The TYCHOS – The true model of our solar system

FayeAA ProperGander MorrisantipodeansimonshackJack33gaialike this

Simon’s long awaited solar system model is here – and the earth is not flat!

I hereby present the TYCHOS model, the only existing configuration of our “solar system” fully consistent with astronomical observation, physical reality and sheer logic. Earth orbits in the middle of the Sun-Mars binary system, moving at the tranquil pace of 1 mph. It completes one orbit in 25344 years – a period commonly known as “the precession of the equinoxes”.

Source: The TYCHOS – The true model of our solar system

Tycho Brahe was (almost) right. Copernicus was (completely) wrong – all along.

Tycho’s proposed ‘geo-heliocentric’ model had the orbits of the Sun and Mars intersecting – much like the vast majority of our visible star systems. In other words, he had correctly (yet unwittingly) interpreted the binary nature of our solar system. Since no binary star system had yet been observed in his time, Tycho had no way of making sense of his own observations. He then made a most horrendous mistake – i.e. when he entrusted the young Kepler to solve the baffling yet crucial & all-important behavior of Mars. The rest of this tragic ‘mishap’ (which has set back humankind’s cosmo-logical knowledge by 400+ years) is recounted in due detail in my book, “the TYCHOS model” .

www.cluesforum.info…

30 thoughts on “The TYCHOS – The true model of our solar system

  1. exoteric64exoteric64


    Refreshing stuff – never trusted the horseshit we were schooled in – no wonder i hated school

  2. John le BonJohn le Bon

    I admire anybody who seriously tackles the complex topic of cosmology. Thank you to Simon Shack for adding another perspective and giving those of us who are interested in this field something new to think about.

    With that said, boy oh boy, are my spidey senses tingling…

    Tycho Brahe, hey? A guy who supposedly died 400 years ago. We are going to take this hiSTORY on face value, are we? A man who was supposedly exhumed 100 years ago and then recently again?

    See here: www.youtube.com…

    Look into this Brahe character for yourself and notice the 777s all over the story, like a Crowley introduction to the occult. And what did Crowley and his friends view as the star of all stars? Sirius. Yes, Sirius is the star of initiation.

    What is at the heart of the Shack-Brah(e) model? Chapter 4: ‘living proof’ = Sirius. Well what are the odds of that?

    And it gets better. What do we see in Chapter 33 of Simon’s release? ‘The heliacal rising of Sirius’!

    Praise be Sirius! The star of initiation. In the 33rd chapter. Of the Shack-Brah model based on the work of a 400-years-dead character of ‘history’.

    Goodness gracious.

    We will have to get the good minds of Cluesforum on the case and… oh wait…

    Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiet…

    That is without even mentioning the problems associated with ASSUMING that the lights in the sky are representative of solid, physical objects — which is quite an assumption to make!

    I wish Simon nothing but the best with his endeavour and look forward to hearing positive reports from his book tour. If he makes it to Australia, I will happily purchase a ticket and listen intently to what he has to say.

    At the end of the day, we are all just people trying to make sense of a seemingly senseless realm.

    Cheers,
    Super Agent #17 John le Bon

    1. exoteric64exoteric64


      Keen to look into the le bon numbers he mentions – they really do undo most things once your awake

  3. watermanchris

    Flying rocks? Is this a joke? From September Clues to this? My how the mighty have fallen.

    @Gaia – What evidence do you have to support your claim that the moon is “rocky”?

    1. John le BonJohn le Bon

      When it is traveling at 100,000+ km/h, you might as well be walking on the sun.

      It ain’t no joke, I’d like to buy the world a toke
      And teach the world to sing in perfect harmony
      And teach the world to snuff the fires and the liars
      Hey, I know it’s just a song but it’s spice for the recipe

    2. gaiagaia

      If you observe the Moon, be it through a telescope, the naked eye or a good zoom camera, you see the craters and other structures, clearly revealing a solid, rocky surface. Selenology was already a science before the fake Moon missions, in fact that science debunks the Apollo and Soviet lunar missions as fake.

      1. watermanchris

        So, you’re saying that because the moon appears to be rocky when viewed through a telescope, it is a solid physical object?

