zotero-db/storage/UNZPM5GS/.zotero-ft-cache

The TYCHOS
Our Geoaxial Binary Solar System
The TYCHOS – our Geoaxial Binary System
Introduction for the Online Edition
The TYCHOS book is the result of almost half a decade of steady research into mostly non-Copernican astronomical literature, data and teachings. It all started as a personal quest to probe a number of issues and incongruities which, in my mind, aﬄicted Copernicus’ famed (and almost universally-accepted) heliocentric theory.
As I gradually came to realize that the Copernican / Keplerian model presented 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 the great observational astronomer Tycho Brahe. In short, the essential soundness of Tycho’s original model led me to envision and formulate the missing pieces of his ingenious (yet incomplete) conﬁguration of our solar system.
The TYCHOS book expounds in simple narrative style – and with the visual support of more than 100 original illustrations – my revised design of Brahe’s system which, in absence of any other working model, should be ideally implemented in all branches of astronomy and astrophysics. This, because the TYCHOS is today the only existing model of our solar system which agrees – by and large – with the vast body of empirical astronomical observations aquired and documented by humankind throughout the centuries. In any event, as clearly demonstrated in my book, the Copernican model is fundamentally ﬂawed – and needs to be deﬁnitively discarded.
UPDATE [March 2020]: My TYCHOS book (all 36 chapters) is now freely accessible online – in the interest of maximum divulgation. However, I will warmly appreciate any ﬁnancial support / donation towards my longstanding and ongoing research eﬀorts (see donate button at the bottom of this page). Since 2013, I have independently pursued and developed the Tychos model without any sort of institutional funding – and am currently working on the 2nd edition of the book.

Here is where you may purchase the original 1st edition of my book, “The TYCHOS – Our Geoaxial Binary System”-(2018) in physical form.
As you read the book, make sure to visit and peruse the Tychosium 3-D, an interactive digital planetarium in constant development (with my research partner and computer programmer Patrik Holmqvist) which already simulates the Tychos Solar System to a high level of accuracy.
Thank you – and enjoy your newfound cosmic perspective. Consider it, if you will, as a boon empowering your intellectual awareness during your life on this planet. It may well take many years (or decades?) before the TYCHOS model will be acknowledged, discussed, let alone accepted by this world’s scientiﬁc community. However, I trust that the plain soundness of its principles will ultimately shine through.
May reason prevail.
— Simon Shack

Preface (free access)

Table of Contents

Foreword — Some basic intellectual problems with the Copernican model (free access)

Chapter 1 — About Binary Star Systems

Chapter 2 — A brief look into the past regarding the Sun-Mars relationship

Chapter 3 — About our Sun-Mars binary system

Chapter 4 — Sirius A and B — “Living proof” in support of the TYCHOS model

Chapter 5 — Introducing the TYCHOS model (free access)

Chapter 6 — Mars, the “Key” to our system

Chapter 7 — The Copernican model is geometrically impossible Chapter 8 — The apparent retrograde motions of our “P-Type” planets Chapter 9 — The retrograde periods of Venus and Mercury Chapter 10 — Mercury — the Sun’s junior moon Chapter 11 — Venus — the Sun’s senior moon Chapter 12 — Tilts, inclinations, obliquities & oscillations Chapter 13 — The Sun’s 79-Year cycle Chapter 14 — Our Asteroid belts — tangible evidence of our Sun-Mars binary system Chapter 15 — Our orbitally-resonant system “regulated” by our Moon Chapter 16 — Computing the 25344-year “Great Year” in the TYCHOS Chapter 17 — Our Cosmic Clockwork and the “16 factor” Chapter 18 — Requiem for the “Lunisolar Wobble” theory Chapter 19 — Earth’s Polaris-Vega-Polaris (PVP) orbit Chapter 20 — Verifying Earth’s proposed orbital diameter Chapter 21 — The TYCHOS Planetarium — or “Tychosium” (free access) Chapter 22 — Earth’s 1 mph motion explains the “Equinoctial Precession” Chapter 23 — The “Solar Day” versus the “Sidereal Day” Chapter 24 — The “Solar Year” versus the “Sidereal Year” Chapter 25 — The “geospatial” motives for the existence of our “Leap Day”

Chapter 26 — The Analemma and the Equation of Time Chapter 27 — About our Moon and what it tells us Chapter 28 — The Moon-Mercury Synchronicity Chapter 29 — Earth’s 1 mph motion explains all of our “Outer” Planets’ parallaxes Chapter 30 — Understanding the “Great Year” (of 25344 solar years) Chapter 31 — The Gregorian Calendar and the implications of its current year count Chapter 32 — The TYCHOS Great Year (TGY) — 25344 solar years of 365.22057 days Chapter 33 — The Heliacal rising of Sirius Chapter 34 — The stellar sophistry known as the “Aberration of Light” Chapter 35 — The Question of Star Distances Chapter 36 — The Mystery of Negative Stellar Parallax Epilogue — The Copernican System’s many “conﬁrmation ﬂops” — a brief historical memento Appendix I — Table of Acronyms, Terms and Constants Appendix II — Miscellaneous data for bodies in the TYCHOS system Appendix III — Bibliography
The TYCHOS / Proudly powered by WordPress-Web Hosting by GreenGeeks

The TYCHOS
Our Geoaxial Binary Solar System
Preface
The TYCHOS is my proposed cosmic model. It is based on, inspired by and built around both modern and time-honored astronomical observations. In particular, my work has relied and expanded upon a number of lesser-known, overlooked and/or neglected teachings from the 1500’s to the 1800’s (as well as from antiquity). I dedicate this study to a few brilliant astronomers whose work has been passed over in favor of the so-called “Copernican Revolution”. These early insightful architects who laid the groundwork for what should be our current model for the solar system include Nilakantha Somayaji (author of the Tantrasangraha, 1501), Samanta Candrasekhara Simha – (a.k.a. Pathani Samanta, 1835-1904), the ancient Maya/Aztec /Sumerian/Greek/Egyptian (et al) astronomers and, of course, Tycho Brahe (along with his trusty helper Longomontanus) whose impeccable observational data and tables still stand today as the most exacting ever made.
In spite of Brahe’s rigorous and unchallenged documentation, his own model of the solar system was ultimately ﬂipped on its head by his assistant, the famous Johannes Kepler. Kepler used his master’s observations in his laborious attempts to validate his diametrically opposed Copernican model. As only a few people will know, Kepler was ultimately (in 1988) exposed for having falsiﬁed Brahe’s all-important observational data (pertaining to Mars) so as to make them agree with his heliocentric thesis. His legacy is therefore eminently questionable; Brahe had speciﬁcally entrusted him with resolving the bewildering behavior of this particular celestial body, and Kepler’s laws of planetary motion were almost exclusively (mathematically) derived from his relentless “war on Mars” (as he liked to call it). Just why the Mars data presented such exceptional diﬃculties should become selfevident in the following pages.
I trust that any earnest astronomer will concede that the currently-accepted Copernican model is by no means ﬂawless. It is aﬄicted by a number of still unresolved anomalies and incongruities. The persistence of several longstanding enigmas are readily admitted throughout (the more honest and candid sort of) astronomy literature. It is thus a widely-diﬀused, popular misconception that the Copernican model has provided mankind with the most indisputable interpretation of the formidable wealth of astronomical observations gathered throughout human

history: as we shall see, the Copernican model is not only disputable – it is outright impossible.
In short, the TYCHOS provides the “missing pieces” which prevented Tycho Brahe from completing the puzzle of his “geo-heliocentric” system, in spite of the basic soundness of its geometric design. The TYCHOS model, while stopping far short of proposing a TOE (“Theory of Everything”), submits nonetheless what may be the most exacting, logical and intuitively sound geometric conﬁguration of our local cosmos ever devised. As I discovered, following the reason of the data itself resolves a series of cosmological paradoxes that falsify the currently-adopted Copernican theory of our universe. It is an unfortunate characteristic of their present proponents to be recalcitrant towards and dismissive of data that they’ve failed to incorporate into a holistic self-consistency.
To ease explanations, I have done my best to employ simple graphics. I have also strived to use the simplest possible maths at all times, so as to make this text accessible to the widest possible readership range, including myself: I have always found complex equations both tedious and laborious. 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 very own philosophy.
So Mathematical Truth prefers simple words since the language of Truth is itself simple.
— Tycho Brahe
The TYCHOS is built upon the unchallenged raw data collection of thousands of years of human study of the stars and planets. Hence, my model may simply be considered the natural evolution of Tycho’s work, enabled at last by a number of modern astronomical discoveries. It is the result of a fresh re-interpretation of ancient and modern astronomical knowledge, as well as a few lucky hunches of my own. I will humbly ask this world’s scientiﬁc community and all free-thinking people of integrity to carefully assess its principles with an open mind, devoid of prejudice and preconceptions.
I am aware that you will naturally ask yourself the following question: “Why has no one seen or thought of all this before? And who is this impertinent fellow – without any academic credential to his name – having the gall to question the current, universallyaccepted cosmic model?” All I can say is: please read on. Let your own mind decide whether the Copernican or the TYCHOS model works best for you, that is to say, for

your inborn faculties of intuition and logical thought. As I dived into this cosmic research odyssey in late 2012 (driven by sheer curiosity and an earnest passion for intellectual inquiry) I had no way to expect, even in my wildest imagination, that I would reach any solid conclusions worthy of your time. Yet, it now appears (to my pleasant surprise) that I was wrong about that. My best guess is that some lucky star has helped me along in what has certainly been the most enthralling discovery journey of my lifetime.
Rudolf Steiner once wrote:
“Now today we have a very remarkable fact, my dear friends. This Copernican system, when employed purely mathematically, supplies the necessary calculations concerning the observed phenomena as well as and no better than any of the earlier ones. The eclipses of the Sun and Moon can be calculated with the ancient Chaldean system, with the Egyptian, with the Tychonian and with the Copernican. The outer occurrences in the Heavens, in so far as they relate to mechanics or mathematics, can thus be foretold. One system is as well suited as another. It is only that the simplest thought-pictures arise with the Copernican system. But the strange thing is that in practical Astronomy, calculations are not made with the Copernican system. Curiously enough, in practical Astronomy, — to obtain what is needed for the calendar,the system of Tycho Brahe is used! This shows how little that is really fundamental, how little of the essential nature of things, comes into question when the Universe is thus pictured in purely mathematical curves or in terms of mechanical forces.”
— Third Scientiﬁc Lecture-Course: Astronomy (Schmidt Number: S-4337 Lecture II — Stuttgart, January 2, 1921)
Evidently, Steiner’s acumen, clairvoyance and intellectual honesty were admirable in this subject. This is more than can be said about many of our modern-day men and women of science (in particular those in the ﬁelds of astronomy & cosmology) who oft refuse to consider new ideas which may challenge their long-established beliefs. The process of discovery requires, of course, the very opposite intellectual attitude. I apologize to those entrenched in their application of principles they have only

inherited from other minds — for any embarrassment (or even distress) that the TYCHOS might cause. However, I earnestly propose that it is now high time to think diﬀerently. Many important new discoveries have, in later decades, severely imperilled the very foundational precepts of the heliocentric theory of our cosmos as submitted by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein et al. The failure to act upon these new discoveries casts a shadow over the credibility of our world’s scientiﬁc community — as a whole.

Table of Contents

Next Chapter

The TYCHOS / Proudly powered by WordPress-Web Hosting by GreenGeeks

The TYCHOS
Our Geoaxial Binary Solar System
Foreword — Some basic intellectual problems with the Copernican model
It can hardly be denied that the Copernican model is marred by a number of problems which, objectively speaking, challenge the limits of our human senses and perceptions. To my mind, there is nothing “intuitive” about the Copernican theory. Even if you disagree, I think it is safe to say that the current, widespread acceptance of it relies on the faith that most people have conferred to those prominent scientists who, about four centuries ago, decided for everyone of us that it was not only a credible theory of our universe — but that it was, indeed, the deﬁnitive one. Paradoxically, the so-called “Copernican Revolution” was hailed as the “triumph of the scientiﬁc 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 novel 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 dwarﬁng even the Sun. […] Various Copernicans responded to this issue of observation and geometry by appealing to the power of God: They argued that giant stars were not absurd because even such giant objects were nothing compared to an inﬁnite God, and that in fact the Copernican stars pointed out the power of God to humankind. Tycho rejected this argument.”
— Regarding how Tycho Brahe noted the Absurdity of the Copernican Theory regarding the Bigness of Stars, while the Copernicans appealed to God to answer that Absurdity

by Christopher M. Graney (December 2011)
It is commonly thought (and taught) that the “Copernican Revolution marked the end of religious bigotry”. Well, nothing is further from the truth; if you had been questioning the Copernican model back then, you might have been called a person “of the vulgar sort” (since, according to Copernicans, you were therefore 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. ‘These things that vulgar sorts see as absurd at ﬁrst 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 letter 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 inﬁnite Creator. It reckons that the greater the king, so much greater and larger the palace beﬁtting his majesty. So how great a palace do you reckon is ﬁtting to GOD?'”
— The Case Against Copernicus by Dennis Danielson and Christopher M. Graney (March 2014)
Indeed, it is a widespread popular myth that Johannes Kepler was the man who brought on the era of “rational scientiﬁc determinism” to the detriment of dogmatic religious belief. Again, nothing is further from the truth. As J. R. Voelkel points out in his The Composition of Kepler’s Astronomia Nova (2001) …
“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. Thus he made the establishment of the physical truth of heliocentrism a religious vocation.”
Now, it is a matter of fact that, today, our world’s premier scientiﬁc institutions cannot even seem to agree upon the distance from Earth to Polaris — our allimportant, current “North star”.

