocentric View of Eudoxus, Princeton University h p://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7432.pdf

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Book design and layout: Per Berglund Copy-editing and revisions: Jesper Sampaio Webmaster and curator of the TYCHOS online forum: Timo Raiala (forum.tychos.space) Computer programmer of the Tychosium 3D simulator: Patrik Holmqvist (ts.tychos.space)

1
A BRIEF HISTORY OF GEO-HELIOCENTRISM
1.1 Introduction
Perhaps I should start by reminding all readers of the de nitions of the three principal con gurations of our Solar System proposed (and relentlessly debated) among astronomers throughout the centuries. I will do so in an extremely succinct and simpli ed fashion:
Geocentrism e idea that Earth is at the centre of our Solar System (or of the Universe) and that everything revolves around Earth, including the stars. is is the ancient and long-abandoned Ptolemaic/Aristotelian model. It has been e ectively and de nitively disproven due to a number of incongruities which came to light as more modern observational instruments became available to astronomers (Venus, for instance, was found to transit closer to Earth than Mercury).
Heliocentrism e idea that the Sun is at the centre of our Solar System and that all our planets (including Earth) revolve around the Sun. is is of course the current, widely accepted con guration (i.e., the Copernican/Keplerian model). It requires Earth to be moving at 90 times the speed of sound (107226 km/h), yet this is an assumption that to this day has never been successfully demonstrated, in spite of countless sophisticated experiments performed over the last few centuries. In this book, it will be further demonstrated that the geometric con guration of the Copernican model presents a number of insurmountable problems. As few people will know, the heliocentric model proposed by Copernicus struggled for several decades to a ain recognition among the world’s scienti c community due to its many extraordinary and implausible implications. As we shall see, heliocentrism is, quite simply, an untenable theory.
Geo-heliocentrism e idea that the Earth is at the centre of our Solar System and that all planets except Earth revolve around the Sun. e most renowned geo-heliocentric model is that put forth in 1583 by Tycho Brahe, referred to as the Tychonic system. It is a li le-known fact that this model remained the most widely accepted con guration of our Solar System for at least a century a er Tycho Brahe’s death in 1601. e subsequently re ned yet lesser-known ‘semi-Tychonic’ system (which includes the daily rotation of Earth around its axis) was proposed by Brahe’s trusty assistant Longomontanus in 1622. e la er is generally considered every bit as valid as heliocentrism under all observational respects and is the basis upon which my TYCHOS model is founded. It is still unclear why the semi-Tychonic system was so quickly discarded in favour of the Copernican model since the la er was by no means superior to Longomontanus’ upgraded Tychonic system, as presented in Astronomia Danica (1622).

2

Chapter 1

A BRIEF HISTORY OF GEO-HELIOCENTRISM

Fig. 1.1 Le : Tycho Brahe Right: Christen Longomontanus

1.2 Early acceptance of the Tychonic model
In the mid-17th century, the Italian astronomer Giovanni Ba ista Riccioli was the most eminent supporter of the Tychonic system. In his main treatise, the 1500-page Almagestum Novum (New Almagest) [1], he confronted and assessed the pros and cons of the three above-mentioned models in a fair and objective manner, as most historians will acknowledge. e front cover artwork of his New Almagest suggests that Riccioli eventually found the Tychonic model to be ‘weightier’ than the Copernican model.
Interestingly, as one can read in the Wikipedia, Giovanni Riccioli is also widely known for having discovered the rst double star in 1650 (about 50 years a er Tycho Brahe’s death). Today, however, the astronomy literature generally credits William Herschel with having de nitively proven the existence of double stars around the year 1700. In any event, it is beyond dispute that no binary stars were known before the advent of the telescope; hence, in his time, Tycho Brahe was wholly unaware of their existence.
For most of his life, Tycho Brahe apparently believed that Earth was totally stationary, did not rotate around its axis, and that the stars all revolved around it in unison every 24 hours. One can only wonder how Brahe reconciled this belief with the individual proper motions of the stars (all stars move very slowly over time in all imaginable x-y-z directions) which he must have been aware of. Moreover, if the stars all revolved ‘in unison’ around us every 24 hours, their orbital velocities would be quite unthinkably high. Eventually however, as mentioned above, Brahe’s assistant Longomontanus wisely allowed for Earth’s daily rotation around its axis in what became known as the ‘semi-Tychonic’ system. e accuracy of Longomontanus’ re ned version of his master’s geo-heliocentric model has not been surpassed to this day:
Longomontanus, Tycho’s sole disciple, assumed the responsibility and ful lled both tasks in his voluminous ‘Astronomia Danica’ (1622). Regarded as the testament of Tycho, the work was eagerly received in seventeenth-century astronomical literature. But unlike Tycho’s, his geo-heliocentric model gave the Earth a daily rotation as in the models of Ursus and Roslin, and which is sometimes called the ‘semi-Tychonic’ system. […] Some historians of science claim Kepler’s 1627 ‘Rudolphine Tables’ based on Tycho Brahe’s observations were more accurate than any previous tables. But nobody has ever demonstrated they were more accurate than Longomontanus’s 1622 ‘Danish Astronomy’ tables, also based upon Tycho’s observations. [2]
However, Longomontanus’ semi-Tychonic system still lacked an explanation for the slow alternation of our pole stars—or what is commonly known as ‘the precession of the equinoxes’; it also proposed a motionless (albeit rotating) Earth, a notion that jars with the fact that all the visible celestial bodies in our skies exhibit some orbital motion of their own.

1.2 Early acceptance of the Tychonic model 3
My proposed TYCHOS model is essentially a natural evolution of the semi-Tychonic system that further re nes its unequalled consistency with empirical observation; it provides a long overdue reassessment and completion of the extraordinary work of Tycho Brahe and Longomontanus which, sadly and inexplicably, was discarded in favour of the Copernican theory, with its numerous problems and aberrations. As we shall see, these problems stem from the distinctly unphysical nature of its proposed heliocentric geometry. It is a li le-known fact that the Copernican theory was rejected—and justly so—for several decades by the world’s scienti c community due to the many leaps of logic demanded by its core tenets. One of the most formidable mental e orts required to accept the novel Copernican theory was the extraordinary dimensions and distances of the stars in relation to our system, as illustrated in the following excerpt from e Case Against Copernicus:
Most scientists refused to accept Copernicus’s theory for many decades—even a er Galileo made his epochal observations with his telescope. eir objections were not only theological. Observational evidence supported a competing cosmology, the “geo-heliocentrism” of Tycho Brahe. e most devastating argument against the Copernican universe was the star size problem. Rather than give up their theory in the face of seemingly incontrovertible physical evidence, Copernicans were forced to appeal to divine omnipotence. [3] Another huge problem was, of course, the outrageous implication that our tranquil planet Earth was supposedly hurtling around space at the breakneck, hypersonic speed of 90 times the speed of sound!
Fig. 1.2 e frontispiece to Riccioli’s Almagestrum Novum tells his perspective on the state of astronomy in 1651. Urania, the winged muse of astronomy, holds up a scale with two competing models, a sun-centred Copernican model, and the Tychonic geo-heliocentric model. Under God’s hand from the top of the image, the scale reports the Tychonic model to be heavier and thus the winner.

4

Chapter 1

A BRIEF HISTORY OF GEO-HELIOCENTRISM

1.3 The geo-heliocentric models of Tycho Brahe and Pathani Samanta
Let us now compare the proposed geo-heliocentric models of arguably the two most pro cient naked-eye observational astronomers of all times, Tycho Brahe and Pathani Samanta.Independently of each other, the two astronomers reached practically identical conclusions with regard to the geometric con guration of our Solar System.
To the right is a page scanned from a book titled Indian Mathematics and Astronomy. e book was graciously given to me by its author when I visited him in Bangalore, India, in April 2016: Prof. Balachandra Rao, a now retired professor of mathematics, astronomy historian and author of several captivating books on ancient Indian astronomy. e page features an illustration of the planetary model designed by Pathani Samanta, a man rightly heralded as India’s greatest naked-eye astronomer.
As you can see, the models of these two outstanding celestial observers are virtually identical. I have highlighted in yellow and red the intersecting orbits of the Sun and Mars which are clearly consistent with what we would today call a binary pair.
Fig. 1.3 A page from the book Indian Mathematics and Astronomy.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 1.4 e remarkably similar geo-heliocentric models of (a) Pathani Samanta and (b) Tycho Brahe.

1.3 The geo-heliocentric models of Tycho Brahe and Pathani Samanta 5
Since Tycho predated Pathani by more than two centuries, one might suspect some plagiarism on the part of the la er. However, it seems to be well-documented that Pathani Samanta (who published a monumental work in Sanskrit, the Sidhanta Darpana) reached his conclusions through his very own observations and ingenuity, working in semi-seclusion and with li le or no contact with the Western world for most of his lifetime. I thus nd it most unlikely that Samanta simply plagiarized Brahe’s work. Conversely, one could perhaps suspect Brahe of having ‘snatched’ some ideas from another illustrious Indian astronomer/mathematician, namely Nilakantha Somayaji (1444-1544). He predated Brahe by a century or so and was the rst to devise a geo-heliocentric system in which all the planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) orbit the Sun, which in turn orbits the Earth. However, there can be no doubt about the primacy of Brahe’s massive body of astronomical observations and their unprecedented accuracy. So, rather than pursuing this conjecture further, let us instead ask ourselves a more interesting and germane question raised by the above-illustrated identical models of Tycho Brahe and Pathani Samanta:
How and why did such diverse astronomers, a er lifetimes of tireless observations, eventually reach such strikingly similar conclusions, particularly with regard to the intersecting orbits of the Sun and Mars?
ere is probably no easy answer to this question, and we can only marvel at the stunning similarity of their models—something that, to my knowledge, has never been mentioned or discussed in the astronomy literature to this day. In any case, I nd it nothing short of shocking that the remarkable lifetime achievements of Pathani Samanta and Tycho Brahe are virtually unknown to the general public today.
Now, if we take a closer look at the illustrations of Brahe’s and Samanta’s models, there is something that intuitively appears to be missing: What geometric component of all the systems observed in our skies is absent from both of the above planetary models?
In my view, this is the major logical aw in the above models: the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and the Sun all have circular orbital paths drawn in the model. Only one celestial body is, exceptionally, lacking an orbit: the Earth! Now, why would our planet not have an orbit and thus be motionless, unlike all the celestial bodies in the universe?
As I see it, the idea that the Earth—and Earth only—would remain completely immobile in space is a most unfortunate failure of imagination. Nonetheless, the highest praise and respect goes to these two prodigious astronomers of the pre-telescope era who provided us with the most signi cant clue of all: namely, that the Sun and Mars are, in fact, ‘interlocked’ in typical intersecting binary orbits, much like the vast majority, or quite possibly all, of the surrounding star systems.
Further on in this book, we shall see how the currently accepted heliocentric model presents a similar logical aw, namely the notion that our Sun is the only star in our skies lacking a local orbit (i.e., a relatively small orbit) of its own. e formidable absurdity of such a claim should be clear to any thinking person. Indeed, the idea that our Sun is the single odd exception to the rule truly challenges plain common sense. Yes, the Sun is believed by mainstream astronomers to have an orbit of its own—not a local orbit, but an orbit around the galaxy. is presumed ‘galactic’ orbit is said to require some 240 million years to be completed!
In the TYCHOS model, of course, the Sun has a small, local orbit of its own which lasts for exactly one solar year. e Sun has a tiny binary companion which we all know by the name of ‘Mars’. Every 2 years or so (more precisely 2.13 y), Mars and the Sun transit at diametrically opposite sides of the Earth: this is what we call ‘the Mars oppositions’, coinciding with Mars’ closest passages to Earth. Yet, to this day, in spite of this peculiar behaviour of Mars (reminiscent of the regular close encounters observed in binary star systems), it seems never to have occurred to modern astronomers that we may live in a binary system. As I shall progressively expound and demonstrate in the following chapters, there is ample evidence that the Sun and Mars make up a binary pair. Along the way, my TYCHOS model will help elucidate and/or resolve a number of persistent cosmological conundrums and quandaries, the existence of which no earnest astronomers or cosmologists can deny.
A fundamental point that the TYCHOS model will demonstrate is that our Solar System is a most remarkably interconnected ‘clockwork’ or ‘gearbox’, the mechanism of which features our Moon as its ‘central drivesha ’ and extends all the way to the outer planets. Yet, modern astronomers have been suggesting that our outer planets are governed by chaos, most likely because they are unaware of the Earth’s own, snail-paced

6

Chapter 1

A BRIEF HISTORY OF GEO-HELIOCENTRISM

orbital motion which, of course, will ever so slightly ‘upset’ their measurements of the secular motions of the more distant ‘family members’ of our Solar System. Since they are oblivious to the Earth’s true motion in the opposite direction of the other components of the Solar System, they will invoke chaos or some other extravagant concept to explain away what they take for anomalies.
“ e Solar System is Chaotic” (19 March 1999):
Although the stability of planetary motion helped Newton to establish the laws of classical mechanics, new research on the positions of the outer planets suggest they are governed by chaos. [4]
We shall now proceed and take a look at binary star systems. Modern-day astronomers have known for decades that most stars have binary companions which are almost always invisible to the naked eye and very rarely detectable with amateur telescopes. However, despite the continual discovery of new binary systems, the general public remains largely unaware of their existence. One might ask whether those charged with ‘the public understanding of science’ have been doing their job properly.

1.4 References
[1] New Almagest Commentary, loc.gov h ps://tinyurl.com/NewAlmagestCommentary
[2] Christen Sørensen Longomontanus, Wikipedia h ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christen S%C3%B8rensen Longomontanus
[3] e Case Against Copernicus by Dennis Danielson and Christopher M. Graney (2014) h ps://physics.ucf.edu/∼bri /Geophysics/Readings/R2 e%20case%20against%20Copernicus.pdf
[4] Solar System is Chaotic, physicsworld.com h ps://physicsworld.com/a/solar-system-is-chaotic

2
ABOUT BINARY STAR SYSTEMS

2.1 Is our Sun a single star?

If you were to tell a child that practically all the stars we can see in the sky with our naked eyes have a binary companion, the child’s reply might be something like: “So, if the stars are suns like our own Sun, just farther away, why doesn’t the Sun also have a companion?” Your best answer would probably be: “ at’s what the astronomers say, honey, and they should know. ey tell us the Sun is a single star.” It might occur to the child that our Sun must be the loneliest star in the universe. Incredulous, the inquiring child might then protest: “It’s not fair! If all the stars in the sky have a partner, then our Sun should have one too!” You could then a empt to ‘save face’ by reminding the child that you didn’t say “all the stars”, but “practically all the stars”.
Yet, it is a ma er of historical record that for centuries the Copernicans rejected the very notion of binary stars:

Fig. 2.1 Image source: e SAO Encyclopedia of Astronomy

In a Copernican view, the idea of stellar systems containing two or more associated stars seemed a priori excluded by heliocentrism; all stars in the universe are suns like our own, all being equal in size and resting at the centre of other possible star systems. Given these premises, there cannot be a system with more than one star. [1]

Of course, this early Copernican axiom has since been categorically contradicted, as the vast majority of our visible stars have turned out to be double (or multiple) systems in which, more o en than not, two central ‘stars’ revolve around a common barycentre. Wikipedia’s entry on double stars lists three main categories of double stars:

Visual binaries Two or more gravitationally bound stars that are separately visible with a telescope. Non-visual binaries Stars whose binary con guration was deduced by indirect means, such as occultation
(eclipsing binaries), spectroscopy (spectroscopic binaries), or anomalies in proper motion (astrometric binaries).
Optical doubles Unrelated stars that only appear close together through chance alignment with Earth.

Note that the third category above—unrelated stars which happen to be aligned along our earthly line of sight—is of no concern to us here.
What we shall see is that, when considering the most recent discoveries of observational astronomy, a reasonable case could certainly be made that 100% of the stars in our skies are, in fact, binary (or multiple) star systems. If this is so, all the apparently single points in the rmament that we think of as individual stars have a smaller companion, almost always undetectable to the naked eye. e two stars in the system revolve around each other in intersecting orbits, and also around a common barycentre (or ‘centre of mass’, for lack of a be er word), completing a revolution in variable time periods, ranging from a few hours, days, weeks, months or—more rarely—a few dozen years.

8

Chapter 2

ABOUT BINARY STAR SYSTEMS

Examples of binary star periods Here are a few examples of binary star periods:
• e binary system MIZAR A (composed of Mizar Aa & Mizar Ab) circle each other in about 20.5 days. • e binary system MIZAR B (composed of Mizar Ba & Mizar Bb) circle each other in about 6 months. • e binary system Polaris (composed of Polaris Aa & Polaris Ab) circle each other in circa 29.6 years. • e binary system Alpha Centauri (composed of A. Centauri A & A. Centauri B) circle each other in circa
79.7 years.

Amazingly, some binary systems have recently been observed to revolve around each other in only a few minutes:
A er a decade of mystery, astronomers have now shown that a pair of white dwarf stars spin around each other in just 5.4 minutes, making them the fastest-orbiting and tightest binary star system ever found, the researchers claim.
Our Sun, in stark contrast, is currently believed to complete one orbit in about 240 million years! In other words, Copernican astronomers are asking us to believe that the Sun has no ‘local orbit’ (as I shall call it), unlike practically all other stars. is would of course imply that our Sun is potentially an exception to the rule and a quite formidable cosmic and statistical curiosity. To be sure, what we know today is that the vast majority of our visible stars are, in fact, part of binary/multiple systems. Unfortunately, a number of modern astronomy textbooks still state that no more than 50% of the stars are binary systems, neglecting to report the mounting evidence that over 90% of the known stars have companions.
In fact, the majority of stars happens to be part of a binary or multiple system, and consequently binary star research covers most areas of stellar astronomy. [2]
It is important to point out that Tycho Brahe was unaware of the existence of binary systems. e rst binary system (Mizar A and B) was discovered in 1650 by Giovanni Riccioli, half a century a er Brahe’s death, and only following the invention of the telescope. However, it wasn’t until more than a century later that William Herschel formally announced his discovery of what he described as ‘binary sidereal systems’:
In 1797, Herschel measured many of the systems again, and discovered changes in their relative positions that could not be a ributed to the parallax caused by the Earth’s orbit. He waited until 1802 to announce the hypothesis that the two stars might be “binary sidereal systems” orbiting under mutual gravitational a raction, a hypothesis he con rmed in 1803 in his Account of the Changes that have happened, during the last Twenty- ve Years, in the relative Situation of Double-stars; with an Investigation of the Cause to which they are owing. In all, Herschel discovered over 800 con rmed double or multiple star systems, almost all of them physical rather than optical pairs. His theoretical and observational work provided the foundation for modern binary star astronomy. [3]
Fig. 2.2 is a chart of Herschel’s 805 certi ed double star systems. One can only wonder why Herschel’s paradigm-shi ing discoveries didn’t trigger a revolution within the eld of astronomy and why no one to this day has seriously reconsidered the Tychonic model, with its intersecting orbits of the Sun and Mars clearly suggestive of a binary con guration.
In any event, one cannot blame Brahe for failing to notice and identify, within his own Tychonic model, the obvious binary nature of the orbital interactions of Mars and the Sun: in his time, no binary star systems had yet been discovered. He was thus unable—understandably so—to reach the logical conclusion that the Sun and Mars must make up a binary system, like the vast majority (or perhaps all) of the stars in our skies.

2.1 Is our Sun a single star? 9
Fig. 2.2 Image source: William Herschel’s double star discoveries.
It was precisely this ‘bizarre’ feature of Brahe’s proposed model (the intersecting orbits of Mars and the Sun) that triggered the sco ng and derision of his peers: “Sooner or later, the Sun and Mars must smash into each other”, they jeered. is is a good example of how the regre able group-think mentality pervading the so-called scienti c community responds to new ideas that challenge long-held beliefs. I would strongly recommend reading Howard Margolis’ impeccable demonstration that the perception that the Sun and Mars would necessarily collide in a system like the Tychonic was never more than a mere illusion—albeit one that befuddled the entire scienti c community. It makes for an exemplary case study of how even the sharpest human minds can be fooled for centuries on end by relatively simple tricks of geometry. [4]
Fig. 2.3 depicts a classic binary star scheme taken from the website of the University of Oregon. e site tells us that the vast majority of the stars in the Milky Way are binary systems.
Today, the numbers of known binary star systems are in the range of several hundreds of thousands, as we can read in this Russian academic paper by Malkov, Karchevsky, Kaygorodov, Kovaleva and Skvortsov (October 2018):
Binary Star Database (BDB): New Developments and Applications. e Identi cation List of Binaries (ILB) is a star catalogue constructed to facilitate cross-referencing between di erent catalogues of binary stars. […] ILB currently contains about 520,000 entries: 120,000 systems, 140,000 pairs and 260,000 components. [5] In fact, 85% of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy are not single stars, like the Sun, but multiple star systems, binaries or triplets. Clearly, binary systems are anything but rare, as believed only a century ago. For instance, we know today that the 20 stars closest to Earth are, in all probability, ‘locked’ in binary systems. Now, a most signi cant aspect to consider is that many of those 20 stars were discovered to be binary/multiple systems as recently as this last half-decade (2015-2020), showing how di cult it can be to detect stellar companions, let alone determine what sort of orbital relationship they have with their host star. is naturally raises the question: How many other distant stars held to be single stars are, in reality, double stars?
Fig. 2.3 A schematic of a basic binary star system. Image source: University of Oregon

10 Chapter 2

ABOUT BINARY STAR SYSTEMS

Our 20 nearmost stars and their con rmed or suspected companions Wikipedia has a list of our 20 nearmost stars and their con rmed or suspected companions [6]:
1. Proxima Centauri A / P. Centauri B / P. Centauri C (companions B & C discovered in 2016 and 2020) 2. Alpha Centauri A / Alpha Centauri B (companion B discovered long ago) 3. Barnard’s Star A / Barnard’s star B (companion B discovered in 2018) 4. Luhman A / Luhman B (companion B discovered long ago) 5. WISE 0855-0714 A / WISE 0855-0714 B (companion B discovered in 2018) 6. Wolf 359 A / Wolf 359 B / Wolf 359 C (companions B & C discovered in 2019) 7. Lalande 21185 A / Lalande 21185 B (companion B discovered in 2017) 8. Sirius A / Sirius B (companion B discovered long ago) 9. Luyten 726-8 A / Luyten 726-8 B (companion B discovered long ago) 10. Ross 154 (‘ are star’ in the Wikipedia) ( are stars are suspected of being double stars) 11. Ross 248 (‘ are star’ in the Wikipedia) ( are stars are suspected of being double stars) 12. Epsilon Eridani A / Epsilon Eridani B (companion B discovered long ago) 13. Lacaille 935 (said in the Wikipedia to have 3 known planets) 14. Ross 128 A / Ross 128 B (companion B discovered in 2017) 15. EZ Aquarii A / EZ Aquarii B / EZ Aquarii C (companions B & C discovered long ago) 16. 61 Cygni A / 61 Cygni B (companion B discovered long ago) 17. Procyon A / Procyon B (companion B discovered long ago) 18. Struve A / Struve B (two more companions discovered in 2019) 19. Groombridge A / Groombridge B (companion B discovered long ago) 20. DX Cancri (‘ are star’ in the Wikipedia) ( are stars are suspected of being double stars)

As a ma er of fact, the percentage of stars observed (or determined by spectrometry) to be locked in binary systems has been rapidly increasing in later years thanks to advanced spectrometers and so-called adaptive optics (based on the Shack-Hartmann principle). e la er technological advancement has spectacularly improved the ability to detect and reveal double stars formerly believed to be single stars. Of course, the di culty resides in the fact that double stars are always relatively close to each other and/or that the ‘junior’ companion can sometimes be extremely small (such as the tiny Sirius B, which is only about 0.5% the size of Sirius A). e two images in Fig. 2.4, illustrate how, in May 2013, the star HIC 59206 (previously thought to be singular) was revealed to be yet another binary system thanks to the use of adaptive optics technology (in this case, the two companion stars are fairly similar in size):

Fig. 2.4 ESO imagery of a binary star system (HIC 59206) imaged (a) without and (b) with

adaptive optics correction. Note the distinct

binary appearance with adaptive optics.