        I guess this is proof that dinosaurs are real and living under the streets.

        Secret Agent John le Bon debunked again!

  4. simonshacksimonshack

    I would like to thank everyone here at Fakeologist for the warm reception of my half-decade-long TYCHOS model research.

    Well, sorry for the (quite innocuous) sarcasm. I wish everyone the best.

    Cosmic greetings to all.

    Simon Shack

    ps: Dear Unreal, has it ever occured to you exactly WHY Tycho Brahe has been crassly ridiculed for all of these years – all over the ‘mainstream’ channels? I thought you were awakened to the fact that when some prominent personnage gets regularly ridiculed – there may be some underlying, ulterior motive for such blatant demeaning campaigns. Let me know what exactly your thoughts are, dear fellow super-skeptic Scandinavian. You can always e-mail me – and I’ll give you my personal phone number: let’s have a private conversation – in Norwegian. Perhaps that will be constructive! 🙂

    1. UnrealUNreal

      @Simon

      What i detect from the outlandish facts and occult encoding of Tyge Brahe is how his entire G-nius personality seem just as scripted and false as any other historical genius. The reddish brass nose recently confirmed by Danish and Czech officialdom drive the narrative even further as it ironically reminds of the many trolls often rightly and humorously outed from Clues-forum pages as clowns in their own right.

      The fact you have opposing views to the standard model of of the solar system is what i find most noticeable as this mere fact supports the general super-sceptic claim that science is fraudulent – albeit i do not adhere to a gravity driven universe, nor circular nor elliptical orbits of planetary bodies in space.

      Hopefully you will have the opportunity to talk on air with Ab and further explain what parts of science you have found problems with and which sources you trust which would be areas i find interesting. Regarding Brahe it might also be helpful to grasp why he was so heavily romanticised and what to make of all freemason encoding (he purportedly spent some ill-fated 11 days in Prague not urinating before he died).

      (Much like Wernher Von Braun, Brahe’s tomb stone lies level with the Sea)

  5. gaiagaia

    A perfect series of examples of misdirection. Instead of addressing the topic at hand (an alternative geometrical model of the bodies in our skies), new irrelevant and unanswerable paths are taken, with Frank even admitting he “is not inclined to purchase the book”. It remains unclear if he actually has read the free access sections.

    – we know of two rocky bodies; the Earth and the Moon
    – nobody is claiming “all planets are rocks”, the outer planets are gas giants according to the mainstream model
    – only uninformed people call Space a “vacuum”. The mainstream model claims a pressure (P) of 10^-16 bar, which is extremely low, but not 0 (a vacuum)
    – the mechanism by which the planets and moons are moving is an interesting musing, but we will never be able to answer it.
    – I am sure Simon doesn’t think we can go into Space and is also not relevant for the geometrical model
    – the “flat sea” point has been debunked over and over again; the sea is flat with respect to sea level, but sea level curves; the Earth is not and cannot be flat. So it depends on the line you measure the sea against; with respect to sea level it is flat by definition, with respect to a horizontal (tangential) line, it curves downward.
    – Space “exists” in so far that there is something where the planets, and moons and Sun move in and the stars for the most part seem motionless (apart from the apparent parallax, explained by Simon by the 1mph movement of Earth itself and of wandering stars). What it actually is (Space), is not relevant for the geometries and as we cannot go there, we will not be able to answer that question.

    I have asked Simon a ton of questions and he answered them already, I will purchase his book and 3D model not only because I am interested in it, but also because such an elaborate research deserves support. Much more than just throwing misdirections on the internet, comfortable, but nothing to do with doing actual research.

    1. UnrealUNreal

      @Gaia

      I take it that you consider to dispose of all the evidence available to man in order to be so dismissive of of other models than a copernican – possibly Tychean when you read up on it – model of our solar system. Maybe you should consider the fact that Simon Shack has worked on an alternative to the official model of our solar system for 6 years just because he deems the current model faulty – which thereby invalidate all your apparent certitudes of the current system were you to adopt Brahe/Shack’s interpretation.