“The North Star has been a guiding light for countless generations of navigators. But a new study reveals that its distance to Earth may have been grossly overestimated. […] The new discovery of a closer North Star is ‘most unexpected for what is considered to be one of the Hipparcos satellite’s most solid results,’ said study leader David Turner, an astronomer at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.”
— North Star Closer to Earth Than Thought by Andrew Fazekas (December 5, 2012) for National Geographic News
As mentioned in the above-linked National Geographic article, this is no trivial matter since Polaris is a “cosmological yardstick used by researchers to measure great cosmic distances out to billions of light-years”. Well, the latest (2012) estimation of the Earth-to-Polaris distance (“323 light years”) is a whopping 34% shorter than the former estimate of “433 light years” (as listed in oﬃcial ESA and NASA star catalogs). In light of this, it would hardly be unreasonable to question the much-vaunted pinpoint accuracy of modern astronomy.
If Polaris is now believed to be as much as 1/3 closer to us than previously thought, the very credibility of all currently-claimed star distances must be allowed to be questioned. Indeed, it would be a logical scientiﬁc enterprise to re-check all one’s work — once it is discovered that one’s yard stick is capable of expanding and contracting when we aren’t paying attention.
To wit, how can our current North Star Polaris — which is actually a triple-star binary system — possibly seem to remain stationary above our North Pole, year after year, and for decades on end? And this, when we are meant to be sweeping around a 300-Million-kilometer-wide circle, covering an orbit with a circumference of almost one Billion kilometers? Today we are told that the Sun (and thus, our entire system) hurtles across our galaxy at the formidable speed of “800,000 km/hour” (or 222 km/second) and around a gigantic 240-Million-year-long orbit. Yet, Polaris appears to remain roughly in the same place year after year!
In the course of one year, as Earth supposedly revolves around the Sun around a 300Million-km-wide orbit, our current “North star” Polaris (the white, central dot in the below animation) appears to be virtually stationary.

You may now justly ask, “Is Polaris also said to be moving (along with Earth) at 800,000 km/h?”
No, it is not. We are simply asked to accept the following surreal notion:
“Earth orbits around the Sun at about 107,000 km/h – while the Sun itself moves at 800,000 km/h. Yet we do not see our current North star Polaris moving much at all – because it is unimaginably distant.”
Surely, the time has come to question such extraordinary claims which, objectively, challenge the limits of human intuition. When something is “unimaginable”, there should be plenty of room for discourse, no matter how established any scientiﬁc theory may be.
I will venture to say that the TYCHOS model may ideally satisfy both sides of the secular heliocentric vs. geocentric debate, since it proposes an ideal, “unifying” solution that may appeal to both parties (if they can ﬁrst choose that agreeing on something would cause no harm). In the TYCHOS, our Earth is neither static or immobile; nor does it hurtle across space at hypersonic speeds. Nor is our planet located (“by the will of God”) smack in the middle of the entire universe. Instead, it is just located at or near the barycenter of our very own binary system. Among other things, the TYCHOS model revives Plato’s ideal concept of uniform circular motion: as we shall see, Kepler’s elliptical (and accelerating/decelerating) orbital motions may well be a spatial illusion largely caused by Earth slowly moving around the center of our system.
“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.”

— Kepler’s Laws and Newton’s Laws from a course at Mount Holyoke College, Massachusetts
For now — and before we get on — let us remind ourselves of the Copernican model’s “elegant” geometric conﬁguration, “starring” the Sun which would be positioned in the middle of a multi-lane, planetary “merry-go-round” — i.e.; a carousel of planets revolving around the Sun in concentric, elliptical orbits. Here it is, as we are all familiar with – ever since our school days:
THE COPERNICAN / KEPLERIAN “CAROUSEL”
Above — a diagram originally from a Lumen Learning online coursework The heliocentric 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 right there in it – the brightest and most obvious object in our skies. The problem is that its geometric layout conﬂicts with empirical observation and therefore, it cannot possibly represent reality. As will be amply demonstrated in the following chapters, it is outright unphysical – as it violates, among other things, the most elementary laws of perspective. It bears reminding that, since their initial acceptance by our world’s scientiﬁc community, the fundamental premises of the Copernican model have had to undergo a long series of profound critiques and revisions — all of which were somehow “patched up” with ad hoc arguments submitted by a clique of extremely inﬂuential

fellows (e.g.; Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Einstein, Bradley, etc.). It is disconcerting that so much faith has been placed in those few individuals’ convictions. It is also most disturbing that, over the years, numerous ﬁndings by independent researchers (invalidating the Copernican theory) have been completely ignored by the worldwide scientiﬁc community. If astronomy considers itself as a science, it ought to be taking a good hard look in the mirror today.
As you may remember (if you are old enough), the old Copernican theory went like this:
“The sun is immobile, just like the stars – while all of our planets orbit around it in concentric circles.”
Whereas the current Copernican theory sounds a lot like this:
“The Sun travels at 800,000 km/h across our galaxy – along with all of its companions – completing one orbit every 240 Million years.”
Both theories always were, and still remain, eminently questionable for a number of reasons:
The old Copernican theory contradicts the empirically-observable fact that not one of our visible stars are entirely immobile or motionless. The old notion implied that our Sun would be the only immobile star of our entire visible cosmos, an absurd proposition that I trust can safely be put to rest.
The current Copernican theory (which claims that our Sun needs circa 240 Million years to complete only an orbit) conﬂicts with the observable fact that the overwhelming majority of our visible stars appear to have much smaller local orbits of their own with relatively short periods. For instance, the orbital period of the Sirius A and B binary system is only 50.1 (solar) years; the binary system of Alpha Centauri A and B revolve around each other in only 79.9 years, while the Polaris A and B binary pair do so in just 29.6 years. Other recently-discovered binary systems exhibit even shorter “mutual orbital periods” of only a couple of years, months, weeks, days, or less. No stars (other than our own Sun) are said to be observed to be moving around orbits in the range of hundreds of millions of years.
And yes, it is indeed oﬃcially claimed that the Sun employs 240 or 250 Million years to complete just one of its orbits! I am certainly not making this up:

How long does it take the Sun to orbit the galaxy? by Robert Matthews (July 22, 2009 at ScienceFocus.com)
Moreover, our visible stars exhibit far slower apparent orbital velocities than 222 km/s (i.e.; 800,000 km/h – the alarming orbital speed at which our system is claimed to move across our galaxy).
For instance, our nearmost binary stars, Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B, exhibit orbital speeds (a.k.a. “proper motions”) of 21.4 km/s and 18.6 km/s. As it happens, such speeds compare well with the orbital speeds (as of the TYCHOS model) of our Sun (29.7 km/s) and Mars (22.7 km/s). To be sure, a star has never been observed to move ten times that fast. Even the fastest moving star in our skies, the Barnard star, is reckoned to be traveling at about 110 km/s, more than 50% slower than our Sun’s supposed motion around the galaxy.
Indeed, these foundational notions upheld by current theory truly stand out for their extraordinary claims. Give it a good thought: according to modern astronomy, our Sun would be the one and only star in our observed cosmos to have a mega-gigantic, unthinkably large “240-Million-year” orbit (with an incredibly small angular momentum, unlike any other star) around our galaxy. Our sun would be the fastest star of them all, travelling at a scorching 222 km/s and all the while “carrying” Earth (and our system’s other planets) along with it. And yet, we earthly observers can only detect minuscule stellar parallaxes from one year or decade to the next?
In the latest decades of astronomical research, a particular discovery stands out for its paradigm-changing nature: the vast majority of our visible stars have turned out to be interlocked in what are known as binary systems. In binary systems, a large star and a far smaller celestial body (often too small and dim to be detected even with the largest telescopes) revolve in relatively short, mutually intersecting “local” orbits around a common center of mass, or “barycenter”. Again, no binary systems are observed to have orbital periods lasting anywhere near 250 Million years.
I feel it is more reasonable to consider the possibility that our system is alike to other systems, rather than some sort of exception to the rule.

Preface

Next Chapter

The TYCHOS / Proudly powered by WordPress-Web Hosting by GreenGeeks

The TYCHOS
Our Geoaxial Binary Solar System
Chapter 1 — About Binary Star Systems
“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.”
— Binary stars and the VLTI: research prospects by Andrea Richichi and Christopher Leinert (July 2000) from Proc. SPIE Vol. 4006, p. 289-298, Interferometry in Optical Astronomy, Pierre J. Lena; Andreas Quirrenbach; Eds.
It is important to know that Tycho Brahe never knew about binary systems. The very ﬁrst binary system was discovered in 1650 by Giovanni Riccioli almost 50 years after Tycho’s death, and only following the invention of the telescope. Therefore, one cannot blame Tycho for failing to notice & identify (within his very own, Tychonic model) the obvious binary nature of his proposed model, which famously featured his highly controversial (and much ridiculed) intersecting orbits of Mars and the Sun.
It was precisely this “bizarre feature” of Brahe’s proposed cosmic model (the intersecting orbits of Mars and the Sun) that triggered the vociferous scoﬃng and derision of his peers: “Sooner or later, the Sun and Mars must smash into each other!”. As we now know, however, binary systems are the most common stellar conﬁguration in our cosmos. No binary star systems have ever been observed to selfdestruct due to a collision between the larger and smaller bodies. I would strongly recommend reading Howard Margolis’ impeccable demonstration that the mentally perceived collision of the Sun and Mars (in Tycho Brahe’s model) has always been an illusion – albeit one that befuddled the entire scientiﬁc community for the best part of 400 years. It makes for an exemplary case study of how even the sharpest human minds can be fooled for centuries on end by relatively simple, illusory “tricks” of geometry.
See: Tycho’s Illusion: How it lasted 400 Years, and What that implies about Human Cognition by H. Margolis (1998)
Let us begin with a classic binary star system, as illustrated on the below-linked

webpage from the University of Oregon where we can read that the vast majority of the stars in the Milky Way are, in fact, binary stars resembling something like this basic conﬁguration.
“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.”
— Binary Stars by Jim Schombert (2018) for University of Oregon Astronomy 122: Birth and Death of Stars
As discovered only in recent decades, the vast majority (up to 85% and counting) of the stars in our skies — all of which we perceive with our naked eyes only as a single object — are in fact binary systems (i.e.; two or more celestial objects). In fact, this percentage is growing by the day thanks to advanced spectrometers and so-called Adaptive Optics (based on the Shack-Hartmann principle). The latter have, in later years, spectacularly improved the ability for observational astronomers to detect binary / double stars.

Above — ESO imagery of the binary star HIC 59206 imaged without and with adaptive optics correction. Note distinct binary appearance with adaptive optics. — ESO (May
13, 2003) Please read about Adaptive Optics. Needless to say, if it eventually emerges that 100% of our visible stars are locked in binary systems, our “lonely” single-star system (as per the Copernican model), would increasingly stand out as a uniquely exceptional, one-of-a-kind cosmic anomaly. It therefore stands to reason, from a purely statistical perspective, that our own star is likely to be part of a binary system. Here’s an exemplary illustration of the intersecting orbits of a binary system:
Above — Source URL: http://www.skymarvels.com/infopages/stellarobjects.htm
Now, Alpha Centauri A and B are both fairly large celestial bodies. But more often than not, the “B-companions” in binary systems are far smaller and dimmer than their “A” hosts and/or simply too close to their larger companion to be easily discernible. Here’s a brief selection of quotes about binary stars from various astronomy sources:

“There 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.”
— Binary Star Prevalence from BRI
“Binary stars are two stars orbiting a common center of mass. More than four-ﬁfths (80%) of the single points of light we observe in the night sky are actually two or more stars orbiting together. The most common of the multiple star systems are binary stars, systems of only two stars together. These pairs come in an array of conﬁgurations 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.”
— Binary Star Systems: Classiﬁcation and Evolution by SPACE.com Staﬀ (January 17, 2018)
“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 highermultiple systems.”
— Binary Stars by CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility (2017)
Would you be surprised to know that the idea that the Sun is part of a binary system is not a new concept? The Binary Research Institute headed by Walter Cruttenden has been looking into this hypothesis for many years. Unfortunately, their reasoning-

process is stuck in the Copernican heliocentric paradigm, and thus, their ongoing search for the Sun’s elusive binary companion has never considered Mars as a possible candidate. Their current, favored candidate (for a binary companion of the Sun) appears to be Sirius. Sirius, however, is itself a binary system (Sirius A and B revolve around their common barycenter every 50.1 years). Nonetheless, Cruttenden (et al) have made a great job demonstrating, in methodical fashion, that the so-called “Lunisolar” theory (i.e.; Earth’s purported “wobble” around its axis) is utterly untenable. But more about this later. You have probably noticed by now that I’ve suggested the body we know as planet Mars is our Sun’s binary companion. Is this an unreasonable suggestion? I would argue, “No.”
Understanding Precession of the Equinox by Walter Cruttenden and Vince Dayes (2003)
The below spirographic (or trochoidal) patterns are from a fairly recent study (2010) concerned with the “barycentric motion of exoplanet host stars”. In the TYCHOS model — as we shall see — the paths of Mars, Venus and Mercury all bear some resemblance to these complex & beautiful orbital patterns that modern astronomers are observing nowadays in binary star systems.

Above — from p. 6 of The barycentric motion of exoplanet host stars by M. A. C. Perryman and T. Schulze-Hartung (2010)
Indeed, one may justly wonder why our very own “Solar System” would not feature orbital patterns remotely similar to those above. Why would objects swirling around other stars than our own (the Sun) trace such charming & “creative” paths — as opposed to the dull & orderly elliptical orbits of our planets and moons (as in the heliocentric Copernican model)? Are we earthlings just … out of luck?

Previous Chapter

Next Chapter

The TYCHOS / Proudly powered by WordPress-Web Hosting by GreenGeeks

The TYCHOS
Our Geoaxial Binary Solar System
Chapter 2 — A brief look into the past regarding the Sun-Mars relationship
At this point, let us brieﬂy step back in time and look at the observational work of some eminent astronomers of yore who, unwittingly, indicated that the Sun and Mars are binary companions. Keep in mind that, at the time, none of them knew about the existence of binary star systems.
Firstly, I’d like to show you a page that I scanned from a book titled Indian Mathematics and Astronomy. The book was graciously given to me by its author (as I visited him in Bangalore, India, in April 2016), namely Prof. Balachandra Rao, a nowretired professor of mathematics, astronomy historian and author of several captivating books on ancient Indian astronomy. The page illustrates the planetary model designed by Pathani Samanta, a man rightly heralded as India’s greatest naked-eye astronomer of all times:

As you can see, the two models of Pathani Samanta and Tycho Brahe are quite identical. I have highlighted (in yellow and red) the intersecting orbits of the Sun and Mars which, clearly, are consistent with what we would call today a binary pair.
Since Tycho predated Pathani by more than two centuries, one might suspect some plagiarism at play here. However, it appears 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 little or no contact with the Western world for most of his lifetime. I ﬁnd it most unlikely that Samanta simply plagiarized Brahe’s work.
Conversely, one might then just as well suspect Brahe of having “plagiarized” some ideas from another illustrious Indian astronomer/mathematician. Namely,

Nilakantha Somayaji (1444-1544) who, in turn, predated Brahe by a century or so. So let’s leave this at that, and instead ask ourselves a far more interesting question implied by these identical models:
“How and why did such diverse astronomers, after lifetimes of painstaking research, eventually reach such strikingly similar conclusions, independently of each other?”
Furthermore, as we take a closer look at them, there is one thing in both illustrations that intuitively appears to be missing. If you are game, please pause your reading for one minute and before reading on ask yourself: what geometric shape (that should logically be there) is absent in both of the above planetary models? Give it a good thought and continue reading when inspired to do so.