Credit: European Southern Observatory,

May 13, 2003.

(a)

(b)

2.2 About variable stars and flare stars 11
To wit, if it eventually emerges that 100% of the stars in our skies are binary/multiple systems, the current Copernican heliocentric theory, which holds that our Sun is a companionless star, will have to be de nitively abandoned, beyond appeal, for being a most improbable exception to the rule or, if you will, a one-of-a-kind cosmic anomaly, unless one accepts the truly astronomical odds of our own star (the Sun) being the one-andonly ‘bachelor’ in the entire universe—a most irrational and exceptionalistic notion, if there ever was one! In any case, the situation we have today is that virtually all of our nearmost stars are observed to have a binary companion, and more are continually being discovered, with no end in sight.
In the 1980s, one of the world’s top experts in binary star systems, Wul Heintz, announced at the end of his illustrious career that at least 85% of all the stars in our skies must be binary systems, leaving us to wonder whether the remaining 15% are really ‘bachelor’ stars (as our Sun is believed to be). Now, this announcement was made about 40 years ago; since then, thanks to technological advancements (e.g., adaptive optics, as mentioned above), we have seen an incessant ow of new reports of companions revolving around larger host stars that were formerly believed to be single stars. In later years, we have heard on the news, almost on a weekly basis, about the discovery of so-called ‘exoplanets’. Rarely though, if at all, is it suggested that some of these ‘exoplanets’ might be formerly unregistered companions of larger stars, possibly because of the growing ‘academic fear’ that all stars, without exception, may turn out to be binary/multiple systems.
e scienti c establishment is obviously keen to avoid such a conclusion: there could be no more horrifying prospect for ‘mainstream’ astronomers (for lack of a be er term) than having to admit that stars are by de nition binary/multiple systems, as this would spell the end of heliocentrism.
Critics of the TYCHOS model have objected that it “violates Newton’s laws” and, ironically, that it is “stuck in the past, rehashing obsolete ideas”, though much of its argumentation is based on modern observations and advances in astronomy. Sir Isaac Newton died in 1726, several decades before Herschel’s formal identi cation of ‘binary sidereal systems’ in 1797, so he never had a fair chance to study them. Moreover, Newton’s laws have been seriously challenged by numerous physicists over the last three centuries, and many paradigmshi ing astronomical discoveries have been made, even in the 21st century. So, rather than continue appealing to ‘Newtonian authority’, I suggest readers leave Newton’s sacrosanct laws at the door for now and allow themselves to take an unprejudiced look at the undeniable evidence of our telescopes and the plain facts of geometry.
Having said that, I am sure Sir Isaac was an exceptionally gi ed scientist. But keep in mind that none of his studies addressed the physics or celestial mechanics of binary star systems for the simple reason that li le or nothing was known about them in his time. As for that other science icon, Albert Einstein, here’s what Tom Van Flandern had to say about his theories as applied to binary stars:
If the general relativity method is correct, it ought to apply everywhere, not just in the solar system. But Van Flandern points to a con ict outside it: binary stars with highly unequal masses. eir orbits behave in ways that the Einstein formula did not predict. ‘Physicists know about it and shrug their shoulders,’ Van Flandern says. ey say there must be ‘something peculiar about these stars, such as an oblateness, or tidal e ects.’ Another possibility is that Einstein saw to it that he got the result needed to ‘explain’ Mercury’s orbit, but that it doesn’t apply elsewhere. [7]
In other words, Einstein’s famed formulae fail to predict the orbital motions of binary stars. Now, that is a rather serious problem, for if it eventually turns out that our universe is exclusively populated by binary star systems, it is back to the drawing board for the heliocentrists and for the devotees of the general theory of relativity.
2.2 About variable stars and flare stars
At the start of the 20th century, astronomers were debating whether so-called ‘variable stars’ (stars which change in brightness over regular time periods) were, quite simply, nothing but binary systems where the companion star periodically transited in front of its brighter binary partner, thus temporarily reducing its brightness. However, astronomers are still classifying many stars (those not yet o cially recognized as binary

12 Chapter 2

ABOUT BINARY STAR SYSTEMS

stars) as ‘variable stars’ or ‘ are stars’. So what exactly are variable stars? is is what Wikipedia can tell us about them:
A variable star is a star whose brightness as seen from Earth (its apparent magnitude) uctuates. is variation may be caused by a change in emi ed light or by something partly blocking the light, so variable stars are classi ed as either:
- Intrinsic variables, whose luminosity actually changes; for example, because the star periodically swells and shrinks.
- Extrinsic variables, whose apparent changes in brightness are due to changes in the amount of their light that can reach Earth; for example, because the star has an orbiting companion that sometimes eclipses it. Many, possibly most, stars have at least some variation in luminosity.
I think we can all agree that the hypothesis of “stars that periodically swell and shrink” is rather outlandish. But let us move on:
A are star is a variable star that becomes very much brighter unpredictably for a few minutes at a time. Most are stars are dim red dwarfs, although less massive (lighter) brown dwarfs might also be able to
are. e more massive (heavier) RS Canum Venaticorum variables (RS CVn) are also known to are, but scientists understand that a companion star in a binary system causes these ares.
us, in both cases (variable and are stars) we see that the least speculative explanation is that these stars are, quite simply, binary star systems whose brightness periodically dips as one companion obscures the other. ere is no need to classify them as anything else but binary stars.
Here are some relevant extracts from the book Astronomy of To-day, by Cecil G. Dolmage:
It was at one time considered that a variable star was in all probability a body, a portion of whose surface had been relatively darkened in some manner akin to that in which sun spots mar the face of the sun; and that when its axial rotation brought the less illuminated portions in turn towards us, we witnessed a consequent diminution in the star’s general brightness. […] e scale on which it varies in brightness is very great, for it changes from the second to the ninth magnitude. For the other leading type of variable star, Algol, of which mention has already been made, is the best instance. e shortness of the period in which the changes of brightness in such stars go their round, is the chief characteristic of this la er class. e period of Algol is a li le under three days. is star when at its brightest is of about the second magnitude, and when least bright is reduced to below the third magnitude; from which it follows that its light, when at the minimum, is only about one-third of what it is when at the maximum.
It seems de nitely proved by means of the spectroscope that variables of this kind are merely binary stars, too close to be separated by the telescope, which, as a consequence of their orbits chancing to be edgewise towards us, eclipse each other in turn time a er time.” […] Since the companion of Algol is o en spoken of as a dark body, it were well here to point out that we have no evidence at all that it is entirely devoid of light. We have already found, in dealing with spectroscopic binaries, that when one of the component stars is below a certain magnitude its spectrum will not be seen; so one is le in the glorious uncertainty as to whether the body in question is absolutely dark, or darkish, or faint, or indeed only just out of range of the spectroscope.
Indeed, it is a li le-known fact among laymen that many celestial bodies identi ed as ‘stars’ do not shine with their own light. For instance, most red dwarfs (by far the most common star type in the universe) are so faint and dim as to remain undetectable by even our largest modern telescopes. In the TYCHOS, of course, this would be the case of Mars (the Sun’s proposed binary companion) which exhibits the characteristic orange hue associated with red dwarfs (the rather bright shine of Mars is due to solar light re ection). Now, Mars is only about 0.5% the size of the Sun, and Sirius B (the tiny companion of the brightest star in our skies, Sirius A) also happens to be about 0.5% the size of its far larger partner. In fact, Alvan Clark’s discovery in 1862 of the midget Sirius B caused a stir among the 19th century scienti c community, since it was totally unexpected

2.3 Most recent discoveries of stellar companions 13
under Newton’s gravitational theories that a tiny body like Sirius B—reckoned to be slightly smaller than Earth—could possibly be gravitationally bound to such a huge body as Sirius A.
Incredibly enough, the pesky riddle was eventually ‘resolved’ (explained away) by astrophysicists, claiming, in the absence of any conceivable experimental veri cation and in what must be one of the most agrant ad hoc postulations in the history of science, that the mass/density/gravitational a raction (call it what you will) of the tiny Sirius B must be about 400000 times larger than that of Earth. In other words, we are asked to believe that Sirius B’s atoms are somehow ‘packed’ 400 thousand times tighter than our earthly atoms. Ironically though, one of Sir Isaac’s most hallowed precepts is that the laws of physics are unvarying and homogeneous across the universe.
2.3 Most recent discoveries of stellar companions
As recently as 2016, it was announced that a companion of our nearmost star, Proxima Centauri, had been discovered: it is now known as ‘Proxima b’ and it apparently revolves around Proxima A in just 11.2 days.
en, in January 2020, yet another companion to our closest star was announced, ‘Proxima c’, estimated to revolve around Proxima A in 5.28 years. Additionally, a faint signal with a period of only 5.15 days was detected during a 2019 exoplanet search using radial velocity data. If a planet is con rmed to be the cause of this signal, it would be designated as ‘Proxima d’. Again, these quite recent discoveries go to show just how di cult it is, even for our most advanced 21st century instruments, to detect the companion of any given binary system, even when the star is as close as Proxima Centauri. Now, it should be noted that the Proxima ‘family’ (a, b, c, and possibly d) are themselves reckoned to be slowly revolving around the binary pair Alpha Centauri A and B, the two Centauri star ‘families’ thus constituting a so-called ‘double-double’ system (more about this later).
e trend expressed by these recent discoveries seems to support the idea that all stars have binary companions. It is therefore reasonable to conjecture that, sometime in the future, thanks to improved techniques and instruments, all the stars now believed to be companionless will turn out to be binary systems. To be sure, much observational work remains to be done in this particular eld of astronomy:
Most known double stars have not been studied adequately to determine whether they are optical doubles or doubles physically bound through gravitation into a multiple star system. [8] As recently as 2018, it was announced that a companion of our second-nearmost star (or star system), namely Barnard’s star, had been con rmed. As it happens, the existence of Barnard’s companion was the object of a bi er and long-lasting controversy (which every astronomy historian will remember) between Peter Van de Kamp and Wul Heintz. e former was convinced he had proven the existence of two companions (which he named B1 and B2) of Barnard’s star, but Heintz would have none of it. For decades, vigorous e orts were deployed to discredit Van de Kamp’s discovery, including laughable claims that it was just an artefact caused by the improper cleaning of his telescope lenses. Yet, as we shall see, Van de Kamp’s observational work was nally vindicated, posthumously, in 2018 (even though yet another study released in July 2021 again disputes his ndings; astronomy, it seems, is a permanent ‘ba leground’).
Fig. 2.5 Le : Wul Heintz
Right: Peter Van de Kamp

14 Chapter 2

ABOUT BINARY STAR SYSTEMS

For those who are interested, a detailed account of Van de Kamp’s discovery of Barnard’s star companions is available in a 1969 Time magazine article. e epic feud between the two eminent astronomers and binary star experts, Heintz and Van de Kamp, truly deserves to be revisited. Below is an extract from the Wikipedia which brie y summarizes their protracted dispute. Warning: all Wikipedia entries involving historical controversies should be taken with a large grain of salt. As the old saying goes, one must read between the lines:
e Barnard’s Star a air. In the spring of 1937, Van de Kamp le McCormick Observatory to take over as director of Swarthmore College’s Sproul Observatory. ere he made astrometric measurements of Barnard’s Star and in the 1960s reported a periodic “wobble” in its motion, apparently due to planetary companions. Astronomer John L. Hershey found that this anomaly apparently occurred a er each time the objective lens was removed, cleaned, and replaced. Hundreds more stars showed “wobbles” like Barnard’s Star’s when photographs before and a er cleaning were compared - a virtual impossibility. Wul Heintz, Van de Kamp’s successor at Swarthmore and an expert on double stars, questioned his ndings and began publishing criticisms from 1976 onwards; the two are reported to have become estranged because of this. Van de Kamp never admi ed that his claim was in error and continued to publish papers about a planetary system around Barnard’s Star into the 1980s, while modern radial velocity curves place a limit on the planets much smaller than claimed by Van de Kamp. Recent evidence suggests that there is, indeed, a planet orbiting Barnard’s Star, albeit of much lower mass than Van de Kamp could have detected. [9]
Indeed, it now turns out that Heintz was wrong and that Van de Kamp had been right all along. In November 2018, ESO (the ground-based European Southern Observatory) nally announced that Barnard’s star indeed has a companion:
Super-Earth Orbiting Barnard’s Star Red Dots campaign uncovers compelling evidence of exoplanet around closest single star to Sun. A planet has been detected orbiting Barnard’s Star, a mere 6 light-years away.
is breakthrough - announced in a paper published today in the journal Nature - is a result of the Red Dots and CARMENES projects, whose search for local rocky planets has already uncovered a new world orbiting our nearest neighbour, Proxima Centauri. e planet, designated Barnard’s Star b, now steps in as the second-closest known exoplanet to Earth. e gathered data indicate that the planet could be a superEarth, having a mass at least 3.2 times that of the Earth, which orbits its host star in roughly 233 days. Barnard’s Star, the planet’s host star, is a red dwarf, a cool, low-mass star, which only dimly illuminates this newly-discovered world. [10]
It is interesting to note that both ESA (in 2007) and NASA (in 2010) decided to discontinue their e orts to search for Barnard’s companion a er having failed to detect it and, apparently, due to “lack of funding”. Here’s what we may read on Wikipedia about these curious circumstances:
Null results for planetary companions continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s, including interferometric work with the Hubble Space Telescope in 1999. Gatewood was able to show in 1995 that planets with 10 MJ were impossible around Barnard’s Star in a paper which helped re ne the negative certainty regarding planetary objects in general. In 1999, the Hubble work further excluded planetary companions of 0.8 MJ with an orbital period of less than 1,000 days (Jupiter’s orbital period is 4,332 days), while Kuerster determined in 2003 that within the habitable zone around Barnard’s Star, planets are not possible with an ”M sin i” value greater than 7.5 times the mass of the Earth (M ), or with a mass greater than 3.1 times the mass of Neptune (much lower than van de Kamp’s smallest suggested value). […] Even though this research greatly restricted the possible properties of planets around Barnard’s Star, it did not rule them out completely as terrestrial planets were always going to be di cult to detect. NASA’s Space Interferometry Mission, which was to begin searching for extrasolar Earth-like planets, was reported to have chosen Barnard’s Star as an early search target. is NASA mission was shut down in 2010. ESA’s similar Darwin interferometry mission had the same goal, but was stripped of funding in 2007. [11]
So there you have it: both NASA’s and ESA’s e orts to search for the Barnard’s star companion(s) apparently failed and were shut down. One may legitimately wonder why. “Lack of funding” is not an entirely

2.4 Additional links to literature on binary systems 15
convincing explanation. Whatever their motivation is, one fact remains of which there can be li le doubt: Van de Kamp’s solitary endeavours succeeded where NASA’s e orts had failed, in spite of their much touted, multimillion-dollar ‘space telescopes’ and immensely superior resources.
2.4 Additional links to literature on binary systems Here’s a selection of quotes about binary stars from various astronomy sources:
ere are many common misconceptions about binary star systems, one of the most common myths is that binary star systems are the cosmic oddity and that single star systems are the most prevalent, when, in fact, the opposite is true. 50 years ago binary stars were considered a rarity. Now, most of the stars in our galaxy are known to be paired with a companion or multiple partners. [12]
Binary stars are two stars orbiting a common center of mass. More than four- hs (80%) of the single points of light we observe in the night sky are actually two or more stars orbiting together. e most common of the multiple star systems are binary stars, systems of only two stars together. ese pairs come in an array of con gurations that help scientists to classify stars, and could have impacts on the development of life. Some people even think that the sun is part of a binary system. [13]
Binary stars are of immense importance to astronomers as they allow the masses of stars to be determined. A binary system is simply one in which two stars orbit around a common centre of mass, that is they are gravitationally bound to each other. Actually most stars are in binary systems. Perhaps up to 85% of stars are in binary systems with some in triple or even higher-multiple systems. [14]
e idea that the Sun is part of a binary system is not a new concept. Headed by Walter Cru enden, the Binary Research Institute has been looking into this hypothesis for many years. Unfortunately, their reasoning process is stuck in the Copernican heliocentric paradigm; thus, their ongoing search for the Sun’s elusive binary companion has never considered Mars as a possible candidate. eir current, favoured candidate for a binary companion of the Sun appears to be Sirius. However, Sirius is itself a binary system (Sirius A and B revolve around their common barycentre every 50.1 years). Nonetheless, Cru enden and co-workers have done a sterling job demonstrating, in strictly methodical fashion, the untenability of the so-called lunisolar theory: Earth’s purported ‘wobble’ around its own axis (more on this in Chapter 10).
A recent study of the phenomenon known as “Precession of the Equinox” has led researchers to question the extent of lunisolar causation and to propose an alternative solar system model that be er ts observed data, and solves a number of current solar system anomalies. [15] Fig. 2.6 shows a variety of complex pa erns published in a fairly recent study (Perryman and SchulzeHartung - 2010) concerned with the barycentric motions of stars. In the TYCHOS (as we shall see further on), the spirographic orbital paths of our planets bear some resemblance to the complex yet beautiful pa erns some modern astronomers are observing in what they call “the barycentric motion of exoplanet host stars”.
Fig. 2.6 Page 6 of e Barycentric Motion of Exoplanet Host Stars, by M. A. C. Perryman and T. Schulze-Hartung (2010)

16 Chapter 2

ABOUT BINARY STAR SYSTEMS

Only a century ago, astronomers believed that binary star systems were in the minority, mostly because red dwarfs (which make up 70% of all stars) had never been observed to have companions. In recent years, however, pairs of red dwarfs have been discovered to revolve around each other at very close distance, some in less than one Earth-day. is clearly constitutes a ‘game changer’ in the eld of stellar statistics which may ultimately rule out the existence of single, companionless stars. In any event, it certainly lends support to the notion that all stars—without exception—are locked in binary systems.
Cool red dwarfs are the most common sort of star in our Milky Way galaxy. But astronomers said yesterday (January 10, 2022) that they’ve discovered what they called the tightest ultracool dwarf binary system ever observed. e two stars in this system both are extremely low in mass. And they’re so cool they emit their light mostly in the infrared–what we’d perceive as heat–and so are completely invisible to the human eye. What’s more, the stars are close together. ey take less than an Earth-day to complete a single orbit around one another [16].
In light of the facts and considerations expounded in this chapter, the notion of the Sun and Mars being a binary pair should emerge (not least from a probabilistic perspective) as a perfectly sound and logical proposition. e child’s question posed at the beginning of this chapter is worthy of serious consideration: “If the stars are suns like our own Sun, just farther away, why doesn’t the Sun also have a companion?”

2.5 References
[1] e Early Search for Stellar Parallax: Galileo, Castelli and Ramponi by Harald Siebert (2005) h ps://tinyurl.com/EarlySearchParallax
[2] Binary stars and the VLTI: research prospects by Richichi and Leinert (2000) h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/006B VLTI-abstract.htm
[3] William Herschel, Wikipedia h ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William Herschel
[4] Tycho’s Illusion: How it lasted 400 Years, and What that implies about Human Cognition by Howard Margolis (1998) h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/007A Tychos-Illusion.htm
[5] Binary Star Database (BDB): New Developments and Applications h ps://res.mdpi.com/data/data-03-00039/article deploy/data-03-00039.pdf? lename=&a achment=1
[6] List of nearest stars, Wikipedia h ps://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of nearest stars
[7] Tom Van Flandern (articles) h p://ldolphin.org/vanFlandern
[8] Binary star, Wikipedia h ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary star
[9] Astronomy: e Mysterious Companions Of Barnard’s Star, Time magazine (1969) h p://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,840092-1,00.html
[10] Super-Earth Orbiting Barnard’s Star, European Southern Observatory (2018) h ps://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1837
[11] Barnard’s star, Wikipedia h ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard%27s Star
[12] Binary Star Prevalence by the Binary Research institute h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/008A BRI-evidence.htm
[13] Binary Star Systems: Classi cation and Evolution by SPACE.com Sta (2018) h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/008B Space-Binary-Star-Systems.htm
[14] Binary Stars by CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility (2017) h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/008C ATNF-Binary-Stars.htm
[15] Understanding Precession of the Equinox by Walter Cru enden and Vince Dayes (2003) h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/009A Understanding-Precession.pdf
[16] Ultracool dwarf binary stars break records, EarthSky.org h ps://earthsky.org/space/ultracool-dwarf-binary-stars-break-records

3
ABOUT OUR SUN-MARS BINARY SYSTEM
3.1 The Sun, Mars and the Earth, and their moons e rst objection people make to the idea that Mars is the Sun’s binary companion is usually something like:
“Nonsense! Mars is a planet, not a star!” Yes, today’s astronomers do indeed refer to Mars as a ‘planet’, even though, as we shall see, Kepler himself called Mars a ‘star’ (Stellae Martis, in Latin). In any case, the distinction between a planet and a star is not as clear-cut as it may seem. Many ‘stars’ don’t even appear to shine with their own light: for instance, countless red and brown dwarfs are so dim that they remain completely invisible even to our largest telescopes. In fact, red dwarfs are the most common ‘stars’ in our skies:
Red dwarfs are by far the most common type of star in the Milky Way, at least in the neighbourhood of the Sun, but because of their low luminosity, individual red dwarfs cannot be easily observed. From Earth, not one star that ts the stricter de nitions of a red dwarf is visible to the naked eye. [1]
Fig. 3.1 A screenshot from the Tychosium 3D simulator.
As any amateur astronomer will know, Mars is a solid sphere re ecting the light of the Sun, but to the naked eye it shines almost like a reddish-orange star. In fact, it is worth noting that Mars is the only reddishorange body in our Solar System.
You may now ask: “How do we know about the existence of dwarf stars which are invisible even to our largest telescopes?” We know this thanks to sophisticated instruments called spectroscopes which are routinely used to detect the invisible companions of larger stars. Cecil G. Dolmage has succinctly described the basic workings of the spectroscope thus:

18 Chapter 3

ABOUT OUR SUN-MARS BINARY SYSTEM

Fig. 3.2 Similarities between Mars and a red dwarf.
(a) An amateur astrophotograh of Mars (Rob Pe engill).
(b) An artist’s conception of a red dwarf (Wikipedia).

