CC25: Simon Shack’s Tychos.info

Fayeel sushi de la manchasimonshacklike this

Lovely conversation with Simon, Patrix, Hoi, Kham.

As previously stated I’m not really interested in any Solar System model, but Simon’s model explaining what we see in the sky every night is most fascinating and potentially revolutionary.

Could the flat earth propaganda be a cover for this potentially super disruptive astronomical model?

A must listen.

26 thoughts on “CC25: Simon Shack’s Tychos.info

  1. gaiagaia

    JARED MAGNESON @ PoM
    April 24, 2018 at 4:00 pm
    I just read your damning rebuttal to Simon Shack on your Fakeologist site. Pretty good work there, and lots of it. And of course Shack can’t reply with any meat or real answers – he doesn’t have any.

    Cannot react (or even like) there anymore, so my reaction here.

    You can see Simon’s cherry picking in his latest post on Cluesforum.

    His reply to my last review email was “Wow, thank you so much Gaia, you just helped me in pointing out something good!” (getting Proxima Centauri -plus the exoplanet, not talked about- inside our solar system sphere). Eh yes, but that is cherry picking. I made the same comments as in this thread; that if you suddenly have so many bodies close to us, you cannot just not include them in your model. It is either-or. Or the stars are indeed so very close to us (and thus tiny), but then you need to rework your complete TYCHOS, or they are not so close to us, but then don’t claim that.

    The “clown” he talks about here is obviously me, it is quite astonishing I was the one who made the most detailed review of TYCHOS to date and I am not even an astronomer, just an interested layman with a little background in Earth sciences…

    cluesforum.info…

    Well, that can only mean [eh no, there are many possibilities, why so certain of something that uncertain?] that PROXIMA is MUCH smaller than currently believed (My TYCHOS calculations have it at about 32 km of diameter). [So we have a star of 32 km diameter with an exoplanet the size of the FakeX Tesla car, thanks, but do you really believe this nonsense?] Here’s how I would illustrate PROXIMA’s location within the TYCHOS model, as it revolves around the Alpha Centauri A & B binary system :

    septclues.com…

    Ah right. First you say “Proxima Centauri (b) is not inside our solar system”, which is half true; it is not in the plane of the solar system ecliptic [being at a declination of -62 degrees], but now you make an illustration where it looks like it is! Confuse and conquer, or what?

    According to your “calculation” (just a simple 42,633 factor + mainstream distance claim, which is based on parallax in a simple 1/p relationship and that whole parallax is ‘calculated’ on the basis of the premise of the Copernican Earth-orbits-the-Sun model…) Proxima Centauri is indeed at a distance from us between Jupiter and Saturn. But it is NOT in the line of sight of the ecliptic as you portray with this an-image-says-more-than-a-thousands-words picture…

    There are however multiple stars and systems close to and inside our ecliptic to Pluto, as I sent you by email the attached image…

    But that was unanswered and deemed “not important” to actually think about I guess. Just cherry pick what you can use and ignore the rest.

    Like a real good mainstream bullpsientist!

    1. simonshacksimonshack

      My ‘beloved’ Gaia Clown…

      So if I am “a real good mainstream bullpsientist”, how would you call yourself? A “real good mudslinging bullshitter”, perhaps? In any case, you are clearly not a scientifically-inclined individual, since you obviously do not grasp the first thing of my ongoing stellar parallax research. Your last posts on the subject make me think you are a borderline imbecile. I should probably just ignore you altogether (as several good friends are advising me to do), but since I now have good reasons to suspect that you are a professional troll on the ESA payroll, I think it is worthwhile to spend a little of my time ‘humoring you’.

      You once called me on the phone saying you were a Dutch geologist (living in South America). Well, if you cannot even read / figure out the intended 3-D angles of a simple / makeshift 2-D map (such as my recent PROXIMA graphic), I wouldn’t hire you for any geological work / surveys. You obviously have sub-par cognitive orientation skills. To ‘humor you’, I have now drawn some lines and angle captions on that PROXIMA graphic which, hopefully, you will now understand.

      As for your above ‘chart’ listing 8 nearby stars and their officially-stated parallaxes, it simply shows that you have completely misunderstood (or pretend to misunderstand) my ongoing stellar parallax research. Note that, in my TYCHOS book (which I sent you free of charge), I do not claim to have resolved the entire stellar parallax conundrum – far from it. I only touch this subject in the very last chapter of the book – as a proposal for further (truly scientific) investigation. Whereas you, dear Gaia Clown, only slap in my face the official / mainstream ESA data as if they were completely legit, foolproof and trustworthy. So WHO exactly is a “a real good mainstream bullpsientist”, Gaia dear?

      You or me?

      As a last attempt to make you understand a bit more of my ongoing research, here is the diagram I made to show that ALL stellar parallaxes measurements ( obviously performed from EARTH by our largest observatories – and not by a supposed midget-telescope placed aboard a tinfoil-clad satellite flying around our planet at high speeds!) depend entirely on the time-windows / annual periods in which they are undertaken. Since “negative” parallax cannot exist (in the Copernican / heliocentric model), it is perfectly reasonable to suspect that some fudging has been going on during the collection of the available stellar parallax data now published on the ESA catalogues:

      septclues.com…

      1. gaiagaia

        So if I am “a real good mainstream bullpsientist”, how would you call yourself?

        An interested layman in astronomical matters, but at least someone who follows the scientific method of first compiling a hypothesis, then doing the actual experiments and then come with a theory, based on the results. Not the other way around and certainly not claiming “I have figured it all out, this is the best model, and anyone who objects is some paid shill or imbecile, or both even”.

