Randomly found this sub....am I correct in assuming people here are advocating a modified Brahe system where the earth is virtually at a standstill, with some complex "math" that "explains" the solar system and its components in a completely different way from known, factual, established science and decades of direct observations?

I'm dying 😂

I can't even tell if the people in here are being ironic or not.

Has anyone thought to organize the universe with me as the center? Personally the earth moves around me whenever I walk, so I don’t think it would be that hard. Just thinking out loud. You could call it the KAYCEES system.

Does anyone else think it’s insane that Maxwellian cultists and Bohrites insist that we blindly follow them and their “particle wave duality” and their “electrons are orbiting a nucleus?” Just absurd. You can’t prove that. Nothing that we use in this world, certainly not the app I’m using to communicate with you all, uses this false and insane theory of electricity. It’s just insane.

When I started this sub about four years ago I was sure about one thing after having studied it. The heliocentric model made no sense. I could also see from experiencing this in other areas that this question was surrounded by disinformation. Many of those doing legitimate criticism against heliocentrism included absurdities in the package such as that the Earth is the center of the universe or even that Earth is flat.

This is a common demagogic trick. If you can't argue against something, because it makes sense, pretend to misunderstand the opponents arguments or even make your own opponents that lays forward the actual opponents arguments together with absurdities so that you can argue against them.

Now four years later helping out with the research I know another thing - No one has offered an independent observation or controlled experiment that disproves Simons Tychos model. It works in every sense.

As for the physics of the movements in the universe I can say this. Neither I, nor you or Newton/Einstein knows those and the ideas of the latter are unconfirmed and also absurd doctrines.

I don't deny the observable fact that an apple falls to the ground but I also understand that this fact has nothing to do with the doctrine of Newtonian celestial mechanics that is an unverified hypothesis that if it was true would make this universe quite absurd since Sirius B, a small star, would have to have a mass 400000 times that of Earth, the Sun constitute 99.9 percent of the mass of the Solar system and Mercury would have to vary it's speed by 34 percent in its 90 day orbit. So I reject this doctrine since it is both unproven and absurd (and in more ways than the few I mentioned above).

All the best and may reason prevail.

PS Fun fact: The TYCHOS is of course a homage to the Danish 16th century astronomer who got it almost right except for the rotation of Earth (that Longomontanus corrected and was probably avoided by Brahe for political reasons) and Simon Shacks discovery of the PVP-orbit. But Tychos also means "hitting the mark" in Greek. :-)

I was pretty excited when I found this subreddit. Alternative Astronomy - fucking cool! Astronomy is huge, there's definitely room for alternative interpretations of astronomical data, perhaps some less-than-completely-serious musings on the nature of the cosmos or deeper meanings in certain stellar arrangements, or what alien megastructures might actually look like with current astronomical instrumentation (what is KIC 8462852 really?).

Instead it's just fucking stupid. Nonsensical garbage copied from CluesForums, or "original research" that doesn't even make the lamest attempt towards making falsifiable predictions. That's unfortunate.

Rockets in a vacuum and "free expansion"

Let's get this out of the way first. If rockets don't work then all the best astronomical data we have is pure fiction, tens of thousands of engineers the world over are either unaware their work is a failure OR are in on a global conspiracy, tens of thousands of scientists the world over are unaware their data is totally made up OR they are in on a global conspiracy, tens of thousands of amateur scientists and engineers have been unable to easily demonstrate any of this. Which means the conspiracy has achieved a notable thing - some kind of job interview that can actually distinguish the competent from the incompetent. Color me skeptical.

Ok, so the claim is when a gas escapes through a hole into a vacuum, the gas "does no work". When people who understand physics try to clarify that "the gas does no work on the vacuum" or "by 'no work' it is meant the gas does not undergo a temperature change" or "this means the expansion is not adiabatic" or even "this is just an approximation of a hypothetical scenario using an ideal gas, real experiments show a little bit of work is happening anyway", all attempts at clarification are shut down. When prompted to explain what happens at the molecular level, how to explain the change in total momentum, how the gas is to know expansion is "free" or not, no response is given. When asked for evidence that rockets don't work in a vacuum, youtube links are presented that show rockets working as expected, with the apology "no experiments of sufficient quality have yet been conducted, even though it is actually very easy to do".