(a)

(b)

ere are certain stars which always appear single even in the largest telescopes, but when the spectroscope is directed to them a spectrum with two sets of lines is seen. Such stars must, therefore, be double. Further, if the shi ing of the lines, in a spectrum like this, tell us that the component stars are making small movements to and from us which go on continuously, we are therefore justi ed in concluding that these are the orbital revolutions of a binary system greatly compressed by distance. Such connected pairs of stars, since they cannot be seen separately by means of any telescope, no ma er how large, are known as spectroscopic binaries.
However, it should be noted that even spectroscopes will fail to determine whether star companions detected in such a manner shine with their own light:
In observations of spectroscopic binaries we do not always get a double spectrum. Indeed, if one of the components be below a certain magnitude, its spectrum will not appear at all; and so we are le in the strange uncertainty as to whether this component is merely faint or actually dark. It is, however, from the shi ing of the lines in the spectrum of the other component that we see that an orbital movement is going on, and are thus enabled to conclude that two bodies are here connected into a system, although one of these bodies resolutely refuses directly to reveal itself even to the all-conquering spectroscope. [2]
Today, we know that the vast majority of our visible stars have one or more faint or invisible companions, and astronomers are discovering new binary systems at an ever-increasing rate. Surely, this has to be the most signi cant, paradigm-changing astronomical epiphany of our modern age! One can only wonder why such persistent ndings haven’t yet sparked a major debate questioning the ‘implicit exceptionalism’ of the Copernican heliocentric theory—what with its companionless ‘non-binary star’ (the Sun) and its gigantic 240-million-year orbit.
Having said that, there does appear to be a growing awareness within select astronomy circles of the awkwardness of the notion of a solitary Sun. Here is, for instance, a short excerpt from a recent article published on the Science Alert website in November 2018:
Our Sun is a solitary star, all on its ownsome, which makes it something of an oddball. But there’s evidence to suggest that it did have a binary twin, once upon a time. Recent research suggests that most, if not all, stars are born with a binary twin. (We already knew the Solar System is a total weirdo. e placement of the planets appears out of whack compared to other systems, and it’s missing the most common planet in the galaxy, the super-Earth). [3]
Another article published in June 2017 on the PhysOrg website carries this most interesting title: “New evidence that all stars are born in pairs”.
Astronomers have speculated about the origins of binary and multiple star systems for hundreds of years, and in recent years have created computer simulations of collapsing masses of gas to understand how they condense under gravity into stars. ey have also simulated the interaction of many young stars recently freed from their gas clouds. Several years ago, one such computer simulation by Pavel Kroupa of the University of Bonn led him to conclude that all stars are born as binaries.[. . . ] We now believe that most

3.2 Binary stars keep masquerading as black holes 19
stars, which are quite similar to our own sun, form as binaries. I think we have the strongest evidence to date for such an assertion. [4]
Interesting, isn’t it? If all stars are born in pairs, how and why did our Sun separate from its original companion? Did they part ways due to hypothetical cosmic ‘turbulences’ and ‘perturbations’ that somehow ruined their primordial, magnetic relationship? If it were eventually found that all stars have a binary companion, this would have profound implications for the entire realm of astrophysics—and this isn’t just my personal opinion: it was none other than Jacobus Kapteyn, the world’s foremost expert in stellar statistics, who famously stated at the end of his illustrious career that:
If all stars were binaries there would be no need to invoke ‘dark ma er’ in the Universe.
We have seen that modern astronomy studies strongly support the notion that stars are by de nition born in pairs. Further on (Chapter 28), we shall see that a very recent study (September 2022) has concluded that stars also die in pairs. As shown above, the evidence that all stars are binary/multiple systems is mounting day by day, yet in the realm of popular science our Sun is still steadfastly claimed to be a single star.
We have all heard of ‘dark ma er’, but are never told exactly what it is. is is because nobody really knows. Modern astrophysicists think of it as an elusive, invisible and imponderable ‘stu ’ lling the universe and are desperately a empting to detect it—so far with no luck. It is currently contended that about 80% of the universe consists of dark (or ‘missing’) ma er because the observed, highly sca ered distributions and the erroneously estimated orbital speeds of celestial bodies and galaxies appear to violate both Kepler’s and Newton’s hallowed laws, as well as the infamous ‘Big Bang’ theory. Here’s an extract from a Wikipedia page titled “Galaxy rotation curve”:
Since observations of galaxy rotation do not match the distribution expected from application of Kepler’s laws, they do not match the distribution of luminous ma er. is implies that spiral galaxies contain large amounts of dark ma er or, in alternative, the existence of exotic physics in action on galactic scales. ese results suggested that either Newtonian gravity does not apply universally or that, conservatively, upwards of 50% of the mass of galaxies was contained in the relatively dark galactic halo.
Evidently, Kepler’s and Newton’s laws, which modern astrophysics relies on, are in serious trouble today. Yet, the world’s scienti c community does not seem to be much bothered with that. Let us now take a brief look at what is popularly known as black holes.
3.2 Binary stars keep masquerading as black holes
e above title is the actual headline of an article published on sciencenews.org in April 2022. According to this recent discovery, binary stars ‘keep masquerading’ as black holes. In other words, what astrophysicists for decades have been calling black holes may simply be artefacts caused by formerly unsuspected and still undetected binary star systems.
Here’s an extract from the article published on Science News.org on 4 April 2022:
As astronomy datasets grow larger, scientists are scouring them for black holes, hoping to be er understand the exotic objects. But the drive to nd more black holes is leading some astronomers astray. “You say black holes are like a needle in a haystack, but suddenly we have way more haystacks than we did before,” says astrophysicist Kareem El-Badry of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. “You have be er chances of nding them, but you also have more opportunities to nd things that look like them.” Two more claimed black holes have turned out to be the la er: weird things that look like them.
ey both are actually doublestar systems at never-before-seen stages in their evolutions, El-Badry and his colleagues report March 24 in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. e key to understanding the systems is guring out how to interpret light coming from them, the researchers say.

20 Chapter 3

ABOUT OUR SUN-MARS BINARY SYSTEM

Fig. 3.3 Image source: sciencenews.org

So two recently discovered black holes have turned out to be double-star systems at never-before-seen stages in their evolutions. at article is pure dynamite, if you ask me, and is well worth reading in its entirety. But let me submit another excerpt from it:
“ e problem was that there was not just one star, but a second one that was basically hiding”, says astrophysicist Julia Bodensteiner of the European Southern Observatory in Garching, Germany, who was not involved in the new study. at second star in each system spins very fast, which makes them di cult to see in the spectra. What’s more, the lines in the spectrum of a star orbiting something will shi back and forth, El-Badry says. If one assumes the spectrum shows just one average, slow-spinning star in an orbit—which is what appeared to be happening in these systems at rst glance—that assumption then leads to the erroneous conclusion that the star is orbiting an invisible black hole.
Amazing, isn’t it? In short, black holes may merely be optical illusions created by binary/multiple star systems, one of the components of which spins too fast to be distinguishable in the spectra. Since this astonishing discovery was made as recently as early 2022, the eld of astrophysics may be about to undergo a major revolution. Could all black holes be illusory? Let us read the nal lines of the quoted Science News article:
“Everyone was looking for really interesting black holes, but what they found is really interesting binaries”, Bodensteiner says. ese are not the only systems to trick astronomers recently. What was thought to be the nearest black hole to Earth also turned out to be pair of stars in a rarely seen stage of evolution. “Of course, it’s disappointing that what we thought were black holes were actually not, but it’s part of the process”, Jayasinghe says. He and his colleagues are still looking for black holes, he says, but with a greater awareness of how pairs of interacting stars might trick them.
In conclusion, currently available evidence suggests dark ma er and black holes could be mere gments of the imagination engendered by our poor understanding of binary systems and ‘optical tricks’ played by their complex interactions.
3.3 The intersecting orbits of the Sun and Mars
To see what the con guration of the Sun-Mars binary system might look like, let us begin with a classic binary star system (Fig. 3.4).
Note that, if we replace the above ‘higher-mass star’ and ‘lower-mass star’ with the Sun and Mars, respectively, we obtain a neatly balanced binary system that incorporates the two moons of the Sun (Mercury and Venus) and the two moons of Mars (Phobos and Deimos).

3.4 Why Mars? 21

Fig. 3.4 A classic binary star system, as illustrated in the astronomy literature: a larger and a smaller body revolve in intersecting orbits around a common centre of mass.

Fig. 3.5 In the TYCHOS model, Earth is positioned near (or at) the centre of mass of the Sun-Mars binary system. Both the Sun and Mars are escorted by a pair of moons (Venus and Mercury, and Phobos and Deimos).

We can see just how harmonious such a binary system would be: our Earth and Moon embraced by the Sun-Mars binary duo, with each of the binary companions hosting a pair of lunar satellites. You may now ask yourself why no one (not even supporters of Brahe’s original model) has envisioned to this day Mars as the Sun’s binary companion; this may be because Mars returns in opposition every two solar years, instead of every single year—as one might expect of a ‘classic’ binary system. Moreover, due to the eccentricity of Mars’ orbit, this 2:1 ratio will uctuate back and forth over time (it is currently about 2.13:1). However, as will be demonstrated further on, this oscillating ratio will in the long run average out to a precise 2:1 relationship: the Sun will return to the same place in our skies in 25344 years—the ‘Solar Great Year’—whereas Mars will do so in 50688 years (25344 × 2)—i.e., the ‘Martian Great Year’.

3.4 Why Mars?
You may now wonder: “Why Mars? Wouldn’t it make more sense if Jupiter, the largest planet in our system, were the Sun’s binary companion?” Well, size is not everything. Let us not forget that Jupiter is considered a ‘gas planet’ while Mars is believed to be composed of mostly iron and rock. ere is no way of directly determining and comparing the weight of these two bodies, but I trust we can all agree that the density (hence, the relative weight) of iron and rock are several orders of magnitude greater than that of any gas existing in nature.

Fig. 3.6 Screenshot from Tychosium 3D simulator. Mars can transit as close as 56.6 Mkm from Earth (perigee) and as far as 400 Mkm (apogee); representing a 7/1 ratio (400 / 56.6).

22 Chapter 3

ABOUT OUR SUN-MARS BINARY SYSTEM

Furthermore, aren’t we told that the Sun itself is composed of hydrogen (70%), helium (28%) and a negligible 2% of other, denser elements? Seen in this light, could Mars have a mass similar to that of the Sun, in spite of their ‘David-and-Goliath’ di erence in diameter? While this type of argument would appeal to the adherents of Newton’s gravitational laws, it should be stated for the record that my research for the TYCHOS model has from day one le Newtonian and Einsteinian physics at the door, so to speak. It has instead focused on the all-important, empirically testable, repeatable and veri able observational data gathered over the centuries by our world’s most rigorous observational astronomers. To wit, no physical/astrophysical theorems of our Solar System can be formulated without having rst correctly determined its geometric con guration (doing so would be tantamount to pu ing the proverbial cart in front of the horse).
Mars is the only body of our Solar System that can transit on both sides of Earth in relation to the Sun and whose farthest-to-closest transits from Earth exhibit a whopping 7:1 ratio, with a mean apogee of 400 million km and a mean perigee of 56.6 million km. is is a strong indication that Mars—and no other body in our Solar System—is the Sun’s binary companion. Fig. 3.6 should make this clear.
As we shall see in the following chapters, there are many good reasons to think that Mars—and no other body of our system—is the Sun’s binary companion. Perhaps the most interesting evidence of Mars’ uniqueness among the components of our system is the fact that Kepler formulated his entire set of ‘laws’ around the motions of Mars. As astronomy historians have thoroughly documented, Kepler, who was recruited by Brahe for the sole purpose of resolving the ‘incomprehensible behaviour’ of Mars, spent over half a decade in what he called his “war on Mars”, obsessively trying to solve the befuddling Martian riddle. Mars was truly the greatest challenge posed by Brahe’s exceptionally accurate observational tables.

Fig. 3.7 Extract from “Contra Copernicus”, by Derek J. de S. Price [5]

Fig. 3.8 As for why the Sun is likely to have a binary companion, Gene Ognibene posted 6 points well worth the read.

3.5 Comparing the moons of the Sun and Mars 23
3.5 Comparing the moons of the Sun and Mars
In the TYCHOS model, Mercury and Venus are moons of the Sun. Similarly, Mars has two lesser-known, ‘tidally locked’ moons: Phobos and Deimos. e Martian moons were discovered by Asaph Hall as recently as 1877, meaning that Brahe, Newton and Kepler were all unaware of their existence.
A closer look at the moons of Mars brings up some interesting interrelationships with their larger counterparts, Mercury and Venus. Under the Copernican model, according to which Mars is just another planet orbiting the Sun, there would be no conceivable reason for these four celestial bodies to exhibit any sort of ‘synchronicity’ with each other. In the TYCHOS model, on the other hand, this is one of many ‘harmonious resonances’ that seem to pervade our Solar System, as will be thoroughly expounded further on.
Each year, Mercury revolves about 3.13 times around the Sun, whereas each day Phobos revolves 3.13 times around Mars. For the sake of comparison, think of the Sun as revolving once every year around Earth, whereas Earth rotates once every day around its axis. It may at rst sound bizarre to compare a revolutional period to a rotational period, unless you know that our Moon revolves around Earth in the same time as the Sun rotates around its axis (∼27.3 days, the so-called Carrington number). Moreover, Mercury’s synodic period (116.88 days) is 5 times shorter than Venus’ synodic period (584.4 days), while Phobos orbits Mars almost precisely 4 times faster than Deimos.
All this appears to indicate an a nity between these two pairs of moons, something Copernicans would have to a ribute to happenstance. Conversely, under the TYCHOS model, all these orbital resonances can be interpreted as a natural consequence of the interrelation between the Sun’s moons (Mercury and Venus) and Mars’ moons (Phobos and Deimos).
You might now justly ask yourself: “Why are Mercury and Venus the only ‘planets’ of our Solar System with no moons of their own?” As a ma er of fact, this is one of astronomy’s longstanding ‘mysteries’. e truth of the ma er is: no Copernican astronomer actually knows why Venus and Mercury are moonless, and no compelling theses on this vexing subject have been advanced to this day. Here are, for instance, NASA’s timid and tentative explanations of this major cosmic enigma.
Most likely because they are too close to the Sun. Any moon with too great a distance from these planets would be in an unstable orbit and be captured by the Sun. If they were too close to these planets they would be destroyed by tidal gravitational forces. e zones where moons around these planets could be stable over billions of years is probably so narrow that no body was ever captured into orbit, or created in situ when the planets were rst being accreted. [6]

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3.9 e moons of the Sun and Mars: Mecury and Venus, and Phobos and Deimos.

(a) Screenshot from Tychosium 3D (b) Image credit: Astronoo.com

24 Chapter 3

ABOUT OUR SUN-MARS BINARY SYSTEM

Curious coincidences Consider these facts about the moons of the Sun (Mercury and Venus) and the moons of Mars (Phobos and Deimos).
• Venus’ diameter is 2.5 times larger than Mercury’s diameter. • Deimos’ orbital diameter is 2.5 times larger than Phobos’ orbital diameter. • Phobos’ diameter is 1.8 times larger than Deimos’ diameter. • Venus’ orbital diameter is 1.8 times larger than Mercury’s orbital diameter.
To my knowledge, no mention of these remarkable ‘reciprocities’ is found in the astronomy literature.

Here’s another and intellectually more honest statement found on a NASA website: Why Venus doesn’t have a moon is a mystery for scientists to solve. [7]
As it is, the TYCHOS model has a simple answer to this ‘mystery’: Venus and Mercury have no moons due to the simple fact that they are moons themselves. In fact, the notion that Venus and Mercury are moons rather than planets can be deduced and backed up in multiple ways. What follows should make it glaringly obvious that Mercury and Venus are moons, not planets.
De nition of a moon or lunar body Based on the above, the characteristics that set moons apart from planets may be summarized thus:
• No moons have satellites of their own, since they are moons themselves. • Moons rotate exceptionally slowly around their own axes compared to all other celestial bodies. • Moons always show the same face to their host star or planet (in astronomy jargon, we say they are ‘tidally
locked’).

3.6 Rotational resonances between Mercury and Venus
• Mercury employs 58.44 days to rotate around its axis [8]. Mercury revolves around the Sun in 87.66 days. For every two of its solar revolutions (175.32 days), it thus rotates precisely three times around its axis (175.32 / 58.44 = 3).
• Venus employs 116.88 days to rotate around its axis—exactly twice as long as Mercury (58.44 × 2 = 116.88). As Venus returns to perigee (closest to Earth) every 584.4 days (i.e., every 10 mercurial rotations), it always shows the same face to earthly observers—another fact which is still considered a ‘mystery’ by modern astronomers. During this period, Venus rotates precisely ve times around its own axis (584.4 / 116.88 = 5), as stated in Isaac Asimov’s “Book of Physics” (quote translated from Italian):
Between one approach to the minimum distance from the Earth and the next, Venus makes exactly ve rotations on its axis, so it always shows us the same face when it is at its closest position to us. [9]
Continuing the series of troublesome facts that have been ba ing astronomers, here is a quote from Science Jrank.org:
A curious relationship exists between the length of the Venusian day and the planet’s synodic period. e synodic period of Venus, that is, the time for the planet to repeat the same alignment with respect to Earth and Sun, is 584 days, and this is ve times the Venusian day (584 = 5 × 116.8). It is not known if this result is just a coincidence, or the action of some subtle orbital interaction. e practical consequence of the relationship is that, should a terrestrial observer make two observations of Venus that are 584 days apart, then they will see the same side of the planet turned towards Earth. [10]

3.6 Rotational resonances between Mercury and Venus 25
Needless to say, since the Earth-Moon system is currently claimed to revolve around the Sun outside the orbits of Venus and Mercury (whereas, in the TYCHOS, the Earth is orbited by both our Moon and the SunVenus-Mercury trio), most o cial reckonings of the rotational rates of Venus and Mercury are in error. Let us now compute the respective rotational speeds (around their axes) of our Moon, Venus and Mercury:
• e Moon rotates around its axis in 27.322 days (or 655.73 hours). e Moon’s circumference is 10920.8 km. Hence, a distance of 10920.8 km covered in 655.73 hours computes to an equatorial rotational speed of 10920.8 km / 655.73 hours ≈ 16.65 km/h (or about 100 times slower than the Earth’s equatorial rotational speed of 1674 km/h).
• Venus rotates around its axis in 116.88 days (or 2805.12 hours). Venus’ circumference is 38024.5 km. Hence, a distance of 38024.5 km covered in 2805.12 hours computes to an equatorial rotational speed of 38024.5 km / 2805.12 hours ≈ 13.56 km/h (or about 18.6% slower than our Moon).
• Mercury rotates around its axis in 58.44 days (or 1402.56 hours). Mercury’s circumference is 15329 km. Hence, a distance of 15329 km covered in 1402.56 hours computes to an equatorial rotational speed of 15329 km / 1402.56 hours ≈ 10.93 km/h (or about 19.4% slower than Venus).
ese are all, of course, exceptionally slow rotational speeds, compared to the speeds of all the other bodies in our Solar System. In fact, they are all in the rotational speed range of a children’s merry-go-round. In contrast, Jupiter rotates around its axis at a brisk 43000 km/h, and Saturn at about 35000 km/h. Such hypersonic speeds are completely unlike the sluggish rotational speeds of moons. Further on (Chapter 20) we shall have a look at Mars’ rotational speed, which turns out to be synchronous with Earth’s (∼24 hours).
In the next chapter, I will illustrate the basic con guration of the TYCHOS model and introduce you to the interactive Tychosium 3D simulator. Although it may seem somewhat premature to unveil it at this early stage of the book, an overview of the TYCHOS model’s con guration is necessary to understand the subsequent chapters.
3.7 References
[1] Red dwarf, Wikipedia h ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red dwarf
[2] Astronomy of To-day, A Popular Introduction in Non-Technical Language by Cecil G. Dolmage (1908) h ps://tinyurl.com/astronomytodayDolmage
[3] Science Alert (Nov 20, 2018) h ps://www.sciencealert.com/we-may-have-found-our-sun-s-long-lost-identical-twin-star
[4] New evidence that all stars are born in pairs, Phys.org (June 14, 2017) h ps://phys.org/news/2017-06-evidence-stars-born-pairs.html
[5] Contra Copernicus by Derek J. de S. Price h ps://tinyurl.com/contracopernicusPrice
[6] Why don’t Mercury and Venus have moons? by NASA for Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/013A Astronomy-Answers.htm
[7] How many moons? by Kristen Erickson for NASA Space Place (2017) h ps://spaceplace.nasa.gov/how-many-moons/en
[8] MERCURY, University of Arizona Press h ps://tinyurl.com/MercuryUniArizona
[9] IL LIBRO DI FISICA by Isaac Asimov h ps://www.afsu.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ASIMOV-IL-LIBRO-DI-FISICA-vol.1.pdf
[10] e rotation rate of Venus, Science Rank h ps://tinyurl.com/ScienceRankVENUS

26 Chapter 3

ABOUT OUR SUN-MARS BINARY SYSTEM

4
INTRODUCING THE TYCHOS MODEL
4.1 A general overview e Sun and Mars are the main players of what I have called our ‘geoaxial binary system’. At or near its
barycentre, we nd Earth and our Moon, while the Sun (escorted by its two moons, Mercury and Venus) and Mars (escorted by its own two moons, Phobos and Deimos) perform their binary dance around our planet. It is Earth’s physical motion around its Polaris-Vega-Polaris orbit (PVP, for short) that causes our north stars to change over time—a very slow process commonly known as the Precession of the Equinoxes.

Table 4.1 – Orbital resonances with our Moon
Body Moon Mercury Venus Mars Sun Earth

Fig. 4.1 Earth is like the central axis of a classic binary system constituted by the Sun and Mars. As the entire system slowly precesses clockwise (as seen from above our north pole), Earth gets tugged around its PVP orbit, completing one revolution in 25344 years.
e Sun and Mars are both escorted by two moons, Venus and Mercury, and Phobos and Deimos. Remarkably, the orbital periods of all of our system’s bodies turn out to be round multiples of our own moon’s ‘true mean period’ of 29.22 days, and are thus united in a most harmonious resonance. We will come back to these multiples and the term ‘true mean period’ further on.