        A “real good mudslinging bullshitter”, perhaps? In any case, you are clearly not a scientifically-inclined individual, since you obviously do not grasp the first thing of my ongoing stellar parallax research. Your last posts on the subject make me think you are a borderline imbecile. I should probably just ignore you altogether (as several good friends are advising me to do), but since I now have good reasons to suspect that you are a professional troll on the ESA payroll, I think it is worthwhile to spend a little of my time ‘humoring you’.

        The “humor” is all in your field, Simon. A “borderline imbecile”? Do you talk like that to the many astronomers who you hope will read your book and start challenging way more than I possibly could, because I lack too much knowledge in this field? Prepare for some nice “scientific” conversations then, Rome will be on fire.

        Me an ESA troll? Hilarious, man, you should do comedy. If that were the case, their training program was pretty bad, because I am just starting figuring out astronomy with your “help” actually, the book. So that’s why I went and created the glossary with useful terms to understand. Like I said before here.

        You once called me on the phone saying you were a Dutch geologist (living in South America). Well, if you cannot even read / figure out the intended 3-D angles of a simple / makeshift 2-D map (such as my recent PROXIMA graphic), I wouldn’t hire you for any geological work / surveys. You obviously have sub-par cognitive orientation skills. To ‘humor you’, I have now drawn some lines and angle captions on that PROXIMA graphic which, hopefully, you will now understand.

        Indeed we had a 45-minute-or-so phone call when I started at Cluesforum.

        And you contradict yourself here. My point against your last graphic, before updating, was exactly based on proper diagram presentation in geology (or other disciplines like astronomy too), and that is properly annotating it with directions, angles and scales.

        So good you at least included the declination line in the graphic. That is an improvement. However, you:
        – still rely on “official” parallax data for Proxima Centauri (while you claim I take those values as legit…)
        – have many more stars also near the Celestial Equator or Ecliptic, if you follow this thought and rely on those parallaxes. It is those ones that are interesting, because they are in the “line of sight” around our planets. Hence the ones I listed, with Epsilon Eridani and Procyon as well-studied and clearly visible ones (3.73 and 0.34 apparent magnitude respectively):

        In 1598 Epsilon Eridani was included in Tycho Brahe‘s star catalogue, republished in 1627 by Johannes Kepler as part of his Rudolphine Tables.
        In 1690 Epsilon Eridani was included in the star catalogue of Johannes Hevelius.
        In 1818 Epsilon Eridani was included in Friedrich Bessel‘s catalogue, based on James Bradley‘s observations from 1750–1762.

        All these researchers are listed in the glossary.

        Based on observations between 1800 and 1880, Epsilon Eridani was found to have a large proper motion across the celestial sphere, which was estimated at three arcseconds per year (angular velocity). This movement implied it was relatively close to the Sun, making it a star of interest for the purpose of stellar parallax measurements. This process involves recording the position of Epsilon Eridani as Earth moves around the Sun, which allows a star’s distance to be estimated.
        From 1881 to 1883, American astronomer William L. Elkin used a heliometer at the Royal Observatory at the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa, to compare the position of Epsilon Eridani with two nearby stars. From these observations, a parallax of 0.14 ± 0.02 arcseconds was calculated. By 1917, observers had refined their parallax estimate to 0.317 arcseconds. The modern value of 0.3109 arcseconds is equivalent to a distance of about 10.50 light-years (3.22 pc).

        My orientation skills are perfectly in order, thank you for asking. Especially for a “borderline imbecile” I do pretty well.

        As for your above ‘chart’ listing 8 nearby stars and their officially-stated parallaxes, it simply shows that you have completely misunderstood (or pretend to misunderstand) my ongoing stellar parallax research. Note that, in my TYCHOS book (which I sent you free of charge), I do not claim to have resolved the entire stellar parallax conundrum – far from it. I only touch this subject in the very last chapter of the book – as a proposal for further (truly scientific) investigation. Whereas you, dear Gaia Clown, only slap in my face the official / mainstream ESA data as if they were completely legit, foolproof and trustworthy. So WHO exactly is a “a real good mainstream bullpsientist”, Gaia dear?

        I certainly do not claim those parallax values are “completely legit, foolproof and trustworthy”, that is the whole point. In the course of our lovely exchanges of emails I stressed the importance of your data sources, avoiding everything that comes from so-called “space” telescopes and use ground-based data consistently. You seem to have no problem including even pictures of Mars coming from the Hubble “Space” Telescope… Why would someone who researched space fakery for years do such a thing?

        The problem is that your last chapter doesn’t stand on itself. You name several stars in other, earlier, chapters in your book (shown in the glossary) and quite some of them now suddenly are in our vicinity, as a result of your last chapter. You have to deal with the implications of your own claims. On your own model. That is were the problems come from, don’t you see that yourself?

        And were your last chapter really a “proposal for scientific research”, then you did a poor job in presenting it as such. A proper scientific paper (or series of them in book format) indeed does present a section at the end with “recommendations for further research”. But that is not what you did. You present your book as “the only logically, scientifically consistent model” and only now at Cluesforum Hoi Polloi has asked the question “hey, let’s measure parallax”. In a scientific investigation you do that before you publish a theory, like your “parallax is caused by PVP orbit” claim. Parallax has been measured of quite some stars from the ground since the early 19th century, so there is no reason even to incorporate the “Gaia”, “Hipparcos” and other spacey stuff.