Here is what, in my view, constitutes a major logical anomaly in the above models: notice that the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and the Sun all have circular orbital paths drawn in the model. Only one celestial body is, inexplicably, lacking an orbit. That’s right: Earth! Now, why would our planet not have an orbit, unlike all of its celestial companions? As I see it, the bizarre notion that Earth – and Earth only – would remain completely immobile among all of our revolving companions has to be a most unfortunate failure of imagination. Nonetheless, the highest praise goes to these two great astronomers of yore who provided us with the most priceless cosmic clue of all that the Sun and Mars are, in fact, “interlocked” in typical binary orbits, just like the vast majority of our surrounding star systems.

Previous Chapter

Next Chapter

The TYCHOS / Proudly powered by WordPress-Web Hosting by GreenGeeks

The TYCHOS
Our Geoaxial Binary Solar System
Chapter 3 — About our Sun-Mars binary system
The relatively recent realization that our visible stars have a smaller (and oft invisible) companion is the single most signiﬁcant, paradigm-changing astronomical epiphany of our modern age. Today, astronomers are incessantly discovering new binary systems at an ever-increasing rate. One can only wonder why such persistent ﬁndings haven’t yet sparked a major debate as to the validity of the Copernican model and its unique, “one-of-a-kind” conﬁguration.
Below is one of my earliest TYCHOS graphics (2013) as I tried to wrap my head around the proposed geometry of Tycho Brahe’s so-called “geo-heliocentric” model. At the time, I wasn’t even aware that binary systems were by far the most common star formations in our skies. But then again – as already mentioned – neither were great astronomers like Tycho Brahe back in their day.
The intersecting orbits of Sun and Mars : a typical binary system

IMPORTANT NOTE: the above graphic is meant to be a “3/4 view” of our system – as if we were approaching our solar system in an imaginary spaceship at an angle, roughly at 45° above the “March / December” side. Thus, the apparent elliptical shapes of the Sun / Mars orbits are only a matter of perspective. In the TYCHOS model, ALL the orbits of our system’s bodies are uniformly circular.
Note that, in my above graphic, Earth is still lacking an orbit of its own. Yet, we shall see about how I overcame that age-old obstacle in due time. Please know that I have earnestly strived to do my best to document a progressive, step-by-step account of my thought processes, as the TYCHOS model gradually took shape in my mind. I fully realize the initial diﬃculty to take in and visualize this new conﬁguration of our socalled Solar System – given, perhaps, the novelty of it all. However, I hope that by proceeding in short, descriptive sections it will be easier for everyone to follow the methodological path which led me to formulate the TYCHOS model and to arrive at its logical conclusions.
Let us begin with a classic binary star system, as illustrated on the website previously referenced in Chapter 1.

Notice that, if we substitute the above “high mass star” and “low mass star” with the SUN and MARS respectively (as I have done in the below adaptation) 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). In addition, please separately observe the additional “plot twist” of paramount interest to us Earthlings:
In the TYCHOS, Earth is positioned near the center of mass (or barycenter) of the Sun-Mars binary system.
We can see just how harmonious such a binary system would be: Earth embraced by

the Sun-Mars binary duo, each with their own two satellites. Now, if you are trained to think Relativistically, you might wonder: “But what about the highly unequal masses of the Sun and Mars?”
Note that binary star systems, as numerous as they are, pose a serious problem for Einstein’s theory of general relativity.
“If the general relativity method is correct, it ought to apply everywhere, not just in the solar system. But Van Flandern points to a conﬂict outside it: binary stars with highly unequal masses. Their orbits behave in ways that the Einstein formula did not predict. ‘Physicists know about it and shrug their shoulders,’ Van Flandern says. They say there must be ‘something peculiar about these stars, such as an oblateness, or tidal eﬀects.’ 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.”
— The Speed of Gravity — What the Experiments Say by Tom Van Flandern (1998) American Astronomical Society, DDA meeting #30, #10.04
We shall soon see that the highly unequal sizes of, for instance, Sirius A and Sirius B, are just as unequal as the Sun and Mars.
Comparing the moons of the Sun and Mars
In the TYCHOS model, Mercury and Venus are the Sun’s two tidally-locked moons, much as Mars also has two (lesser-known) tidally-locked moons: Phobos and Deimos, which were only discovered as recently as 1877 by Asaph Hall. (Tycho Brahe never observed them).

A closer look at the moons of Mars brings up some interesting interrelationships with their bigger sisters Mercury and Venus. Under the Copernican model, there would be no conceivable motive for these four celestial bodies to exhibit any sort of ‘”sympathy” with each other. Mars is supposed to be just another planet orbiting around the Sun. On the contrary, in the TYCHOS system, this is just the ﬁrst of many incredible coincidences that suggests our entire system – each planetary body included – is locked in some form of magnetic harmony.
Consider these comparative facts about the moons of the Sun (Mercury and Venus) and the moons of Mars (Phobos and Deimos).
Mercury’s diameter is 2.5X smaller than Venus’ diameter. Phobos’ orbital diameter is 2.5X smaller than Deimos’ orbital diameter.
Deimos’ diameter is 1.8X smaller than Phobos’ diameter. Mercury’s orbital diameter is 1.8X smaller than Venus’ orbital diameter.
Things are beginning to look a little curious, aren’t they? Moreover …
Each year, Mercury revolves ca. 3.13 times around the Sun; whereas each day, Phobos revolves 3.13 times around Mars. As a way of comparison, think of the Sun that revolves once every year around Earth, whereas Earth rotates once every day around its axis. This may sound like a silly comparison (between a revolution period and a rotational period), unless you know that our Moon revolves around Earth in the same time as the Sun rotates around its axis (approx 27.3 days).
Mercury orbits the Sun near-precisely 5X faster than Venus, while Phobos orbits Mars near-precisely 4X faster than Deimos. The ratios are extremely close to whole numbers, and congruent with the concept of non-relativistic time. That is to say, assuming no Einsteinian “time warp”, these systems are directly interlocked with one another in real

time.
Clearly, all this appears to indicate some sort of “kinship” between the two moons of Mars and the two moons of the Sun. Under the Copernican model’s conﬁguration, these multiple resonances would be an utter mystery and would have to be classiﬁed as a string of “random coincidences”. Conversely, under the TYCHOS model, all of this can be envisioned much more logically. It is a natural consequence of Mercury and Venus & Phobos and Deimos being, respectively, the moons of the Sun and the moons of Mars.
You might now rightly ask yourself, “Why are Mercury and Venus the only ‘planets’ of our solar system with no moons of their own?”
As a matter of fact, this is one of astronomy’s longstanding (and still unsolved) mysteries. The truth of the matter is: no one actually knows why Venus and Mercury are “moonless”. To dismiss the absence by calling it happenstance doesn’t make the question go away. Meanwhile, no compelling theses on this spiny subject have been forthcoming to this day. Here are, for instance, NASA’s (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. The 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 ﬁrst being accreted.”
— Why don’t Mercury and Venus have moons? by NASA for Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE) Education Center
Here’s another (perhaps more intellectually honest) quote from a nasa.gov website.
“Why Venus doesn’t have a moon is a mystery for scientists to solve.”
— How many moons? by Kristen Erickson (2017) for NASA Space Place

Now, the TYCHOS model has a short answer to this “mystery”’ : Venus and Mercury have no moons due to the simple fact that they are moons. Moreover, they are the two moons of the Sun just as Mars, its binary companion, has two moons. As it is, the notion that Venus and Mercury are moons (rather than planets) can be deduced in multiple ways. The ﬁrst method has to do with their distinctively slow axial rotation speeds, which both appear to be ‘intimately related’ to the slowly-rotating Moon of Earth:
The rotational speed of Mercury (as of the TYCHOS*) is no more than 5.465km/h (almost exactly 3X slower than our Moon). The rotational speed of Venus (as of the TYCHOS**) is no more than 2.711km/h (almost exactly 6X slower than our Moon). The rotational speed of our Moon (as of oﬃcial astronomical data) is no more than 16.7 km/h. NOTE: In the TYCHOS model our Moon’s rotation is
• almost precisely 3X faster than Mercury’s rotation • almost precisely 6X faster than Venus’ rotation
Incidentally, if our three nearmost moons (our Moon, Mercury and Venus) are “locked” in a 1:3:6 rotational resonance, this is reminiscent of the well-known 1:2:4 orbital resonance of the three largest moons of Jupiter (Io, Europa and Ganymede).
Above — Source: Wikimedia commons via Wikipedia entry on “Io”

Here are my calculations for the rotational velocities of Mercury and Venus (as of the TYCHOS model paradigm). Please note that most (serious) astronomers will agree that both Mercury and Venus, as they return to perigee (i.e.; closest point to Earth), will always show the same face to us.
*In the TYCHOS model, Mercury returns to perigee in 116.88 days (or 2805 hours). Mercury’s circumference is 15,329 km. Hence, a distance of 15,329 km covered in 2805 hours computes to a rotational speed of
15,329 km / 2805 hours = 5.465 km/h
**In the TYCHOS model, Venus returns to perigee in 584.4 days (or 14,025.6 hours). Venus’ circumference is 38,024.5 km. Hence, a distance of 38,024.5 km covered in 14,025.6 hours computes to a rotational speed of
38,024.5 km / 14,025.6 hours = 2.711 km/h
These are all, of course, exceptionally slow rotational speeds, especially when compared to the rest of our system’s celestial bodies. They are all in the rotational speed range of a children’s merry-go-round. We may therefore formulate reﬁned deﬁnitions of a “moon” or “lunar body”, as opposed to a “planet”.
1. No moons have major satellites of their own, since they are moons themselves.
2. A moon’s rotation is always tidally locked to its host’s nucleus, and this remains independent of its host’s rate of axial rotation.
3. A moon rotates exceptionally slowly around its own axis – compared with all other known celestial bodies.
To verify the latter assertion, let us ask ourselves, “Do any other celestial bodies in our system have such extremely slow rotational speeds as our Moon, Mercury or Venus?” The answer is no. For instance, Jupiter rotates around its axis at a brisk 43,000 km/h and Saturn rotates around its axis at about 35,000 km/h. These are, of course,

hypersonic speeds completely unlike lunar rotational speeds.
If you ask me about Mars, we will see about that later, as Mars’s axial rotation turns out to be synchronous with Earth’s axial rotation.
As for the question about Venus and Mercury being both tidally locked to the Sun (as posited by the TYCHOS model in contrast with previous theory), this will also be addressed later on, in the chapters dedicated to the Sun’s two lunar satellites.

Previous Chapter

Next Chapter

The TYCHOS / Proudly powered by WordPress-Web Hosting by GreenGeeks

The TYCHOS
Our Geoaxial Binary Solar System
Chapter 4 — Sirius A and B — “Living proof” in support of the TYCHOS model
The very brightest of all the stars in our skies is Sirius. It is a two-body (or perhaps three- or four-body) system composed of (as far as is known today) a large star, Sirius A, and a far smaller object, Sirius B. The far smaller Sirius B was, in fact, only ﬁrst observed as late (or as recently, if you will) as 1862 by Alvan Clark, with what was then the world’s largest refractor telescope.
First photograph of SIRIUS A and Sirius B (by Lindenblad — 1973) Here is how some astronomy websites illustrate the orbits of SIRIUS A and Sirius B).

Sirius A and B in 1990
Above images — The Dogon and Sirius by Martin Clutterbuck
As mentioned earlier, binary systems such as the one composed of Sirius A and Sirius B (what with their vastly unequal sizes) pose a very serious problem for Einstein’s theory of general relativity (as well as for Newton’s gravitational “laws”). The issue of the relative dimensions of Sirius A and B is of primary interest to the TYCHOS model. To wit, the very ﬁrst objection that Copernican astronomers will have against the notion that Mars is the Sun’s binary companion will, inevitably, be the following:
“Preposterous! Our tiny little Mars (with its far smaller mass) cannot possibly be the Sun’s binary companion!”
As I will demonstrate, this predictable objection is a non-starter. The empirically veriﬁable fact that the diameters of Sirius A and Sirius B are proportionally identical to our Sun and Mars invalidates this core objection right oﬀ the bat. I shall now expound this in due detail.
Please note that I am about to compare solely the observed angular diameters of these 4 bodies — since any estimation of their respective masses is nothing that can be empirically veriﬁed or demonstrably proven from Earth. In fact, all mass estimations are based upon Einstein’s and Newton’s postulated physical laws. Astronomy literature oﬀers no rational explanation as to why the “midget star” Sirius B, which is only slightly smaller than our planet (91.6% of Earth’s diameter), should possibly have a larger mass than that of the Sun! Yet, in recent astronomy texts, you may read extraordinary things such as:
“The force of gravity on Sirius B is 350,000 stronger than on Earth, meaning 3 grams of matter (roughly a sugar cube) would weigh 1,000 kilos!”
— Sirius Star, SolarSystemQuick.com (2010)
As for the diameter of Sirius B, on Wikipedia we can read that:

“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.”
— Wikipedia entry on “Sirius”
You see, the current scientiﬁc reasoning (in astronomy circles) goes a bit like this:
“Since Newton’s Gravitational Laws predict so elegantly the masses of our own solar system, our entire universe must therefore obey the same laws. Therefore, since Sirius B is far smaller than Sirius A (though the two of them revolve around each other), then the mass of Sirius B must be phenomenally large.”
I trust that anyone can sense the inherent fallacy of such logic. What we have here is nothing but a “textbook case of conﬁrmation bias” on the part of our world’s Copernican astronomers.
Let us now set aside the mass question and just compare the observable, relative diameters of our Sun and Mars, and contrast them directly with those of Sirius A & B.
Diameter of SIRIUS A: 2,390,000 km Diameter of SIRIUS B: 11,684.4 km Sirius B’s diameter is 0.4888 % that of SIRIUS A
Diameter of our Sun: 1,391,400 km Diameter of Mars: 6792.4 km Mars’s diameter is 0.4881 % that of the SUN
(Sirius A and B dimensional data from Wikipedia.)
That’s right — 0.4888% versus 0.4881% … a proportional diﬀerence of barely 0.0007% !
Thus, since the relative diameters of SUN & MARS versus those of SIRIUS A & SIRIUS B are nearly identical, the objection that “Mars is far too small to be the binary companion of the Sun” can be promptly dismissed. The very existence of the Sirius A – Sirius B binary system constitutes veriﬁable, empirical evidence that such a system can and does exist in our cosmos.