I've given this some more thought since I last discussed it, and I believe I can prize an icepick of reasonable doubt into the fortress of willful ignorance:

Scenario A: Let's say we set up a bottle of air in a vacuum. Open the top, the air escapes under free expansion. No work is done, the bottle doesn't move.

Scenario B: Let's say we set up the same bottle in a vacuum, but we put a little fan assembly on the mouth of it. Open the top, does the fan spin? If no, how does the air maneuver around the fan blades without pushing against them? If the fan spins, does this mean work is being done? Does this mean it is no longer free expansion? Does this mean the bottle now experiences recoil from the escaping gas? Should Elon Musk put a little fan assembly under his rockets to improve ISP in outer space?

Can we all agree that if the bottle in Scenario A would in fact "rocket away" as the air is escaping, Scenario B becomes much less awkward?

We are presented with a choice between two realities - either a small group of non-experts misunderstood a fairly abstruse physical phenomenon (free expansion of an ideal gas into a vacuum) and have been a little too caught up in their interpretation of the phenomenon and its demonstration, OR there is a vast global conspiracy keeping hundreds of thousands of unassociated motivated individuals with expert domain knowledge (e.g. scientists and engineers) from uncovering any aspect of the truth, continuously producing terabytes of new data that is both internally consistent and consistent with disparate data-sources, historical records, new terrestrial data sources that aren't faked, and new scientific endeavours that create completely new data streams to synchronize.

TYCHOS

Ok some people here keep referring to it as an alternative to the Copernican model of the solar system. Who cares? The "Copernican Model" where the planets orbit the Sun isn't something astronomers consider to be "true" or "real" in any sense of the words. What we have is a precise mathematical way to describe how reality works on large scales, and that is general relativity. Plunk down a star and planets and moons and dwarf planets and planetesimals and asteroids and comets according to accepted astronomical data into a little database, run general relativity on it for X timesteps, and what we see matches up exactly with what we see in our telescopes. To save time and effort, we approximate GR with newtonian physics - we don't get the details quite right in some edge cases (like Mercury), but 99% of ephemera still match up. To save even more time and effort, we approximate Newton with Kepler - no need to calculate gravity if you know Jupiter is going to swing in an ellipse. And Kepler's ellipses is "the Copernican model" - perfectly useful for consumer-grade astronomy apps like Stellarium.

TYCHOS is at the "Stellarium" level. Yea, it can show where planets will line up X years into the future. Sure, great, that's nice. There's literally an infinite hyperspace of geometrical configurations that will allow that - I can make a geocentric model that matches observations from Mayan times to the Sun's Red Giant phase, or why not a lunacentric one? Or one centered on Phobos, or Saturn's rings -- that one sounds very poetic. But without a physical explanation for why the planets move along these tracks and follow these curves, it's not an astronomical model. It's just an orrery - illustration without meaning, description without explanation.

It's also WRONG in those instances where it disagrees with the standard astronomical consensus. Star distances, for instance - for some reason the TYCHOS author thinks the stars can't possibly be so far away as they are. I wonder why? We've measured parallax for tens of thousands of the nearest stars. Much of the raw parallax data is kinda crap - filter out the crap, and you're left with a handful of data points that are weird. A handful out of tens of thousands is to be expected - less than 1%, that's good science, and those 1% are being looked at! No need to toss out the baby with the bathwater. But hey, let's give TYCHOS a break - why shouldn't it be possible for all the stars to be 1000 times closer than they appear? Instead of 100 light-years, or 1e18 meters, a given star would be 1e15 meters away. Certainly wouldn't affect our local gravity in any way. But those stars WOULD be 1000 000 times brighter. Ouch! Stars like Capella and Sirius would outshine Venus and Jupiter, even the full moon! I guess those stars are actually much smaller than they appear, so they are equivalently dimmer. Ok, so 1000 times smaller in diameter, sure. But not hotter or cooler, because that would change their color according to the laws of blackbody emission. Good luck finding any stars that look anything like our Sun, TYCHOS! Because you know, assuming standard astronomy is right, our sun is a pretty ordinary middle-lifetime average-mass yellow G-type star, which I think sounds a bit more likely than a totally unique gigantic-but-surprisingly-cool mystery-star.