        And if you read that quote from the 1920 book again and now properly, you see that it is not, as you claim:

        – “26 per cent of these parallaxes are negative” – you stopped reading there and cherry picked the first part of this quote only, but

        – “Stated as percentages, 26 per cent of these parallaxes are negative or [meaning; included in that 26%] have positive values which are not greater than their probable errors” – so are negative or near-zero; slightly negative or slightly positive

        As a last attempt to make you understand a bit more of my ongoing research, here is the diagram I made to show that ALL stellar parallaxes measurements ( obviously performed from EARTH by our largest observatories – and not by a supposed midget-telescope placed aboard a tinfoil-clad satellite flying around our planet at high speeds!) depend entirely on the time-windows / annual periods in which they are undertaken. Since “negative” parallax cannot exist (in the Copernican / heliocentric model), it is perfectly reasonable to suspect that some fudging has been going on during the collection of the available stellar parallax data now published on the ESA catalogues

        I may be a “sub-par cognitive orientation-suffering two-faced clownesque bipolar imbecile”, so I ask the other readers here if they understand this latest graphic of yours. I cannot make cheese of it.

        “Start 1, End 1”, “Start 2, End 2”, etc.? What does it mean?
        “Stars in this direction”? Which direction? What are the stars you talk about? What RA and DECL values or (as I tried to simplify things with the four colors in the glossary: “in which season of the year”)
        Again no scales, no directions, no stars, it is a horrible graphic.

        You can keep going on the defensive (and silly offensive) against the readers of your book, but I assure you, you won’t get the exposure or a “peaceful” “Tychonic Revolution” that you aspire to.

        What you will get is people turning away from your book and model and by association, you. If that is what you actually want, you’re doing a “great” job. But don’t expect that “revolution” happening then…

        1. simonshacksimonshack

          Gaia darling,

          It doesn’t really matter if you are – as I suspect – a troll on the ESA payroll (or just a borderline imbecile). The problem I have with you is the following : if you don’t understand some parts of my research, why don’t you just e-mail me (as you have done countless times in the past) and ask for clarifications? See, you are not helping anyone in this world by airing your cognitive limitations ‘in public’, as you are presently doing here at Fakeologist.com…. After all, I responded to all of the 36 pages of intricate questions that you sent me – spending many hours doing so – via private e-mail. Yet, you never got back to me with any sort of comments to / or thoughtful assessments of my replies. Instead, you suddenly stopped communicating with me and started venting your frustrations here on this blog. This is, quite simply, not the behavior I would expect from a fair & balanced, intellectually honest individual.

          Let me ask you now: do you believe that the Copernican model is scientifically valid? Or does the TYCHOS model, in your mind, explain our inner solar system’s geometry in a better / more scientifically valid manner? Over to you. I expect a clear answer.

  2. gaiagaia

    Simon, in this chat and in your book you claim that the stars are “actually 42,633 times closer than reported”.

    1 – Tycho Brahe, unable to measure parallax with his advanced pre-telescope equipment, claimed that the stars were “700 times farther than Saturn“, which would be 6657 AU (Astronomical Units).
    2 – This claim for TYCHOS brings about huge problems, because suddenly you create a sphere with as diameter the distance to Pluto (78 AU), where we suddenly have many more bodies inside.

    I made a list (it is the second largest page on Fakeopedia, after the list of psyops) of:
    – the 35 brightest stars in the skies
    – the stars of the constellations everybody knows and recognizes in the sky (Big Dipper, Orion and Southern Cross)
    – all stars closer than your TYCHOS distance of 78 AU that have exoplanets
    – well-known other stars
    – the stars visible with the naked eye (magnitude 4.0 and lower) that fall inside that sphere

    The list shows the season the stars appear in the skies, the apparent magnitude, “official” distance, TYCHOS distance, a description and the position in your book (or not; many well-known stars are missing).

    If you stick to your claim that the stars are “42,633 times closer”, that means we have (you can check the list for yourself, sort on “dT” (TYCHOS distance):

    – 4 stars closer to us than Saturn; Alpha Centauri A and B, Proxima Centauri and the wandering Barnard’s Star.
    – 1 exoplanet closer than Saturn, Proxima Centauri b

    51 stars closer to us than Uranus (with the individual stars of the binary and multiple systems counted)
    39 confirmed and more possible exoplanets closer than Uranus

    41 stars closer than Neptune (but farther than Uranus)
    34 confirmed and more possible exoplanets, including the very interesting system of TRAPPIST-1 that hosts 7 exoplanets in a tiny orbit (less than Mercury-Sun)

    30+ (the fainter ones are not included) stars at distances between Neptune and Pluto
    36 confirmed and more possible exoplanets closer to us than Pluto

    Giving a total of 126+ stars and 110 exoplanets closer to us than Pluto, including multiple star systems, multiple exoplanetary systems, exo-asteroid belts, the star with the highest parallax (Barnard’s Star) and very well known star (system)s as:

    – Alpha/Proxima Centauri – chapters 1, 35 and 36
    – Sirius (A and B and possibly C) – the main content of your chapter 4
    – Epsilon Eridani – chapter 14 of your book
    – 61 Cygni – chapter 36, the first where Bessel measured parallax
    – Procyon – one of the brightest stars in the sky, not in your book
    – Altair – idem
    – Delta Pavonis – nearest solar analog that is not binary/multiple
    – Vega – part of your PVP orbit as future Pole Star
    – Fomalhaut – chapter 14 in your book with the first discovered exoplanet (but only in 1995, while your claimed distance is closer than Uranus!)
    – Castor and Pollux – the Gemini stars
    – Arcturus – one of the brightest
    – 55 Cancri – with 5 exoplanets, one named Brahe, in chapter 14 of your book, closer than Neptune
    – Capella – very bright star, between Neptune and Pluto in distance
    – Beta and Gamma Virginis – that are near the ecliptic and can be occluded by Moon and planets

    A – How come none of all these celestial bodies in our vicinity, with some even close to our ecliptic, seem to have no effect on our solar system, either by gravity or electromagnetics or some other force?
    B – How come these stars look like stars (no clear structures like planets have) when they are so “extremely” close by?
    C – How incredibly small must these stars be, and the multiple systems even tinier and closer to each other, with the exoplanets then the size of some Fake X Tesla or so?