Perhaps an easier way to remember this proportional similarity between the Sirius system and our own Solar System (which, to my knowledge, no one has ever pointed out to this day) is to express it as follows:
Sirius B is approximately 204 times smaller than Sirius A.
and
Mars is approximately 204 times smaller than the Sun.
The two components of the brightest star in our sky are thus proportionally “identical” to the Sun and Mars; is this just a mere coincidence? Who knows? In any event, this fact should put to rest any objection as to the sheer plausibility (existing gravitational “Laws” notwithstanding) of our big Sun and the far smaller “planet” Mars being binary companions.
Yet, there may be even more astounding similarities in store between the Sirius system and our own Solar System; although further studies are needed to conﬁrm its existence, it would appear that the Sirius binary system may harbor a third body – provisionally named “Sirius C”.
We shall now take a look at what is currently known about this presumed third component of the Sirius system and the fascinating aspects surrounding some ancient accounts pointing to its possible existence.
About “Sirius C”
In the above diagram (“Sirius A and B in 1990”), we see a blue dot indicating the “Center of Mass” of the Sirius binary system. If Earth occupies the barycentric zone of the Sun / Mars binary system, could there be a planet located at the barycenter of the Sirius A / Sirius B binary system? As it is, the possible existence of a 3rd body (“Sirius C”) within the Sirius system is a longstanding (and still-ongoing) debate. A fairly recent French astronomical study appears to have corroborated the probable existence of Sirius C:
Is Sirius a Triple Star?
by D. Benest and J.L. Duvent (1994) for Astronomy and Astrophysics 299, 621-628

Here follows a simple diagram (author unknown) to be found on various websites depicting a proposed orbital conﬁguration of the Sirius system. It features the elusive “Sirius C” (a.k.a. “Emme Tolo”) positioned at the barycenter of the Sirius A / B binary system:
Above source — The Dogons and the Stars of Sirius by Pacal Votan (2007) “Emme Tolo” is the name given to the elusive (as yet unseen) Sirius C by the Dogons, an ancient African tribe whose culture and religion was based around their inexplicably advanced knowledge of the Sirius system. As it is, some of the Dogons’ astronomical knowledge has been conﬁrmed in modern times, such as, for instance, their astounding estimation of 50 years for the orbital period of the Sirius binary system (today reckoned to be 50.1 y). In fact, it still remains a veritable mystery just how the Dogons even knew of the existence of Sirius B since it is not (currently) visible with the naked eye — but only with large, powerful telescopes. Amazingly, the Dogons somehow also knew about an even smaller body revolving (in lunar fashion) around “Emme Tolo” (Sirius C) — much like our Moon revolves around Earth. They 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 gorgeous goddess Selene) has always been “the women’s star”, what with its sidereal orbital period of 27.3 days (which more or less matches the average female menstrual cycle).
The Dogon Tribe: Connection Sirius by Ivan Petricevic (2007) I don’t wish to dwell too long on the Dogons and their inexplicably-advanced

knowledge of the Sirius system, since this whole topic appears to have been, in later years, “sensationalized” and exploited (to generate popular book sales) by a number of authors from the UFO/New Age crowd and submerged by a dross of fanciful conjectures. Suﬃce to say that we simply don’t know how the ancient Dogon tribe acquired this knowledge. It seems unlikely, however, that this entire Dogon aﬀair is just a ﬁgment of someone’s imagination. In any event, if it should turn out that Sirius C (“Emme Tolo”) and its moon (“Nyan Tolo”) both exist, we will certainly have to seriously consider the compelling prospect that the Sirius System is some sort of “Twin family” of our own solar system:

SIRIUS A

=

SIRIUS B

=

SIRIUS C

=

Nyan Tolo

=

the “TWIN” of our SUN the “TWIN” of Mars the “TWIN” of Earth the “TWIN” of our Moon

So, once more: would it be “preposterous” to think that Mars is the Sun’s binary companion? Would the (alleged) huge mass of the Sun versus the (alleged) tiny mass of Mars rule out the idea that the two of them are binary companions? According to modern astrophysics, given the currently-assumed masses of Sun and Mars, yes. Nonetheless, I think it is now wise to ask if all of those “mass” assumptions – as imagined by Sir Isaac Newton – have any bearing on the physics of two celestial (binary) bodies revolving around each other.
In conclusion, I submit that the very existence of the Sirius system is strongly supportive of the TYCHOS tenets. It provides empirical evidence that a small celestial body can indeed be the binary companion of a far larger celestial body. Whether the Dogon story is ﬁctitious or not will not change the observable facts.
Next, I will introduce the basic conﬁguration of the TYCHOS system. Although it may seem somewhat premature to unveil it at this early stage I feel it is necessary in order for the reader to get a general overview of the TYCHOS before tackling the successive chapters.

Previous Chapter

Next Chapter

The TYCHOS / Proudly powered by WordPress-Web Hosting by GreenGeeks

The TYCHOS
Our Geoaxial Binary Solar System
Chapter 5 — Introducing the TYCHOS model
Below is a basic conﬁguration of the TYCHOS or what we may call our “geoaxial binary system”. In the TYCHOS, the Sun and Mars are the main players of a typical binary system. At or near its barycenter, we ﬁnd Earth and our Moon, while the Sun (escorted by its two moons, Mercury and Venus) and Mars (escorted by its two moons, Phobos and Deimos) perform their binary dance around our planet. It is Earth’s physical motion around its “PVP” orbit (see blue circle) that causes our North stars to change over time – a very slow process commonly-known as the “precession of the equinoxes”.

The Sun revolves once a year around Earth, traveling at 107,226 km/h (the orbital speed attributed to Earth in the Copernican model) while Mars, its binary companion, revolves once every two solar years around the Sun and Earth both. In the TYCHOS, Earth is inclined at about 23° in relation to its orbital plane – yet (unlike current theory) its Northern hemisphere remains tilted at all times ‘outwards’, i.e. towards the external circuit of the Sun.
There is no need for Earth’s “wobble around its polar axis” (as of Copernican theory). Nor do we hurtle around space at hypersonic speeds. Earth only rotates once every 24 hours while it slowly gets tugged around at 1.6 km/h (about 1 mph) along its own clockwise path. It completes one revolution around its “PVP orbit” every 25344 years (a period also known as “The Great Year”). The “PVP” orbit (“Polaris-Vega-Polaris”) and Earth’s snail-paced orbital motion will of course be thoroughly illustrated further on, as they constitute the core postulations upon which the TYCHOS model is founded.
Oddly enough, Tycho Brahe apparently believed to his last day that Earth was totally stationary, did not rotate around its axis and that the stars all revolved around it in unison. One can only wonder how Tycho reconciled this belief with, for instance, the slow alternation of our polar stars through the ages. Eventually however (in 1622), Tycho’s trusty assistant Longomontanus (in his Astronomia Danica, regarded as “Tycho’s testament”) allowed for Earth’s daily rotation around its axis in what became known as the “semi-Tychonic” system. The observational accuracy of Longomontanus’ reﬁned system has, to this day, never been surpassed:
Longomontanus, Tycho’s sole disciple, assumed the responsibility and fulﬁlled 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 geoheliocentric 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.
— Wikipedia entry on Christen Sørensen Longomontanus
The TYCHOS system, it should be noted, is nothing but a natural evolution of the semi-Tychonic system, and is fully consistent with the unequaled observational accuracy of the same. However, the TYCHOS provides what one may call the “missing pieces of the puzzle” to the extraordinary work of Tycho Brahe and Longomontanus. Alas, their work was annihilated by the emergence of the Copernican heliocentric theory, which for unfathomable reasons prevailed – in spite of its numerous problems and aberrations. As we shall see, these problems stem from a distinctly unphysical nature. It is a poorly-known fact that the Copernican theory was by no means immediately embraced as a self-evident truth. It was strongly (and justly) rejected for several decades by the wider scientiﬁc community due the many leaps of logic that its core premises demanded. One of the most formidable mental leaps required in order to accept the Copernican theory was, of course, the unthinkable dimensions and distances that the stars would have in relation to our system.
Most scientists refused to accept [Copernicus’s] theory for many decades — even after Galileo made his epochal observations with his telescope. Their objections were not only theological. Observational evidence supported a competing cosmology,the “geo-heliocentrism” of Tycho Brahe. The 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.
— The Case Against Copernicus by Dennis Danielson and Christopher M. Graney

Previous Chapter

Next Chapter

The TYCHOS / Proudly powered by WordPress-Web Hosting by GreenGeeks

The TYCHOS
Our Geoaxial Binary Solar System
Chapter 6 — Mars, the “Key” to our system
Johannes Kepler famously stated that
“Mars is the key to understanding the solar system.”
Kepler, of course, notoriously obsessed about Mars for ﬁve harrowing years and, in his correspondence with fellow scientists, referred to his relentless pursuit as “his personal war on Mars”. We now know that (presumably out of sheer exhaustion) Kepler eventually resorted to the shameless fudging and manipulation of Tycho’s data published in his Astronomia Nova, a book still regarded as the “Bible of the Copernican Revolution”. This 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 credibility of the Keplerian and Copernican theories?
It will remain a mystery why Kepler, Tycho’s “math assistant”, eventually dismissed his own master’s cosmic model in favor of the Copernican – and this in spite of having plotted (at some point of his strenuous war on Mars) a working diagram of Mars’s geocentric motions, titled De Motibus Stellae Martis. History books only tell us that Kepler, upon Tycho’s untimely death (at age 55), seized the bulk of his master’s laboriously-collected observational tables and annotations, only to set about ﬂipping Tycho’s model on its head. Professor Donahue’s detailed descriptions of how Kepler fudged his all-important Mars computations (moulding them so as to make them “ﬁt” with the core tenets of his thesis) make for a most compelling read:
Kepler’s Fabricated Figures – Covering up the Mess in the New Astronomy by W. H. Donahue (1988, Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol.19, NO. 4/NOV, P.217)
This short article succinctly sums up Kepler’s falsiﬁcation of 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 falsiﬁed data while translating Kepler’s master work, Astronomia Nova, or The New Astronomy, into English.”
— Pioneer Astronomer Faked Orbit Theory, Scholar Says by New York Times (January 23, 1990)
Kepler’s manipulative antics may well go down in history as the triumph of mathematical abstraction over the empirical method. In his urge to make the complex & bewildering behavior of Mars agree with the ﬂedgling Copernican theory, Johannes Kepler not only misused and twisted — but outright subverted Tycho Brahe’s most exacting observational data acquired throughout his lifetime.
Mars’s two Empiric Sidereal Intervals (ESIs)
Let us presently take a look at what the Maya knew about Mars. The ancient Maya astronomers were clearly aware of the peculiar sidereal period(s) of Mars — as viewed from Earth. As they kept count of the amount of days needed for Mars to realign again with a given reference star, they saw that Mars had in fact two sidereal periods: a more frequent, lengthier one of about 707 days — the “Long ESI” — and an odd, shorter one of about 543 (± 6.79) days — the “Short ESI”.
It is the “Short ESI” (of ca. 543 days – or ca. 1.5 solar years) that is of primary interest to us. As will be comprehensively demonstrated in Chapter 7, the Copernican model cannot possibly account for this odd / shorter sidereal interval of Mars.
“We discuss here a kind of period that we call the empiric sidereal interval (ESI), which we deﬁne as the number of days elapsed between consecutive passages of Mars through a given celestial longitude while in prograde motion. At ﬁrst glance, one would imagine that the ESI would ﬂuctuate widely about some mean because of the intervening retrograde loop, which in the case of Mars occupies 75 days on average between ﬁrst 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).”
— Ancient Maya documents concerning the movements of Mars by Harvey M. Bricker, Anthony F. Aveni and Victoria R. Bricker in Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (February 2001)
The above-linked paper (a highly-recommended read) describes in great detail the Maya astronomers’ exacting knowledge of Mars’s sidereal periods — although it ultimately fails to address the profound implications raised by the existence of these two ESI’s of Mars.
The binary nature of the TYCHOS system with Mars’s peculiar, epitrochoidal orbital motion around the Sun, geometrically explains why Mars can realign with a given star within as little as 543 (± 7) days, or about 1.5 years. In Maya astronomy, this ca. 543-day period is called the Short ESI (Empiric Sidereal Interval) whereas Mars’s “habitual”, longer sidereal period of ca. 707.5 days is called the Long ESI. So why is the currently-accepted value of Mars’s sidereal period “686.9 days” as computed by Kepler?
Well, here are the (observable) facts: Mars will typically realign with a given reference star on seven successive occasions in successive intervals of circa 707.5 days (on average) — but the eighth time around, Mars will realign with that same star in only about 543 (± 7) days. That is, over a ca. 15-year time span, Mars exhibits seven Long ESIs (of ca. 707.5 days) + one Short ESI (of ca. 543 days)!
MARS sidereal period ESI sequence:
707.5 / 707.5 / 707.5 / 707.5 / 707.5 / 707.5 / 707.5 / 543
Total: 5495.5 days – or ca. 15 years.
Now, since 5495.5 / 8 = 686.9375 days, we can see how Kepler must have just “averaged out” these eight observable Mars periods in order to get his estimated sidereal period of Mars. As it is, we are told that this supposed 686.9-day period (said to represent one Martian year) is not something that can be observed from Earth. The (currently-claimed) Keplerian 686.9-day value of Mars’s sidereal period was just mathematically extrapolated on the assumption that Earth revolves around the Sun.
Yet Mars does indeed, in reality (and as can be directly observed), alternate its

sidereal periods as of the above ESI sequence! You may now rightly ask yourself, “How is this even possible? How can Mars realign with the same star — as seen from Earth — in two wholly diﬀerent time periods (707.5 and 543 days)?” This is indeed a very good question. The short answer is: in the Copernican model, it simply can’t. In the TYCHOS model, it can and will naturally do so — for demonstrable, geometric reasons which I will now expound. Please note that, in the TYCHOS, Mars does indeed have a 686.9-day period (or ca. 687d) — but that’s the period needed for Mars to revolve once around the Sun. Ergo, it is not Mars’s “true mean sidereal period” as Kepler had it. It is the period for Mars to return to its degree position relative to the Sun, as I have illustrated below.
Why is Mars behaving in this way? It will become clear as we take a look at the synodic period of Mars.
About the synodic period of Mars
We just saw that Mars’s “habitual” sidereal period (the Long ESI) lasts for around