      Regardless of Shack having found the “right” model or not – there are a lot of reasons to to consider the current model faulty, and just as no-one has debunked the official model succinctly – neither are the many alternative models definitely “debunked” nor as ridiculous you seem to want to depict them.

      Generalising planets as merely rocks might be somewhat lacklustre but even gas-giants have mass and an atmosphere which still make such planets heavy matter floating in the ‘near vacuum’ of infinite space. Saturn as an exemple has an estimated mass of 568,319,000,000 trillion tonnes – around 154 times greater than Earth which might not make it solid but heavy enough to qualify as matter floating in a space we know close to nothing about (96 percent of space is made of stuff astronomers can’t see, detect or comprehend).

      I strongly disagree that we should just accept space as a “known unknown” and that we should in any way or fashion accept to believe that with only 4% of space accounted for that we already know enough to be certain of how celestial mechanics work. This is bad logic accepted as gospel. Gospel In Garbage Out (GIGO) is how such intellectual shortcuts are best illustrated.

      What is quite curious is how many alternative researchers can reconcile the way modern science have been systematically lying about every aspect of every space program while all the time working on a correct model of the solar system and the nature of space. It really becomes schizophrenic when we detect science fraud repeatedly while at the same time are able to consider the premise for said fraudulent science to be coherent and well established.

      The fact that the sea is level and thus flat is self evident and verifiable across any large body of water when atmospheric conditions allow for clear sight. No scientist have ever seen light bend and rely on atmospheric refraction (still straight lines) in order to explain the conundrum we all can verify with simple means when able to observe land over still water consistently – regardless of the mathematics chosen to evaluate the curve of the oblate spheroid that supposedly spins at 1,040 mph which still seems to fast for any decent camera to capture in its curved splendor (Flat Sea).

      (Image from the beach of Calais France looking across the 20 mile wide Channel towards the cliffs of Dover UK that top out at 350 feet at the highest point which can be seen both well and level)

      1. gaiagaia

        I am interested in Simon’s model especially for that part; how he can debunk the currently working very well Copernican-Kepleran-Newtonian (I exclude Einsteinian for the visible skies) model. That is the power of a good model; it is based on observations and especially is predictive. A model that doesn’t predict correctly cannot be a good model.

        A model by the way is by definition not “right”. A model is a representation of reality and as we will never know the full extent of reality, every model is “wrong”, or rather incomplete.

        The good thing is that we can discard certain other “models”, or better ideas because they have proven to fail. One of them is Flat Earth, a discussion I am not starting again, have been there for years now and in other areas reasonable people are just deaf for any argument, so no way of convincing they are chasing unicorns. The “1040 mph” sounds really fast, but it is a misrepresentation of reality, you have to take the angular velocity and then it becomes quite slowly. Look at the Sun and Moon (and stars and planets) traversing through the sky; they don’t move quickly but steadily.

        A similar thing, and that is the misdirection, is “what is Space” or “maybe the planets are not bodies, but just lights”. You can clearly see they are spherical, moving and rotating things, so they are far more than “just lights”. The transit of Venus before the Sun proves she is lit by the Sun and not an own light source, etc. etc. etc. Same for the Moon, invisible with New Moon and solar eclipses.

        This going into “philosophical mode” is a strategy. It would be like answering the question “do you think anybody died on 9/11” (equally an unanswerable question) with “what is life”, “is there maybe life after death” and such bla bla. Clearly avoiding to address the points.

        Simon deserves all attention and at least merit for trying to come up with a better model than we have now. And not just some keyboard-warriors who waive 5 years of research off with the back of the hand, even without reading the work. That is an immature attitude and not showing respect for the researcher.

      2. UnrealUNreal

        @gaia

        The fact someone works 5 or 50 years on a better theory of planets floating in space does not mean it impresses me nor that i need to pay respect to any researcher for such work. The mere concept of inventing space and planets in orbits with moon-rocks hoovering about is in itself nonsensical to me. And I highly dislike the fanclub-like behavior as of late that treat Simon Shack with velvet gloves extending unwarranted trust based on good 911 research and musical aptitudes (even worse are those who tries to mindlessly shove such work down our throats or into our bookshelf).