    I look forward to your explanation, because having read the full book now, I see your many arguments why the Copernican model fails to provide satisfactory answers, but with this multitude in celestial bodies suddenly so close a whole can of new questions is opened…

    1. simonshacksimonshack

      Dear Gaia,

      Firstly, please understand that my 42633 reduction factor (for the star distances) isn’t some sort of absolute, “un-negotiable” figure which I feel the need to defend with my teeth and claws… It is just the result of a quite simple calculation which goes like this:

      According to the Copernican model, Earth is thought to move ‘sideways’ every six months by 299.2 million km – as it orbits around the Sun. As you well know, astronomers use this assumed / hypothetical 299.2 Mkm-value when measuring the distance of the stars. In the TYCHOS model, Earth only moves by 7018 km every six months. Therefore: 299,200,000 / 7018 = approx. 42633

      As for your A, B, C questions – here are my best answers (which I can currently offer) :

      A: How do you “know” that such bodies would / must have any effect on our solar system? Don’t you know that Isaac Newton himself admitted he had no rational explanation for ‘gravity’?
      B: What do you mean by “how come these stars look like stars”? Is there some “LAW” that regulates what stars should look like / and how big or small they should be? Why couldn’t these nearby objects be smaller than our planets?
      C: My answer to your question C would be: how incredibly LARGE must some stars be (which we can see with our naked eyes)? One of them is called “Mu Cephei”. Well, get this: according to Wikipedia, Mu Cephei is about 6000 light years away! Yet we can see it with unaided eyes from Earth! Wikipedia also tells us that “Mu Cephei could fit around 2 billion Suns into its volume.” en.wikipedia.org… Wow… Does this sound plausible to you, Gaia dear? Why don’t you submit questions to this world’s scientific / astronomy community and ask them how they can sustain such wild claims – before questioning my own, humble research?

      In the light of all this, dear Gaia, would you say that my TYCHOS model’s estimates (regarding star distances) are less credible than the “official” / Copernican ones? Let me know – thanks!

      1. gaiagaia

        Firstly, please understand that my 42633 reduction factor (for the star distances) isn’t some sort of absolute, “un-negotiable” figure which I feel the need to defend with my teeth and claws…

        I hope so, because in science (real science that is), nothing is “un-negotiable”.

        As for your A, B, C questions – here are my best answers (which I can currently offer)

        I don’t see any answers? What I see are just backfired questions…

        A: How do you “know” that such bodies would / must have any effect on our solar system? Don’t you know that Isaac Newton himself admitted he had no rational explanation for ‘gravity’?

        In chapter 4 you talk about the binary/multiple system of Sirius A and B (and C) and use that as an example for how our solar binary system can work with Mars. They revolve around a common barycenter. That is based on their specific masses. I am not talking about Newton, I am talking about your model with suddenly >236 more bodies in our vicinity. Which have no effect whatsoever (electromagnetics? visible light even?) on our solar system. They don’t even move, up to the ones close to our ecliptic (Beta and Gamma Virginis, 10 Tauri and the well-known and -studied bright stars Procyon and Epsilon Eridani).

        If in chapter 4 you use Sirius as an example of how our solar system could work, because “the Sun would else be an exception to the binary/multiple system majority ‘rule'”, but in chapter 36 the extremely small Sirius system is now located well inside the sphere of our solar system, at distances closer than Uranus, don’t you think that is a bit… inconsistent?

        B: What do you mean by “how come these stars look like stars”? Is there some “LAW” that regulates what stars should look like / and how big or small they should be? Why couldn’t these nearby objects be smaller than our planets?

        You say you take the distances of the celestial bodies within our solar system as a given, because they are based on Earth’s diameter. That means also the sizes need to be (approximately) as the mainstream reports them. Which means the Sun is a huge sphere, clearly looking and feeling differently (heat) than all other bodies. But now we have many more tiny stars inside our sphere of the solar system, including many planets that you also used as points for claims in your book. So now the Sun stands out as huge with 130 stars inside our neighborhood as insignificant little bodies.

        C: My answer to your question C would be: how incredibly LARGE must some stars be (which we can see with our naked eyes)? One of them is called “Mu Cephei”. Well, get this: according to Wikipedia, Mu Cephei is about 6000 light years away! Yet we can see it with unaided eyes from Earth! Wikipedia also tells us that “Mu Cephei could fit around 2 billion Suns into its volume.” en.wikipedia.org…… Wow… Does this sound plausible to you, Gaia dear? Why don’t you submit questions to this world’s scientific / astronomy community and ask them how they can sustain such wild claims – before questioning my own, humble research?

        A variant of the tu quoque fallacy. I am not asking questions to a Copernican scholar, I ask them to the developer of the TYCHOS, “the only existing configuration of our “solar system” fully consistent with astronomical observation, physical reality and sheer logic.” as you claim. If you think your model, being “alternative” is not bound to proper scientific and logical scrutiny, we have a huge disagreement.

        I love consistency and think that is one of our best weapons against the mainstream in the “study” of “fakeology”. But why should applying that tool suddenly stop at the imaginary boundary of the mainstream?

        You show your model is not consistent, certainly not “fully”, introduce even more inconsistency and even your reasoning is not consistent.