707.5 days (about 23 days less than two solar years of 730.5 days. More precisely, Mars returns facing the same star 22.8 days earlier than the Sun does, in a two-year period). The average synodic period of Mars is 779.2 days; this is the time period needed for Mars to line up again with the Sun as viewed from Earth. We see that this is 48.7 days more than two solar years (730.5 + 48.7 = 779.2). Now, we also see that:
48.7 days + 22.8 days = 71.5 days i.e. the average duration of the “retrograde periods” of Mars
This leads us to a most remarkable realization: since the two binary companions, Sun and Mars, are locked in a 2:1 orbital ratio, one might think that the two of them will “meet up” every 730.5 days (i.e. 2 solar years) ; but due to Mars retrograding biyearly by ca. 71.5 days (on average), Mars will “slip out of phase” with our timekeeper, the Sun — hence, with our earthly calendar. Therefore, Sun and Mars will conjunct (as viewed from Earth) only every 779.2 days
707.7 + 71.5 = 779.2
Thus, in 16 solar years MARS completes 7.5 synodic periods.
779.2 X 7.5 = 5844 days = 16 solar years.
In 16 years, Mars and the Sun do in fact conjunct with Earth — although on opposed sides of our planet. Mars will need another 7.5 synodic cycles, for a total of 32 years (i.e. 2 X 16 or 15 + 17) to complete one of its 32-year cycles. Since Mars processes biyearly (vis-à-vis the Sun) by ca. 45 min. of Right Ascension (on average), in 32 solar years it will process by about:
45 min. X 32 = 1440 min. a full 360° procession around its “host”, the Sun.
Next, we will see how the respective orbital paths of Sun & Mars, as concluded by Tycho Brahe, can and do indeed intersect in typical binary fashion — much like Sirius A and Sirius B.
The synchronized 2:1 binary dance of Sun and Mars
As mentioned earlier, Tycho Brahe’s boldest contention was, undoubtedly, that the orbits of Mars and the Sun intersect. Back then, Tycho’s opponents would jeer:

“Absurd! Preposterous! Sooner or later, Mars and the Sun must collide!” Today, their ways may perhaps be excused for back in those days, no one was aware of the very existence of binary systems.
As you can see, the above orbital conﬁguration is perfectly consistent with the models of Tycho Brahe and Pathani Samanta (as illustrated in Chapter 2) albeit with a little — yet crucial — addition: the clockwise orbit of Earth. For now, let us focus our attention on Mars and its peculiar motion around the Sun and Earth. Seeing Mars’s path is essential viewing for the reader. It shows you the ﬁrst version of what eventually became the TYCHOS Planetarium, a joint eﬀort between my invaluable research assistant & computer programmer Patrik Holmqvist and yours truly. Naturally, our initial objective was to animate and digitally simulate the motions of Mars — under the TYCHOS model’s paradigm — so as to verify its sustainability. On my side, I provided the observational data (borrowed from oﬃcial, undisputed astronomy tables — yet interpreted from a “Tychonic perspective”) while Patrik, on his side, translated it all into computer language.

Watch animation of Mars’s path around the Sun
The oddly-shaped “teardrop-loops” that Mars performs as it passes closest to Earth are, undeniably, a most diﬃcult thing for the human mind to process. They are caused by the spirographic pattern of orbits in the shape of circles (and not ellipses or any other irregular shape) as they move in relation to one another. The “line” it draws is not circular but Mars is only ever moving in a circle, whose center is itself moving in a circle.
Once you overcome this cognitive hurdle, you will soon realize that it is nothing but a natural geometric consequence of a body revolving (in uniform circular motion) around another revolving body — the two of them remaining, at all times, “magnetically attached”. In fact, the Sun and Mars exhibit unequivocal evidence of being an interlocked binary pair.
In the TYCHOS model the Sun and Mars binary orbits are “interlocked” in a perfect 2:1 orbital resonance. However, this exact 2:1 Mars:Sun orbital ratio is not directly observable or noticeable from Earth, due to Mars’s peculiar epitrochoidal motion which causes it to return, every two solar years, at diﬀerent celestial longitudes as illustrated below.

We may thus envision just why it has been nigh impossible, throughout the ages, for any observational astronomer to detect this harmonious 2:1 binary dance of the Sun and Mars — since Mars never returns to the same place within a 2-year period. Mars’s virtual “deferent” shown in the above graphic indicates Mars’s orbital oﬀset (of ca. 22.2 Million km) in relation to the Sun’s orbit. The actual reason for this apparent oﬀset of Mars’s circular orbit needs further study, yet it is fully consistent with observation — as I will now expand upon.
As it is, the motions of Mars posed the greatest diﬃculties to the astronomers of yore, Tycho included:
“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 suﬃcient, 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.’ ”
— p.346, Tycho Brahe: a picture of scientiﬁc life and work in the sixteenth century by John Louis Emil Dreyer (1890)
Mars has been the single most problematic body of observational astronomy, and the reasons for this should become clear as we go along. All over the literature, you may ﬁnd statements hinting at the “uniqueness” of Mars’s cosmic behavior in comments like:
“Among the planets, Mars is a maverick, wandering oﬀ from the deferent-epicycle model more than most of the other planets.”
— The Ballet of the Planets: A Mathematician’s Musings on the Elegance of Planetary Motion by Donald Benson (2012)
Of course, in the TYCHOS model, one may easily imagine why Mars is a “maverick”

of sorts — 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
Mars’s ﬂuctuating oppositions
Whenever Mars ﬁnds itself at the opposite side of the Sun (“in opposition”), it is also as close at it gets to Earth in any given circa 2.13-year period (779.2 days on average). However, these closest passages ﬂuctuate considerably : their range spans between 56.6 Mkm and 101 Mkm (on average) — a diﬀerence of 44.4 Mkm. This is due to the above-mentioned “oﬀset” of 22.2 Mkm (which, of course, adds up to a total of 44.4 Mkm from side to side).
For instance, during Mars’s opposition of August 10, 1971, Mars came as close as 56.2 Mkm to Earth, whereas on February 25, 1980, Mars’s opposition occurred as far as 101.32 Mkm from Earth.
As you can more easily see in my below graphic, the cause of this discrepancy is simply Mars’s variable proximity from Earth each time it transits in opposition:
16 years of Mars and Mars’s “opposition ring”

I call the green circle in the above graphic “Mars’s Opposition Ring”. The Mars oppositions regularly occur around this virtual ring, sometimes as close to Earth as 56.6 Mkm (on average) and sometimes as far as 101 Mkm (on average).
Note that, during the closest Mars oppositions, an earthly observer will see Mars retrograding for what will appear to be a shorter time than during the furthest oppositions. This, due to the diﬀerent Earth-Mars distances, which can be demonstrated as follows:
Around August 2003, Mars was as close to Earth as it has been for a very, very long time: only 55.76 Mkm.
Around March, 2012 (another Mars opposition period), Mars was much further away from Earth: 100.78 Mkm.
We see that 100.78 / 55.76 ≈ 1.8074 (Ergo, Mars was about 1.8X further away in 2012 than it was in 2003).
Now, it can be veriﬁed on the NEAVE Planetarium that Mars was observed to retrograde by 40 min of RA (Right ascension) in 2003 and by 72 min. of RA in 2012. We see that 72 min. / 40 min. = 1.8. Hence, the age-old mystery of the variable durations of Mars’s retrograde motions is solved: it is simply a “time-space” illusion caused by the diﬀerent Earth-Mars distances — from one opposition to another. This particular concept of “time-space” should be easily understood since the Sun is our temporal reference frame (our earthly “clock”). The apparent spatial motions of its binary companion, Mars, will ﬂuctuate in accordance with Mars’s distance from Earth.
Most remarkably, it so happens that Kepler, during his ﬁve-year-long “war on Mars”, evidently spent some serious time considering a geocentric conﬁguration of our system — and even named Mars a “star”. Below is his little-known diagram, De Motibus Stellae Martis (“Of the Motion of the Star Mars”). It was obviously based on and computed around his master’s (Tycho Brahe) exacting observations, yet he ultimately discarded it. Compare Kepler’s below diagram with my above “16-years

of Mars” graphic; it looks like Kepler had at one time really been on to something!
Presumably, Kepler was simply unable to conceive how and why Mars could possibly trace such a peculiar trajectory. 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 realize that these central “teardrop loops” are nothing but natural geometric manifestations of (binary) uniform circular motion.
Is Mars a planet or a star?
As we just saw, Kepler called Mars a star for unknown reasons. The reader may also

have wondered why Mars (an object we have always considered as a planet) would revolve around our star, the Sun, while binary systems (such as Sirius A and Sirius B) are considered to be pairs of stars revolving around each other. Although it is beyond the scope of this treatise to determine just how stars and planets are formed, I nonetheless feel the need to state my support to a school of thought that, basically goes like this:
“Planets are nothing but very old stars which have cooled and solidiﬁed into rocky spheres.”
To be sure, this is not the current position of academia which considers stars and planets as wholly diﬀerent, mutually exclusive entities. In their voluminous study Stellar Metamorphosis, Jeﬀrey Wolynski and Barrington Taylor make a most compelling case that planets are, quite simply, old 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, hotter ones.”
— Stellar Metamorphosis by Jeﬀrey Wolynski & Barrington Taylor (2017)
In the TYCHOS, of course, the older star Mars orbits a younger, much larger and hotter star (the Sun). And yes, this would also suggest that our Earth is an ancient star. The ﬁery, hot magma occasionally spurting out of our volcanoes should be an indication to this fact.
A relevant discussion extracted from the Stellar Metamorphosis thread at the Thunderbolts.info forum
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.”
— Further pages from The Ballet of the Planets: A Mathematician’s Musings on the

Elegance of Planetary Motion by Donald Benson (2012)
The intervals between two Mars oppositions closest to (or between two Mars oppositions furthest from) Earth (minimum 56.6 Mkm / maximum 101Mkm) will alternate between 15 and 17 years, due to the peculiar epitrochoidal path of Mars around the Sun and Earth. It is a cyclic 15y / 17y / 15y / 15y / 17y pattern that repeats every 79 years, in approximately ﬁve 16-year cycles.
79 / 16 = 4.9375
This unique, alternating 15/17-year-pattern of the Mars cycles has never been satisfactorily explained until now. None of our other outer planets exhibit such an irregular pattern. Jupiter, for instance, invariably returns to the same place in our skies in about 12 solar years.
We thus envision the possibility that there is no need for Kepler’s notions of elliptical orbits, or for the idea of accelerating and decelerating planets, let alone an Einsteinian temporally warping time-space.
In the TYCHOS model, the orbital speed of Mars is shown to be uniform and constant since it always returns at (near-)equidistant points of its “opposition ring”. Hence, those “elliptical orbits” and “accelerating / decelerating orbital speeds” (as promulgated by Kepler’s “Laws of planetary motion”) could well be illusory and may have to be revised, or possibly discarded altogether. Before Kepler’s laws came along, 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 those recalcitrant Martian motions (observed by Tycho Brahe) in order to make them obey his ever-more-complex equations.
From a short, illustrated webpage Kepler’s Discovery well worth reading in its entirety. (Source URL: http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/Hypotheses.html)
Here follows an extract from a Mars Opposition Catalogue, listing some past and

future opposition dates of Mars (between September 1956 and September 2035) along with the respective Mars-Earth distances. As you can see, these distances vary from a minimum of ca. 56 Mkm to a maximum of ca. 101 Mkm. This full Mars opposition cycle resumes every 79 years — in the cyclic 15 y / 17 y / 15 y / 15 y / 17 y pattern mentioned earlier:

Above — “Mars Oppositions from the years 1950 to 2934” from Mars Oppositions by Hartmut Frommert (2008)
As you are reading, please make a note of this peculiar 79-year Mars cycle. We will soon look into the lesser-known 79-year cycle of the Sun, and demonstrate an even closer interrelated pattern between the Sun and Mars. The Mars oppositions, with their average minimum distance from Earth of 56.6 Mkm and average maximum distance of 101 Mkm gives us the interesting size of our opposition ring: approximately 157.6 Mkm-wide.
As it happens, this value (157.6 Mkm) reﬂects the diﬀerence between the orbital diameters of Mars and the Sun! Why is this signiﬁcant? Consider the following:
Diﬀerence between orbital diameters of Mars and the Sun: 456.8 Mkm – 299.2 Mkm = 157.6 Mkm Diameter of the “opposition ring” of Mars (around which all Mars oppositions occur) = 157.6 Mkm This means that the diﬀerence in orbital diameters between the Sun and Mars is equivalent to the diﬀerence in Mars’s own oppositions.

Note also how, in the TYCHOS, the Mars oppositions occur in a neat and orderly manner, as Mars regularly returns to a place practically equidistant from the previous opposition point. This is in stark contrast with the Copernican model, according to which the various Mars oppositions would occur quite haphazardly around Mars’s orbit, at randomly-spaced celestial positions. Here’s a Copernican chart of a number of Mars oppositions (1995-2014). According to the currently-accepted geometry of our Solar System, the Mars oppositions would occur (every 779.2 days on average) at apparently “random”, wildly unequal distances from each other.
Above — from Les Oppositions de la planète Mars (April 2014) by Gilbert Javaux As you can see, in the light of this, the Copernican model doesn’t appear to be so “elegant” after all.
Mars’s retrograde periods
My next graphic illustrates two such closest and furthest Mars oppositions (of August

2003 and March 2012) and their consequent retrograde periods during which we see Mars moving “backwards” for about 72 days (on average). The two said oppositions were documented by astro-photographer Tunc Tezel, who patiently snapped pictures of Mars at regular intervals for several months:
We see that, unlike our so-called outer planets (from Jupiter outwards), Mars traces a distinctive “teardrop-shaped” loop whenever it transits in opposition. We also see that Mars’s orbit is inclined just as would be expected in the TYCHOS model. In the picture at top left (a Martian retrograde period which lasted from January 30th to April 21st, 2012), Mars is seen descending in our (Northern hemisphere) skies, much like the Sun does between July and September. Whereas in the bottom right picture (a Martian retrograde period which lasted from August 1st to October 3rd, 2003), Mars is seen ascending in our (Northern hemisphere) skies, much like the Sun does between February and March (always keep in mind that, whenever Mars transits in opposition, the Sun will be transiting at the opposite side of Earth). Under Copernican theory, it is simply unfathomable why Mars (whose orbital inclination vis-à-vis Earth’s orbit is said to be only 1.85°) would possibly trace such pronounced and steeply inclined “teardrop loops” — whenever Earth “overtakes Mars on its inner lane”. Those retrograde loops are thought to be illusory — caused by Earth’s superior orbital speed (with respect to Mars’s orbital speed). However, a mere orbital speed diﬀerential fails to explain why Mars would perform such peculiar teardrop-shaped loops. We should expect Mars to just reverse and

resume direction in a straight line or, at the most, to trace only a very slightly “z” or “s”-shaped pattern; this, because Mars’s orbital inclination in relation to Earth’s orbit is reckoned to be no more than 1.85° as indicated in this NASA Fact Sheet:

MARS FACT SHEET BY DR. DAVID R. WILLIAMS <20>NASA, DECEMBER 23, 2016<31>
As we shall see, Mars’s retrograde periods are not by any means the biggest problem with the Copernican model. There are a number of far graver (and indeed insurmountable) problems with the cosmic model we were all taught in school. The next chapter should, in a science-minded world, deﬁnitively spell the end of the Copernican era of astronomical belief.

