Difference between revisions of "TYCHOS"

From Fakeopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 49: Line 49:


== External links ==
== External links ==
=== Tychonic ===
* [https://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/616409.0143-0807_34_2_383.pdf 2013 - Popov - 10 - Newtonian-Machian analysis of the neo-Tychonian model of planetary motions]
* [https://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/616409.0143-0807_34_2_383.pdf 2013 - Popov - 10 - Newtonian-Machian analysis of the neo-Tychonian model of planetary motions]
* [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a800/c85162cbf6c95b017d8ae8d827090e02fca7.pdf 1977 - Varshni - 06 - The red shift hypothesis for quasars - is the Earth the center of the universe]
* [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a800/c85162cbf6c95b017d8ae8d827090e02fca7.pdf 1977 - Varshni - 06 - The red shift hypothesis for quasars - is the Earth the center of the universe]
=== Mainstream ===
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH5S8nEo2eM YouTube - Testing geocentrism Part 10 - on Tychonic models]


[[Category:Fakeology Technology Research]]
[[Category:Fakeology Technology Research]]

Revision as of 09:34, 21 March 2018

TYCHOS[SS 1] is the name of a revised geo-heliocentric model proposed by Simon Shack and first published in part on March 21, 2018,[SS 2] the 105th birthday of Mexican astronomer Guillermo Haro.[MSM 1] It is challenging the currently accepted mainstream model of Copernican-Kepleran cosmology;[MSM 2][MSM 3] a heliocentric system as first suggested by Aristarchus of Samos,[MSM 4] based on gravity, as suggested by Isaac Newton.[MSM 5]

Background

Naboth representing Capella's model (1543)

Various geo-heliocentric models have been proposed in history:[SS 3]

  • Macrobius (4th-5th century)[MSM 6]
  • Martianus Capella (5th century),[MSM 7] as presented by Valentin Naboth (1523-1593)[MSM 8]
  • Tycho Brahe (1546-1601)[MSM 9]
  • Longomontanus (1562-1647)[MSM 10]
  • Nilakantha Somayaji (1444-1544)[MSM 11]



Overview

This is the first part of the Preface of the book:[SS 4]

The TYCHOS is my proposed cosmic model. It is based on, inspired by and built around both modern and time-honored astronomical observations. In particular, my work has relied and expanded upon a number of lesser-known, overlooked and/or neglected teachings from the 1500’s to the 1800’s (as well as from antiquity). I dedicate this study to a few brilliant astronomers whose work has been passed over in favor of the so-called “Copernican Revolution”. These early insightful architects who laid the groundwork for what should be our current model for the solar system include Nilakantha Somayaji (author of the Tantrasangraha, 1501), Samanta Candrasekhara Simha – (a.k.a. Pathani Samanta, 1835-1904), the ancient Mayan / Aztec / Sumerian / Greek / Egyptian (et al) astronomers and, of course, Tycho Brahe (along with his trusty helper Longomontanus) whose impeccable observational data and tables still stand today as the most exacting ever made. In spite of Brahe’s rigorous and unchallenged documentation, his own model of the solar system was ultimately flipped on its head by his assistant, the famous Johannes Kepler. Kepler used his master’s observations in his laborious attempts to validate his diametrically opposed Copernican model. As only a few people will know, Kepler was ultimately (in 1988) exposed for having falsified Brahe’s all-important observational data (pertaining to Mars) so as to make them agree with his heliocentric thesis. His legacy is therefore eminently questionable; Brahe had specifically entrusted him with resolving the bewildering behavior of this particular celestial body, and Kepler’s laws of planetary motion were almost exclusively (mathematically) derived from his relentless “war on Mars” (as he liked to call it). Just why the Mars data presented such exceptional difficulties should become self-evident in the following pages.

This 1988 revelation was published by Donahue[MSM 12] and has been discussed by AAMorris in 2017[1]

I trust that any earnest astronomer will concede that the currently-accepted Copernican model is by no means flawless. It is afflicted by a number of still unresolved anomalies and incongruities. The persistence of several longstanding enigmas are readily admitted throughout (the more honest and candid sort of) astronomy literature. It is thus a widely-diffused, popular misconception that the Copernican model has provided mankind with the most indisputable interpretation of the formidable wealth of astronomical observations gathered throughout human history: as we shall see, the Copernican model is not only disputable – it is outright impossible.

In short, the TYCHOS provides the “missing pieces” which prevented Tycho Brahe from completing the puzzle of his “geo-heliocentric” system, in spite of the basic soundness of its geometric design. The TYCHOS model, while stopping far short of proposing a TOE (“Theory of Everything”), submits nonetheless what may be the most exacting, logical and intuitively sound geometric configuration of our local cosmos ever devised. As I discovered, following the reason of the data itself resolves a series of cosmological paradoxes that falsify the currently-adopted Copernican theory of our universe. It is an unfortunate characteristic of their present proponents to be recalcitrant towards and dismissive of data that they’ve failed to incorporate into a holistic self-consistency.

To ease explanations, I have done my best to employ simple graphics. I have also strived to use the simplest possible maths at all times, so as to make this text accessible to the widest possible readership range, including myself: I have always found complex equations both tedious and laborious. Fortunately, the core principles of the TYCHOS model can be expressed and outlined with a bare minimum of computations — all in the good tradition of Tycho Brahe’s very own philosophy.

Chapter 5:[SS 5]

The TYCHOS system, it should be noted, is nothing but a natural evolution of the semi-Tychonic system, and is fully consistent with the unequaled observational accuracy of the same. However, the TYCHOS provides what one may call the “missing pieces of the puzzle” to the extraordinary work of Tycho Brahe and Longomontanus. Alas, their work was annihilated by the emergence of the Copernican heliocentric theory, which for unfathomable reasons prevailed – in spite of its numerous problems and aberrations. As we shall see, these problems stem from a distinctly unphysical nature. It is a poorly-known fact that the Copernican theory was by no means immediately embraced as a self-evident truth. It was strongly (and justly) rejected for several decades by the wider scientific community due the many leaps of logic that its core premises demanded. One of the most formidable mental leaps required in order to accept the Copernican theory was, of course, the unthinkable dimensions and distances that the stars would have in relation to our system.

Tychosium

Tychosium 2D:[SS 6]

The Tychosium is a bi-dimensional overhead view (as seen from above Earth’s North Pole) of our Sun-Mars ‘geoaxial’ binary system. For graphic clarity and convenience, the solstice of June 21, 2000 CE (Common Era) was chosen to represent “year 0” in the Tychosium. On that date, the Sun was at “12 o’clock” and at the highest point (+23°.26’) of its inclined orbit — while Mars and Venus both happened to be aligned in superior conjunction.

See also

References

TYCHOS

Other

Mainstream

External links

Tychonic

Mainstream