        I’m afraid Simon Shack and his followers are embarking on a selective cult-trip based on a very faulty precept of space and planetary bodies thus isolating the subject matter in similar ways to Judy Wood and her in-depth analysis of false data and reliance on ill proved science such Tesla tech – Tycho tech seems just as misleading.

        As mentioned in previous post – your blind trust in the current model of the solar system is challenged by most alternative researchers that have opinions about space, including Shack which normally should make you pause and think outside the freemason construct you have chosen to put your trust in when it suits you and scream and shout about when you don’t.

        Elite – Te Lie (direct anagram)


        As it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks, the mere fact any alternative researcher at this point really envision that Elite scientists would not twist and deceive whenever possible is naive – and even moreso when the subject matter concerns unverifiable facts extremely far away which closely mimic the “black box” setting that is prevalent in most psyops (ie Bataclan massacre, Pulse, ISS, Hubble etc – and Space as well – all just props & narrative devices).

        (the gas-giant Saturn has 62 moons in orbit out which Titan is the most noticeable with water and all – map below by the International Astronomical Union from Cassini 2015 imaging)

        1. xileffilex

          I like the notion of a Black Box psy-op. [as opposed to the daylight Boston/Westminster psy-ops which are more easily exposed] It seems to me that Stellar Parallax is one tenet of the Copernican model which must be fluffed up
          en.wikipedia.org…

          And what do we see as the vehicles for this?
          Satellite Hipparcos [1989-93, launched from Kourou]
          en.wikipedia.org…
          which led to several catalog of stars.
          Red [black box] flags-

          The Hipparcos satellite was launched (with the direct broadcast satellite TV-SAT2 as co-passenger) on an Ariane 4 launch vehicle, flight V33, from Kourou, French Guiana, on 8 August 1989. Launched into a geostationary transfer orbit, the Mage-2 apogee boost motor failed to fire, and the intended geostationary orbit was never achieved. However, with the addition of further ground stations, in addition to ESA operations control centre at ESOC in Germany, the satellite was successfully operated in its geostationary transfer orbit for almost 3.5 years. All of the original mission goals were, eventually, exceeded.

          Does that sound fake enough? No, we need more fakery –

          European Space Agency’s Gaia mission, launched in December 2013, will be able to measure parallax angles to an accuracy of 10 microarcseconds, thus mapping nearby stars (and potentially planets) up to a distance of tens of thousands of light-years from Earth.] In April 2014, NASA astronomers reported that the Hubble Space Telescope, by using spatial scanning, can now precisely measure distances up to 10,000 light-years away, a ten-fold improvement over earlier measurement

          More Gaia comedies listed here
          en.wikipedia.org…


          [Don’t you just love the gold Christmas wrapping foil?]

          I’m surprised that the ESA thread isn’t better developed at
          www.cluesforum.info…

          1. FayeFaye

            (Would you agree with this entry for the Fakeopedia Glossary, Xile?

            ”’Black box psyops”’ ||[[Xilefilex]] || [[PsyOp]]s that are neither provable nor disprovable by scientific means as observation, experimentation, repetition. Examples are: [[Space]], [[Space travel]], etc.|| align=center | [http://fakeologist.com/blog/2017/12/07/poop-their-smelly-lies-out-of-their-asses/ Major achievement of NASA in the last 48 years]

            Please propose improvement or edit yourself )

          2. xileffilex

            So, Simon asks an “eminent” professor for his comments on Tychos and the “eminent” professor dismisses is a bunkum, based on…..
            ESA and Gaia and Hipparcos satellite data. [see above]
            cluesforum.info…
            It really is a black box .

            1. gaiagaia

              That is of course not the right rebuttal, but we don’t know if the parallax data of “Hipparcos” and “Gaia” are (not) real. I think they use real data from Earth-based telescopes and pass those on as “coming from space telescopes”. Just like the “Hubble Space Telescope” actually is photographs taken from a plane.

              Bessel has measured the parallax of if I recall well 60 stars before the “Space Age”, so the parallax of stars does not depend on the “Space Age”.