        If you don’t like it that the Sun is the odd one out in terms of being non-binary, that’s fine, but you don’t have any problem with the Sun being so gigantic while more than 130 stars now inside our solar sphere are nothing more than tiny specks of light, many of them smaller than planets, based on their apparent magnitude?

        Why does the Sun move through space with a whopping 107,000 km/h, while all other stars who now ended up as closer neighbors than Pluto are completely immobile, except the very faint Barnard’s Star, that wanders like a snail compared to Sol through our skies?

        In the light of all this, dear Gaia, would you say that my TYCHOS model’s estimates (regarding star distances) are less credible than the “official” / Copernican ones? Let me know – thanks!

        I am not talking about the mainstream, I am talking about your model. If you claim it is “the only fully consistent model with observations” then it needs to live up to that high (and unscientific, in more than the 1000 scientific publications I have read, 0 scientists have claimed such a thing) standards you set for your model.

        And also; your “estimates” are nothing more than the mainstream estimates divided by a fixed number. So you haven’t estimated anything independently; you rely on the mainstream data.

        No answer also why all those exoplanets are tiny, extremely close to those tiny host stars, the exo-asteroid belts, etc. Jupiter, Saturn, even Earth and Pluto can be exceptionally huge planets without problems, but now more than 100 exoplanets are minuscule balls orbiting tiny stars at insignificant distances? Fully consistent with logic, you said?

        YZ Ceti, with an apparent magnitude below that of Enceladus (discovered by the famous William Herschel, his son John described many binary stars and was involved in the Great Moon Hoax of 1835, Chris Kendall’s favorite), supposedly has 3 confirmed and 1 unconfirmed exoplanets (the size of some cosmic ping pong ball) at a distance of just 17.8 AU from Earth according to the TYCHOS distance…

        1. simonshacksimonshack

          Gaia…
          So you, of all people, dare talk about “inconsistency”? Well, what about your own behavior these last few months, loco? You have written several private mails to me and submitted 36 pages of questions about the TYCHOS (in three 12-page installments). I have done my best to respond to your many questions – yet you haven’t gotten back to me about my answers. Instead, you are now “airing your discontent in public” (here at Fakeologist) about (parts of) my research which you have issues with. Fine, but what about the core points of my TYCHOS thesis – many of which you have commented (in private e-mails) very favorably indeed ? Here are some (admittedly cherrypicked – but you DID write them) examples of your supportive statements:

          Gaia wrote (in private mails to yours truly) :
          “Thumbs up!
          – Your analysis of the orbital periods of Venus and Mercury (the Sun’s moons) vs Phobos and Deimos (Mars’s moons) is brilliant and beautiful. Too much coincidence to be untrue…
          – The long and short ESIs of Mars (which I never knew about) prove the Copernican model wrong. Dead wrong. Great convincing evidence.
          – The link with the Maya calendar is extremely interesting, great paper. It led me to reanalyze another pre-Columbian civilization (the 4th in a series of 4 that nobody knows about; everyone knows Aztec, Maya and Inca, nobody knows the Muisca, my area of research for 1.5 years). Their extremely complex calendar has been analyzed for the sidereal and synodic lunar months and the solar year. But…. now I’ve looked at it again and it even incorporates (and explains the complexity) this full ESI cycle of Mars (7 long ESIs + 1 short ESI)!!!!
          – then I became much more positive because you debunked the Copernican model and established a wonderful harmony between the planet’s orbits ”
          – I think you make a strong enough case. Again, in table form would be the best with references at the end, like the Space fakery page at Fakeopedia.
          -(…) You have just debunked the mainstream model!
          – The Einstein stuff is… just wow. Congratulations on debunking that clown so elegantly!”

          So you DO recognize that the TYCHOS has ‘debunked’ the Copernican model, do you not?
          Yet, here on this public place all you do is complaining about stellar matters (which make up only a small fraction of my book) and pepper your comments with thinly veiled attacks clearly meant to dismiss and ridicule my work? You are, quite frankly, exhibiting the classic antics of a petulant, two-faced knavish clown, my dear Gaia. Please calm down.

          As you well know, the TYCHOS model’s primary points have to do with the geometry & celestial mechanics of our inner solar system. This is what I refer to when I say that the TYCHOS is the only model which agrees with observation – since it is a demonstrable fact that the Copernican model does not. Since there currently is no other existing model which agrees with the observed motions of our own system’s bodies, the TYCHOS is effectively the only one that does. To be sure, only the two last chapters of my book deal with star-related topics – and I certainly do not claim that the TYCHOS resolves in one fell swoop the distances, speeds and distances of each one of the trillion stars and asteroids populating our skies: as you surely know, we are currently (calmly) discussing at Cluesforum about how we may, ideally, perform some day a verification of the stellar parallax data currently published by ESA. As it is, some eminent & highly-qualified astronomers have already strongly questioned this data. We are not alone.

          As for this other comment of yours, Gaia dear…
          “And also; your “estimates” are nothing more than the mainstream estimates divided by a fixed number. So you haven’t estimated anything independently; you rely on the mainstream data.”

          …well, it is just incredibly silly. If you don’t retract it, I think I’m done with you, loco.

          Simon

          1. gaiagaia

            Gaia…
            So you, of all people, dare talk about “inconsistency”? Well, what about your own behavior these last few months, loco?

            Simon, TYCHOS is about Gaia, but not about me. I am sure you understand what I mean.

            You have written several private mails to me and submitted 36 pages of questions about the TYCHOS (in three 12-page installments). I have done my best to respond to your many questions – yet you haven’t gotten back to me about my answers.