Previous Chapter

Next Chapter

The TYCHOS / Proudly powered by WordPress-Web Hosting by GreenGeeks

The TYCHOS
Our Geoaxial Binary Solar System
Chapter 7 — The Copernican model is geometrically impossible
It is a widely-held misconception that heliocentric and geocentric models are equally valid and viable. However, there can only be one correct interpretation of our celestial mechanics and geometry that unfailingly predicts for all the interactions between our Solar System’s companions vis-à-vis the more distant stars. Through sound logic, induction and deductive reasoning (“à-la-Sherlock Holmes”) we should be able to discard the impossible hypotheses and retain the sole conﬁguration which makes physical, geometrical, mechanical and optical sense, and is consistent at all times with empirical observation when tested.
And here is where the Copernican theory miserably falls apart. As you will see, what follows categorically disqualiﬁes the Copernican model as a viable proposition, since its proposed geometry isn’t only problematic or questionable. It is outright impossible, unless you rewrite fantastic physical laws to excuse it. I shall demonstrate this fact with the following, exemplary case.
On November 5, 2018 we will see Mars aligned with the star Delta Capricorni (a.k.a. “Deneb Algedi”). Then, 546 days later, when according to the Copernican model Earth will ﬁnd itself on the opposite side of its orbit, Mars will once again (as viewed from Earth) align with the star Delta Capricorni!
There are two types of planetariums we may take astronomical data from. One attempts to place every cosmic body in our system in its place within the Copernican system, such as SCOPE (which features an attempt at an “overhead” view of our system, as if we were looking at it from above our North Pole). The other type of planetariums (such as NEAVE and STELLARIUM) is considerably more realistic and veriﬁable, as it simulates our stars’ and planets’ positions just as we can observe them from Earth. Bear this in mind in the following comparison.
The two below pairs of screenshots (from the SCOPE and NEAVE planetariums) compare the positions of Earth and Mars on two given dates separated by 546 days (ca. 1½ years). In this time interval, both Earth and Mars would have (according to the Copernican model) moved laterally by about 300 Mkm. Yet, on both of these

dates, an earthly observer will see Mars perfectly aligned in conjunction with star Delta Capricorni. How can this possibly occur in reality (as it does) if the Copernican model were true?
In order to put this problem in due perspective, let us look at a classic explanation for the observed retrograde motion of Mars:

Note that this particular parallax issue (Mars-Earth alignment with a given star) should not be confused with the historical and ongoing controversy regarding stellar parallax (that is, the nigh-undetectable parallax between nearby and more distant stars, which we will explore later). In the present case, we are dealing with the immensely more problematic total absence of parallax between a given, distant star and the two far closer objects, Earth and Mars. The two of them should, according to the Copernican model, somehow be able to remain aligned with that same star after having displaced themselves laterally by about 300 Million kilometers! On the other hand, the TYCHOS model provides a plain and reliable geometry that explains why Mars will, at times, only need 546 days to return to a given star (even though Mars’s habitual sidereal period, the “Long ESI”, lasts for ca. 707 days). Here is how:
How the TYCHOS accounts for Mars aligning with the same star twice within 1.5 years
The TYCHOS model needs no magical & otherworldly laws of optics and perspective

to account for our observed cosmic motions. Mars will simply be actually located in line with the same star, in a very real physical sense, at both ends of a 546-day (or 1 ½ year) period. This, due to its peculiar epitrochoidal path around the Earth-orbiting Sun, which causes Mars to pass through the same “line of sight” from an Earthly perspective (although at diﬀerent Earth-Mars distances).
Later on, you may wish to verify this for yourself (Mars’s Short ESI) by perusing the TYCHOS Planetarium (Chapter 21). Today, the TYCHOS is the only existing model which can explain why Mars can possibly conjunct twice with a given star within a 1.5-year period.
The impossible (Copernican) 816-day re-conjunction of Earth and Venus with a given star
Next, we will compare two other screenshots from the SCOPE planetarium. They depict two conjunctions of Earth and Venus with star Regulus (in the Leo constellation) occurring within an interval of 816 days (or 2.234 years). In that time period, according to the Copernican model, Earth and Venus would both move laterally (vis-à-vis the Sun) by about 200 Mkm. Yet, an earthly observer will see Venus conjunct with star Regulus on both of these dates! How can the Copernican model possibly describe this real event?

The NEAVE planetarium which simulates (far more realistically) our cosmic motions, just as we observe them from Earth, conﬁrms that we can – in reality – observe Venus and Regulus conjuncting at both ends of our chosen 816-day period:
Once again, the TYCHOS model can geometrically demonstrate how and why Venus will indeed return facing a given star in 816 days:
How Venus returns facing the same star within 816 days — in the TYCHOS

Just as in the Martian example, Venus orbits the Sun, which orbits the Earth. As such, Venus will physically return in alignment with a given star, as it follows the Sun’s path through the constellations. Venus’ distance from Earth may change, but its heavenly position as seen from Earth will appear to be replicated.
Later on, you may wish to verify Venus’s 816-day period for yourself by perusing the TYCHOS Planetarium. Today, the TYCHOS is the only existing model which can explain why Venus can possibly conjunct twice with a given star at both ends of an 816-day period.
The Copernican model’s dubious duration of the retrograde periods
Another problem aﬄicting the Copernican model is its apparent, irreconcilable geometry with regards to the observed retrograde periods of Venus and Mercury (circa 45 and 23 days respectively). Let us ﬁrst see how the NEAVE Planetarium depicts a typical retrograde period of Venus just as is observed from Earth.
My example: July 25, 2015 to Sept 11, 2015, a 48-day retrograde period.

The red arrows and dotted lines/curves are my own additions to the above screenshots from the NEAVE planetarium
It is an observed and indisputable fact that Venus never retrogrades for more than 50 consecutive days. Now, according to Copernican theory, the reason why we see Venus and Mercury retrograding is because they periodically “overtake us” as their orbital motion around the Sun brings them towards Earth (that is, towards “our orbital side of the Sun”). The two of them are, of course, considered to travel a good deal faster than Earth. If this were true, however, Venus and Mercury would be seen retrograding for much longer than 45 and 23 days. This can be demonstrated with my following illustrations. My 90° angles indicate the moments in time when Venus and Mercury should, theoretically, gradually start reversing their perceived orbital directions in relation to the Sun (which, under the Copernican model, would of course constitute our central point of directional/angular reference).
One may argue that my stated “at least 100 days or more” estimate is vague. In that case, I challenge any Copernican advocate to provide a cogent, illustrated explanation as to why Venus is always observed to retrograde for fewer than 50 consecutive days. Indeed, the very same problem aﬄicts the retrograde period of Mercury, which never retrogrades for more than 25 days.

Under the Copernican model, the duration of Venus’ and Mercury’s retrograde periods make very little “geoptical” sense (my neologism inferring “what should be logically observed under given geometric & optical constraints”). Venus and Mercury do retrograde, as they are observed to do, for as little as 45.6 days and 22.8 days on average.
Yet in a Copernican perspective, we should certainly expect them to retrograde for longer. The observed duration of the retrograde motions of both Venus and Mercury appear to be outright irreconcilable with the currently-accepted geometry of our system.
Before proceeding to expound the more technical aspects of the TYCHOS model (as well as the methods and logical processes behind its formulation) I have highlighted in the following chapters a number of intrinsically problematic aspects of the Copernican model that the TYCHOS does away with, corrects or eﬀectively resolves.

Previous Chapter

Next Chapter

The TYCHOS / Proudly powered by WordPress-Web Hosting by GreenGeeks

The TYCHOS
Our Geoaxial Binary Solar System
Chapter 8 — The apparent retrograde motions of our “PType” planets
Here on Earth, we only have a handful of clear, empirically solid clues to help us ﬁgure out the celestial mechanics of our cosmos. If we are going to ignore these precious few indicators, we might as well not bother thinking through the mechanics of our cosmos at all. The apparent “retrograde” motions of our system’s bodies are among these precious few, invaluable observations. The fact that our planets appear to periodically come to a halt — and start moving backwards for a few weeks or months — is something that has mystiﬁed astronomers. However, contrary to popular belief, these (irregular) retrograde motions have never been accounted for in a satisfactory manner.
Now, if you are among those contending that Earth is non-rotating, totally stationary and/or ﬂat as a French pancake, you will still need to explain why our planets periodically appear to reverse course. It is hard to imagine what exactly such an explanation could be, but if you’re determined to believe such theories, you could come up with something to this tune:
“Oh, we occasionally see those planets retrograding because they are, in fact, rocketpropelled spaceships … and from time to time, the pilots will slam their engines into reverse gear!”
While we may laugh at such fanciful theories, it is a poorly-acknowledged fact that the question of the observed irregularity of our outer planets’ retrograde and stationary periods is still far from being settled. To wit, the Copernican/Keplerian model does not adequately account for the irregular nature of these intervals; while the ancients ultimately failed to reconcile them with the Aristotelian ideal of uniform circular motions, a notion which model-makers pursued for millennia.

Above — extract from p. 20, Parallax: The Race to Measure the Cosmos, Publisher: W. H. Freeman (May 1, 2001)
As we saw in Chapter 7, the retrograde motions of Mercury and Venus are incompatible with the Copernican/Keplerian model, since their observed durations are inconsistent with a heliocentric geometry. In fact, the same can be said about the retrograde motions of our so-called “outer planets” (from Jupiter to Pluto) or what we should more correctly refer to as our binary system’s “P-type planets”. We shall start with these and see if the TYCHOS can overcome the incongruities aﬄicting the heliocentric interpretation of our outer planets’ irregular motions in our skies. Unless you are an astrophysicist, you might wonder what a “P-Type” planet is. A clear explanation can be found at this web page of the Vienna University’s department of Astrophysics.
Dynamics and observational prospects of co-orbital planets in double stars by Dr. Richard Schwarz (2017)
Please overlook the highly elliptical orbital shapes in this graphic from the above site and note the P-Type planet’s behavior in relation to the

central celestial bodies.
P-Type planets are bodies that circle around a binary system. They are circumbinary. In the case of our own Sun-Mars binary system, these would be our outer (a.k.a. “superior” or “Jovian”) planets from Jupiter outwards: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. As of the Copernican theory, the retrograde motions of our outer planets are meant to be caused by Earth periodically “overtaking them” as we hurtle around the Sun around our “inside lane”, faster than each one of them.
For instance, Jupiter is observed to periodically stop moving (remaining stationary for a variable number of days) and start “retrograding” for about 120 days (i.e.; moving in the opposite direction of its ordinary motion). Curiously though, Jupiter can remain stationary for as many as 24 days or for as little as 12 days! This substantial irregularity has been an enigma; what could supposedly cause Jupiter (as it gets routinely overtaken by Earth every thirteen months or so) to take such distinctly longer or shorter “lunch breaks”? This can hardly be imputable to any sort of Keplerian variables or perturbations, for these large disparities between Jupiter’s standstill intervals can occur within relatively short time periods. Let’s have a look at a typical such period (between 2019 and 2020) as predicted by Copernican planetariums:
• On April 2, 2019, Jupiter stops moving, and remains stationary for 17 days.
• Between April 20, 2019 and July 30, 2019, Jupiter is observed to retrograde.
• On July 30, 2019, Jupiter stops again, and remains stationary for 24 days.
• Between August 24, 2019 and May 8, 2020, Jupiter is observed to move prograde.
• On May 8, 2020, Jupiter stops again, and remains stationary for 14 days.
One can only wonder why Jupiter would possibly behave in this way in the Copernican model. Shouldn’t Jupiter remain stationary for a fairly equal number of days, each time it meets up with Earth around their concentric, near-circular orbits?

The TYCHOS model submits the following explanation for this substantial variance, although the reader may have to return to it later on in order to fully conceptualize it (in Chapter 26, I will expound in more detail what I call “a Man’s Yearly Path”, the peculiar loop around which we all “swirl” each year). For now, suﬃce to say that the annual, asymmetrical frame of reference of any earthly observer follows a geometric curve known as a “prolate trochoid”.
A so-called “prolate trochoid”
In order to visualize how such a trochoid can manifest itself in the real world, imagine aﬃxing a little ﬂuorescent sticker on the side of your bicycle tire. If you just spin the wheel around its axis, the sticker will revolve in simple, uniform circles. But if you hop on your bike and start pedalling down the road, passers-by will see your ﬂuorescent sticker tracing such trochoidal loops.
In the TYCHOS, Earth spins once daily around its axis while slowly moving forward. If you could hover above Earth for a full year and ﬁlm a time lapse video of someone lighting a ﬁrecracker outside their house at midnight every night, those ﬂashes will trace a trochoidal path similar to one of the three above loops. We may thus imagine the diﬃculty for earthly observers to make sense of any long-term astronomical observations since they are themselves being carried around this looping trajectory.
This leads us to how the TYCHOS model can geometrically account for Jupiter’s odd behavior. In the TYCHOS, the three well-known motions of Jupiter (prograde, stationary & retrograde) are plotted in my below graphic. The irregularities of Jupiter’s alternating retrograde and prograde motions is caused by the “accelerating and decelerating” transverse displacements of the observer in relation to Jupiter’s (more or less perpendicular to the viewer) direction of travel. Likewise, the duration of Jupiter’s standstill intervals will also ﬂuctuate substantially. This, due to the constantly-variable vectors of the annual trochoidal curve (with respect to Jupiter’s celestial positions) along which any earthly observer will be carried.

