Chapter 31: List of puzzles solved by the TYCHOS

This final chapter will review and summarize the many astronomical puzzles resolved by the Tychos model. The reader is encouraged to share this "list of puzzles solved by the Tychos" with anyone who might wonder why the Tychos model (based on Tycho Brahe's original geoheliocentric system) deserves to be seriously considered - and why the Copernican theory needs to be definitively discarded.

The Tychos model differs from the Copernican model in numerous important aspects, which confer on it a vastly greater explanatory power. To help readers memorize these differences and their relevance to our understanding of the Solar System we inhabit, I have put together the checklist below. Each item has been exhaustively cross-verified with the observational data produced over the centuries by the world’s most eminent and committed astronomers.

It is a commonly held misconception that the heliocentric theory, as proposed by Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo many centuries ago, has by now been fully confirmed as the only true and correct system of our world. When questioned about it, most earnest astronomers and cosmologists will openly admit that many empirical/ observational realities remain unaccounted for, lacking a solid and wholly satisfactory explanation.

An extensive series of long-standing, yet to this day unsettled, riddles and mysteries of astronomy are shown to be effectively resolved and/or elucidated by the core principles of the Tychos model - and its geometric layout. Below is a practical overview of its most significant argumentations, discoveries and logically-formulated conclusions, with an indication of the chapters of this book where they are more extensively expounded and illustrated.


1 • Why would our Sun have a binary companion? As it is, a better and far more sensible question would be: "why would our Sun not have a binary companion?" We know today that the vast majority (or quite possibly 100%) of the visible stars in our skies revolve around a smaller companion (in intersecting orbits and around their common barycenter). Hence, the notion that our Sun would be the only 'bachelor' of our Universe should alert any rational thinker to its inherent absurdity. (see Chapter 2)

2 • Why only Mercury and Venus have no moons. In the Tychos model, Mercury and Venus are moonless simply because they are the Sun’s moons and, as we can read in the Wikipedia'a "Natural Satellite" entry, “no moons of moons or subsatellites (natural satellites that orbit a natural satellite of a planet) are currently known as of 2019.“ Also, it is no coincidence that Mercury and Venus rotate around their axes at 'walking pace', respectively 3 and 6 times slower than our Moon (5.5 km/h and 2.7 km/h). None of our planets rotate anywhere near as slowly (e.g. Jupiter: 43000 km/h and Saturn: 35000 km/h). That such a striking contrast between the Mercury/Venus duo and the rest of our planets has gone unnoticed (or remained undebated) to this day by our world's astronomers is a mystery in itself. (see end of Chapter 3)

3 • Why both Mars and the Sun exhibit 79-year cycles - as well as cycles locked at a 2:1 ratio. Under the Copernican model, this little-known fact could only be attributed to some bizarre, “cosmic happenstance”. Under the Tychos paradigm however, these findings are not by any means unexpected, since the two bodies make up a binary pair. For them to exhibit resonant long-term cycles is perfectly consistent with the Tychos model's core principles. (see Chapters 5 & 9)

4 • Why planets retrograde periodically the way they do. Current explanations for our planet's periodic (and irregular) retrograde motions are directly contradicted by the most basic laws of perspective: if the retrograde motions were caused by speed differentials (between Earth and the planets), then the width and duration of a given planet's retrograde motions should INCREASE (in relation to the background stars) as it transits closer to Earth. As it transits further from Earth, it should DECREASE. Instead, the exact opposite is observed! The Tychos provides geometrically rigorous and empirically-supported demonstrations for these all-important observed phenomena which have puzzled our world’s astronomers for millennia. (see Chapter 5 and Chapter 29)

5 • Why are Sirius A and Sirius B proportionally identical to the Sun and Mars?" This remains an open question which, however, certainly deserves our utmost attention. To dismiss this fact as a 'random coincidence' cannot be an acceptable argument within any serious scientific discourse. In any event, the idea that Sirius might be the Sun's binary companion is not new: in later decades, it has been put forth by several independent research groups (e.g. by the Binary Research Institute) - and is supported by a host of compelling arguments. Under the Tychos, it is suggested that the two binary systems (Sirius A-B and Sun-Mars) may plausibly constitute a so-called "double-double" system (of which there are many examples in our skies), the two revolving around each other over very long periods. (see Chapter 6)

6 • Why Mars can occasionally line up (as viewed from Earth) with the same star within a ca. 546-day period. A given Mars-star alignment occurs most frequently (7 out of 8 times) every 707 days or so - yet will occasionally (1 out of 8 times) occur in only 546 days or so. In the Tychos model, this is shown to be a plain and natural geometric consequence of the peculiar, “spirographic” motion of Mars around our planet. As the Copernican theory has it, this 546-day alignment with the very same star (that habitually lines up with Mars every 707 days) would somehow occur in spite of Earth and Mars having both moved laterally by about 300 million kilometers. (see Chapter 7)

7 • Why Venus appears to Copernican observers to rotate around its axis in a clockwise direction. In reality, Venus rotates counterclockwise, just like all the other components of our Solar System. The illusion of its apparent clockwise (or 'retrograde') rotation is upheld by the erronneous notion that Earth rotates around it - and not vice versa - during Venus' 1.6-year (or 584.4-day) synodic period. In other words, it is a 'heliocentrism-induced' illusion. (see Chapter 8)