            Your answers can be summarized into a couple of categories:

            – “why don’t you do the work, I am just a ‘humble’ guy who developed TYCHOS”

            Hence I started that TYCHOS glossary with terms, bodies and researchers. I even linked to your online version of TYCHOS so the ones with access can immediately go to the specific chapters.

            It is a strange comment anyway, I am quite sure that if astronomy professor (42,633 times above my level) Vittorio from let’s say Bologna would ask these things, you won’t respond like that. Or if you do, I reckon you lost a reviewer.

            – “you are confused, you need to read it again, I am crystal clear in my text”

            Confusion comes from two parties; the speaker and the listener. Yes, the beginning was confusing, but later when reading on things got cleared up. Again, I hope you won’t react like that to good old Vittorio….

            – “you need to read the full book, not just the first half”

            Which is fair enough, and so I did.

            – “well, that might be there in version 2.0 of the book”

            Why not in version 1.0? Why release something that is cranky and expose yourself to founded criticism? What is the hurry? You have spent 5 years of your life on this, then releasing a product that doesn’t taste as well as it can be is not the best selling point… Ask Vittorio for tips on how to publish the work of 5 years (a good long PhD)…

            And do you know how publishers work? You cannot just go to them and say, “I know you printed my book now, but please, I have a new version, so do that instead.” In rare cases scientific journals and books have addenda or errata published afterwards, but the norm is a product that stands on itself, not needing a “version 2.0”.

            Instead, you are now “airing your discontent in public” (here at Fakeologist) about (parts of) my research which you have issues with. Fine, but what about the core points of my TYCHOS thesis – many of which you have commented (in private e-mails) very favorably indeed ? Here are some (admittedly cherrypicked – but you DID write them) examples of your supportive statements:

            Yes, I support the parts where you debunk points of the Copernican model that are vague, impossible or “explained” by new patchwork of silly theories. Those parts are good, from my limited position. Vittorio sees much more. And I hope you get 100s of Vittorios to look at your work.

            But, the TYCHOS book comes in one piece. Especially the hard-copy version. In science it doesn’t work like keeping the first 34 chapters, but tearing the pages of the last 2 out because they introduce more problems than the Copernican model.

            So you DO recognize that the TYCHOS has ‘debunked’ the Copernican model, do you not?

            I recognize you have debunked certain important points from the Copernican model that I never knew were so shaky. So in those parts you have done a good job.

            But that cherrypicking is not how science works. And living up to “the only fully consistent model with observations, physics and logic” means your own work has to be fully consistent too. Consistent in content, because that is what it is about, not personalities. Our imaginary Vittorio is not a psychologist, but an astronomer.

            Yet, here on this public place all you do is complaining about stellar matters (which make up only a small fraction of my book) and pepper your comments with thinly veiled attacks clearly meant to dismiss and ridicule my work? You are, quite frankly, exhibiting the classic antics of a petulant, two-faced knavish clown, my dear Gaia. Please calm down.

            Those stellar matters are part of your book. They are part of TYCHOS. They make the whole model suddenly become incomplete, because there are many more bodies even at and close to the ecliptic inside our binary solar system.

            And that you see founded criticism as “attacks” is one of the problems. A proper scientist (or a musician publishing a scientific book and model) does not need to become defensive (and offensive).

            You have become so completely entrenched in your work and model that you lost your normally so sharp eye for fakeology and proper reasoning.

            And how do people work? If you take your TYCHOS book as a 36-course meal (not uncommon in Italy…) then what do you think your guests will take away after it? The good to delicious first 34 courses, or the bitter, ugly aftertaste of the dessert?

            As you well know, the TYCHOS model’s primary points have to do with the geometry & celestial mechanics of our inner solar system. This is what I refer to when I say that the TYCHOS is the only model which agrees with observation – since it is a demonstrable fact that the Copernican model does not.

            Yes, and those points are good, from what my trained amateur eye can tell. I hope Vittorio can help you further.

            Since there currently is no other existing model which agrees with the observed motions of our own system’s bodies, the TYCHOS is effectively the only one that does. To be sure, only the two last chapters of my book deal with star-related topics – and I certainly do not claim that the TYCHOS resolves in one fell swoop the distances, speeds and distances of each one of the trillion stars and asteroids populating our skies: as you surely know, we are currently (calmly) discussing at Cluesforum about how we may, ideally, perform some day a verification of the stellar parallax data currently published by ESA. As it is, some eminent & highly-qualified astronomers have already strongly questioned this data. We are not alone.

            That is the whole point. If you cannot verify these things independently, why even talk about them? Why shrink the stars (and their exoplanets) to minuscule bodies now suddenly appearing as our neighbors, closer even than Saturn, well-known in pre-telescopic times?

            As for this other comment of yours, Gaia dear…
            “And also; your “estimates” are nothing more than the mainstream estimates divided by a fixed number. So you haven’t estimated anything independently; you rely on the mainstream data.”

            …well, it is just incredibly silly. If you don’t retract it, I think I’m done with you, loco.

            Simon

            This refers to your claim that Alpha Centauri A and B are not 4.3, yet 6.48 AU away from us. That is purely based on:
            – a model you contest (Copernican)
            – a method you contest (using the premise from the Copernican model to measure parallax)
            So you base your idea that those stars are so incredibly close to us on both the mainstream model you criticize and data that wouldn’t be there without that model.

            Do you see that that is not proper reasoning?

              1. gaiagaia

                I answered here because:

                1 – this is the blog post of the audio, the only audio where the ideas of TYCHOS are outlined in detail over the course of 3 hours
                2 – I compiled the glossary, which helped myself in understanding the terms better (you learn more when you write -active- than just read -consuming-) and to provide them for others interested on the Fakeopedia, that is part of Fakeologist.com…
                3 – with others (who may or may not be interested in reading the book for themselves) I had discussions about the points and so it’s good they can follow the discussion in public
                4 – other than Simon I am not going to publish our private conversations (apart from the categories listed), so we can have the discussion out in the open

                What are your ideas about TYCHOS so far?