Note that Jupiter’s three “stationary intervals” depicted in my above 2019/2020 example clearly correspond to time periods during which an earthly observer’s annual motion will transition between the “x” and “y” coordinate axes constituting the vector components of a Man’s Yearly Path. In fact, all of our “P-Type” planets are observed to behave in similar manners, as they alternate between prograde, stationary & retrograde motions. The irregularity of these various intervals are a natural consequence of our ever-shifting, “non-linear” (or, if you will, “non-uniform”) earthly frame of reference.
Roemer’s Illusion
The Danish astronomer Ole Roemer is famously credited for having ﬁrst determined (or approximated) the speed of light. As the story goes, Roemer made this epochal discovery while observing the motions of Jupiter’s largest moon “Io” (which employs about 42½ hours to revolve around Jupiter). He noticed that the eclipse periods of Io,

as it passed behind Jupiter, were irregular; they lasted longer (as his heliocentric reasoning went) “whenever Earth was receding from Jupiter” and they lasted for a few minutes less “whenever Earth was approaching Jupiter”. According to his calculations, the total time-discrepancy amounted to about 22 minutes. He came to the conclusion that this 22-minute diﬀerence (subsequently adjusted to 17 minutes) was due to the time needed for light to travel across the distance of 2AU (twice the distance between Earth and the Sun). In the TYCHOS, Roemer’s observations have a plain, “geoptical” explanation I’ve illustrated below. Whenever Jupiter appears to retrograde, the eclipses of Io will appear (as viewed from Earth) to last for a slightly shorter time than when Jupiter moves prograde. The time diﬀerential is thus nothing more than an angular “spacetime” optical illusion.
Please note that my above graphic isn’t about disproving the currently-accepted velocity of light (approx. 300,000 km/s). It is only meant to show that Roemer’s acclaimed (yet misinterpreted) observational discovery can be readily accounted for by the TYCHOS model without the need for Earth’s supposed orbital motion around the Sun. In short, the irregular periods of Io’s eclipses are quite simply a direct consequence of Jupiter’s alternating motions as viewed from Earth. One may say that the history of astronomy is riddled with illusory conclusions. One of the weaker spots of the human mind appears to be its spatial perceptions when confronted with the many

tricks of perspective that nature loves to play on us. Previous Chapter

Next Chapter

The TYCHOS / Proudly powered by WordPress-Web Hosting by GreenGeeks

The TYCHOS
Our Geoaxial Binary Solar System
Chapter 9 — The retrograde periods of Venus and Mercury
The retrograde periods of Venus and Mercury (the Sun’s two moons) occur in a similar mode as those of Mars: they both produce teardrop-shaped loops as they transit in inferior conjunction with the Sun. It is a perfectly natural, dynamic geometric pattern (known in geometry as an epitrochoid) yet one that the human mind has, understandably, some diﬃculty to conceptualize. My below graphic, however, should make it easy to visualize how and why these “teardrop loops” occur.
As you can see, this type of retrograde motion is not merely an illusion of perspective, like the so-called “retrograde” motion that aﬀects our P-Type planets as they appear to move backwards against the background stars. In this case, the backward motion is part of the actual physical path traced by the observed object. In the above fanciful picture, our cowboy’s torch will leave a teardrop-shaped smoke plume because the torch actually swirled around that patch of sky. The “teardrop loop” is simply a consequence of the horse’s forward motion coupled with the gyrating lasso’s circular motion.

Watch animation of Mercury’s path around the Sun Watch animation of Venus’s path around the Sun
If you are ready to introduce yourself to a simulation of the full TYCHOS system, please read Chapter 21 on the Tychosium 2-D program. The below screenshot from the Tychosium highlights a retrograde period of each of the Sun’s two moons.
RETROGRADE PERIODS OF MERCURY & VENUS The retrograde period of Mercury lasts for ca. 22.828 days on average — or 1/16th of a solar year. The retrograde period of Venus lasts for ca. 45.656 days on average — or 1/8th of a solar year.
During these briefer periods, we see Mercury and Venus moving in the opposite direction of the Sun. Thereafter, they resume so-called “prograde” motion, moving West-to-East in our skies, along with the Sun.

PROGRADE PERIODS OF MERCURY & VENUS
The prograde period of Mercury lasts for ca. 94 days on average.
The prograde period of Venus lasts for ca. 538.7 days on average.
During these much longer prograde periods, we see Mercury and Venus moving as we expect, in the same direction as the Sun.
Note that there is nothing elliptical at all about the lunar motions of Venus and Mercury. They both perform uniformly circular orbits around their orbiting host, the Sun, maintaining their consistent and steady distances relative to her.
As can be readily visualized in the two above-linked animations, what needs to be understood about these odd, “teardrop-shaped” retrograde loops (performed by Venus, Mercury and Mars) is that they are entirely dependent on the orbital speed of these bodies as they revolve around the Sun. For instance, let us imagine for a moment that Mercury’s orbital speed were 8X slower than it is in reality. Well, here is a simulation of how Mercury would behave in relation to the moving Sun.
Hypothetical “Mercury” orbiting approximately 8X slower
As you can see, if only Mercury were moving 8X slower, then it would have no retrograde period. From Earth, we would just see Mercury as a moon revolving around the Sun – at times in front of it and at other times behind it – yet always moving in the same direction as its host. The retrograde motions of Mercury, Venus and Mars are a consequence of their relatively high orbital speeds while all of them simply revolve in uniform circular motion around the Sun, along its annual path round the Earth.
Let’s now take a closer look at some other aspects of our Sun’s two moons, Mercury and Venus.

Previous Chapter

Next Chapter

The TYCHOS / Proudly powered by WordPress-Web Hosting by GreenGeeks

The TYCHOS
Our Geoaxial Binary Solar System
Chapter 10 — Mercury — the Sun’s junior moon
Mercury was a grave matter of concern for astronomers in the last century, with its seemingly erratic behavior. Since the precession of its perihelion was in conﬂict with Newtonian predictions (thus threatening the long-established and vigorouslydefended heliocentric model), Einstein pulled out of his hat some fancy equations that, basically, told us that we cannot trust our eyes.
As it turns out, Mercury’s behavior is not so erratic at all. Yes, its orbital plane is slightly inclined (as viewed from Earth) in relation to the Sun’s orbital plane, which causes its elevation vis-à-vis the Sun to oscillate quite a bit, yet it simply revolves around the Sun in lunar fashion. It rotates around its axis 2X faster than Venus and 3X slower than our Moon — and orbits the Sun once in 116.88 days (on average) — which is precisely 4X the time needed for our Moon to orbit once around Earth (29.22 days).
Now, these would all be rather odd “coincidences” under the Copernican model under which the orbital paths of Mercury and Earth’s Moon are entirely separate and independent of each other. Conversely, Mercury and our Moon’s many uncanny common traits would appear to make far more sense within the TYCHOS model, wherein Mercury revolves around the Sun, which in turn revolves around the Moon and Earth. We will see further on (in chapter 29) that our Moon and Mercury are, indeed, very much “intimately related”.
Is Mercury tidally or magnetically locked to the Sun in some way, 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 “tidally locked” with the Sun (meaning that it always shows the same face to the Sun). That was the year that oﬃcial NASA and Russian Space Agency sources announced with great fanfare that, according to their modern radar data, Mercury was not, after all, tidally locked with the Sun. This caused an uproar in the astronomy community and the question is still debated to this day. As I will now demonstrate, however, Mercury is most likely tidally locked with the Sun (and so is its “big sister” Venus, which I’ve expounded further on) much like our Moon is tidally locked with Earth.

Mercury’s Short and Long ESI (Empiric Sidereal Interval)
Every 7 years, an Earthly observer will see Mercury realign six times with any given star at ca. 358-day intervals. However, the 7th time, it will “run late” by about 50 days and only line up again with the star in 408 days.

Why does this take place?

You guessed it. Just like Mars, Mercury also has two Empiric Sidereal Intervals: a “Short ESI” and a “Long ESI”.

In 14 years, Mercury completes 12 Short ESIs (of ca. 358 days) and two Long ESI (about 50 days longer). Below is a charted sample of a 14-year Mercury cycle (from July 6, 1998 to July 5, 2012) which I compiled with the NEAVE online Planetarium.

I chose – for a reason that should become clear – to start counting Mercury’s yearly revolutions at a given moment in time (just as it entered a Long ESI) as it transited in front of a given star which I used as reference. My celestial reference point was the star “Asellus Australis” in the Cancer constellation.

I found that Mercury lined up with my reference star on the following dates:

LONG: SHORT: SHORT: SHORT: SHORT: SHORT: SHORT: LONG: SHORT: SHORT: SHORT: SHORT: SHORT: SHORT:

July 6, 1998 Start Aug 19, 1999 Aug 11, 2000 Aug 3, 2001 July 25, 2002 July 17, 2003 July 9, 2004 July 4, 2005 Aug 16, 2006 Aug 8, 2007 July 30, 2008 July 22, 2009 July 14, 2010 July 7, 2011

→

Aug 19, 1999

→

Aug 11, 2000

→

Aug 3, 2001

→

July 25, 2002

→

July 17, 2003

→

July 9, 2004

→

July 4, 2005

→

Aug 16, 2006

→

Aug 8, 2007

→

July 30, 2008

→

July 22, 2009

→

July 14, 2010

→

July 7, 2011

→

July 5, 2012 End

=

409

=

358

=

357

=

356

=

357

=

358

=

360

=

408

=

357

=

357

=

357

=

357

=

358

=

364

TOTAL : 5113 days
Average sidereal period of Mercury:
5113 / 14 ≈ 365.22
Note that this is almost exactly 1 solar year. (Please see Chapters 31 and 32 regarding the precise length of a year in the TYCHOS model).
As you can see, we have a pattern which repeats every 7 years – yielding a mean ﬁgure of Mercury’s sidereal period amounting to 365.22 days. In other words, if you know when and where to start computing Mercury’s celestial motions, you will ﬁnd that Mercury is very much locked with the Sun’s yearly orbit around Earth. This is because Mercury is a moon of the Sun.
It is truly perplexing that, as far as I know, no one has noticed to this day the fact that Mercury’s sidereal periods can be averaged out (in spite of their irregularity) to nigh precisely 1 solar year. To be sure, this would constitute a most astounding “coincidental happenstance” under the Copernican model (wherein Earth and Mercury supposedly revolve at diﬀerent speeds around the Sun).
You may now be asking yourself, “Why does the TYCHOS model contend that Mercury’s mean synodic period amounts to 116.88 days rather than 115.88 days as most astronomy tables show?”
Here is a series of 14 intervals I have personally veriﬁed for Mercury’s synodic periods, over a 1636-day time span.
Note: a synodic period is the time interval between two successive conjunctions of any given celestial body with the Sun.

14 successive Mercury Synodic Periods

Source: NEAVE Planetarium

Oct 24, 2003

→

March 3, 2004

=

March 3, 2004

→

June 18, 2004

=

131 days 107 days

June 18, 2004 Oct 5, 2004 Feb 14, 2005 June 3, 2005 Sept 17, 2005 Jan 26, 2006 May 19, 2006 Aug 31, 2006 Jan 7, 2007 May 3, 2007 Aug 15, 2007 Dec 18, 2007

→

Oct 5, 2004

→

Feb 14, 2005

→

June 3, 2005

→

Sept 17, 2005

→

Jan 26, 2006

→

May 19, 2006

→

Aug 31, 2006

→

Jan 7, 2007

→

May 3, 2007

→

Aug 15, 2007

→

Dec 18, 2007

→

April 16, 2008

Average:

=

109 days

=

132 days

=

109 days

=

106 days

=

131 days

=

113 days

=

104 days

=

129 days

=

116 days

=

104 days

=

125 days

=

120 days

1636 / 14 ≈ 116.857 days

Hence, my 116.88-day value for Mercury’s true mean synodic period appears to be virtually on the mark.

Previous Chapter

Next Chapter

The TYCHOS / Proudly powered by WordPress-Web Hosting by GreenGeeks

The TYCHOS
Our Geoaxial Binary Solar System
Chapter 11 — Venus — the Sun’s senior moon
It has been observed that Venus invariably presents the same face (to us earthly observers) each time it transits closest to Earth, every 584.4 days or so. Note that Venus is, of all our surrounding celestial objects, the one that passes closest to Earth.
As it is, this apparent “tidal” locking of Venus with Earth is, still today, a complete mystery to modern astronomy. Of course, according to the Copernican model, Earth travels at its own speed around a larger orbit than Venus, which in turn travels somewhat faster around its smaller orbit, yet Venus always appears to show the same face to us every time it passes closest to Earth (when Venus is at so-called inferior conjunction with the Sun). Well, and once again, this would be another “extraordinary coincidence” as viewed under the Copernican model.
“The 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 eﬀect or merely a coincidence is not known.”
— NinePlanets.org — Venus
“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?”
— ABC Australia Television’s The Lab — Venus, 2017
“Whether this relationship arose by chance or is the result of some kind of tidal locking with Earth is unknown.”

— Wikipedia entry on “Tidal locking”
“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.”
— Orbital resonance and Solar cycles by P.A. Semi (March 2009)
Everyone knows of this, but who can explain it? In the TYCHOS this “puzzling” fact is considerably less mysterious. Venus, just like Mercury, is tidally locked with the Sun, quite simply because the two of them are moons of the Sun. Our own Moon, as we well know, is also tidally locked with its host planet.
Venus employs 584.4 days to circle the Sun once. This is somewhat longer than 1.5 solar years (365.25 X 1.5 = 547.875 days), the diﬀerence being:
584.4 – 547.875 = 36.525 days
This is 1/10th of 365.25 days and 1/16th of 584.4 days. Why have I noted this?
As we will see further on, for every 16 solar revolutions around Earth, Venus conjuncts with the Sun 10 times (as seen from Earth). Hence, every 8 years, Venus conjuncts with the Sun 5 times. Every 16 years Venus aligns with Mars (albeit at diametrically opposed sides of Earth) and every 32 years or so Venus and Mars conjunct, this time on the same side of Earth.
The entire system is not just composed of magnetically-locked micro systems but is itself a perfectly synchronized system with each component relating to the other.
Venus has an 8-year cycle (2922 days) during which Venus completes 5 synodic periods of 584.4 days each (or 1.6 years).
365.25 X 8 = 2922 days
and
584.4 X 5 = 2922 days

As you may note for later, this is one hundred 29.22-day periods — i.e.; our “TMSP”.
(The TMSP, our Moon’s True Mean Synodic Period of 29.22 days, will be expounded and illustrated in Chapter 27.)