True Mean Period 29.22 days 116.88 days 584.40 days 730.50 days 365.25 days
9256896 days

Resonance 1 4 20 25 12.5
306800

28 Chapter 4

INTRODUCING THE TYCHOS MODEL

In the TYCHOS, Earth is inclined at about 23.4° in relation to its orbital plane, yet at all times its northern hemisphere remains tilted ‘outwards’, i.e. towards the external circuit of the Sun. e Sun revolves once a year around Earth, travelling at 107226 km/h (this is the orbital speed a ributed to Earth by Copernican astronomers). Every 2.13 years, its binary companion, Mars, reconjuncts with the Sun at either side of Earth (the above graphic shows Mars transiting in so-called ‘opposition’). Mars is not a third moon of the Sun, as some commentators have suggested, because it is the only body in our cosmic neighbourhood whose orbit has it transiting alternately in opposition to and in conjunction with the Sun. e only reason Mars may seem problematic to reconcile with the popular notion of ‘binary motion’ is that its orbit is not locked in a 1:1 ratio with the Sun, but in a 2:1 ratio. Hence, Mars will not return in opposition every year, but only every other year or so.
Each year, Earth moves ‘clockwise’ (as seen from above our north pole) by 14036 kilometres along its PVP orbit—i.e. slightly more than its own diameter of 12756 km. is motion of Earth provides a perfectly simple explanation for the observed annual ‘backward’ motion of our stars referred to as the Precession of the Equinoxes. I will henceforth refer to this yearly 14036-km displacement of Earth as the EAM (Earth’s Annual Motion).
ere is thus no need for Earth to “wobble around its polar axis” (also known as “Earth’s third motion”) as posited by Copernican theory; nor does Earth hurtle around space at hypersonic speeds. Earth only rotates around its axis once every 24 hours at the extremely sluggish rate of 0.000694 rpm while it gently gets tugged around its orbital path at 1.6 km/h (about 1 mph), as the entire Solar System precesses ‘clockwise’ (as viewed from above our North Pole). In such manner, Earth completes one revolution around the PVP orbit every 25344 years, a period also known as the Great Year. I submit that what I have called the PVP orbit is the missing piece of the puzzle of Tycho Brahe’s admirable geo-heliocentric system. e PVP orbit will of course be thoroughly expounded and illustrated further on in this book, as it constitutes the core discovery upon which the TYCHOS model is founded.
It is essential to understand that, in the TYCHOS model, all the planets and moons orbit at constant speeds around uniformly circular (albeit eccentric) orbits. In other words, there never was any need for Kepler’s variable orbital speeds or for his proposed elliptical orbits—the la er being just an illusion caused by Earth’s motion around its PVP orbit. To wit, since Earth slowly proceeds along an almost straight line (over, say, 100 years) the Sun and our surrounding planets will appear to oscillate slightly back and forth. In the summer of the northern hemisphere the Sun will be moving in the opposite direction of Earth, whereas in the winter it will be moving in the same direction as Earth. us, the illusion of elliptical orbits is created, while other apparent speed variations are due to the uctuating distances between Earth and the various bodies of our Solar System. e circular orbits of those bodies are all eccentric, which means they are slightly o -centre in relation to Earth.
is brings up the age-old question: Orbital speeds, in relation to what? e short answer is: in relation to the ‘ xed’ stars. Now, the stars also have motions of their own (proper motions). at is, they move ever so slightly (typically 0.1 arcsec/year) in random directions. Hence, we should be satis ed that the star backdrop (the rmament) constitutes a quite reliable, near-static reference frame against which we may compute the orbital speeds of the various bodies of the Solar System, provided we duly account for Earth’s own orbital motion. What is empirically observed is that all stars in the rmament dri from west to east in our skies by about 50 arcseconds a year. In the TYCHOS model, this slow 25344-year revolution of the rmament is merely the optical e ect of Earth’s tranquil 1-mph motion around its PVP orbit.

4.2 Distances to our Solar System’s bodies versus distances to the stars 29
Fig. 4.2 e estimation of the PVP orbit’s orbital diameter (113.2 Mkm) is illustrated in Chapter 11. Note that the average Mars-Earth perigee distance (i.e., as Mars transits closest to Earth) is 56.6 Mkm, or precisely the PVP orbit’s radius (113.2 / 2 = 56.6).
4.2 Distances to our Solar System’s bodies versus distances to the stars Copernican astronomers use the diameter of the Earth (12756 km) as a baseline to measure the distance between the bodies of our Solar System. e TYCHOS rigorously respects these universally approved measurements, but estimating the distance between the Earth and the stars is an entirely di erent ma er. is is because astronomers have for this purpose chosen as baseline the diameter of Earth’s purported orbit around the Sun, which is claimed to be approximately 300 Mkm. Since they are using a nonexistent 300 Mkm, 6-month lateral displacement as baseline, all their calculations of Earth-star distances are grossly and systematically in ated. In the TYCHOS model, Earth moves by only 7018 km every six months, not by 300 000 000 km.
is means that the stars are over forty thousand times closer to us than currently claimed—a notion Tycho Brahe would undoubtedly have welcomed and supported. In any case, the notion that stars can be located several thousand light years away and still be visible to the naked eye has to rank among the most bizarre ideas entertained by this world’s scienti c community.

30 Chapter 4

INTRODUCING THE TYCHOS MODEL

4.3 The Tychosium 3D simulator
As I timidly started my TYCHOS research back in 2013, I certainly had no ambition or pretence to build a digital planetarium that could remotely a ain—let alone challenge—the accuracy of the currently available heliocentric simulators. My initial calculations were done with pen and paper and aided by simple graphic editing programs. However, as my research progressed over the years, I started entertaining the possibility of
nding an IT wizard to help me bring to life the TYCHOS model by animating it on an interactive digital 3D platform. At the time of writing (January 2023), I am happy to say that the wondrous Tychosium 3D simulator has already surpassed my wildest dreams and expectations.
e Tychosium 3D simulator is a joint e ort by yours truly and Patrik Holmqvist, a Swedish IT programmer I had the good fortune to meet in the summer of 2017. At the time of writing (November 2023), the Tychosium is still being developed and re ned, yet we are both satis ed with its potential to become the most realistic and accurate digital simulator of the Solar System ever devised. e principal feature of its superior nature lies in the fact that, once re ned and completed, it should correctly show the conjunctions of the bodies of our Solar System with the stars, without any geometric aberrations of parallax and perspective; i.e., without the anomalies and discrepancies that have vexed Copernican astronomers ever since the heliocentric model was introduced.
Before proceeding, I strongly encourage readers to open the Tychosium 3D simulator on their laptop computers and get familiar with its interactive functions. is is an essential requirement to fully visualize, assess and comprehend the workings of the TYCHOS model.
e Tychosium 3D simulator is built upon the o cial astronomical tables compiled over the centuries by the world’s foremost astronomers. at is to say, all the orbital sizes, relative distances and empirically veri able sidereal periods within the Solar System have been rigorously respected. In the Tychosium, all the planets and moons move in uniformly circular orbits and at constant orbital speeds. is is in stark contrast with the elliptical orbits and variable speeds Kepler had to postulate to make the heliocentric model mathematically compatible with empirical observation. In all logic, I have therefore used the mean values of our planets’ estimated orbital velocities, disregarding their putative ‘maximum’ and ‘minimum’ values, as computed by Kepler.

Fig. 4.3 Tracing planet movement in the Tychosium 3D simulator.

4.3 The Tychosium 3D simulator 31 Fig. 4.4 e Tychosium 3D simulator and its control panel.
roughout the ages, astronomers have been in ceaseless pursuit of a con guration of the Solar System consistent with the natural perception of uniformly circular orbits and constant orbital speeds. e TYCHOS provides an answer to their quest—one which can be challenged and tested in a state-of-the-art simulator.
Patrik and I hope you enjoy interacting with the Tychosium 3D simulator which—we dare say—is already the most realistic and true-to-nature simulator of the Solar System available. If you are puzzled by the spirographic/trochoidal orbital pa erns traced out in the Tychosium, keep in mind that all star systems observed in modern times display such pa erns (see Chapter 2). From a purely probabilistic viewpoint, it would be unreasonable to think that our own Solar System is the only one in the universe lacking trochoidal orbital pa erns like the ones illustrated in Fig. 4.5.
Fig. 4.5 Examples of observed pa erns exhibited by the barycentric motions of 4 di erent exoplanet host stars. Using the Tychosium 3D simulator A comprehensive user manual will be implemented along with the upcoming upgrade of the Tychosium 3D simulator scheduled for early 2024. Meanwhile, here are some basic instructions and tips to get started: 1. Click the run bu on to start the Tychosium. You can speed up or slow down the motion with the “1 second equals” function. 2. Le -clicking (and holding) your mouse will let you toggle the 3-D orientation of our cosmos. e scroll wheel regulates the zoom level. 3. Click on the “Trace” menu and choose any Solar System body whose path you wish to exhibit over time. is will show you the beautiful mandala-like, spirographic trajectories of our Solar System’s various bodies, such as the charming 5-petalled ower pa ern traced by Venus. 4. To see the orientation of the Zodiac’s 12 constellations, click on the “Objects” menu and check the “Zodiac” box. 5. To see the celestial positions (ephemerides) of any of our Solar System’s bodies, check the “Positions” box. is will allow you to view the extent to which the Tychosium agrees with other online planetariums, such as the popular Stellarium simulator [2].

32 Chapter 4

INTRODUCING THE TYCHOS MODEL

Fig. 4.6 e Sun’s path over 25344 years (the TYCHOS Great Year).
So far, the Tychosium has a ained excellent concordance with all recorded planetary ephemerides, Mars oppositions, the transits of Venus and Mercury across the Sun’s disk, Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, most other periodic interplanetary alignments and most solar and lunar eclipses. A few issues remain to be addressed (e.g., the secular rate of oscillation of the declinations of our Moon’s orbit), yet we are con dent that they will be resolved in the upgraded version. Fine-tuning a simulator is a time-consuming task, especially when you are a small team of two brains!
In the next chapter, we shall take a close look at Mars, which Kepler famously stated was the key to understanding the Solar System. Sure enough, Mars is the ‘master key’ to unlock and unveil the true con guration and mechanics of our system. Ironically though, in spite of his obstinate a empts to reconcile the Martian motions with the heliocentric model, Kepler never found that all-important key, which is why he ultimately decided to forge it.
4.4 References
[1] Proper motions of stars, St Andrews academy h ps://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/∼bds2/ltsn/ljm/JAVA/PROPER/proper.htm
[2] e STELLARIUM simulator h ps://stellarium-web.org

5
MARS, THE “KEY” THAT KEPLER NEVER FOUND
5.1 How Kepler subverted Tycho Brahe’s lifelong work
Johannes Kepler famously stated that:
Mars is the key to understanding the solar system.
Kepler was notoriously obsessed with Mars for ve harrowing years and, in his correspondence with fellow scientists, referred to his relentless pursuit as “his personal war on Mars”. We now know that, whether out of exhaustion or premeditatedly, Kepler eventually resorted to the shameless manipulation of Tycho Brahe’s data, later published in his Astronomia Nova (a book still regarded as “the Bible of the Copernican Revolution”).
is shocking discovery by Prof. Donahue, the American translator of Kepler’s epochal treatise, was made in 1988. Now, if Kepler had to cheat to make his heliocentric model work, what does this tell us about the overall soundness and credibility of the Keplerian and Copernican theories?
It will remain a mystery why Kepler, Brahe’s ‘math assistant’, eventually dismissed his own master’s cosmic model in favour of the Copernican—and this in spite of having once plo ed a working diagram of Mars’ geocentric motions titled De Motibus Stellae Martis (see Fig. 5.4). History books only tell us that upon Brahe’s untimely death at age 55, Kepler seized the bulk of his master’s painstakingly collected observations and annotations only to set about ipping the Tychonian model on its head. Professor Donahue’s detailed descriptions of how Kepler fudged his all-important Mars computations to make them appear to con rm the core tenets of his thesis make for a most compelling read (Kepler’s Fabricated Figures - Covering up the Mess in the New Astronomy [1], W. H. Donahue, Journal for the History of Astronomy, 1988). is short NYT article succinctly sums up Kepler’s falsi cation in his much-heralded master work, Astronomia Nova.
Done in 1609, Kepler’s fakery is one of the earliest known examples of the use of false data by a giant of modern science. Donahue, a science historian, turned up the falsi ed data while translating Kepler’s master work, Astronomia Nova, or e New Astronomy, into English. [2]
As I see it, Kepler’s manipulative antics are destined to go down in history as the triumph of mathematical abstraction over empirical observation. In his urge to make the befuddling behaviour of Mars agree with the heliocentric Copernican theory, he not only misused and twisted but outright subverted Brahe’s most precious and exacting observational data. In any event, there can be no doubt that Brahe’s priority and main concern was that of understanding the motions of Mars. e fact that he entrusted this crucial task to a young, ambitious and petulant assistant may well have been the greatest mistake of his life. Be that as it may, it is a documented fact that Brahe had identi ed an unexpected systematical inequality in the planetary motions which was “not known to Ptolemy or Copernicus”:
Tycho also realized that Copernican predictions for all the planets di ered systematically from the observations and wondered whether an additional inequality, not known to Ptolemy or Copernicus, might a ect their motions. Or perhaps planetary theories should be referred to the true rather than mean Sun, as Ptolemy had done, and the other inequality could be solved by modifying the solar eccentricity. Given the similarity of Mars’s orbit to the Sun’s, Tycho suspected that the red planet might provide a key for reworking all the planetary theories. [3]

34 Chapter 5

MARS, THE “KEY” THAT KEPLER NEVER FOUND

5.2 Mars’s two empiric sidereal intervals (ESIs)
e ancient Mayan astronomers made careful observations of Mars’ motions and were clearly aware of the planet’s variable sidereal period, as viewed from Earth. As they kept count of the amount of days needed for Mars to realign with a given reference star, they saw that Mars had in fact two sidereal periods: a longer and more frequent period of about 707 days (the long ESI) and a shorter period of about 546 days (the short ESI).
It is the short ESI of approximately 546 days (nearly 1.5 solar years) that is of primary interest to us here. As will be comprehensively demonstrated in Chapter 7, the Copernican model can in no way account for this 546-day sidereal period.
We discuss here a kind of period that we call the empiric sidereal interval (ESI), which we de ne as the number of days elapsed between consecutive passages of Mars through a given celestial longitude while in prograde motion. At rst glance, one would imagine that the ESI would uctuate widely about some mean because of the intervening retrograde loop, which in the case of Mars occupies 75 days on average between
rst stationary (cessation of) and second stationary (resumption of normal W-to-E motion). However, a closer look at modern astronomical ephemerides reveals that for a practical observer there are really two ESIs, a lengthier one that includes the retrograde loop (the long ESI) and a shorter one that does not (the short ESI). [4]
e paper quoted above is a highly recommended read. It describes in great detail the Mayan astronomers’ extensive knowledge of Mars’ sidereal periods, although it ultimately fails to address the profound implications raised by the existence of two ESIs for the same planet. So, you may ask, if Mars’ sidereal period is clearly either ∼707 days (the long ESI) or ∼546 days (the short ESI), why do most astronomers accept Kepler’s gure of 686.9 days? As we shall see, the binary con guration of our Solar System and Mars’ peculiar, epitrochoidal orbital motion clearly explains how Mars can realign with a given star within a year and a half.
Here are the observable facts: Mars will realign with a given reference star seven times in a row at intervals of approximately 707 days, but the eighth time around Mars will realign with that same star in only about 546 days. In other words, over a span of approximately 15 years, Mars exhibits seven long ESIs and one short ESI.
Now, since 5495 divided by 8 is approximately 686.9 days, we can see how Kepler simply averaged these eight periods to produce his estimate of Mars’ sidereal period. As it is, Kepler’s 686.9-day interval is not something that can ever be observed from Earth. us, the currently accepted value for Mars’ ESI is a mere mathematical extrapolation based on the assumption that Earth revolves around the Sun once a year. Yet, as can be directly observed, Mars actually exhibits two distinct periods of 707 and 546 days (see Table 5.1).
You may now justly ask, “How is this even possible? How can Mars realign with the same star, as seen from Earth, at two wholly di erent intervals?” is is indeed a very good question, one which Copernican astronomers have never been able to answer. In contrast, the TYCHOS model not only provides an answer, but obviates the question altogether: Mars must for demonstrable geometric reasons have two sidereal periods, as I will now further expound upon.
Please note that, in reality, Mars does indeed have a 686.9-day period (approximately 687 days), which is the time needed for Mars to revolve once around the Sun. is, however, is not Mars’ mean sidereal period, as viewed from Earth, but the period for Mars to return to its degree position relative to the Sun, as shown in Fig. 5.1.
Why Mars is behaving in this way will become clear as we take a look at the synodic period of Mars.

Table 5.1 – Sequence of Mars’ sidereal periods (ESI)

707 days

707 days

707 days

707 days

707 days

Total: 5495 days (approximately 15 years)

707 days

707 days

546 days

5.2 Mars’s two empiric sidereal intervals (ESIs) 35 Fig. 5.1 Mars revolves around the Sun in about 687 days.

Chapter 7 contains a thorough exposition of the two sidereal periods of Mars (i.e., the long ESI of 707 days and the short ESI of 546 days), but let us take one step at a time and begin with Mars’ synodic period and the interplay between Mars and the Sun.

5.2.1 The synodic period of Mars

We have just seen that Mars’ most frequent sidereal period (the long ESI) lasts on average 707 days (about 23 days less than two solar years of 730.5 days). Put di erently, Mars returns facing the same star 23.3 days earlier than the Sun does, in a two-year period. e average synodic period of Mars is 779.2 days. is is the time needed for Mars to line up again with the Sun, as viewed from Earth. is is 48.7 days longer than two solar years (730.5 + 48.7 = 779.2). us, we have:

• e average duration of the ‘retrograde periods’ of Mars = 72 days.

48.7 + 23.3 = 72

is leads us to a most remarkable realisation: since the two binary companions, Sun and Mars, are locked in a 2:1 orbital ratio, one might think they would ‘meet up’ every 730.5 days (2 solar years). But due to Mars retrograding biyearly by around 72 days on average, Mars will ‘slip out of phase’ with our timekeeper, the Sun—hence, with our earthly calendar. erefore:

• As viewed from Earth, Sun and Mars will conjunct only every 779.2 days. • Mars completes 7.5 synodic periods in 16 solar years.

707.2 + 72 = 779.2 779.2 × 7.5
= 16 365.25

Every 16 years Mars and the Sun do in fact conjunct with Earth, although on opposite sides of our planet. Mars will need another 7.5 synodic cycles for a total of 32 years (i.e., 2 × 16, or 15 + 17) to complete one of its 32-year cycles. Since Mars processes biyearly (in relation to the Sun) by an average of ∼45 min of RA, then we can see that:

• In 32 solar years, Mars will process by about 1440 min RA. • 1440 min of RA is, of course, equivalent to the 360° (the celestial sphere).

45 × 32 = 1440

Next, we will see how, as discovered by Tycho Brahe, the respective orbital paths of the Sun and Mars can and do indeed intersect in typical binary fashion, much like the observed orbital behaviour of Sirius A and Sirius B—the brightest star system in our skies.

36 Chapter 5

MARS, THE “KEY” THAT KEPLER NEVER FOUND

5.3 The binary dance of the Sun and Mars

As mentioned earlier, Brahe’s boldest contention was undoubtedly that the orbits of Mars and the Sun intersect. Back then, his opponents would jeer: “Preposterous! Sooner or later, Mars and the Sun must collide!” eir pooh-poohing may perhaps be excused for back in Brahe’s day no one was aware of the existence of binary systems, the ubiquity of which was only established long a er the invention of the telescope. In hindsight, one may graciously say that Brahe was ridiculed out of pre-telescopic academic ignorance.
e orbital con guration shown in Fig. 5.2 is consistent with the models of Tycho Brahe and Pathani Samanta, with the exception of the ‘clockwise’ orbital motion of Earth—my main personal contribution to Brahe’s brilliant geo-heliocentric model. For now though, let us focus our a ention on Mars and its peculiar motion around the Sun and Earth.
e motions of Mars had the greatest astronomers of yore, including Brahe, scratching their heads:

Fig. 5.2 Relative orbital directions of the Sun, Earth and Mars.

We have seen that Tycho, like Ptolemy and Copernicus, assumed the solar orbit to be simply an excentric circle with uniform motion. But already in 1591, he might have perceived from the motion of Mars that this could not be su cient, as he wrote to the Landgrave that ‘it is evident that there is another inequality, arising from the solar excentricity, which insinuates itself into the apparent motion of the planets, and is more perceptible in the case of Mars, because his orbit is much smaller than those of Jupiter and Saturn. [5]

Mars has been the single most problematic body of observational astronomy for reasons that should become clear as we go along. e astronomy literature is sprinkled with comments hinting at the ‘uniqueness’ of Mars’ cosmic behaviour:
Among the planets, Mars is a maverick, wandering o from the deferent-epicycle model more than most of the other planets. [6]

Of course, all this head-scratching is unnecessary if one uses the correct con guration of the Solar System. Mars has been viewed as a ‘maverick’ for the simple reason that it is the binary companion of the Sun. In hindsight, one of Kepler’s most famous quotes rings like a most appropriate omen, the irony of which I trust future astronomy historians will underline:
By the study of the orbit of Mars, we must either arrive at the secrets of astronomy or forever remain in ignorance of them. [Johannes Kepler]

Most remarkably, it so happens that, during his ve-year-long “war on Mars”, Kepler evidently spent some serious time considering a geocentric con guration and even called Mars a “star”. His li le-known diagram, De Motibus Stellae Martis (“Of the Motion of the Star Mars”), traced the motions of Mars between 1580 and 1596 (a 16-year period). It was obviously based on and computed from Brahe’s accurate observations, yet he ultimately discarded it.
Figs. 5.3 and 5.4 compare the motions of Mars traced by the Tychosium simulator with those of Kepler’s diagram. It looks like Kepler had at one time really been on to something!

5.4 Is Mars a planet or a star? 37

Fig. 5.3 Mars in the TYCHOS model.

Fig. 5.4 Kepler’s li le-known diagram.

Presumably, Kepler was simply unable to conceive how and why Mars—or any celestial body, for that ma er—could possibly trace such oddly ‘looping’ trajectories. When it comes to envisioning the geometric dynamics of two magnetically bound, mutually orbiting objects (such as the Sun and Mars), the cognitive power of the human mind meets its limits. Modern motion graphics can help us overcome this mental hurdle and realise that these spirographic orbital pa erns are merely the visual e ect of an object revolving around another revolving object.
5.4 Is Mars a planet or a star?
Readers might wonder how a planet could possibly be the binary companion of our Sun, when binary systems like Sirius A and Sirius B are understood to be pairs of stars revolving around each other. But is Mars really a planet? Well, while Mars is identi ed as a planet in every modern school book, we have seen that Kepler for unknown reasons referred to Mars as a star. Although it is beyond the scope of this treatise to investigate how stars and planets are formed, I nonetheless wish to state my support for the hypothesis that planets are in reality very old stars which have cooled down and solidi ed into rocky spheres.
To be sure, this is not the position of mainstream astronomers who regard stars and planets as wholly di erent, mutually exclusive entities. On the other hand, in their voluminous study, Stellar Metamorphosis, Je rey Wolynski and Barrington Taylor make a compelling case that all the bodies in our cosmos are stars at di erent stages of evolution, and that planets and moons are quite simply very old, cooled-down stars:
It is suggested that the rule of thumb of stellar age delineation is that old stars orbit younger ones, the younger ones being the more massive, ho er ones. [7]
Under this hypothesis, the ‘older star’ of our binary Solar System would be Mars, as it orbits a ‘younger and ho er star’ (the Sun). Interestingly, it has also been suggested that our Earth-Moon system may be a former binary star system which, as the two ‘shed their skin’, ended up as a planet and a satellite. To wit, the notion that Earth may be a former star shouldn’t sound too outlandish: a er all, the ery magma trapped in Earth’s core which occasionally spurts out of volcanoes may well be viewed as an indication that we are, in fact, living on the surface of an old, cooled-down star. In turn, our barren and volcano-less lunar satellite, the Moon, would according to the same hypothesis be an even older and cooler extinct star.

38 Chapter 5

MARS, THE “KEY” THAT KEPLER NEVER FOUND

5.4.1 The 79-year cycle of Mars
Long before Ptolemy, the Babylonians knew that the motion of Mars is repeated, very nearly, in a 79-year cycle – that is, oppositions of Mars occur at nearly the same longitude every 79 years. [6]
e intervals between two Mars oppositions closest to (56.6 Mkm) or farthest from (101 Mkm) Earth will alternate between 15 and 17 years, due to the peculiar epitrochoidal path of Mars around the Sun and Earth.
is produces a 15y / 17y / 15y / 15y / 17y pa ern repeated every 79 years. Or you could think of it as ve cycles of nearly 16 years (79 / 5 = 15.8).
Mars’ unique, alternating 15/17-year pa ern has never been satisfactorily explained until now. None of our other outer planets exhibits such an irregular pa ern. Jupiter, for instance, invariably returns to the same place in our skies in about 12 solar years.