            1. simonshacksimonshack

              Gaia,

              You wrote:
              “In rare cases scientific journals and books have addenda or errata published afterwards, but the norm is a product that stands on itself, not needing a “version 2.0”. “

              Well, thanks for the hearty laugh, Gaia… See, if there is ONE thing that I’ve learned in this half-decade of uninterrupted “cosmo-logical” studies, it is that the science of astronomy is an endless trail of continuous revisions / corrections / wild speculations / conjectures / approximations / assumptions / retractions / ad hoc, confirmation-bias-motivated “solutions” and “explanations” / mathematical wizardry and so on and so forth. I would go as far as saying that not a SINGLE astronomical book / paper ever written has stood (100%) the test of time.

              Today, mainstream astronomy has dug itself into a black hole of invisible dark matter (due to the embarrassing fact that Newton’s untouchable “laws” are flatly contradicted in the stellar sphere, i.e. totally inconsistent with what Newton postulated to be true for our solar system ) – and only a truly scientific ‘big bang’ could make this sorry situation come to an end.

              I will therefore feel no shame if some of my contentions in the TYCHOS book will have to be revised in a 2nd edition. In the meanwhile, I hope you realize that someone like Vittorio Goretti (who found that about a dozen stars he observed were considerably closer than our supposed NEARMOST binary star system Alpha Centauri) would most likely have read my book with interest – if he were still with us. After all, the TYCHOS is, at this moment in time, the only existing cosmic model which scientifically explains the observed 25%/25%/50% distribution of positive/negative/ and zero stellar parallaxes. For you to ignore this fact suggests either of two things to me:

              1: you are a little bit stupid
              2: you have an agenda to denigrate my work

              I prefer to think that N°1 is the correct answer! 🙂

              Simon

              1. gaiagaia

                Simon,

                I have no agenda other than defending the scientific method, which I see as one of the best tools to counter the amount of propaganda, lies, stories and indoctrinations we have received throughout our lives.

                Goretti analyzed a decent amount of stars and found very different parallaxes and thus distances (1/px in pc). I linked an earlier paper by him in the glossary, you may have seen it.

                The closest star he determined at 1.05 ± 0.10 ly away (GSC 3573 129), which has no parallax data given by the Tycho Catalogue. The closest that star would be is 0.95 ly, versus 4.24 for Proxima Centauri.

                The closest star where he could compare his own measurements and that of the mainstream is GSC 3276 733 where his parallax (1426 ± 150 vs 32 ± 17 of the mainstream) gives a distance of 2.3 ± 0.3 ly, or a reduction by about a factor 45. Still way outside of the Kuiper Belt, the area Pluto is in.

                His analysis also shows that Barnard’s Star, measured not by “space” telescopes, but first by Barnard himself in 1916 and later by Van de Kamp in 1969, has a very comparable parallax to the mainstream value.

                Your model however claims that the distance to Proxima Centauri, not based on astronomical observations like Goretti’s, is a mere 6.48 AU, or 0.0009.945 ly away… Making it (including an exoplanet) sit comfortably and virtually immobile and unaffecting between Jupiter and Saturn.

                Don’t you think there is quite some difference between a factor 45 and a factor 42,633?

                If you think reasonable doubts about parts (and taking into account you use those stars in your book as a basis for the possible very binary Sun-Mars system, like Sirius, so it is not just the last 2 chapters) of your book, model and reasoning are “a bit stupid” or “denigrating your work”, I fear science is not your cup of tea.

                But after all, a clown (if he was two-faced I don’t know, apparently that is only reserved for me) you well know about claimed when his theory could have been challenged by measurements: “Then I would feel sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct all the samein 1919

              2. gaiagaia

                Additionally:

                If you think that building the 2nd biggest page on the whole Fakeopedia is “denigrating your work” and “a bit stupid”, I fear you misunderstand me even more.

                The claim you make that “25% of all stars need to show negative parallax” according to the PVP orbit, would mean you have measurements of huge amounts of negative parallaxes in the December skies. Hence why I included the skies in the list and made it sortable.

                Goretti lists small amounts of negative parallax for some stars, but on the other hand measures far more -positive- parallax for other stars. It would be cherrypicking to only take the slight negative values and not include the >1 arc second ones he published.

                What you need for your idea to be correct is:
                – quite some measurements for stars in the June skies that have undoubtedly positive parallaxes
                – quite some measurements for stars in the September and March skies that have near-zero parallaxes
                – quite some measurements for stars in the December skies that have undoubtedly negative parallaxes

                Simply stating “25-50-25%” is not a scientific approach and does not take into account causation.

                This point was also brought up by Seneca at Cluesforum, so more people question this point.

                I’d suggest contacting an astronomer who can measure parallaxes for the 5-10 closest -so highest parallax- (again, searchable in the glossary at Fakeopedia) stars for every quadrant and see if the data fits your hypothesis. If it doesn’t, the hypothesis you made about the PVP-orbit causing (negative) parallax cannot be continued…

                Best of luck, a “little bit stupid” scientist.

                1. simonshacksimonshack

                  Gaia wrote:

                  “The claim you make that “25% of all stars need to show negative parallax” according to the PVP orbit, would mean you have measurements of huge amounts of negative parallaxes in the December skies.”

                  So you actually ARE pretty damn stupid, Gaia (or just pretend to be) – I get it now.