Verifying the TYCHOS average value of 584.4 days for Venus’ synodic period
Someone may object that the average Venus’ synodic period (as stated in oﬃcial astronomy tables) is 583.9 days and not 584.4. I challenge the ﬁgure with the following evidence. Here is a series of ﬁve successive synodic periods which I have personally veriﬁed perusing the NEAVE Planetarium.

It is also something that anyone can easily verify for themselves. The synodic cycle of a planet is the number of days it takes for it to realign with the Sun as seen from Earth. All planets’ orbits are slightly oﬀ-center with respect to the body they revolve around (though please note this is entirely diﬀerent from Kepler’s presumed “elliptical orbits” which do not exist as such in the TYCHOS).

These synodic period values ﬂuctuate somewhat over time. We know that Venus realigns ﬁve times with the Sun in 8 years. We know that after 8 years, it roughly realigns with the Sun and the same star. Since we know these things, we should therefore obtain a more correct and signiﬁcant mean synodic period by averaging ﬁve synodic periods of Venus.

Aug 13, 2011 Mar 24, 2013 Oct 25, 2014 June 5, 2016 Jan 8, 2018

→

Mar 24, 2013

=

→

Oct 25, 2014

=

→

June 5, 2016

=

→

Jan 8, 2018

=

→

Aug 13, 2019

=

Total: 2922 days (or exactly 365.25 X 8)

589 days 580 days 589 days 582 days 582 days

Average length of Venus synodic period:

2922 / 5 = 584.4

The TYCHOS “584.4” value for the mean synodic period of Venus is thus beyond dispute, since it can be empirically observed.
As current theory has it, Venus rotates around its axis in a clockwise fashion. This, however, is an unproven claim which originates (much like the supposedly unreliable and “non-tidally-locked Mercury” story) from purported radar surveys performed back in the 1960’s. Countless debates about this speciﬁc issue can be found in astronomy literature yet none has ever reached a deﬁnitive conclusion about this matter.
In the TYCHOS, the reason why Venus appears to rotate around its axis in clockwise fashion is self-evident; since Venus employs more than one year (in fact, 1.6 solar years) to complete one rotation around its axis and to return to its perigee, Venus will appear (to an earthly observer) to rotate clockwise — that is, in the opposite direction of its revolution around Earth!

Previous Chapter

Next Chapter

The TYCHOS / Proudly powered by WordPress-Web Hosting by GreenGeeks

The TYCHOS
Our Geoaxial Binary Solar System
Chapter 12 — Tilts, inclinations, obliquities & oscillations
The well-known notion of Earth’s so-called “axial tilt” is, of course, a fundamental requisite for the Copernican model to work, since Earth’s alleged obliquity is meant to account for our alternating seasons. The most popularly-held, yet academicallysupported theory as to exactly why Earth’s axis would be skewed at an angle 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 left it tilted at an angle.”
— What Is Earth’s Axial Tilt or Obliquity? (Time and Date)
You may be forgiven for raising your eyebrows at the above explanation which reeks of journalistic sensationalism à-la-The Discovery Channel. To be sure, Earth’s “axial tilt” ranks among the most sacrosanct axioms of (Copernican) astronomy. After all, if Earth were truly orbiting around the Sun, the only possible explanation for our seasons would be that its axis is tilted in relation to its orbital plane.
In the TYCHOS, Earth is also tilted at about 23° in relation to its orbital plane, yet with some notable diﬀerences: it is the Sun that revolves around Earth (and not vice versa), while our planet’s own orbital motion proceeds (over a full Great Year) with our Northern hemisphere tipping “outwards” (i.e.; towards the Sun’s external orbital path) at all times.
Interestingly, and for all the uncertainties aﬄicting modern astrophysics, it appears to be beyond dispute that our planet’s Northern hemisphere is much “heavier” than its Southern hemisphere. In any event, it is a notion seemingly agreed upon by both mainstream and dissident scientists alike:
“The northern hemisphere consists of the great land masses and

higher elevations, from a mechanical aspect, the Earth is top heavy, the northern hemisphere must attract a stronger pull from the Sun than the southern hemisphere. This lack of uniformity should impact on the movements of the Earth.”
— p. 164, Big Bang or Big Bluﬀ by Hans Binder (May 2011)
It would thus seem intuitively logical, even to devout Newtonian advocates, that Earth’s heavier part would hang “outwards” as our planet circles around its own orbit. Conversely, it is hard to fathom how Earth’s axis would maintain its ﬁxed, peculiar inclination while circling around the Sun as of the heliocentric theory. Yet, one of the latter’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 18, the hypothesized retrograde “wobble” (or “third motion”) of Earth has been thoroughly disproved in recent years.
On the other hand, as illustrated in my next graphic, the TYCHOS provides an uncomplicated solution to account for the secular stellar precession and our everchanging pole stars. The observed motions of our pole stars are simply caused by Earth’s slow, “clockwise” motion around what I have called the “PVP orbit” (PolarisVega-Polaris). Earth employs 25344 solar years to complete one PVP revolution. Our current Northern and Southern pole stars are Polaris and Sigma Octantis, but over time they will be replaced by other stars such as Vega (ca. 11,000 years from now) and Eta Columba (ca. 12,000 years).

The Sun’s “mysterious” 6 or 7 degree tilt
“It’s such a deep-rooted mystery and so diﬃcult to explain that people just don’t talk about it.”
You may have never heard of it, but one of the most baﬄing mysteries in astronomy is the 6° (or 7°) tilt of the Sun — or, as some have it, what is tilted is the “plane of all of our planets’ orbits with respect to the Sun”.
Here’s more of my extract from an article on Astronomy.com musing about this still unexplained riddle:
“The Sun’s rotation was measured for the ﬁrst 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. This is a longstanding 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.”
— Planet Nine may be responsible for tilting the Sun by Shannon Stirone (2016)
As a matter of fact, this tilt of the Sun’s rotation axis with respect to our ecliptic plane was known long before 1850; it was discovered by Christoph Scheiner back in the 1600’s during his extensive 20-year-long sunspot observations. His work was richly illustrated and published in his monumental treatise Rosa Ursina (1630).
“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.”
— 1610: First telescopic observations of sunspots, Solar Physics Historical Timeline by UCAR/NCAR 2018
In the below illustration by Cristoph Scheiner, I have highlighted the -6 and + 6° inclinations of his observed sunspot transits in January and July.

Needless to say, this tilt is no trivial matter. It was and still is a crucial issue with regards to the entire heliocentrism-vs-geocentrism debate. In fact, the “sunspotissue” triggered a bitter and infamous 30-year-long feud between Galileo and Christoph Scheiner (who, incidentally, was a staunch supporter of the Tychonic model).
To understand the importance of this issue, you will just have to ask yourself the following questions: “Why would the Sun or all of our planets’ orbits be tilted at 6° (or at any degree) to each other? Isn’t the Sun supposed to be a gigantic central mass around which all of our planets are revolving around? And if so, why then would our planets’ orbits not be co-planar with the Sun’s rotation around itself? Can Newtonian or Einstenian physics explain it?” The answer to this last question is a deﬁnite “No”.
Today, astronomers still refer to this six-degree tilt as a “deep-rooted mystery” as we can read on PHYS.org:
“All of the planets orbit in a ﬂat plane with respect to the sun, roughly within a couple degrees of each other. That plane, however, rotates at a six-degree tilt with respect to the sun — giving the appearance that the sun itself is cocked oﬀ at an angle. Until now, no one had found a compelling explanation to produce such an eﬀect. ‘It’s such a deep-rooted mystery and so diﬃcult to explain that people just don’t talk about it‘, says Brown, the Richard and Barbara Rosenberg Professor of Planetary Astronomy.”
— Curious tilt of the sun traced to undiscovered planet by California Institute of Technology (2016)

What is observed is that the Sun’s North Pole tips towards us in September and away from us in March.
“The Sun’s axis tilts almost 7.5 degrees out of perpendicular to Earth’s orbital plane. (The orbital plane of Earth is commonly called the ecliptic.) Therefore, as we orbit the Sun, there’s one day out of the year when the Sun’s North Pole tips most toward Earth. This happens at the end of the ﬁrst week in September. Six months later, at the end of the ﬁrst week in March, it’s the Sun’s South Pole that tilts maximumly towards Earth. There 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. This happens at the end of the ﬁrst week in in June, and six months later, at the end of the ﬁrst week of December.”
— The Tilt of the Sun’s Axis by Bruce McClure (June 2006)
In the TYCHOS model, those observed oscillations of the Sun may be plainly accounted for as follows – with no need for any elusive, yet-to-be-discovered planets. It is indeed remarkable how much of modern science appears to base its assumptions upon postulated, invisible matter — in other words, upon thin air!
In July and January, the sunspots (as documented by Christoph Scheiner) will be inclined as shown in my below diagram. The Sun’s North Pole will tip towards Earth in September and the Sun’s South pole will tip towards Earth in March.

Of course, we should now be curious to ﬁnd out whether these “visual pole ﬂips” of Mars and the Sun (as viewed from Earth) are in any way symmetrical or synchronized. Indeed, they are! Whenever Mars transits in opposition around a September equinox, Mars shows us more of its South pole, while the Sun shows us more of its North pole; whereas when Mars ﬁnds itself in opposition around a March equinox, this is inverted. The Sun and Mars truly appear to have a very special relationship of the “harmoniously-opposed” kind!
But there’s more. Around the September and March equinoxes, Venus and Mercury (our Sun’s two moons, as posited by the TYCHOS model) are observed to transit either “above” or “below” the Sun – that is, in relation to our line of sight. Venus, for instance, is seen passing “below” the Sun in September (by about -9° as it transits in perigee, i.e.; closest to Earth), whereas it is seen passing “above” the Sun (by about +9°) in March. This hefty 18° variation constitutes, all by itself, a spiny problem for the Copernican theory; as you can read in this NASA fact sheet, the inclination of Venus’ orbit in relation to Earth is currently claimed to be no more than 3.4°.
As VENUS transits in perigee in September, we will see VENUS about 9° below the Sun.
As VENUS transits in perigee in March, we will see VENUS about 9° above the Sun.

As it is, Mercury is also seen below and above the Sun in September and March (by ca. -3° and +3° respectively). In synthesis, we may conclude that the observational data empirically supports two core aspects of the TYCHOS model:
1: That the Sun and Mars are a binary pair of “cosmic dancers”, which even share symmetrical seasonal inclinations. 2: That Venus and Mercury are the moons of the Sun, both orbits of which are co-planar with the Sun’s celestial equator.
It should be noted that, when Earth’s axial tilt is added to the equation, the combined

tilt angles (as viewed from Earth) of the Sun, according to a recent Australian study, will eventually register a maximum variation of 30.5°.
“The Sun’s tilt causes its poles to nod with respect to a terrestrial observer. Sometimes the north pole is just visible, and sometimes the south pole is visible. This changing angle in a plane toward and away from the observer is termed the B angle, and as expected, it varies from +7 to -7 degrees throughout an Earth year. In the plane of the sky ( the plane perpendicular to the observer’s line of sight), the solar axis appears to rotate back and forth throughout the year. The range of this angle, designated the P angle, is from -26 to +26 degrees. We might initially expect a P angle variation of +/- 30.5 degrees (23.5 + 7 ). However, the relative orientations of the Sun and the Earth at this time do not allow us to perceive this maximum variation, although over many centuries this will change.”
— The Orientation of the Sun and Earth in Space by Australian Space Academy (2017)
As a brief anecdotal aside, it is interesting to note that Galileo (a vociferous crusader for the Copernican model) seemingly perceived Cristoph Scheiner’s sunspot observations as a threat to the heliocentric theory. Notoriously, Galileo engaged in ﬁerce verbal battles with a number of astronomers of his time, often claiming priority over any new discoveries made with the aid of the telescope.
As Scheiner (outraged by Galileo’s accusations of plagiarism) decided to move from Ingolstadt to Rome in order to better defend his work, the bitter feud between Galileo and Scheiner turned ugly. You will have to read what that great man of science, Galileo, had to say about his German opponent whom he calls a “brute”, a “pig”, a “malicious ass”, a “poor devil” and a “rabid dog”!

On Sunspots Translations of letters by Galileo Galilei and Christoph Scheiner, University of
Chicago Press (2010)
You will thus have to forgive me for suspecting that Galileo (for reasons I won’t go into here) had ulterior motives other than advancing cosmological knowledge. In any case, his most acclaimed telescopic discoveries (the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter) did not contradict in any way the Tychonic model’s basic premises. To be sure, Galileo is known to have virtually ignored Tycho Brahe’s and Longomontanus’ work.
“After 1610, when Galileo engaged himself fully in astronomy and cosmology, he showed little 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.”
— Galileo in early modern Denmark, 1600-1650 by Helge Kragh
One has to wonder why Galileo Galilei — the man hailed as the “father of the scientiﬁc method” — would have been so dismissive of his illustrious colleagues (Brahe and Longomontanus) who, at the time, were perhaps the most highlyregarded astronomers in Europe.
“Galileo has been called the ‘father of observational astronomy’ the ‘father of modern physics’, the ‘father of the scientiﬁc method’, and even the ‘father of science’.”
— Wikipedia entry on “Galileo Galilei”

The Sun’s epitrochoidal oscillation
As I stumbled upon a French website which hosts the below animation, I was pleasantly surprised to read their caption describing the same: “Le schéma conceptuel montre le mouvement de type épitrocoïdal du Soleil autour du barycentre du système solaire.” This translates to: “This conceptual schematic shows the epitrochoidal motion of the Sun around the barycenter of the solar system”.
Above — from Epitrochoid, Epitrochoide by Robert Ferréol, Jacques Mandonnet (2006)
In other words, the Sun’s subtle motion around our (alleged) “system’s barycenter” follows an epitrochoidal pattern which very much appears to mirror the epitrochoidal motion of Mars around the Sun! The reason for this oscillation is currently explained as follows:
“The 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 little 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.”
— Ask an Astronomer: Does the Sun orbit the Earth as well as the Earth orbiting the Sun? (July 2015, Cornell University)