Table 5.2 – e 79-year cycle of Mars
e 79-year cycle of Mars, extracted from a Mars opposition catalogue [8], listing a number of past and future opposition dates between September 1956 and September 2035, along with the respective Mars-Earth distances. e distances vary from a minimum of 56 Mkm to a maximum of 101 Mkm. e full Mars opposition cycle takes 79 years and displays the 15y / 17y / 15y / 15y / 17y pa ern described above.

Opposition Date

 1956 Sep 10



 

1958

Nov

16







 

1960

Dec

30





 15

1963

Feb

4

 1965 Mar 9





  

1967

Apr

15





 

1969

May

31



 1971 Aug 10



 

1973

Oct

25





  

1975

Dec

15





 

1978

Jan

22



17 1980 Feb 25



 

1982

Mar

31







 

1984

May

11





 

1986

Jul

10



 1988 Sep 28



 

1990

Nov

27







 

1993

Jan

7





 15

1995

Feb

12

 1997 Mar 17





  

1999

Apr

24





 

2001

Jun

13



 2003 Aug 28



 

2005

Nov

7







 

2007

Dec

24





 15

2010

Jan

29

 2012 Mar 3





  

2014

Apr

8





 

2016

May

22



 2018 Jul 27



 

2020

Oct

13





  

2022

Dec

8





 

2025

Jan

16



17 2027 Feb 19



 

2029

Mar

25







 

2031

May

4





 

2033

Jun

27



2035 Sep 15

Mkm 56.56 72.96 90.78 100.30 100.00 89.94 71.74 56.20 65.23 84.60 97.72 101.32 95.01 79.51 60.37 58.81 77.33 93.66 101.08 98.64 86.54 67.34 55.76 69.42 88.17 99.33 100.78 92.39 75.28 57.59 62.07 81.45 96.08 101.42 96.82 82.78 63.28 56.91

← Mars closest to Earth ← farthest ← Mars closest to Earth ← farthest ← Mars closest to Earth ← farthest ← Mars closest to Earth ← farthest ← Mars closest to Earth ← farthest ← Mars closest to Earth

5.5 Mars’ opposition ring 39
In the Tychosium 3D simulator, Mars is shown to revolve around a uniformly circular orbit at constant speed. In fact, Kepler’s ‘laws’ of planetary motion, with their odd elliptical orbits and variable speeds, are simply a mathematical construct to make astronomical data compatible with the Copernican model. e same is true for Einstein’s temporally warping time-space, something we will come back to further on when we look at Mercury. It bears reminding that, before Kepler introduced these ‘laws’, astronomers all over the world had been relentlessly pursuing the ideal concept of uniform circular motion. In fact, so had Kepler himself, before he started stretching and squeezing the recalcitrant Martian motions observed by Brahe into ever more complex equations.
e testimony of the ages con rms that the motions of the planets are orbicular. It is an immediate presumption of reason, re ected in experience, that their gyrations are perfect circles. For among gures it is circles, and among bodies the heavens, that are considered the most perfect. However, when experience is seen to teach something di erent to those who pay careful a ention, namely, that the planets deviate from a simple circular path, it gives rise to a powerful sense of wonder, which at length drives men to look into causes. [9] Please make a note of Mars’ peculiar 79-year cycle. We will soon look into the lesser-known 79-year cycle of the Sun and demonstrate an even closer, interrelated pa ern between Mars and the Sun.
5.5 Mars’ opposition ring With an average minimum distance from Earth of 56.6 Mkm and average maximum distance of 101 Mkm, the Mars oppositions allow to establish the diameter of the opposition ring: approximately 157.6 Mkm.
As it happens, this value (157.6 Mkm) re ects the di erence between the orbital diameters of Mars and the Sun. Why is this signi cant? Consider the following:
• Di erence between orbital diameters of Mars and the Sun = 157.6 Mkm (456.8 − 299.2 = 157.6) • Diameter of the opposition ring of Mars (on which all Mars oppositions occur) = 157.6 Mkm • When Mars nds itself in opposition (as it is observed to reverse direction in the sky for 72 days on
average) it can transit as close to Earth as 56.6 Mkm and as far as 101 Mkm (56.6 + 101 = 157.6).
Fig. 5.5 Mars’ opposition ring.

40 Chapter 5

MARS, THE “KEY” THAT KEPLER NEVER FOUND

5.6 Mars’ retrograde periods falsify the Copernican model
As Mars transits in so-called opposition (i.e., when Mars and the Sun nd themselves on opposite sides of the Earth), its usual West-to-East motion will appear to reverse direction (or ‘retrograde’, as we say) and to proceed East to West against the starry background for a variable number of weeks. Fig. 5.6 shows how the famed astro-photographer Tunc Tezel expertly captured the Mars retrogrades of 2003 and 2012, and how these two periods are traced in the Tychosium 3D simulator.
Note that Mars passed almost twice as close to Earth in 2003 (0.373 AU, or 56.6 Mkm) as in 2012 (0.674 AU, or 101 Mkm). Also, note that in 2003 Mars was observed to retrograde against the starry background by about 40 min of RA (over 61 days), whereas in 2012 it retrograded by as much as 72 min of RA (over 83 days).
is is shown in Fig. 5.7.

Fig. 5.6

Fig. 5.7

5.6 Mars’ retrograde periods falsify the Copernican model 41
In other words, Mars reversed course for a shorter time and shorter distance in 2003 than in 2012. is is most remarkable because, according to the Copernican model, it should be precisely the other way around. As you may know, Copernicans contend that Mars appears to retrograde whenever Earth (in the ‘inside lane’) overtakes Mars (in the ‘outside lane’). e resulting change in perspective (or parallax) would then produce the optical illusion of Mars back-tracking in the sky against the starry background. If this were the case though, the closer Earth is to Mars during the ‘overtaking’, the larger the retrograde e ect should be. Instead, the exact opposite is empirically observed.
Figures 5.8 and 5.9 provide a closer comparative view of the retrogrades of Mars in 2003 and 2012, as described above:
Fig. 5.8
Fig. 5.9

42 Chapter 5

MARS, THE “KEY” THAT KEPLER NEVER FOUND

In Fig. 5.10, point ‘M’ (think Mars) will seem to retrograde by a larger amount to the driver of the red van than to the driver of the yellow van. However, Mars’ actual motion is quite simply the opposite of what we would see if the Copernican innerlane-outer-lane hypothesis were correct.
Mars’s observed retrograde motions are enough to falsify the entire Copernican theory beyond appeal. e heliocentric model’s explanation for the retrograde motions of our planets is inadmissible and must be discarded since it violates the most basic laws of spatial perspective.

Fig. 5.10 e basic law of perspective, or parallax.

Fig. 5.11 When Mars was closest to Earth in 2003, it retrograded against the stars far less than it did in 2012.
is basic law of perspective is as incontestable as it gets. Yet, incredibly enough, no Copernican astronomer has ever publicly admi ed that the observed retrogrades of Mars roundly falsify their explanation of retrograde motions. As we shall see further on, the issue of Mars’ retrograde periods is not by any means the only aberration a icting the Copernican model; there are a number of far graver—indeed insurmountable— problems with the heliocentric model children are taught in school.
ere is a simple way to experience and verify this basic law of perspective for yourself, without leaving your living room. e exercise below is based on a real-world optical situation anyone can easily relate to:
Exercise 1. Raise your fore nger (think of it as being Mars) in front of your nose and stretch out your arm as far as you can. 2. Next, aim your outstretched arm at the books on the shelves (think of them as stars) at the far side of your living room. 3. Now rotate your neck from le to right as much as you can while keeping your eyes focused on your fore nger and the books on the shelves. 4. Observe how many books move from side to side in relation to your raised fore nger. 5. Now bring your fore nger 50% closer to your nose and repeat your le -to-right neck rotation. 6. Observe how a signi cantly larger portion of books will move from side to side in relation to your fore nger.

5.6 Mars’ retrograde periods falsify the Copernican model 43
By now it should be clear why Kepler decided to fudge with the highly accurate observational data provided by his master, Tycho Brahe. As the staunch Copernican he was, he missed the opportunity to make sense of the complex motions of Mars, what with its unequal retrograde periods and seemingly uctuating orbital speeds. Kepler’s “war on Mars” was simply unwinnable, since the man was obstinately a ached to the idea that the Sun had to be at the centre of the system. I will thus dare say that his devious and obdurate ways will go down in history as a textbook case of how scienti c investigations should not be pursued; Kepler’s ardent quest was fogged by that all-too-common defect of the human intellect: con rmation bias.
In the next chapter, we will take a good look at the astounding similarities between the Sirius binary system and our own system. Sirius, of course, is the brightest star in our skies. I trust the reader can imagine my pleasant surprise when in the early stages of my TYCHOS research I realised that the observed diameters of Sirius A and Sirius B are proportionally identical to those of the Sun and Mars.
5.7 References
[1] Kepler’s Fabricated Figures, Covering up the Mess in the New Astronomy by W. H. Donahue, Journal for the History of Astronomy (1988) h p://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1988JHA.…19..217D/0000217.000.html
[2] Pioneer Astronomer Faked Orbit eory, Scholar Says by New York Times (January 23, 1990) h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/020B Pioneer-Faked- eory.htm
[3] Longomontanus on Mars: e Last Ptolemaic Mathematical Astronomer Creates a eory by Richard Kremer (2020) h ps://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/pdf/10.1484/M.PALS-EB.5.120186
[4] Ancient Maya documents concerning the movements of Mars by H. M. Bricker, A. F. Aveni and V. R. Bricker (February 2001) h ps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC29390/
[5] p.346, Tycho Brahe: a picture of scienti c life and work in the sixteenth century by John Louis Emil Dreyer (1890) h ps://tinyurl.com/tychobraheDreyer
[6] e Ballet of the Planets: A Mathematician’s Musings on the Elegance of Planetary Motion by Donald Benson (2012) h ps://tinyurl.com/balletplanetsBenson
[7] Stellar Metamorphosis by Je rey Wolynski & Barrington Taylor (2017) h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/026A Stellar-Metamorphosis.pdf
[8] Mars Oppositions by Hartmut Frommert (2008) h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/028A Mars-Oppositions.htm
[9] Kepler’s Discovery h ps://keplersdiscovery.com/threeModels.html

44 Chapter 5

MARS, THE “KEY” THAT KEPLER NEVER FOUND

6
IS SIRIUS THE ‘TWIN’ OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM?
6.1 About Sirius A and Sirius B One of the primary objections submi ed by opponents of the TYCHOS model is that Mars is far too small to be our Sun’s binary companion. ey argue that this would gravely violate Isaac Newton’s gravitational laws and that Mars, being such a small body, would immediately crash into the Sun. As we shall presently see, this argument is directly contradicted by the very existence of the Sirius binary system, which is composed of one large star (Sirius A) and one very small companion star (Sirius B). Remarkably enough, Sirius A and B are in the same proportion to each other as the Sun and Mars.
It is a ma er of historical record that astronomers were totally stumped when the rst binary star systems were discovered. e extremely small size of some of these newly detected companion stars—which kept multiplying thanks to improvements in telescopes and spectroscopes—made no sense within the framework of Newton’s theories. For instance, following the discovery of the tiny Sirius B, here is what Sir Arthur Eddington, renowned Astronomer Royal, had to say:
We learn about the stars by receiving and interpreting the messages which their light brings to us. e message of the Companion of Sirius when it was decoded ran: ‘I am composed of material 3,000 times denser than anything you have ever come across; a ton of my material would be a li le nugget that you could put in a matchbox.’ What reply can one make to such a message? e reply which most of us made in 1914 was—‘Shut up. Don’t talk nonsense.’ [1] Indeed, as these small binary companions were discovered, Newton’s sacrosanct gravitational laws were in grave danger of catastrophic demise. Eventually though, the situation was circumvented in what must be one of the most egregious cases of outright chicanery in science history. e ad hoc solution to the Newtonian pickle was to a rm that tiny companion stars were necessarily made of extraordinarily dense ma er. And, in fact, astronomy students are taught today that an object the size of a sugar cube would weigh some 1000 kg on Sirius B because the gravitational pull is for unknown reasons 400 000 times greater there than on Earth!
Fig. 6.1

46 Chapter 6

IS SIRIUS THE ‘TWIN’ OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM?

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6.2 (a) e earliest photograph of Sirius A and Sirius B (Lindenblad, 1973). (b) is is how some astronomy websites illustrate

the orbits of Sirius A and Sirius B. e two bodies are presumed to orbit around a common centre of mass, or ‘barycentre’.

Source: Martin Clu erbuck

at’s right, we are told that, in spite of having a slightly smaller diameter than Earth, Sirius B is heavier than our Sun because its atoms are packed almost half a million times tighter than our earthly atoms. I trust any intellectually honest person can see this is nothing but a manoeuvre to preserve the prestige of Sir Isaac Newton—one of our scienti c community’s most cherished icons.
Sirius, the brightest star in our skies, is a ‘classic’ binary system composed of at least two known bodies, Sirius A and Sirius B, which revolve around a common barycentre in intersecting orbits. e tiny companion star, Sirius B, was discovered by Alvan Clark in 1862 with what was then the world’s largest refractor telescope. As we shall see further on, a third body (Sirius C) is now suspected to be part of the Sirius system, despite being invisible even to our largest telescopes. But let us begin by taking a look at the two visible and well-known bodies of the Sirius binary system.
It should be noted that Sirius B is believed to be a so-called white dwarf. In Chapter 3, we saw that Mars to some extent ts the description of a red dwarf. According to cosmologists, the only di erence between a white dwarf and a red dwarf is their age, red dwarfs being much older.
Let us now address the rst and most frequent objection to the TYCHOS model, namely that Mars is way too small to be the Sun’s binary companion. is objection actually stands on very thin ground since it is invalidated by the empirically observable fact that the diameters of Sirius A and Sirius B are proportionally identical to those of the Sun and Mars.
Note that we will only be comparing the observed, relative angular diameters of Sirius A and Sirius B since any claim as to their respective masses would be impossible to verify empirically from Earth. In fact, all mass estimates of distant celestial bodies have to this day been based upon Einstein’s and Newton’s postulations which in later decades have been seriously questioned, if not roundly falsi ed. Yet, most astrophysicists seem to be comfortable with the notion that the ‘midget star’ Sirius B must have a larger mass than that of our Sun. Wikimedia and Wikipedia make the following extraordinary claims:
e white dwarf, Sirius B, has a mass equal to the mass of the Sun packed into a diameter that is 90% that of the Earth. e gravity on the surface of Sirius B is 400,000 times that of Earth! [2]

Fig. 6.3 Evolution of a white

dwarf star.

(a)

(b)

(c)

6.1 About Sirius A and Sirius B 47

In 2005, using the Hubble telescope, astronomers determined that Sirius B has nearly the diameter of the Earth, 12,000 kilometres, with a mass 102% of the Sun’s. [3]

Astronomers essentially believe that since Newton’s gravitational laws so elegantly predict the masses of the components our system, the same laws may safely be applied to the entire universe. us, if a large star and a tiny star can revolve around each other in a binary system, the mass of the tiny star must, they think, be phenomenally large.
I trust anyone can sense the fallacy inherent in this reasoning. It is really nothing but a textbook case of ad hoc con rmation bias on part of our world’s astrophysicists. So, for now let us skip the abstract question of the unmeasurable masses of distant celestial bodies and focus on the readily measurable relative diameters of the Sun and Mars, and contrast them directly with those of Sirius A and B, as estimated by Copernican astronomers.

Comparing the sizes of Sirius A and B with the sizes of the Sun and Mars

Diameter of Sirius A: 2390000

km

Diameter of Sirius B : 11684.4

km

⇒ Sirius B’s diameter is ∼0.4889% that of Sirius A.

Diameter of the Sun : 1392000

km

Diameter of Mars :

6792.4

km

⇒ Mars’s diameter is ∼0.4880% that of the Sun.

is corresponds to a proportional di erence of barely 0.0009%, or put di erently:

• Sirius A is about 205 times larger than Sirius B. • e Sun is about 205 times larger than Mars.

us, since the two companion stars in the Sirius system are practically in the same proportion to each other as the Sun and Mars, the objection that Mars would be far too small a binary companion is a nonstarter; the very existence of the Sirius binary system constitutes empirical evidence that such an allegedly unbalanced system can and does indeed exist in our cosmos. No truly scienti c mind would dismiss this as mere coincidence unworthy of serious consideration and debate. In any event, this directly observable fact certainly lends support the TYCHOS model’s main contention, namely that the Sun and the midget Mars are binary companions, much like Sirius A and the midget Sirius B are empirically observed to be, as they revolve around each other in about 50 solar years.
Surely, it would be extremely di cult or outright impossible to see Earth from Sirius as it would be swamped by the Sun’s blinding glare. Conversely, the same would be true for any earthly observer a empting to detect an Earth-like body in the blinding glare of Sirius A.

Fig. 6.4 ese pictures are based on a

Wikipedia image captioned: “Image of Sirius

A and Sirius B taken by the Hubble Space Tele-

scope. Sirius B, which is a white dwarf, can be

seen as a faint point of light to the lower le

of the much brighter Sirius A.” (a) I have added a grey dot (Sirius C?)

which will be explained shortly.

(b) My composited image on the right

suggests what our own system might look

like if viewed from Sirius.

(a)

(b)

48 Chapter 6

IS SIRIUS THE ‘TWIN’ OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM?

6.2 About the possible existence of ‘Sirius C’
As it is, there may be even more astonishing similarities between the Sirius binary system and our own binary system. Although further studies are needed to con rm its existence, it would appear that the Sirius binary system may well harbour a third body—provisionally named ‘Sirius C’. We shall now take a look at what is currently known about this controversial third component of the Sirius system, along with its fascinating implications for the TYCHOS model.
A fairly recent (1994) French astrophysical study concluded there are fairly solid indications for the existence of a third body in the Sirius system. Fig. 6.5 provides an extract, but the paper is well worth reading in its entirety.
e study essentially concludes that ‘Sirius C’ may well exist (though visually swamped by the glare of Sirius A), that it would have a far smaller mass than its two con rmed binary companions, and that its ‘host star’ would most likely be Sirius A, and not the midget star Sirius B. But before proceeding, let us look at a conventional diagram illustrating the intersecting orbits of Sirius A and Sirius B as they are viewed from Earth. Note that, in Fig. 6.6, Sirius B is labelled a ‘carbon star’, bringing to mind the fact that 96% of Mars’ atmosphere is reputedly composed of carbon dioxide.
According to modern astronomers, Sirius A and Sirius B revolve in intersecting orbits around a barycentre located in the void of space. But if we grant the existence of a third component in the Sirius system, such a body might just be located in the middle of Sirius A’s orbit. Fig. 6.7 shows how such an arrangement would compare to the Sun-Mars binary system, as proposed by the TYCHOS model.
Perhaps the most exciting implication of the con guration shown in Fig. 6.7 is the similar distance ratio between the small binary companion and the central body in each system. us, we know the distance between Mars and Earth (from perigee to apogee) varies by a 1:7 ratio. Assuming ‘Sirius C’ exists and is located in the middle of Sirius A’s orbit, the exact same 1:7 ratio would apply to the distance between Sirius B and Sirius C. If this is really so—and we are just speculating here—‘Sirius C’ would be like a ‘twin’ to Earth.

Fig. 6.5 Extract from the paper “Is Sirius a triple star”, by D. Benest and J. L. Duvent. [4]

6.3 The 7-degree tilt of Mars, the Sun and the Sirius system 49

Fig. 6.6 e intersecting orbits of Sirius A and Sirius B as viewed from Earth. Source: h ps://tinyurl.com/siriussystemASTRONOMOS

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6.7 Is the Sirius binary system the ‘twin’ of the Sun/Mars binary system? (a) e Sirius A/Sirius B binary system. (b) e Sun/Mars binary system.

6.3 The 7-degree tilt of Mars, the Sun and the Sirius system
As will be expounded in more detail in Chapter 9, our Sun’s axis is observed to be tilted at about 6 or 7 degrees in relation to the ecliptic. is is yet another ‘mystery’ never explained by Copernican astronomers. Why would the Sun be tilted in relation to our system’s planets? Isn’t the Sun supposed to be the central, dominating mass of our system? And shouldn’t all the planets therefore revolve around the Sun’s equatorial plane?

50 Chapter 6

IS SIRIUS THE ‘TWIN’ OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM?

Most interestingly, Mars’ axis can also be observed to be tilted at about 7 degrees. is could be seen in July 2018 when Mars passed very close to Earth. On that date, Mars was also ‘in opposition to’ (i.e., ‘facing’) the Sirius system. Now, as viewed from Earth, the Sirius system also has a 7-degree tilt component, as shown in Fig. 6.9. Unless this is all coincidental, it would seem to suggest that the axes of the Sun and Mars are tilted ‘in sympathy’ with the entire Sirius system, at approximately 7 degrees.
As you may know, Mars’ axis is also tilted at about 25 degrees, but in the other direction. is is why Mars will alternately show us its north pole and its south pole every 8.5 years or so, as it transits on either side of the Earth. Strangely, to my knowledge no mention of Mars’ other and lesser-known 7-degree axial tilt is to be found in the astronomy literature, in spite of the ongoing debate on the Sun’s 6 or 7-degree axial tilt (which some authors claim is caused by a hypothetical invisible body to which they have given the name ‘Planet Nine’).

Fig. 6.8 Mars, the Sun and the Sirius system as viewed from Earth. All appear to be tilted at about 7 degrees. Source of the sequential Mars images of its 2018 transit: Agena Observing Guide
What about our Moon? Does it also have an axial tilt? Yes, indeed. Here’s what we may read on the Wikipedia:
e Moon’s axis of rotation is inclined by in total 6.7° relative to the normal to the plane of the ecliptic. is leads to a similar perspective e ect in the north-south direction that is referred to as optical libration in latitude, which allows one to see almost 7° of latitude beyond the pole on the far side. [5] Remarkable, isn’t it?

6.4 The Dogon tribe’s curious knowledge of Sirius 51
6.4 The Dogon tribe’s curious knowledge of Sirius
‘Emme Tolo’ is the name given to the elusive Sirius C by the Dogon people, an ancient African tribe that worshipped the brightest star in our skies. In fact, it still remains a veritable mystery how the Dogons even knew of the existence of the tiny Sirius B, since it is not visible without a telescope, except perhaps under exceptional circumstances. Could Sirius have been much closer to the Earth in the distant past?
Fig. 6.9 can be found on various ‘alternative’ websites. It depicts a proposed con guration of the Sirius system. Interestingly, it appears to feature the elusive ‘Sirius C’ (or Emme Tolo) positioned at the barycentre of the Sirius A/B binary system.
e Dogons somehow also knew about an even smaller body revolving in lunar fashion around Emme Tolo (or ‘Sirius C’), much like our Moon revolves around Earth. ey named this satellite ‘Nyan Tolo’ which translates as ‘the women’s star’. Of course, our Moon (la Luna in Italian, and in Greek mythology represented by the goddess Selene) has always been regarded as ‘the women’s orb’, what with its sidereal orbital period of 27.3 days, approximately matching the average female menstrual cycle.
What are we to make of this remarkable story? As unlikely and bizarre as it may sound, it seems equally unlikely to be just a gment of someone’s imagination. Whether or not one labels it a product of mythology and folklore will not change the observable fact: Sirius B does indeed exist, and the existence of ‘Sirius C’ is by no means an unreasonable hypothesis. Should it eventually turn out that both ‘Sirius C’ (‘Emme Tolo’) and its moon (‘Nyan Tolo’) exist, we will have to seriously consider the compelling possibility that the Sirius system is like a ‘twin family’ to our own system. [6]
As we saw in Chapter 5, critics of the TYCHOS model think it preposterous to cast Mars in the role of the Sun’s binary companion, based on the allegedly highly unequal masses of these two bodies. I think it is time to question whether the assumed masses of the distant stars and planets have any foundation in reality. To be sure, no one will ever be able to weigh celestial bodies directly. Besides, Mars may be 205 times smaller than the Sun, but it is mostly made of rock and iron, whereas the Sun is 96% helium and hydrogen—the two lightest gases known to man. Hence, it is quite conceivable that their respective weights are far more similar than currently believed.
In conclusion, I submit that the very existence of the Sirius system is strongly supportive of the TYCHOS model’s tenets. It provides, among other things, empirical evidence that a tiny celestial body can indeed be the binary companion of a large star. Moreover, it suggests that Sirius is like a ‘twin family’ to our own binary system, although we have no idea why this would be so. In any event, the fact that the Sirius system in so many ways parallels our own system certainly merits closer scrutiny.