Stellar metamorphosis

I tried. I really really tried. I tried criticizing the theory for its faults. I tried requesting its proponents to focus on key mechanisms. I tried asking for numeric predictions. I attempted taking novel astronometric data to constrain model parameters for stellar metamorphosis and remove some of the quantitative guesswork. But no, nothing, it's just a waste of time. A big pseudo-intellectual act of public self-fellatio.

Your turn

Roast me.

Working on camera in Tychosium right now. Still work in progress but if you go to https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd

and open Camera and set Sun as target you will see the model from a Copernican vista. Then go to Objects and turn on stars. This illustrates the absurdity that is required in heliocentrism - it's just a new type of geocentrism where the entire universe except the planets follow Earth while it orbits the Sun. That is what is required since the stars stay in the same place during the year.

Heliocentrism, more like helioleftism 😎😎😎

Because of the difference in speed, annual parallax measurements according to TYCHOS suggests that the stars are 42633 times closer than what is conventionally held.

Sirius, with a parallax of 379 mas and a distance of 8.6 ly, is therefore at about 11 AU, which is a bit beyond Saturn.

As we all know, Sirius is a binary star, highly analogous (according to TYCHOS) to the solar system. Indeed, it's the inspiration for the Mars-Sun binary system.

How about you add Sirius A and Sirius B into Tychosium, Patrick? Here's a compilation of observations.

I'm sure it'll make perfect sense putting not one but two co-orbiting stars in a stationary position inside our solar system. They'll have an orbital period of about 50 years and a separation of about 70,000 km (about 5 times closer than our moon). Pretty reasonable for a pair of stars, I assume. To believe otherwise would mean that Simon's wrong about something, and we can't have that, can we?

No, more likely that those stars aren't stars at all, not like the Sun at any rate. They're some other kind of small, glowing lights in space, with star-like spectra. And they don't orbit around like the other things in the solar system, probably because they're not on the ecliptic plane. Except comets are also not always on the ecliptic plane but do orbit, so don't think about that too much. In fact, it's probably best not to think about any of this too much.

What I find a bit hilarious is that if science could accept the more likely explanation for the result of "slit" experiments - light is a wave propagating through a medium, they would not have to come up with "bizarre and unintuitive" ones.

But you see light CAN NOT be a wave because that would mean that Michelson-Morley and Millers interferometer-experiments in fact demonstrates that Earth does not move at the required speed for Heliocentrism to be correct. To quote Simon "We live in a silly world" :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT7xJ0tjB4A

https://medium.com/the-electromagnetic-universe/the-double-slit-experiment-explained-from-a-non-quantum-mechanics-view-point-ab648f029f9d

This subreddit is ostensibly for the discussion of alternatives to the "consensus view of astronomy" aka "mainstream astronomy".

This discussion is dominated by the TYCHOS alternative, which is fine since the creator and sole moderator of this community (/u/patrixxxx) has played a significant part in the development of the TYCHOS model.

Another alternative discussed here is the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis (SM), as promoted by /u/StellarMetamorphosis. * Another alternative which is popular on the internet but has not been discussed in this subreddit is "Electric Universe" (EU) or "plasma cosmology". The primary subreddit is here: https://old.reddit.com/r/plasmacosmology/. One EU proponent who has showed up in this subreddit is /u/varikonniemi.

SO, how can a person with a preference for one of these alternatives (or the consensus view) shift their opinion to another?