                  This is not a “claim that I make”: it is a VERIFIABLE FACT that 25% of the stellar parallaxes officially published by ESA on their catalogues have negative values.

                  Good heavens, Gaia: what exactly are you up to? You remind me of that “Ace Baker” clown who (many years ago) immediately “hugged up” to my September Clues research. He then spent lots of efforts promoting it – and even went on presenting September Clues at “9/11 truth” conferences around the USA – only to state a while later that “September Clues is 98% false”.

                  So please give us a break, Gaia: I’ve seen it all before – thank you very much.

                  You were banned twice from Cluesforum back in 2015 / 2016 (under your two aliases, “Selene” and “Vera Obscurata”) as I was developing the TYCHOS . Of course, “Selene” is another word for our Moon, “Gaia” is another name for our Earth, and “Vera Obscurata” basically means “Obscured Truth”. How very ‘subtle’ of you, Gaia dear. *Duh*

                  SImon

                  1. gaiagaia

                    Boy oh boy, it gets really silly if you even stop reading closely…

                    Gaia wrote:

                    “The claim you make that “25% of all stars need to show negative parallax” according to the PVP orbit, would mean you have measurements of huge amounts of negative parallaxes in the December skies.”

                    So you actually ARE pretty damn stupid, Gaia (or just pretend to be) – I get it now.

                    This is not a “claim that I make”: it is a VERIFIABLE FACT that 25% of the stellar parallaxes officially published by ESA on their catalogues have negative values.

                    – Your claim; “the 25% negative parallax values are ‘scientifically’ explained by my TYCHOS model”
                    – My question; “where are all those values of huge negative parallax, apart from the small ones Goretti listed for a couple of stars?”

                    To make your hypothesis work, you first need to know:
                    1 – which stars show negative parallax, are those uniquely in the December skies or are they spread out across the other quadrants too
                    2 – how much negative parallax do those stars have. If it is just the very low figures Goretti lists, it is not conclusive to claim your explanation for those negative parallaxes.

                    The proper scientific method is first formulating a hypothesis, then testing that, then documenting it and then publishing.

                    Your approach seems to be first claiming something (like a “theory”), and then trying to fit reality to that. Very mainstreamy, you could work for ESA, easily, fratello!

                    Thank you, I have been searching for that VERIFIABLE FACT, to little avail, well, I found Goretti’s 2009 paper with it. SIMBAD doesn’t list any stars with negative parallax and the Gaia (not me; the “space” telescope) catalogue is not accessible.

                    All the other things are irrelevant for my arguments, but I understand you’re grasping at straws now when you fail to realize how f*cked you are when you placed the bomb under your own model. I was positive about you and your work, but it is only you and your unscientific hostile attitude that has destroyed it.

                    “I am right, swallow my ‘theory’, if not I start namecalling and digressing into nonsense, after all I am right anyway”.

                    Prof. Dr. Simon Albert Einstein von Hytten bis Shack needs to do quite some work before anyone with a decent scientific background will take you seriously.

                    Try calling Vittorio a “two-faced clown” and see how far you come.

                    Best of luck, you’ll need it.

                    1. simonshacksimonshack

                      Gaia wrote:

                      “I was positive about you and your work, but it is only you and your unscientific hostile attitude that has destroyed it.”

                      What a fantastic statement, Gaia – I’ve gotta love it.

                      So let’s see: you were initially positive about me and my work, but now you are not positive about it anymore – just because I think you are a silly clown? How very ‘scientific’ of you, Gaia darling…

                      And yes, 25% of the stellar parallaxes in ESA’s original Tycho catalogue are negative (or have ‘positive’ values smaller than their probable errors) – go and check it out for yourself. In fact, this was known already back in the 1920’s (almost a century ago): septclues.com…

                      Good lord – what a waste of taxpayers’ monies you are.

                    2. gaiagaia

                      “Stated as percentages, 26 per cent of these parallaxes are negative or have positive values which are not greater than their probable errors”

                      Do you read the same thing Simon, or do you actually read what you want to read?

                      If I ever have a cherry orchard, I will pick you as my court jester.

  3. khammadkhammad

    Here is something amazing:

    m.youtube.com…

    Team TYCHOS’s programmer extraordinaire Patrix has done a screen cast of his TYCHOS Planetarium so you can view the basics of TYCHOS.

    The image below is a screenshot from the video of the path of one of the sun’s moon, Venus, as it rotates around the sun while simultaneously rotating around earth, of which the earth is also rotating along its circular path at a gentle 1 mile per hour.

    Remember, TYCHOS fits observable views of our planets and both past and present planetarium charts. Well done Patrix for bringing TYCHOS to life!

  4. khammadkhammad

    Not only is TYCHOS a model of our actual solar system, where you live, but it is also your new calendar; the thing that kings and emperors paid for in untold sums in riches in order to maintain the ability of timeliness for planting schedules in order to feed the masses of people they rule, as well as have the ability to foretell celestial events such as eclipses and the coming of comets. With TYCHOS there is the very real possibility that ice ages can now be predicted with accuracy.

    What else does TYCHOS do? Being a binary system and showing that stars may exist within our solar system, it has the potential to replace the idea of ‘dark matter’. The TYCHOS is also showing that the physics of our universe appears to support an aether, which means Einstein and Hawking and the like are just plain wrong. So you see, the TYCHOS is much more than just a solar system model. It is uncovering the actual physics that make up life in this universe.

    And we’ve only just begun the journey of uncovering and discovering what the TYCHOS will bring forth.

    The TYCHOS is one big massive manifestation of our new physics. All from the mind of one man. How incredibly is that?

    Thank you Simon Shack. The journey has just begun.

Leave a Reply