Table 6.1 – Proposed twins in the ‘twin family’

Object: Sun : Mars : Earth : Moon :

Twin Sirius A Sirius B (or “Po Tolo” in Dogon lore) Sirius C (or “Emme Tolo” in Dogon lore) “Nyan Tolo” in Dogon lore

Note that “Po Tolo” means ‘the smallest seed star’, much like one might describe Mars in our system. e Dogon drawings also place “Emme Tolo” (i.e., the elusive Sirius C) ‘in the centre’ of the Sirius System, much like the Earth is located ‘in the centre’ of the Solar System in the TYCHOS model. More remarkably still, according to Dogon lore, a smaller body which they call “Nyan Tolo” revolves around “Emme Tolo”, much like our Moon revolves around the Earth.

Fig. 6.9 “ e Dogons and the Stars of Sirius” by Pacal Votan (2007). [7]

52 Chapter 6

IS SIRIUS THE ‘TWIN’ OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM?

Fig. 6.10 A fascinating prospect: Could the Sun, Mars, Earth and our Moon each have a ‘twin’ in the Sirius system?
6.5 Are the Sirius system and our Solar System ‘double-double’ binary companions? e idea that Sirius is the Sun’s binary companion star is nothing new. It has been proposed by several
independent researchers in later decades (e.g., Karl-Heinz Homann of the Sirius Research Group, and Walter Cru enden of the Binary Research Institute), mostly because Sirius does not appear to precess like all the other stars.
e fact that Sirius seems to maintain its position relative to the position of the sun was a surprise to most scientists (aware of precession), when it was rst noticed by the French scienti c community following the Egyptian discoveries of Napoleon (and the Dendera Zodiac) in the early 1800’s. [8] An intimate connection between Sirius and the Sun was rst proposed by the eminent mathematician and egyptologist Schwaller de Lubicz. He made his deductions based on ancient Egyptian calendars that used the heliacal rising of Sirius as their new year date. In his book Sacred Science, he observed: For it is remarkable that owing to the precession of the equinoxes, on the one hand, and the movement of Sirius on the other, the position of the sun with respect to Sirius is displaced in the same direction, almost exactly to the same extent. [9] According to Jed Buchwald, it was none other than Tycho Brahe who rst discovered this remarkable behaviour of Sirius: Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes—and so from the solstices—throughout these many centuries, despite precession. […] e e ect was actually rst discovered long ago by Tycho Brahe in fact, who informed the chronologer Scaliger about it. [10]

6.5 Are the Sirius system and our Solar System ‘double-double’ binary companions? 53

Table 6.2 – Heliacal rise dates for Sirius from Eqypt

Over a period of 4000 years (from 3500 BC to 500 AD), Sirius ‘precessed’ by only about four days (from July 16.4 to July 20.3).

Year 3500 . . 3000 . . 2500 . . 2000 . . 1500 . . 1000 . . 500 . .
1 .. 500 . .

DSVE* 87.8 92.3 95.8 100.3 104.8 108.2 112.9 117.3 123.0

Julian Date July 16.4 July 16.9 July 16.6 July 17.3 July 17.8 July 17.2 July 18.2 July 18.3 July 20.3

*Listed is the number of days since the time of the vernal equinox on which Sirius will heliacally rise from a latitude of 30° north for an extinction coe cient of 0.35 magnitudes per air mass. Source: B. E. Schaefer [11].

A good summary of the heated Sirius debate may be found on the Human Origin Project website in an article that is well worth reading in its entirety, were it only to show how important Sirius has been for many ancient civilizations in the making of accurate calendars.
Ancient calendar systems could be evidence that our solar system is rotating around its binary partner Sirius. [12]
e existence of so-called ‘double-double’ stars (i.e., two binary systems revolving around each other in interstellar binary orbits) is beyond question: Many such ‘double-double’ stars have been documented, one example being the Epsilon Lyrae multiple star system.

Fig. 6.11 e Epsilon Lyrae ‘double-double’ pair of binary stars revolve around each other (inverted colours).
Source: Wikipedia
So could the Sirius pair possibly be revolving around the Sun/Mars pair? Or is this exceptional synchronicity between the motions of Sirius and our Sun just a ‘cosmic coincidence’, as mainstream astronomy has it? Before we move on, you will need to know that, according to the famous celestial mechanist Jean Meeus [13], Sirius may be expected to become our south pole star about 60 000 years from now. At the Constellation Guide website, we can also read the following:
Sirius is slowly moving closer to Earth and will gradually increase in brightness over the next 60,000 years, before it starts to recede. [14]
Fig. 6.12 is a largely speculative graphic based on these interesting data and expert predictions. Note that the relative orbital sizes in the graphic are arbitrary and that the graphic is just an exploratory exercise to probe and visualize the hypothesis that the two binary pairs (Sirius A/B and Sun/Mars) make up a ‘doubledouble’ system similar to that of Epsilon Lyrae.

54 Chapter 6

IS SIRIUS THE ‘TWIN’ OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM?

Fig. 6.12 e hypothetical Sirius/Sun ‘double-double’ system. Note that by ‘ascend north-east’ and ‘descend south-west’ I refer to how an imaginary observer in space in the reader’s line of sight would describe the secular motions of the two binary systems.
6.6 Summary
While gure 6.12 is no more than a tentative interpretation of the observational and predictive data available today, if it were to be ultimately proven reasonably correct, it would help elucidate a number of long-debated issues and mysteries surrounding the brightest star in our skies:
• First of all, it would explain why our entire Solar System performs a clockwise precessional revolution around itself every 25344 years.
• It would also explain why Sirius does not appear to precess like all the other stars and has remained almost perfectly ‘aligned’ with our Sun for millennia.
• It would explain why various ancient civilizations used Sirius as a stable and reliable reference on which to base their calendars and even used its heliacal rising to mark their new year.
• It would corroborate the prediction of Jean Meeus that Sirius will become our south pole star in about 60 000 years.
• It may even shed some light on how the Dogon people knew about the existence of the tiny Sirius B, the invisible ‘Sirius C’ and its moon. As shown in Fig. 6.12, the Sirius system would periodically pass much closer to Earth than it is today (i.e., whenever our two binary systems would transit at periastron), thus plausibly allowing its components to be seen with the naked eye.
• Furthermore, it may demystify the 7-degree axial tilts of the Sun and Mars, which are observed whenever the two are aligned towards the Sirius system, and its apparent 7-degree obliquity in relation to the celestial ecliptic.
• Last but not least, it would be consistent with the respective celestial motions of Sirius and our own system, in relation to our ecliptic.

6.6 Summary 55
All in all, the notion that the Sirius system is not only like a ‘twin family’ to our system but may also be connected with our system in a ‘double-double’ con guration, as posited by a number of modern-day independent researchers, cannot be dismissed o -hand. In any event, the simple fact that the Sun/Mars duo is proportionally near-identical to the Sirius A/B duo—a fact that has gone unnoticed to this day—should give the scienti c community some serious food for thought. To continue to overlook this fact would be tantamount to ignoring the proverbial ‘elephant in the room’.
6.7 References
[1] White Darf, Wikipedia h ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White dwarf
[2] Sirius A and B, A Double-Star System, Wikimedia h ps://tinyurl.com/siriusWikimedia
[3] Sirius, Wikipedia h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/ WIKIP-Feb-2017 Sirius.pdf
[4] Is Sirius a Triple Star? by D. Benest and J. L. Duvent (1994) h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/017A Is-Sirius-Triple-Star.pdf
[5] Orbit of the Moon, Wikipedia h ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit of the Moon
[6] e Dogon Tribe: Connection Sirius by Ivan Petricevic (2018) h ps://bibliotecapleyades.net/esp dogon06.htm
[7] e Dogons and the Stars of Sirius by Pacal Votan (2007) h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/017B Pacal-Dogon.htm
[8] Karl-Heinz Homann (1933, 2008) by Walter Cru enden for BRI’s Sirius Research Group h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/147B Karl-Heinz-Homann.htm
[9] Sacred Science: e King of Pharaonic eocracy by Schwaller de Lubicz (1982) [10] Sirius and precession of the solstice by Uwe Homann (2005)
h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/146D Sirius-Precession-of-Solstice.pdf [11] e heliacal rise of Sirius and ancient Egyptian chronology by Bradley E. Schaefer for Journal for the History of Astronomy (2000)
h p://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000JHA.…31..149S [12] e Science of Sirius Mythology & Our Two Sun Solar System by Human Origin Project
h ps://humanoriginproject.com/sirius-mythology-two-sun-solar-system [13] Say hello to Sirius, a future South Pole Star, Earthsky.org
h ps://earthsky.org/tonight/sirius-future-south-pole-star [14] Sirius: the Dog star, Constellation Guide
h ps://www.constellation-guide.com/sirius-the-dog-star

56 Chapter 6

IS SIRIUS THE ‘TWIN’ OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM?

7
THE COPERNICAN MODEL IS GEOMETRICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

7.1 Introduction
We have o en heard that the heliocentric model and the geocentric model are geometrically equivalent. Some believe they are like the two sides of the same coin, a mere question of perspective and point of view. However, there can only be one correct interpretation of our celestial mechanics and geometry that unfailingly predicts all the interactions between the planets of the Solar System and between the planets and the distant stars.
rough sound logic, induction and deductive reasoning, we should be able to discard impossible hypotheses and retain that which makes physical, geometrical and optical sense and is backed up by empirical observation.
One such untenable proposition is the Copernican model. Its geometry is not only problematic and questionable, but outright impossible. Indeed, since the model was popularised in the 17th century, scientists like Kepler and Einstein have dreamt up fantastical new laws of nature to save it from bankruptcy. In the following we shall—with a li le help from Mars—see how the Copernican model falls apart when exposed to honest scrutiny.

7.2 Cassini’s determination of Mars’ parallax against the stars

Before proceeding, we need to review the famous astronomical enterprise of Giovanni Cassini and his colleague Jean Richer—as described in the Wikipedia entry for “Giovanni Cassini”:

In 1672, [Cassini] sent his colleague Jean Richer to Cayenne, French Guiana, while he himself stayed in Paris. e two made simultaneous observations of Mars and, by computing the parallax, determined its distance from Earth. is allowed for the rst time an estimation of the dimensions of the solar system: since the relative ratios of various sun-planet distances were already known from geometry, only a single absolute interplanetary distance was needed to calculate all of the distances. [1]

In short, Cassini and Richer made simultaneous observations of Mars from two earthly locations separated by 7000 kilometres. Using trigonometry, the parallax exhibited by Mars against the starry background made it possible to determine its distance from Earth.
It is of prime interest to our argument that a mere 7000 kilometres of separation between two earthly observers was enough to cause Mars to be measurably displaced in relation to the rmament, simultaneously aligning with di erent stars. Now, if for the sake of argument the two astronomers had been separated by hundreds of millions of kilometres on a given day and time, I think we can all agree that the observed parallax would have been considerably larger. As it happens, the following case of missing parallax is all that is needed to disprove the Copernican theory.

Fig. 7.1 Simple diagram from a French astronomy website illustrating Cassini’s ingenious observational experiment.

58 Chapter 7

THE COPERNICAN MODEL IS GEOMETRICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

7.3 How can Mars return facing the same star in only 546 days?
At certain intervals, Mars conjuncts with Deneb Algedi, a binary star located at 21h47min of RA. e following two successive conjunctions occurred within 546 days and thus represent a ‘Short ESI’ of Mars (see Chap. 5):
Successive conjunctions of Mars with Deneb Algedi 5 November 2018: 21h47min of RA 4 May 2020: 21h47min of RA Interval: 546 days
Now, the problem is that, if the Copernican model corresponds to reality, Earth should a er 546 days (about 1½ years) nd itself on the opposite side of a 300 million km wide orbit around the Sun. is position simply cannot be reconciled with what is depicted by standard 3-D simulators of the heliocentric model.
Before we move on, bear in mind that there are two types of modern Copernican simulators. One a empts to simulate the orbital motions of our planets and moons (from a ‘spaceship’s perspective’, e.g., the JS Orrery and the SCOPE planetarium, both of which feature an outer-space 3-D view of the Solar System). e other type of simulators (such as Stellarium and the now defunct NEAVE planetarium) are far more dependable as they visualize the actual positions of our planets in relation to the stars, as viewed from Earth.

Fig. 7.2 Screenshots from the SCOPE and NEAVE planetariums.

7.4 Summarising our challenge to the Copernican theory 59
Fig. 7.2 compares the positions of Earth and Mars on two given dates separated by 546 days. In this time interval, both Earth and Mars would according to the Copernican model have moved laterally by about 300 Mkm. Yet, on both occasions an earthly observer will see Mars neatly aligned with Deneb Algedi. How can this possibly occur if the Copernican model is true?
Retrograde loops in a Copernican universe Fig. 7.3 In order to put this problem in due perspective, let us take a look at the classic explanation for the observed retrograde motion of Mars. It is said to be due to a parallax e ect caused by Earth overtaking Mars. Yet, how can this be reconciled with the fact that Mars can actually be observed to conjunct with star Deneb Algedi at both ends of a 546-day period (represented by points A and E in the heliocentric diagram)? Note that the present discussion about Mars’ parallax (or absence thereof) in relation to Deneb Algedi, or any given star, is not part of the long-standing controversy over stellar parallax. e la er refers to the nigh-undetectable parallax between more distant and less distant stars (something we will take a closer look at in Chapter 25). e former concerns the parallax between Mars and any distant star in the rmament.
7.4 Summarising our challenge to the Copernican theory e reconjunction of Mars with a given star a er both 707 days and 546 days cannot be reconciled with the
geometric con guration of the Copernican model, regardless of which laws of nature are invoked. e TYCHOS model provides a simple and testable explanation for this ‘mysterious’ behaviour of Mars.
Over a 15-year period, Mars realigns with a given star 7 times at 707-day intervals, followed by a single conjunction a er only 546 days. e shorter period of 546 days is known as Mars’ short empiric sidereal interval (ESI).
Fig. 7.4 Mars can return to the same celestial longitude a er only 546 days.

60 Chapter 7

THE COPERNICAN MODEL IS GEOMETRICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

e 546-day period occurs when Mars’ spirographic orbital pa ern, which has it realigning with a given star every 707 days on 7 successive occasions, ‘skips’ its retrograde loop the 8th time around. Mars will thus transit across vector X earlier than during the previous 7 revolutions. It’s just plain geometry. As we saw in Chapter 5, Mars returns to face a given star in a 15-year cycle, following the rather curious sequence in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 – Sequence of Mars’ sidereal periods (ESI)

707 days

707 days

707 days

707 days

707 days

707 days

707 days

546 days

In short, Mars returns facing the same star at 707-day intervals seven times in a row, followed by a signi cantly shorter interval of 546 days. So, you may ask, is this what is actually observed? And does the Tychosium 3D simulator con rm this curious behaviour of Mars? e answer to both questions is ‘yes’.
In the Tychosium simulator, all these Mars transits occur on the same line of sight towards Deneb Algedi, including the last one which took place on 4 May 2020, only 546 days a er the one on 5 November 2018.
Note that no existing simulator of our Solar System (other than the Tychosium) can account for the fact that Mars will cyclically conjunct with a given star as empirically observed, i.e., at the same longitude and in the peculiar pa ern of 7 × 707 days and 1 × 546 days. In this respect, the TYCHOS model simply has no rivals; its detractors will have to argue that what the Tychosium simulator maps, traces and demonstrates is just a ma er of random coincidence.

Table 7.2 – e 15-year Martian cycle

Nine documented conjunctions of Mars with Deneb Algedi (Delta Capricorni) between the years 2005 and 2020.

Interval
+706 days +709 days +710 days +710 days +709 days +707 days +694 days +546 days

Date 2005-04-22 2007-03-29 2009-03-07 2011-02-15 2013-01-25 2015-01-04 2016-12-11 2018-11-05 2020-05-04

Fig. 7.5 e Tychosium 3D simulator neatly accounts for these 9 transits of Mars at about 21h47m of RA (the celestial longitude of the star Deneb Algedi).

7.4 Summarising our challenge to the Copernican theory 61
In stark contrast, the Copernican JS Orrery simulator depicts these same 9 transits of Mars as shown in Fig. 7.6. Let us not forget that it was Kepler’s ‘mathemagics’ which allowed the heliocentric model to retain some measure of credibility: by postulating ‘variable orbital speeds’ and ‘elliptical orbits’, Kepler managed to at least make Earth and Mars point in the same general direction in space.
Note that we are not theorising here. All the above Mars-Deneb Algedi conjunctions, as viewed from Earth at 21h47m of RA, did indeed happen—a fact not disputed by any astronomer. So how can the Earth ‘dri sideways’ by about 300 million kilometres and still provide a view of Mars neatly conjuncting with Deneb Algedi? It ma ers li le how far away Deneb Algedi is; what ma ers is that the much shorter distance between the Earth and Mars would produce a marked parallax if our planet were really scurrying around the Sun in a 300 Mkm wide orbit, as posited by Kepler. Unless you believe the star Deneb Algedi is 300 Mkm across!
Now, Copernican astronomers will tell you that Deneb Algedi is so extraordinarily far away that a lateral displacement of 300 Mkm has no e ect on the line of sight towards it. ey will also argue that the 9 lines shown in Fig. 7.6 may not be perfectly parallel. Regardless, if you choose to side with the Copernicans, you would have to dismiss the perfect juxtaposition of all 9 conjunctions in the Tychosium 3D simulator as a most spectacular strike of luck. It may be ‘spectacular’, but it would be stretching common sense beyond breaking point to label it a coincidence.
Fig. 7.6 In this Copernican depiction of a 15-year cycle of Mars, the positions numbered 0-6 are all separated by ca. 707 days, whereas the positions 7 and 8 are separated by only 546 days. By introducing the idea of variable speeds and elliptical orbits, Kepler was able to ‘make the t’ into the heliocentric theory. However, this cannot represent the physical reality as Mars conjuncted with the same star each time.

62 Chapter 7

THE COPERNICAN MODEL IS GEOMETRICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

7.5 The extremely rare triple conjunctions of Mars with a given star
In order to verify the accuracy of the Tychosium 3D simulator, I have o en used another Copernican Solar System simulator, the Star Atlas, for comparison. e Mars-Deneb Algedi conjunctions between 1900 and 2099 shown in Table 7.3 highlight the high level of agreement between the two simulators.
But wait! Something unusual is predicted to happen in the year 2050: a triple conjunction of Mars with Deneb Algedi within a 117-day time frame. How could such a triple conjunction possibly occur in the Copernican model? And if it is true that Mars gets ‘overtaken’ by Earth every 2.13 years or so, why wouldn’t such triple conjunctions be observed each and every time Earth ‘overtakes’ Mars? e Copernican model o ers no rational explanation for this, but the Tychosium 3D simulator promptly comes to our aid: In 2050, Mars’ retrograde loop will be almost perfectly centred around the line-of-sight vector joining Earth and Deneb Algedi.
is will cause Mars to conjunct with that star on three occasions (A, B and C) within only 117 days. Fig. 7.7 describes these three conjunctions as displayed in the Tychosium 3D simulator.

Table 7.3 – Mars—Deneb Algendi Highlighted in yellow are Mars’ short ESIs of ca. 546 days which occur every 15 or 17 years.

Days Star Atlas 1900-02-21
710 1902-02-01 710 1904-01-12 708 1905-12-19 700 1907-11-19 543 1909-05-15 699 1911-05-15 707 1913-03-22 710 1915-03-01 710 1917-02-08 710 1919-01-19 709 1920-12-28 704 1922-12-03 552 1924-06-07 687 1926-04-25 706 1928-03-30 709 1930-03-09 710 1932-03-17 710 1934-01-27 709 1936-01-06 707 1937-12-13 696 1939-11-09 544 1941-05-06 703 1943-04-09 708 1945-03-17 710 1947-02-24 710 1949-02-04 710 1951-01-14 708 1952-12-22 702 1954-11-25 545 1956-05-22 696 1958-04-18 706 1960-03-25 710 1962-03-04 710 1964-02-12 710 1966-01-22 709 1968-01-01

Tychosium 1900-02-21 1902-02-01 1904-01-12 1905-12-19 1907-11-19 1909-05-15 1911-05-15 1913-03-22 1915-03-01 1917-02-09 1919-01-19 1920-12-28 1922-12-02 1924-06-06 1926-04-25 1928-03-30 1930-03-09 1932-03-17 1934-01-27 1936-01-06 1937-12-13 1939-11-08 1941-05-07 1943-04-09 1945-03-17 1947-02-25 1949-02-04 1951-01-14 1952-12-22 1954-11-25 1956-05-22 1958-04-19 1960-03-25 1962-03-04 1964-02-12 1966-01-22 1968-01-01

Days Star Atlas 705 1969-12-07 686 1971-10-24 554 1973-04-29 704 1975-04-03 709 1977-03-12 709 1979-02-20 711 1981-01-30 709 1983-01-09 708 1984-12-17 699 1986-11-16 543 1988-05-12 700 1990-04-12 708 1992-03-20 709 1994-02-27 710 1996-02-07 710 1998-01-17 709 1999-12-27 704 2001-11-30 550 2003-06-02 689 2005-04-22 706 2007-03-29 709 2009-03-07 710 2011-02-15 710 2013-01-25 710 2015-01-04 706 2016-12-11 694 2018-11-05 546 2020-05-04 703 2022-04-07 708 2024-03-15 710 2026-02-22 710 2028-02-03 710 2030-01-12 708 2031-12-21 702 2033-11-22 544 2035-05-20 697 2037-04-16

Tychosium 1969-12-07 1971-10-24 1973-04-29 1975-04-04 1977-03-12 1979-02-20 1981-01-30 1983-01-09 1984-12-17 1986-11-16 1988-05-12 1990-04-13 1992-03-20 1994-02-28 1996-02-08 1998-01-17 1999-12-27 2001-11-30 2003-06-02 2005-04-23 2007-03-29 2009-03-07 2011-02-15 2013-01-25 2015-01-04 2016-12-11 2018-11-05 2020-05-04 2022-04-07 2024-03-15 2026-02-23 2028-02-03 2030-01-13 2031-12-21 2033-11-22 2035-05-20 2037-04-16

! = A very rare triple conjunction of Mars with star Deneb Algedi.