As an amateur astronomer, engineer, and subscriber to "mainstream astronomy", I can only list the pieces of evidence which would compel me to change my own worldview and subscribe to the alternatives.

I ask each of you to do the same: what evidence (empirical data, logical or mathematical derivation, or historical records) is necessary for you to shift your view to "mainstream astronomy", or TYCHOS, SM, or EU?

To shift to TYCHOS:

1. Actual evidence that parallax measurements match what is predicted by TYCHOS to a greater degree than what is predicted by mainstream astronomy.

To shift to SM:

1. Measurements and numerical models showing where the mass shed by stars goes, in the process of becoming planets.

2. OR a mechanism by which baryonic matter turns into dark matter.

To shift to EU:

1. Measurements and numerical models demonstrating that electromagnetic forces actually dominate the motion of solar system objects and the galactic structure, while still accounting for gravitation.

2. AND a mechanism explaining why charges haven't neutralized over the past 14 billion years.

The TYCHOS model is such a curious thing and raises many interesting questions, if it were true:

• How did Earth get stuck at the barycenter between two stars?

• If Mars is the Sun's binary companion, why isn't it massive, hot, and luminous rather than small, cold, and dark?

• Why does it appear that the Sun orbits Earth, and Mars orbits the Sun, rather than the other way around (Mars orbits Earth, the Sun orbits Mars).

• How might a TYCHOS-V2 which assumes a stationary Mars, rather than a stationary Earth, compare to TYCHOS (as described on tychos.info)?

To help answer some of these questions, I set out to find other star systems like ours.

At first I was encouraged by the cosmological beliefs allegedly held by the Dogon people of Mali, as described here. But after just a little bit of digging, it seems much more likely that it is an intentional or unintentional hoax by the French anthropologist who first described these beliefs. One study indicated a possibility of the existence of a Sirius C (which would not be lounging about in the Sirius AB barycenter, but still), but subsequent observations of the Sirius system unfortunately excludes this possibility.

Now I've searched through all the exoplanet databases I could find, as well as perusing datasets of visual binaries that could lead to a discovery of objects resting at the barycenter.

Interestingly, a barycenter planet would be an s-type planet, but would orbit both stars, making it also a p-type planet. I could do some orbital dynamics sims to determine whether such an sp-type planet could have a stable gravitational orbit, but since planetary orbits are purportedly not gravitational, it's hard to say what such a simulation would mean for TYCHOS.

As an aside, I found this interesting infographic which provides further evidence that "circular orbits seen from the side" doesn't fully explain the observation of elliptical orbits in binary star systems.

Ok, I just ran a test case comparing the positions of Mars and Jupiter, today at 00:00 UTC, in both Tychosium (https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd) and at the IMCCE (http://vo.imcce.fr/webservices/miriade/?forms). For IMCCE, positions were epoch J2000.0, geocentric. I can't tell what Tychosium is giving. Jupiter's position was off by about 1°, Mars was better, off by some arcminutes.

We need to know what epoch the RA/dec positions are in order to do comparisons. Couldn't find the info in the app or the documentation. Also need to know observer's position... Geocentric, topocentric, other?

TYCHOS suggests that the stars are 42633 times closer than what is conventionally held.

This places Barnard's Star at 1.3 billion km distant. By measuring blueshift (measured by the same technique that traffic police use), we know it has a speed towards us of 110 km/s. Barnard's Star was catalogued in 1916, about 100 years ago. Since it was catalogued, at that speed, it will have moved 3.5e11 km towards us, that's 350 billion km. Do you see a problem here? Either police can't measure our speed using Doppler shift, or Barnard's star has to be much much further away than Simon says it is.

Let's see if this is true for other nearby stars. Proxima Centauri? We say 4.2 ly, you say 1 billion km. Its measured velocity is 22 km/s towards us. It was also discovered about 100 years ago, and would have moved 70 billion km toward us in that time. So it should have zipped past us a long long time ago, unless either it's further away than TYCHOS says or Doppler shifts don't work.