                1. gaiagaia

                  Oh no, not that clown Jeranism. I think I’ve seen that video before. He lies about Brahe just as about anything, a Flat Earth shill.

                  I see more value in Simon’s research than in that military-industrial puppet.

              1. smj

                bessel was a full of shit. how far away can you see a sideways pizza with a looking glass?

                “Earlier in this thread Simon went over the absurdity of James Bradley’s accidental discovery of the aberration of light that was the result of his quest to demonstrate stellar parallax; I find Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel’s übermenshlich effort to determine parallax just as absurd. The narrative would have me believe that Bessel was able to measure the separation between two stars down to less than two hundred thousandths of a degree- which is according to the fine folks at the Carnegie Institute of Science, the equivalent of measuring “the width of a pizza in New York as observed from San Francisco”. The clever son-of-gun did this in 1838 while making the requisite adjustments for Bradley’s nutation and aberration as well as for precession and atmospheric refraction and for any variance due to his telescope of course. All this with a six month interval between measurements to account for the supposed orbit of spaceship earth.”
                cluesforum.info…

        2. ab Post author

          Unreal I love your dissenting views. I am a member of the Shack September Clues fan club, but it’s doubtful I’ll join any Solar System Theory fan club anytime soon.

  6. UnrealUNreal

    It is difficult to accept many of the basic premises behind the concept of space, planets and stars. Basic facts such as the measurably level sea (flat sea) become irrelevant to such great ideas, genius, scale and observations put forth by freemasons and alchemists.

    We know bad input will cause bad results regardless of the quality of mathematician or scientists that interpret (Shack) the information accepted as “facts” (GIGO). It would be enlightening to not only understand the results of Simon Shacks interpretation of official information & observations, but also the premises behind them and why we should accept them as valid.

    A new model of the solar system is intriguing coming from Simon Shack as we thereby normally would have to accept the following in order to take a new planetary system into consideration:

    a) planets are rocks
    b) space is an endless, empty construct (vacuum, fifth element or just thin air ?)
    c) gravity is a real concept compatible with (b) space and (a) planet sized rocks

    A better model of the current gravitational atomic model would mean rocks can have atmospheres of their own while they spin in an empty lifeless medium called space (driven by complex mechanics based on the existence of a heavy galaxy/multiverse?). So all while the moon landing was a hoax, we should then still be able to go there in the future and satellites can orbit earth with the right technology if i understand the premises for Simons work (a,b,c).

    If ‘mathematical truth prefer simple words since the language of truth is itself simple‘ Tycho/Tyge Brahe lived a life quite opposite to anything simple* and he was recently re-exhumed in order to solve the murder mystery surrounding his death 400 years ago (brass nose confirmed but mariecurie poisonning absent).

    Brahe – Rah Be (phonetic anagram* : Ra Bee)

    Out of the many geniuses we have been presented trough history not many have held up to scrutiny and it is likely that Brahe will suffer as well once we consider some of the outrageous ‘facts’ about this super-rich danish nobleman who lived on a private island in a Castle with a drunken Elk and a psychic dwarf all while wearing what must be considered a clown’s nose* – albeit in brass.

    *Tyge Ottesen Brahe’s first name is equally encoded as it is a phonetic anagram for “Thy G” emphasising freemasonry involvement and trickery

    *Pinocchio’s nose also comes to mind

    *Tyge Brahe nose was made of brass

    The crazy life and crazier death of Tycho Brahe, history’s strangest astronomer

    11 Craziest Tycho Brahe Moments

    1. anounceofsaltperdayanounceofsaltperday

      Well put UNreal.

      As well as the well known problems with the implicit assumptions you have mentioned, the vacuum of space required to have the perpetual frictionless environment required by this model cannot possibly exist unless there is a barrier between our atmosphere and that vacuum.

      The positions and motions of the luminaries, the locators and the timing of eclipses is perfectly modelled by the Antikythera machine… a flatwater model.

      What is Simon Shacks position on the vacuum of space and gravity anyway?

      Is anyone able to elaborate as I am disinclined to purchased his masterwork.

Leave a Reply