Days Star Atlas Tychosium

707 2039-03-24 2039-03-24

707 2041-03-02 2041-03-03

710 2043-02-10 2043-02-11

710 2045-01-20 2045-01-20

709 2046-12-30 2046-12-30

705 2048-12-04 2048-12-05

565 2050-06-21 2050-06-21

!

48 2050-08-12 2050-08-12

69 2050-10-16 2050-10-16

557 2052-04-26 2052-04-27

705 2054-04-02 2054-04-02

709 2056-03-10 2056-03-10

710 2058-02-18 2058-02-18

710 2060-01-29 2060-01-29

709 2062-01-07 2062-01-08

708 2063-12-16 2063-12-16

698 2065-11-13 2065-11-13

543 2067-05-10 2067-05-11

701 2069-04-10 2069-04-11

708 2071-03-19 2071-03-19

710 2073-02-25 2073-02-26

710 2075-02-05 2075-02-06

710 2077-01-16 2077-01-16

708 2078-12-25 2078-12-25

704 2080-11-27 2080-11-28

548 2082-05-29 2082-05-29

691 2084-04-20 2084-04-21

706 2086-03-27 2086-03-27

710 2088-03-05 2088-03-05

710 2090-02-13 2090-02-13

710 2092-01-24 2092-01-24

709 2094-01-02 2094-01-02

706 2095-12-09 2095-12-10

693 2097-10-31 2097-11-01

547 2099-05-02 2099-05-03

7.5 The extremely rare triple conjunctions of Mars with a given star 63
Fig. 7.7 e three conjunctions as displayed in the Tychosium 3D simulator. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Simply put, in 2050 Mars will be retrograding in the line of sight of Deneb Algedi, resulting in three conjunctions within less than 4 months. You can and should verify all this by yourself by perusing the Tychosium 3D simulator. is is yet another instance of observable celestial conjunctions that the TYCHOS model can fully account for, logically and geometrically, unlike the heliocentric model or any other proposed con guration of our Solar System.

64 Chapter 7

THE COPERNICAN MODEL IS GEOMETRICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

7.6 The impossible 816-day reconjunction of Earth and Venus with a given star
We shall now take a look at Venus by comparing two screenshots from the SCOPE planetarium depicting two conjunctions of Earth and Venus with the star Regulus in the constellation Leo at an interval of 816 days (or 2.234 years). During that period, according to the Copernican model, Earth and Venus would both be displaced laterally (i.e., perpendicularly to Regulus’ location) by about 200 million km. Yet, Venus was actually observed to conjunct with Regulus on both these dates (2018-07-10 and 2020-10-03). Just as the Copernican model fails to explain the full cycle of Mars-Deneb Algedi conjunctions, it is at a loss to account for the alignment of Venus and Regulus, as empirically observed in 2018 and in 2020.
Again, Copernican astronomers will claim that Regulus is so immensely distant that the lines of sight towards Venus and Regulus are not totally parallel, but will somehow ultimately converge towards Regulus. Now, we may debate this question of parallelism until the cows come home, but the fact remains: Venus did indeed conjunct with Regulus on those two dates, as documented by astronomers.

Fig. 7.8 Two screenshots from the SCOPE planetarium. Earth and Venus will align with the same star at both sides of Venus’ orbit.
e NEAVE planetarium, which realistically simulates the rmament as observed from Earth, con rms that Venus and Regulus did indeed conjunct on both 10 July 2018 and 3 October 2020, 816 days apart.
Fig. 7.9 Two screenshots from the NEAVE planetarium showing what can actually be observed from Earth.

7.6 The impossible 816-day reconjunction of Earth and Venus with a given star 65
Fig. 7.10 Two superimposed screenshots from the Tychosium 3D simulator.
In Fig. 7.10, the Tychosium 3D simulator shows why Venus can and will return facing a given star in 816 days. e TYCHOS model clearly accounts for Venus’ physical return to the same celestial longitude a er an 816-day interval to reconjunct with the star Regulus, whereas the Copernican con guration plainly contradicts empirical observation.
• In the Copernican model, Venus conjuncts with the star Regulus every 816 days, but Earth and Venus are also said to travel ‘sideways’ for about 200 million km during the same period—enough to create a measurable parallax.
• In the TYCHOS model, Venus conjuncts with the star Regulus every 816 days simply because it physically returns to that same celestial longitude. No parallax. No ‘mystery’ to explain away.
Next, we shall take a closer look at the Sun’s two moons, Venus and Mercury. Referring to Venus and Mercury as lunar satellites may sound beyond heretical, but the compelling and easily veri able facts presented in Chapter 8 leave no room for doubt.
7.7 References
[1] Giovanni Cassini, Wikipedia h ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni Domenico Cassini
[2] e JS ORRERY simulator h ps://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery
[3] e SCOPE planetarium simulator h ps://www.solarsystemscope.com
[4] e STELLARIUM simulator h ps://stellarium-web.org

66 Chapter 7

THE COPERNICAN MODEL IS GEOMETRICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

8
THE SUN’S TWO MOONS, MERCURY AND VENUS
8.1 Introduction
As brie y mentioned in Chapter 3, in the TYCHOS model, the two celestial bodies known as Mercury and Venus are not planets, as we are taught in school, but the two moons of the Sun—very much like Mars’ two moons, Phobos and Deimos. We shall now see how this can be demonstrated in a number of ways, and why the choice of word is not just a mundane ma er of nomenclature. Unlike planets, moons have no lunar satellites of their own, rotate exceptionally slowly around their axes, and are tidally (or ‘magnetically’) locked, meaning they always show the same face to their host. To wit, a moon is a moon and should not be referred to as a ‘planet’.
8.2 Mercury: the Sun’s ‘junior moon’
Mercury was a grave ma er of concern for astronomers in the last century, with its seemingly erratic behaviour. Since the precession of its perihelion was in con ict with Newtonian predictions, thus threatening the fundamental physics of the heliocentric theory, Einstein pulled out of his hat a fanciful theory which basically implies that we cannot trust our own eyes. We shall address this theory and the controversial ‘anomalous precession of Mercury’s perihelion’ in Chapter 22; for now, let us focus on the periodic motions of the Sun’s ‘junior moon’.
As it turns out, Mercury’s behaviour is not so erratic a er all. Yes, its orbital plane is slightly inclined in relation to the Sun’s orbital plane, as viewed from Earth, causing its elevation vis-a`-vis the Sun to oscillate quite a bit, yet it simply revolves around the Sun in lunar fashion. Its average synodic period is 116.88 days, which is approximately 4 times the period needed for our Moon to return facing the Sun, as viewed from Earth. As you may remember from Chapter 3, this same period (116.88 days) is precisely the time employed by Venus to revolve around its own axis.
All this would be considered an extraordinary coincidence under the Copernican model, according to which the orbital paths of Mercury, Venus and our Moon are completely unrelated. Conversely, within the geometric con guration of the TYCHOS model, and given the ostensibly ‘magnetic’ nature of our Solar System, these seemingly uncanny orbital resonances between our Moon, Mercury and Venus are to be fully expected.
Now, is Mercury really tidally locked to the Sun, just as our Moon is tidally locked to Earth? Until around the year 1965, every astronomer in the world would have told you that, yes, Mercury is indeed tidally locked to the Sun. In that year, though, NASA and Russian space agency o cials gleefully announced that, according to modern radar data, Mercury was not, a er all, tidally locked to the Sun. is caused an uproar in the astronomy community and the question has still not been put to rest. However, when viewed under the TYCHOS model—which has the Sun-Mercury-Venus trio revolving around the Earth and not the other way around—it becomes glaringly evident that both Mercury and Venus are tidally locked to their host, the Sun.
8.3 Mercury’s short and long empiric sidereal intervals (ESI)
Every 7 years, an earthly observer will see Mercury conjunct with a given star 6 times at intervals of ∼358 days, followed by a conjunction a er ∼408 days. In other words, the 7th conjunction is delayed by about 50 days, meaning that, just like Mars, Mercury has two empiric sidereal intervals: a ‘short ESI’ and a ‘long ESI’.

68 Chapter 8

THE SUN’S TWO MOONS, MERCURY AND VENUS

For the sake of calculation, over a period of 14 years Mercury completes 12 short ESIs (∼358 days) and two long ESIs (∼408 days). Table 8.1 shows a series of 14 successive sidereal periods of Mercury, from 6 July 1998 to 5 July 2012, compiled by perusing the NEAVE online planetarium. e chart counts Mercury’s yearly revolutions using as starting point its conjunction with the star Asellus Australis in the Cancer constellation, at the beginning of a long ESI.

Table 8.1 – Series of 14 successive sidereal periods of Mercury

e 14 successive sidereal periods of Mercury total 5113 days. us, the average sidereal period of Mercury is ∼365.22 days (5113/14), or almost exactly 1 solar year.

Start date

End date

Duration in days

ESI

1998-07-06

→

1999-08-19

=

409

Long

1999-08-19

→

2000-08-11

=

358

Short

2000-08-11

→

2001-08-03

=

357

Short

2001-08-03

→

2002-07-25

=

356

Short

2002-07-25

→

2003-07-17

=

357

Short

2003-07-17

→

2004-07-09

=

358

Short

2004-07-09

→

2005-07-04

=

360

Short

2005-07-04

→

2006-08-16

=

408

Long

2006-08-16

→

2007-08-08

=

357

Short

2007-08-08

→

2008-07-30

=

357

Short

2008-07-30

→

2009-07-22

=

357

Short

2009-07-22

→

2010-07-14

=

357

Short

2010-07-14

→

2011-07-07

=

358

Short

2011-07-07

→

2012-07-05

=

364

Short

What is empirically observed is a 7-year pa ern, yielding a mean sidereal period of 365.22 days. Provided the right starting point is used to calculate Mercury’s celestial motions, Mercury is indeed seen to be tidally locked to the Sun in its yearly orbit around Earth. is is the behaviour one would expect from a moon.
It is truly perplexing that, as far as I know, no one has noticed the fact that Mercury’s sidereal periods, in spite of their irregularity, can be averaged out to almost exactly 1 solar year. To be sure, this ‘synchronicity’
nds no support in the heliocentric model, which has the Earth and Mercury revolving at di erent speeds and in di erent ‘lanes’ around the Sun.
Most astronomy tables give Mercury’s mean synodic period as 115.88 days (a synodic period is the time interval between two successive conjunctions of any given celestial body with the Sun). So why is the period obtained with the TYCHOS model (116.88 days) slightly longer? To answer this question, let us look at a duly veri ed series of 14 successive synodic periods of Mercury, spanning 1636 days (Table 8.2).

Table 8.2 – Series of 14 successive synodic periods of Mercury

e 14 successive synodic periods of Mercury total 1636 days. us, the average sidereal period of Mercury is ∼116.86 days (1636/14). Hence, our 116.88-day value for Mercury’s true mean synodic period is virtually on the mark.

Start date

End date

Duration in days

2003-10-24

→

2004-03-03

=

131

2004-03-03

→

2004-06-18

=

107

2004-06-18

→

2004-10-05

=

109

2004-10-05

→

2005-02-14

=

132

2005-02-14

→

2005-06-03

=

109

2005-06-03

→

2005-09-17

=

106

2005-09-17

→

2006-01-26

=

131

2006-01-26

→

2006-05-19

=

113

2006-05-19

→

2006-08-31

=

104

2006-08-31

→

2007-01-07

=

129

2007-01-07

→

2007-05-03

=

116

2007-05-03

→

2007-08-15

=

104

2007-08-15

→

2007-12-18

=

125

2007-12-18

→

2008-04-16

=

120

8.4 Venus: the Sun’s ‘senior moon’ 69

8.4 Venus: the Sun’s ‘senior moon’

It has been observed that Venus presents practically the same face to earthly observers each time it transits closest to Earth, which happens every 584.4 days or so. Note that Venus is, of all our surrounding celestial bodies, the one that passes closest to Earth.
As it is, this apparent tidal locking of Venus to Earth remains a complete mystery to modern astronomers. Of course, in the Copernican model, Earth and Venus are pictured as travelling around in concentric orbits, with Venus requiring less time to complete a lap due to the smaller orbit, yet Venus always shows the same face to us during the so-called ‘inferior conjunction with the Sun’. is is yet another instance of puzzling ‘synchronicity’ for the advocates of the heliocentric theory. In fact, astronomers readily admit they have no explanation for this ‘mystery’:
e periods of Venus’ rotation and of its orbit are synchronized such that it always presents the same face toward Earth when the two planets are at their closest approach. Whether this is a resonance e ect or merely a coincidence is not known. [1]

Every 584 days, Venus and Earth come to their point of closest approach. And every time this happens, Venus shows Earth the same face. Is there some force that makes Venus align itself with the Earth rather than the Sun, or is this just a coincidence? [2]

Whether this relationship arose by chance or is the result of some kind of tidal locking with Earth is unknown. [3]

Tidal locking of Venus planet: […] so that the Venus planet shows always almost the same face to the Earth planet during each meeting, and shows that same face to both Earth and Sun during heliocentric opposition of Earth and Venus planets. [4]

Every astronomer is aware of this ‘inconvenient’ fact, but who can explain it? As with so many other longstanding enigmas, the TYCHOS model provides a satisfactory and rational answer: Venus, just like Mercury, is tidally locked to its host, the Sun, quite simply because it is a lunar satellite, much like our Moon is tidally locked to Earth. But let us do the math:

• Venus employs 584.4 days to return to perigee. • is is slightly more than 1½ solar years, which is 547.875 days. • e di erence is 36.525 days. • 36.525 days corresponds to 1/10 of 365.25 days and 1/16 of 584.4 days.

365.25 × 1.5 = 547.875 584.400 − 547.875 = 36.525

In fact, for every 16 solar revolutions around Earth, Venus transits 10 times behind the Sun (apogee). Every 8 years, Venus transits 5 times closest to Earth (perigee). Every 16 years, Venus conjuncts with Mars at diametrically opposite sides of Earth, and every 32 years or so Venus and Mars re-conjunct on the same side of Earth. e TYCHOS model is shining a light on a fact the Copernican model has obscured for centuries, namely that the entire system is composed of magnetically interlocked micro-systems in perfect synchrony.

• Venus has an 8-year cycle of 2922 days… • … or 5 synodic periods of 584.4 days each.

8 × 365.25 = 2922 5 × 584.4 = 2922

is period of 2922 days equals 100 TMSPs. e TMSP is our Moon’s true mean synodic period of 29.22 days. is will be duly explicated in Chapter 13.

70 Chapter 8

THE SUN’S TWO MOONS, MERCURY AND VENUS

8.5 Verifying the 584.4-day value for Venus’ synodic period

Some may hold up that o cial astronomy tables give Venus’ mean synodic period as 583.9 days, not 584.4 days, but life teaches that ‘o cial’ and ‘true’ are not necessarily synonymous. As we shall see, the o cial
gure is easily challenged by averaging the ve synodic periods of Venus’ 8-year cycle of solar conjunction. Table 8.3 clearly shows that the mean synodic period of Venus is ∼584.4 days. Note that synodic periods
uctuate slightly over time due to eccentricity, and that all planetary and lunar orbits are slightly eccentric (i.e., o -centre) in relation to their host body. ‘Eccentric’ should not be confused with ‘elliptical’: the elliptical orbits proposed by Kepler do not exist in the TYCHOS model or, I suspect, anywhere in the physical universe.

Table 8.3 – Series of 5 successive synodic periods of Venus
e 5 successive synodic periods of Venus (as depicted by the NEAVE planetarium) total 2922 days, or 365.25 × 8. e average length of Venus’ synodic period is 584.4 days, or 2922 / 5. e TYCHOS model’s 584.4-day value for the mean synodic period of Venus is empirically observed and therefore beyond dispute.

Start date

End date

Duration in days

2011-08-13

→

2013-03-24

=

589

2013-03-24

→

2014-10-25

=

580

2014-10-25

→

2016-06-05

=

589

2016-06-05

→

2018-01-08

=

582

2018-01-08

→

2019-08-13

=

582

As current theory has it, Venus rotates clockwise around its own axis. is, however, is an unproven claim (much like the recent claim that Mercury is not tidally locked) apparently originating from purported radar surveys performed back in the 1960s. Lengthy debates on this issue can be found in the astronomy literature, yet no Copernican astronomer has been able to se le the ma er.
e reason why heliocentrists reckon that Venus rotates in clockwise or ‘retrograde’ fashion is, in all likelihood, an illusion caused by the heliocentric perspective: since Venus employs more than one year (more precisely, 1.6 solar years) to return to perigee, and since heliocentrists erroneously believe the Earth revolves around Venus during this same period, their analysis of Venus’ rotational direction is faulty.

8.6 The retrograde motions of Mercury, Venus and Mars
e fact that our planets appear to periodically come to a halt and start moving ‘backwards’ for a few weeks or months and then resume their ‘forward’ (prograde) movement has mysti ed astronomers over the ages. It certainly is the most striking phenomenon a ecting our planets’ motions, as viewed from Earth. To be sure, and contrary to popular belief, these irregular retrograde motions have never been accounted for by Copernican astronomers in a satisfactory or even plausible manner, as we had the opportunity to demonstrate in Chapter 5.
e ancients never believed that the planets actually halted in space and traveled backward for a while; they assumed there was a mechanism by which the motion appeared retrograde from our vantage point.
ey also believed in the Aristotelian ideal that planets move with constant speed in circular orbits. erein lay the seemingly insurmountable challenge to astronomical model-makers: how to account for a planet’s observed irregular movements without violating the Aristotelian principle of circular motion at constant speed. at these model-makers nearly succeeded is a testament to their ingenuity. [5]
e retrograde behaviour of the Sun’s two moons, Venus and Mercury, is similar to that of Mars. When viewed in the Tychosium 3D simulator, they both produce teardrop-shaped loops as they transit in inferior conjunction with the Sun. It is a perfectly natural, dynamic geometric pa ern known in geometry as an epitrochoid, yet one that the human mind understandably nds it di cult to process. e illustration in Fig. 8.1 should help visualize how these ‘teardrop loops’ are formed.

8.6 The retrograde motions of Mercury, Venus and Mars 71

(a)

(b)

Fig. 8.1 What astronomers refer to as ‘retrograde motions’ are, in the case of Mercury, Venus and Mars, just a natural geometric e ect. (a) We see how the smoke plume from the cowboy’s torch will produce this ‘teardrop loop’. (b) Mercury orbits around the

Sun producing a similar e ect to an observer on the Earth.

Heliocentrists see retrograde motions as a mere illusion of perspective, but these apparent ‘backward’ motions, as observed from Earth, are part and parcel of the actual physical paths traced by the celestial bodies of our system. In Fig. 8.1, the cowboy’s torch will leave a teardrop-shaped smoke plume because the torch actually swirls around that patch of sky. When viewed from our central point of reference (the Earth), it will appear as if the swirling torch periodically reverses direction, but of course this isn’t the case: the ‘teardrop loop’ is simply a combination of the horse’s forward motion with the lasso’s circular motion. Fig. 8.2 shows the retrograde period of each of the Sun’s two moons.

Fig. 8.2 Screenshot from the Tychosium 3D simulator.

72 Chapter 8

THE SUN’S TWO MOONS, MERCURY AND VENUS

Retrograde periods During these retrograde periods, we see Mercury and Venus moving in the opposite direction of the Sun. erea er, they resume their ‘prograde’ motion, moving from west to east against the starry background along with the Sun (of course, we always perceive the Sun as moving from east to west due to Earth’s daily west-to-east axial rotation).
• Mean retrograde period of Mercury: ∼22.828 days, or 1/16 of a solar year. • Mean retrograde period of Venus: ∼45.656 days, or 1/8 of a solar year.

Prograde periods During these much longer prograde periods, Mercury and Venus are seen from Earth as moving in the same direction as the Sun. In actuality, the two solar moons are not visible from Earth whenever they transit behind the Sun.
• Mean prograde period of Mercury: ∼94 days. • Mean prograde period of Venus: ∼538.7 days.
Note that there is nothing elliptical about the motions of Venus and Mercury. ey both revolve around the Sun in uniformly circular paths and at constant speeds, even though their orbital axes are slightly ‘eccentric’ (o -centre) in relation to their host, the Sun.

In the next chapter, I shall provide conclusive evidence that Venus and Mercury are the moons of the Sun by demonstrating that their orbits are inclined along the Sun’s ‘mysterious’ axial tilt of 6 or 7 degrees. Venus and Mercury are therefore not just the only ‘Keplerian planets’ of our system with no moons of their own, they are also the only bodies whose orbits are coplanar with the Sun’s equatorial ecliptic.

8.7 References
[1] Venus facts, Nineplanets.org h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/054A Nine-Planets-Venus.htm
[2] Meet the Neighbours, ABC Science/the Lab (2017) h ps://www.abc.net.au/science/space/planets/venus.htm
[3] Tidal locking, Wikipedia h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/ WIKIP-Feb-2017 Tidal locking.pdf
[4] Orbital resonance and Solar cycles by P.A. Semi (2009) h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/054D Orbital-resonance.pdf
[5] Parallax: the Race to Measure the Cosmos by Alan W. Hirshfeld (2001) h ps://tinyurl.com/parallaxHirshfeld

9
TILTS, OBLIQUITIES AND OSCILLATIONS
9.1 Kepler’s accelerating and decelerating planets
Earth’s well-known 23.4° axial tilt accounts for our alternating seasons and is a fundamental requisite for the Copernican model to work. e most popularly held, yet academically supported, theory as to exactly why Earth’s axis would be skewed goes like this:
When an object the size of Mars crashed into the newly formed planet Earth around 4.5 billion years ago, it knocked our planet over and le it tilted at an angle. [1]
Yet, and in spite of such a fanciful explanation for Earth’s tilt, Copernicans also believe that our planet slowly wobbles around its own axis. In the TYCHOS model, the Earth is indeed tilted at 23.4° in relation to its orbital plane, yet with some notable di erences: it is the Sun that revolves around the Earth, while our planet’s own orbital motion proceeds at the tranquil speed of 1.6 km/h, with our northern hemisphere ‘leaning outwards’ at all times with respect to its 25344-year PVP orbit.
Interestingly, it is beyond dispute among geophysicists that our planet’s northern hemisphere is ‘heavier’ than its southern hemisphere. It is estimated that over two thirds (68%) of the Earth’s land mass is in the northern hemisphere, meaning that our planet is ‘top heavy’. is notion is almost universally accepted by both mainstream and ‘dissident’ scientists:
e northern hemisphere consists of the great land masses and higher elevations, from a mechanical aspect, the Earth is top heavy, the northern hemisphere must a ract a stronger pull from the Sun than the southern hemisphere. is lack of uniformity should impact on the movements of the Earth. [2]
It would thus seem intuitively logical, even to devout Newtonian advocates, that Earth’s heavier hemisphere would hang ‘outwards’ as our planet goes around its Polaris-Vega-Polaris (PVP) orbit. Conversely, it is hard to fathom how and why Earth’s axis would maintain a xed, peculiar inclination while circling around the Sun (whilst also wobbling around its axis), as posited by the heliocentric theory. In fact, one of the la er’s most problematic aspects has to be its proposed cause for the observed secular stellar precession and our alternating pole stars. As will be expounded in Chapter 10, the hypothesis of a ‘third motion’ of Earth—a slow, retrograde wobble of Earth’s polar axis—has been roundly disproven in recent years.
As illustrated in Fig. 9.1, the TYCHOS model provides an uncomplicated solution to the enigma of the General Precession and our alternating pole stars: the phenomenon is simply due to Earth’s slow, ‘clockwise’ motion around the PVP orbit, completed in 25344 years. Our current northern and southern pole stars are Polaris and Sigma Octantis, but over time these will be replaced by other stars, namely Vega (∼11000 years from now) and Eta Columba (∼12000 years from now).