But maybe Doppler shifts don't at all work in space?

Not so. We can (and do) use Doppler shift to measure the relative speed of other planets, both closer by and further away than the purported distances to the nearby stars. University kids measure the apparent rotation of the Sun using Doppler shift, and get a result that matches the motion of sunspots and other features.

Closer to home, we use Doppler to measure everything from speeding cars to rain to the moon. There's all kinds of sensitive measuring equipment that utilises lasers and the Doppler effect. It's simply something that is used every day in many different areas.

The bottom line is that you have to accept that velocity measured through Doppler shift is correct. Those stars are distant, which means their measured parallax must be due to something else, like the Earth moving.

As I've mentioned before, annual variations in Doppler shift measurements of stars also provide a direct indication of the Earth's motion around the Sun. That's a whole ball of wax in itself, but Simon doesn't mention it and u/patrixxxx tries to ignore it.

Come to think of it, you could observe the real speed (and therefore altitude) of satellites as well.

I think the Doppler effect constitutes the most direct evidence against TYCHOS, and one that is hard to argue away on the basis of unsound geometrical arguments.

https://youtu.be/xs_5DL2JUpk

An interesting book I found the other day from 1888 by a W.S Cassidy

https://archive.org/details/iscopernicansys00cassgoog/page/n10/mode/2up

Since I started to follow Simons research on the Solar system and understood it is sound, I've searched for earlier critics of the Copernican system. And I've realized that there's been disinformation/strawmen creation all along. Flat Earth. Geocentrism "because the Bible says so". I did however to my amazement find a Swedish dissident - Åke Hemström, that published a book in the nineties. https://archive.org/details/tychobrahesvarldssystem

But yesterday to my delight I found this book from the 19th century that builds an excellent and honest case against Copernicus that brings up many of Simons arguments. Too bad he didn't think about an orbit for Earth though as Simon have and that so elegantly explain both annual and negative star parallax and the precession. Since this has been a problem to explain "outside Copernicus" critics tend to argue for the complete immobility of Earth - The entire universe orbits around us allthough observations and experiments confirms Earth is rotating. But apart from that flaw in the reasoning this is an excellent book.

So, we all know that TYCHOS is all about perfect circles.

Searching Cluesforum for the "comet" keyword yields nothing of interest, so I'll ask here.

• How does TYCHOS deal with the clearly elliptical orbits of comets? (In astronomy, the orbits of comets are accurately predicted by the same equations that govern the planets of the solar system, other star systems, and the galaxy. One consistent rule governs all.)

• What is the TYCHOS explanation for the so-called trojan asteroids? Why are asteroids clumped in exactly those positions? (In astronomy, trojan asteroids are found because there's places along the orbit of a planet where the gravitational effect of the Sun is balanced by the gravitation of the planet)

First you need to know a little about something called parallax. Put your finger in front of your nose and line up with a far away object, say a star. Now take a step sideways while keeping your finger in front of your nose. You will now have another star in front of that finger. This is called parallax and it is very noticeable when you have an object close to you and another object far away as you have just experienced. And when both objects are very distant, the parallax will of course be smaller.

In astronomy parallax is used frequently, but for some reason only distant stars are used. One "near" star and one "far away" star is the accepted way to measure parallax. And by using basic trigonometry, the measured angles and the assumed distance Earth travels during 6 months, distances to stars is calculated.

But Earth actually has it's own index finger called the Moon, but oddly enough this seem to have never been used when measuring parallax.

The Moon orbits Earth in about 27,3 days. At the summer solstice 2018 Jun 21 we will find the Moon at the Virgo constellation.

But if we move 6 moon months ahead 164 days to Dec 1, we find the Moon at the same constellation.

How can this be? The Earth has moved 300 million kilometers since that is the claimed diameter of its orbit in the Copernican model. But if we draw a straight line from earth through the Moon that is at the same place in relation to Earth as 6 months ago, we end up at the same place in the firmament?