74 Chapter 9

TILTS, OBLIQUITIES AND OSCILLATIONS

Fig. 9.1 How the PVP orbit causes the pole stars to alternate.

9.1 Kepler’s accelerating and decelerating planets 75

e fact that Earth is tilted may also explain why the Sun is further from Earth around July and closer to Earth around January, the di erence being 5 Mkm (or 3.3%). As a ma er of fact, the Sun is observed to be about 3.3% smaller in July than in January (Fig. 9.2), regardless of which earthly hemisphere it is viewed from (incidentally, one wonders how at earth proponents would account for this particular empirical observation).
If we envision the Earth’s magnetic charge as a repelling force which prevents the Sun from ‘falling into it’, the force would likely peak around summer solstice in the northern hemisphere when the ‘heavier’ part of the globe is maximally tilted towards the Sun (Fig. 9.3). Six months later, when the southern and ‘lighter’ hemisphere is maximally tilted towards the Sun, the repelling force would wane somewhat, allowing the Sun to get a li le closer to Earth. However speculative this scheme for the Earth’s axial tilt and the variation in the Earth-Sun distance may seem, it is worthwhile to consider, were it only as a point of departure for future inquiry.
Earth’s orbital velocity as of heliocentric theory According to a NASA fact sheet:

Fig. 9.2 e Sun appears 3.3% smaller in July than in January.

• Earth’s maximum orbital velocity: 30.29 km/s • Earth’s minimum orbital velocity: 29.29 km/s

A di erence of 3.3%. e annual variation in the distance between the Earth and the Sun is also 3.3%.

e 3.3% annual variation in the distance between the Earth and the Sun may explain why Kepler claimed that all the bodies in the Solar System keep accelerating and decelerating. Kepler’s model has Earth travelling around the Sun while alternately speeding up and slowing down. In the TYCHOS model, of course, the annually orbiting body is not the Earth, but the Sun. e above orbital velocities, a ributed to the Earth by mainstream astronomers, would therefore apply to the Sun.
Note that this is no small variation. It means Earth would have to speed up by as much as 3600 km/h (about 3 times the speed of sound) between July and January. But how to account for such he y, yet formidably consistent, speed variations? Well, the Copernican astronomers’ explanation is that, due to the Sun’s ‘gravitational pull’, the closer a planet is to the Sun, the faster it will travel.

Fig. 9.3 Speculative scheme of the magnetic in uence of Earth on the Earth-Sun distance.

76 Chapter 9

TILTS, OBLIQUITIES AND OSCILLATIONS

However, one has to wonder how the Sun’s ‘gravitational pull’, exerted perpendicularly to a given planet’s orbit, could cause it to speed up and slow down, linearly. Yet, this is what Kepler was forced to conclude in order to ‘make things work’. I trust the astute reader has already perceived a far more obvious explanation for these apparent velocity uctuations: quite simply, since the Sun transits 3.3% closer to Earth in January (perigee) than it does in July (apogee), it will be perceived to travel 3.3% faster in relation to the rmament. In reality, though, the Sun always travels at a constant speed (29.78 km/s), and so do all the other bodies in the system. In other words, their apparent orbital speed variations are an optical illusion caused by changes in relative distance and spatial perspective.
9.2 Venus and the Sun’s 5 Mkm oscillation
What follows is something that will require the reader to return for a second reading later on to fully appreciate its remarkable nature and signi cance. For now, su ce it to say that the TYCHOS model submits that Earth’s orbital diameter (i.e., the diameter of the PVP orbit, as expounded in Chapter 11) is 113.2 Mkm. Venus is o en referred to as ‘Earth’s sister’ because it is almost the same width as Earth (12103.6 km vs. 12756 km, respectively). According to all o cial estimates, the average Sun-Venus distance is 108.2 Mkm. As illustrated in Section 9.1, the Earth-Sun distance varies by about 5 Mkm between winter and summer. us, since Venus is a moon of the Sun, as posited by the TYCHOS model, it should also oscillate in relation to the Earth by 5 Mkm between summer and winter. In other words, the maximum Earth-Venus distance would add up to 113.2 Mkm (108.2 + 5 Mkm), a gure that would seem to ‘re ect’ the diameter of Earth’s PVP orbit. e signi cance of this is unclear, yet it certainly merits further investigation.

9.3 The Sun’s ‘mysterious’ 6 or 7-degree tilt
It’s such a deep-rooted mystery and so di cult to explain that people just don’t talk about it.
You may never have heard of it, but one of the most ba ing mysteries in astronomy is the 6° (or 7°) tilt of the Sun. Others refer to it as “the common plane of all of our planets’ orbits with respect to the Sun’s polar axis”. Make no mistake: the observable fact that the Sun’s axis is tilted at an angle with respect to the entire Solar System’s plane is no pe y ma er. For why would this be? Isn’t the Sun supposed to be the massive ‘central drivesha ’ of the system? Shouldn’t therefore all our planets’ orbits be co-planar with the Sun’s equator? Well, they are not, and this fact is an absolute mystery for academic astronomy—an unresolved quandary which all by itself falsi es both Newton’s and Einstein’s edicts. As recently as 2016, an academic study admi ed that it’s “such a deep-rooted mystery and so di cult to explain that people just don’t talk about it”. e study went on, bizarrely enough, to speculate that this tilt of the Sun’s axis might be caused by what they call “Planet Nine”, a hitherto unseen and entirely hypothetical celestial body!
e long-standing tilt riddle is admi edly “a big deal” for mainstream astronomers:
All of the planets orbit in a at plane with respect to the sun, roughly within a couple degrees of each other. at plane, however, rotates at a 6-degree tilt with respect to the sun—giving the appearance that the sun
itself is cocked o at an angle. Until now, no one had found a compelling explanation to produce such an e ect. ‘It’s such a deep-rooted mystery and so di cult to explain that people just don’t talk about it,’ says Brown, the Richard and Barbara Rosenberg Professor of Planetary Astronomy. [3]
e Sun’s rotation was measured for the rst time in 1850 and something that was recognized right away was that its spin axis, its north pole, is tilted with respect to the rest of the planets by 6 degrees. So even though 6 degrees isn’t much, it is a big number compared to the mutual planet-planet misalignments. So the Sun is basically an outlier within the solar system. is is a long-standing issue and one that is recognized but people don’t really talk much about it. Everything in the solar system rotates roughly on the same plane except for the most massive object, the Sun—which is kind of a big deal. [4]

9.3 The Sun’s ‘mysterious’ 6 or 7-degree tilt 77

As you will remember, in Chapter 6 we saw that the rotational axes of both Mars and our own Moon are also inclined by about 7° degrees, a remarkable fact heliocentrists are hard pressed to explain. As it turns out, the 6° (or 7°) tilt of the Sun’s rotational axis with respect to our ecliptic plane was known long before 1850. It was discovered by Christoph Scheiner back in the 1600s during his extensive 20-year-long sunspot observations. His work was richly illustrated and published in his monumental treatise Rosa Ursina (1630). In fact, the sunspot issue triggered a bi er and infamous 30-year-long feud between Galileo and Scheiner (who, incidentally, was a staunch supporter of the Tychonic model). To be sure, the observed inclination of the Sun is no trivial ma er but a true bone of contention in the endless debate between heliocentrists and geocentrists.

Scheiner, in his massive 1630 treatise on sunspots entitled ‘Rosa Ursina’, accepted the view of sunspots as markings on the solar surface and used his accurate observations to infer the fact that the Sun’s rotation axis is inclined with respect to the ecliptic plane. [5]

e Sun’s north pole tilts towards us in September and away from us in March, as described in a paper by Bruce McClure:
e Sun’s axis tilts almost 7.5 degrees out of perpendicular to Earth’s orbital plane. ( e orbital plane of Earth is commonly called the ecliptic.) erefore, as we orbit the Sun, there’s one day out of the year when the Sun’s North Pole tips most toward Earth. is happens at the end of the rst week in September. Six months later, at the end of the rst week in March, it’s the Sun’s South Pole that tilts maximumly towards Earth. ere are also two days during the year when the Sun’s North and South Poles, as viewed from Earth, don’t tip toward or away from Earth. is happens at the end of the rst week in in June, and six months later, at the end of the
rst week of December. [6]

Fig. 9.4 Illustration by Cristoph Scheiner, with the 6° inclination of his observed sunspot transits in January and July highlighted in red.

Sunspots as seen from Earth in July

Sunspots as seen from Earth in January

Fig. 9.5 Illustration of this 6° (or 7°) tilt of the Sun in the TYCHOS model.

78 Chapter 9

TILTS, OBLIQUITIES AND OSCILLATIONS

Note that the inclination marked in red as 23° in Fig. 9.6 is simply caused by Earth’s own axial tilt. What concerns us in Scheiner’s drawing is the tilt highlighted in yellow arrows and blue arcs. It’s hard to make out exactly what amount of inclination they show, but 6 or 7 degrees would seem to be a fair estimate. In any case, the drawing clearly indicates that the Sun’s north pole tilts away from Earth in the month of March. We may also be satis ed that the Sun’s polar axis is indeed tilted by 6° or 7° in relation to the ecliptic.

Fig. 9.6 Illustration based on another of Scheiner’s illustrations, showing how he personally observed the movement of two sunspots around the solar sphere in the month of March.
9.4 Are the orbits of Venus and Mercury co-planar with the Sun’s axial tilt?
We shall now proceed to verify whether the orbits of the Sun’s two moons, Venus and Mercury, can be correlated with the Sun’s 6° or 7° tilt.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 9.7

9.4 Are the orbits of Venus and Mercury co-planar with the Sun’s axial tilt? 79 Orbital tilt O cial astronomy provides the following gures for the orbital tilts of Venus and Mercury:
• Orbital tilt of Venus: 3.4° • Orbital tilt of Mercury: 7° In reality however, Venus can from our earthly perspective be observed to be as many as 9° below or above the Sun. Again, spatial perspective can be misleading as it depends on several factors, such as relative distances and inclinations. Transits of Venus and Mercury • Whenever Venus transits in perigee in September, we see it below the Sun by about −9°. • Whenever Venus transits in perigee in March, we see it above the Sun by about +9°. • Whenever Mercury transits in perigee in September, we see it below the Sun by about −3°. • Whenever Mercury transits in perigee in March, we see it above the Sun by about +3°. e TYCHOS model allows to make a conceptual illustration of the above empirical observations (Fig. 9.8).
Fig. 9.8 Venus’ and Mercury’s orbits can be shown to be co-planar with the Sun’s tilt.
Unsurprisingly, heliocentric astronomers do not seem ever to have noticed or debated this stunning fact. But then, you may ask, does the Tychosium 3D simulator show the orbits of Venus and Mercury to be coplanar with the Sun’s axial tilt? Indeed it does: as you can personally verify, the Tychosium 3D simulator shows how the virtual ‘disk’ that encompasses the orbits of Venus and Mercury around the Sun remains permanently tilted by about 6° or 7° in relation to the Sun’s orbital plane. Whether the Copernicans like it or not, the orbits of Venus and Mercury are demonstrably co-planar with the Sun’s equatorial plane. e four screenshots from the Tychosium 3D simulator in Fig. 9.9 illustrates this fact.

80 Chapter 9

TILTS, OBLIQUITIES AND OSCILLATIONS

Fig. 9.9 e orbits of Venus and Mercury are co-planar with the Sun’s tilted equatorial plane.
One could not wish for stronger and more spectacular evidence that Venus and Mercury are the two lunar satellites of the Sun. As it is, Venus and Mercury are not just the only moonless ‘planets’ of our Solar System, they are also the only two bodies whose orbits are ne-tuned to the Sun’s axial tilt. Everything suggests that we ought to start referring to them as ‘moons of the Sun’, instead of ‘planets’. Add to this the fact, expounded in Chapter 6, that our own Moon’s rotational axis is also tilted by about 7° in relation to the ecliptic, meaning the Moon is likewise ne-tuned to the Sun, Venus and Mercury. To what, one may ask, would the advocates of the heliocentric model a ribute this wondrous accord? Try submi ing this question to your local astronomy professor, but prepare to be treated with disdain.
9.5 The Sun’s 79-year cycle and 39.5-year oscillation period
e Sun is observed to slightly oscillate around its own nucleus. According to current theory, the reason for this oscillation is the extra-solar location of the system’s ‘centre of mass’:

9.5 The Sun’s 79-year cycle and 39.5-year oscillation period 81

e center of mass of our solar system is very close to the Sun itself, but not exactly at the Sun’s center (it is actually a li le bit outside the radius of the Sun). However, since almost all of the mass within the solar system is contained in the Sun, its motion is only a slight wobble in comparison to the motion of the planets. [7]
According to the Wikipedia, what is observed is actually “the motion of the solar system’s barycenter relative to the Sun”.
e barycenter (or barycentre) is the center of mass of two or more bodies that are orbiting each other, or the point around which they both orbit. It is an important concept in elds such as astronomy and astrophysics. e distance from a body’s center of mass to the barycenter can be calculated as a simple two-body problem. In cases where one of the two objects is considerably more massive than the other (and relatively close), the barycenter will typically be located within the more massive object. Rather than appearing to orbit a common center of mass with the smaller body, the larger will simply be seen to wobble slightly. [8]
e Wikipedia goes on to say that the Sun’s observed wobble/oscillation is caused by “the combined in uences of all the planets, comets, asteroids, etc. of the solar system”. However, the TYCHOS model allows us to explore other possibilities, such as the direct in uence of the Sun’s binary companion, Mars. A er all, such subtle oscillations on the part of host stars in binary systems are precisely what our modern-day astronomers look for, with their sophisticated spectrometers and assorted state-of-the-art techniques, when trying to determine if a given star may have a smaller binary companion. In light of this, it seems perfectly reasonable to a ribute the Sun’s small oscillation around its nucleus to ordinary binary system physics.
Earlier on we saw how Mars has a distinctive 79-year cycle within which it returns to the same celestial location. As it is, even Mercury, the Sun’s junior moon, exhibits a 79-year cycle and thus conjuncts regularly with Mars every 79 years. Now, it turns out that, according to modern-day researchers of solar activity, the Sun also has a 79-year cycle. According to studies conducted by eodor Landscheidt, the cycle of solar activity is related to the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the Solar System.
eodor Landscheidt (1927-2004) is held in the highest esteem by many independent astronomers and climatologists who have noticed that our Earth’s climate is closely correlated with the periodic uctuations of solar activity, which in turn depend on the Sun’s observed oscillations around the “center of mass of the planetary system”, to use Landscheidt’s own words. Now, as their theory goes, this observed oscillation of the Sun would be caused by the gravitational pull of the larger planets of our system (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) and some believe even Mercury and Venus are involved in this collective ‘solar nudging’. Oddly enough, Mars—and Mars only—is never mentioned in their papers, despite Landscheidt’s discovery of the Sun’s peculiar 79-year synchronicity with Mars.

Table 9.1 – Initial phases E of the 79-year cycle 5300 . . . . 2248

Landscheidt’s exhaustive studies of the cycles of solar activity clearly indicate that the Sun has a distinct 79-year cycle.

−5300.3 −5221.8 −5142.7 −5065.1 −4985.2 −4902.3 −4823.3 −4746.1 −4668.9 −4584.2 −4508.8 −4427.2

−4349.3 −4268.5 −4186.4 −4108.5 −4031.8 −3951.2 −3868.8 −3789.6 −3712.4 −3633.5 −3550.7 −3470.6

−3393.1 −3314.0 −3236.7 −3151.6 −3075.8 −2996.4 −2917.3 −2841.9 −2755.2 −2678.8 −2599.8 −2521.2

−2443.2 −2359.2 −2280.4 −2202.4 −2125.7 −2042.3 −1962.9 −1883.3 −1806.4 −1726.0 −1643.4 −1564.2

−1487.2 −1408.2 −1325.5 −1245.0 −1168.2 −1090.5 −1010.3
−927.5 −849.3 −772.8 −692.8 −609.8

−530.5 −453.3 −374.5 −297.9 −210.2 −135.8
−55.2 22.9
100.5 184.5 263.5 341.8

419.5 497.7 581.7 660.6 738.3 816.1 899.3 979.5 1056.9 1134.8 1215.5 1298.3

5300.3 + 2248.6

e mean value of the 95 intervals between −5300.3 and 2248.6 is:

≈ 79.4

95

1375.7 1453.6 1532.7 1616.8 1694.8 1772.5 1850.8 1929.6 2013.8 2091.2 2169.2 2248.6

82 Chapter 9

TILTS, OBLIQUITIES AND OSCILLATIONS

Fig. 9.10 In the TYCHOS model, Mars and the Sun are binary companions. e two are locked in a 2:1 orbital ratio. Mars has a well-known 79-year cycle in which it returns to the same place, i.e., its oppositions occur at the same longitude. ’B’ marks the Sun’s center of mass, to which it returns approximately every 39.5 years (79/2). Landscheidt’s caption for the graphic reads:
Master cycle of the solar system. Small circles indicate the position of the center of mass of the planetary system (CM) in the ecliptic plane relative to the Sun’s center (cross) for the years 1945 to 1995. e Sun’s center and CM (center of mass) can come close together, as in 1951 and 1990 (ed- i.e. ca. 39.5 years) or reach a distance of more than two solar radii. [9]

Interestingly, Landscheidt also points out that the Sun’s nucleus and centre of mass “can come close together (i.e., return to the same place in space) as in 1951 and 1990”, that is, within a ∼39.5-year period. e study features the well-known diagram shown in Fig. 9.10, plo ing the Sun’s observed oscillation around its own centre of mass. Since the Sun and Mars are locked in a 2:1 orbital ratio, it would stand to reason that the Sun exhibits such a period, since Mars exhibits a 79-year (39.5 × 2) orbital cycle. Just as the Sun revolves twice for every Mars revolution, the Sun’s nucleus would complete two 39.5-year oscillatory periods for every 79-year cycle of Mars.
Other independent authors have detected a peculiar “80-y/40-y” periodicity (an approximation of the TYCHOS model’s 79-y/39.5-y periodicity) in relation to the Sun’s barycentric dynamics and what is termed “solar angular momentum inversions”.
We apply our results in a novel theory of Sun-planets interaction that it is sensitive to Sun barycentric dynamics and found a very important e ect on the Suns capability of storing hypothetical reservoirs of potential energy that could be released by internal ows and might be related to the solar cycle. is process (which lasts for ca. 80 yr) begins about 40 years before the solar angular momentum inversions, i.e., before Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum, and before the present extended minimum. [10]
In any event, the observed ‘wobble’ or oscillatory motion of the Sun and its 39.5-year periodicity would certainly seem to lend additional support to the notion that the Sun and Mars constitute a binary system locked in a 2:1 ratio.
9.6 Galileo and Scheiner
As a brief anecdotal aside, it is interesting to note that Galileo (a staunch crusader for Copernicus’ theories) seemingly perceived Cristoph Scheiner’s sunspot observations as a threat to heliocentrism. e notoriously ill-tempered Galileo engaged in erce verbal ba les with numerous astronomers of his time, o en wrongfully claiming primacy over new discoveries made by others with the aid of the telescope. Outraged by Galileo’s accusations of plagiarism regarding the discovery of the sunspots, Scheiner decided to move from Ingolstadt to Rome in order to be er defend his work. e feud between Galileo and Scheiner soon escalated. Galileo did not refrain from smearing his German colleague, calling him “brute”, “pig”, “malicious ass”, “poor devil” and “rabid dog”!

9.6 Galileo and Scheiner 83
Fig. 9.11 Galileo writes about his sunspot-rival, Scheiner. [11]
One may thus be forgiven for questioning the legacy of this most revered ‘science icon’, what with his dreadful arrogance and contempt of his peers. In any case, Galileo’s most acclaimed telescopic discoveries (the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter, both of which had, in fact, been previously observed by other astronomers) did not contradict in any way the Tychonic model which, in his time, and as few people will know today, was the predominant ‘system of the world’. What’s more, in his writings, Galileo virtually ignored the widely accepted geo-heliocentric model proposed by Brahe and Longomontanus.
A er 1610, when Galileo engaged himself fully in astronomy and cosmology, he showed li le direct interest in Tycho’s system and none at all in Longomontanus’ version of it. […] Moreover, he never mentioned explicitly the Tychonian world system by name. [12] One must wonder why Galileo Galilei, the man hailed as the ‘father of the scienti c method’, would have been so dismissive of his illustrious Danish colleagues and instead used Ptolemy and his already moribund geocentric system as a straw man in order to forward his heliocentric convictions. e reason why Galileo ‘passed over’ the Tychonic (or semi-Tychonic) system will forever remain a mystery, and it certainly doesn’t say much about his adherence to the scienti c method. To be sure, Galileo never provided any sort of evidence for the Earth’s supposed revolution around the Sun. e only argument he put forth towards this idea—his infamous ‘tide theory’—proved to be entirely spurious: Clearly inspired by the behaviour of water when boats come to a halt, Galileo Galilei concluded that the ebb and ow of the tides resulted, similarly, from the acceleration and deceleration of the oceans. is, in turn, was caused by the movement of the Earth around the Sun, and its rotation on its own axis. However, Galileo was completely mistaken in this theory. [13] In the next chapter, we shall tackle the so-called ‘third motion of Earth’ and see if the idea that the Earth slowly wobbles around its axis, in the opposite direction of its axial rotation, holds any water. Spoiler: it does not!

84 Chapter 9

TILTS, OBLIQUITIES AND OSCILLATIONS

9.7 References
[1] What Is Earth’s Axial Tilt or Obliquity?, Time and Date.com h ps://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/axial-tilt-obliquity.html
[2] Big Bang or Big Blu by Hans Binder (2011) [3] Curious tilt of the Sun traced to undiscovered planet by the California Institute of Technology (2016)
h ps://phys.org/news/2016-10-curious-tilt-sun-undiscovered-planet.html#jCp [4] Planet Nine may be responsible for tilting the Sun by Shannon Stirone (2016)
h ps://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/10/planet-nine-tilting-the-sun [5] 1610: First telescopic observations of sunspots, Solar Physics Historical Timeline by UCAR/NCAR (2018)
h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/056B Solar-physics-timeline.htm [6] e Tilt of the Sun’s Axis by Bruce McClure (2006)
h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/057B Tilt-of-Suns-Axis.htm [7] Does the Sun orbit the Earth as well as the Earth orbiting the Sun? by Cathy Jordan (2015)
h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/061B Does-Sun-Orbit-Earth.htm [8] Barycenter, Wikipedia
h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/ WIKIP-Feb-2017 Barycenter.pdf [9] e Golden Section: A Cosmic Principle by eodor Landscheidt (1993) [10] Dynamical Characterization of the Last Prolonged Solar Minima by Cionco and Compagnucci (2010)
h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/064B Dynamical-Characterization.pdf [11] On Sunspots, Translations of le ers by Galileo Galilei and Christoph Scheiner, University of Chicago Press (2010)
h ps://tinyurl.com/sunspotsGalileoScheiner [12] Galileo in early modern Denmark, 1600-1650 by Helge Kragh
h ps://www.tychos.info/citation/060C Galileo-in-Denmark.pdf [13] Defeated by the Tides by Jochen Bu¨ ner (2014)
h ps://tinyurl.com/galileotideBu ner