8 • Why the orbits of Mercury and Venus are co-planar with the Sun's equatorial ecliptic. As can be verified in the Tychosium 3D simulator, the orbits of Mercury and Venus are perennially inclined (in relation to our Solar System's 'mean plane') at about 6° or 7° - much like our Sun's "mysterious" axial obliquity (a still unresolved enigma of astrophysics). This constitutes strong, supportive evidence that Mercury and Venus are the Sun's two moons - as defined in the Tychos model. (see Chapter 9)

9 • Why the Sun and Mars BOTH exhibit axial tilts of about 7°. The Tychos proposes that this may be due to the Sirius binary system exhibiting a similar 7° obliquity (as seen from the Earth) - and that our Solar System + the Sirius system may constitute a so-called "double-double" binary pair. (see Chapter 6 and Chapter 9)

10 • The reason for the “precession of the equinoxes” and why our North Stars change over time. The precession of the equinoxes (or "General Precession") is the observed, annual ‘retrograde’/ eastward drift of the stars, as has been observed and documented ever since antiquity. But, as has been thoroughly demonstrated by a number of recent studies, the Earth does not slowly wobble in the opposite direction of its axial rotation (a most fanciful and unphysical hypothesis). Hence, the Copernican theory is left, incredibly enough, without an explanation for the observed and all-important General Precession! In the Tychos, the so-called 'Precession of the Equinoxes' is simply caused by the Earth’s slow, clockwise motion around its 25344-year circular "PVP" orbit (Polaris-Vega-Polaris). (see Chapter 11)

11 • Why the solar day is longer than the sidereal day - and the solar year is shorter than the sidereal year. These two well-known facts still lack satisfactory explanations under the Copernican theory’s geometric layout. The Tychos provides simple and cogent explanations for these apparently contradictory (yet empirically-verifiable) observations. (see Chapter 12)

12 • Why the Moon appears to be the “central driveshaft” of our entire solar system. Our Moon's 29.22-day True Mean Synodic Period (TMSP) would seem utterly mysterious under the Copernican model’s heliocentric configuration. Why is our Moon's TMSP reflected (in exact integer multiples) by all the components of our system? To wit, if the Moon were just one of many satellites revolving around the various planets in our system, why would its orbital periods be "resonant" with all of our planets' orbital periods? In the Tychos, all of this becomes a far less mysterious affair: the Moon revolves around the Earth, located at the very center of our Sun-Mars binary system - and will thus naturally appear to be the "central driveshaft" of our entire Solar System. (see Chapter 13 and Chapter 16)

13 • Why our Moon lines up with the same star every 27.3 days. If the Earth-Moon system truly hurtled at 107226 km/h around the Sun (as claimed by heliocentrists), they would both cover a 70 million-km orbital section every 27.3 days. Yet, the Moon is observed to conjunct with the very same star every 27.3 days! In the Tychos, this is no mystery since the Earth-Moon system moves at “snail pace” (and only moves by 1049km every 27.3 days). Note that 27.3 days is also, remarkably, the time employed by the Sun (see 'Carrington number') to rotate around its own axis. (see Chapter 13)

14 • Why the Moon's perigees and apogees oscillate as observed. The Moon oscillates from perigee to perigee (its closest transits from Earth) by 14036 km - and from perigee to apogee (its furthest transit from Earth) by 42108 km, i.e. 3 X 14036). These distances precisely reflect (at a 3:1 ratio) Earth's annual motion (of 14036 km) around its PVP orbit - as determined by the TYCHOS model. These observable facts constitute the most spectacular, empirically-verifiable confirmations of Earth's "snail-paced" speed of about 1.6 km/h. (see Chapter 13)

15 • Why our Moon appears or is believed to accelerate in relation to the “fixed” stars. This is no more than an illusory conclusion drawn by heliocentrists which the Tychos can readily explain and demonstrate - geometrically and mathematically. In the Tychos, this is a fully expected (yet illusory) corollary of the Earth-Moon system's motion around the PVP orbit. (see Chapter 14)

16 • Why our largest meteor showers recur at regular annual intervals. According to current theory, our most famous meteor showers are caused by Earth regularly (i.e. every year at specific dates) smashing into the cometary dust-trails left over by various comets (none of them returning on a yearly basis!). The Tychos submits a more reasonable explanation for the recurrence of our largest meteor showers, showing that they correspond to the regularly-intersecting orbital paths of the Sun and Mars. (see Chapter 15)

17 • Why the conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn appear to be unequal - or "chaotic". At the end of the 19th century, what astronomers called "the Great Inequality" concerned the observed fluctuations of Jupiter's and Saturn's conjunctions. It triggered a humongous debate between our world's top scientists because, according to Newton's laws, it meant that Jupiter would inevitably end up crashing into the Sun, while Saturn would be driven away into the depths of space. In other words, the very stability (and survival) of our Solar System was at stake! This 'alarming puzzle' was never truly solved - in spite of (abstruse and convoluted) claims to the contrary. Once more, the Tychos can show that these irregular Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions are a natural consequence of Earth's 1.6km/h-motion around its PVP orbit. (see Chapter 17)

18 • Why Uranus, Neptune and Pluto support the Tychos' tenets. The Tychos shows that all the orbital periods of our Solar System's planets are multiples of our Moon's synodic period (and thus, exact multiples of the Sun's 1-year orbital period). The only reason why we see Uranus, Neptune and Pluto returning to the same place in our skies in SLIGHTLY LESS than (respectively) 84, 165 and 228 years - is due to Earth slowly advancing along its PVP orbit. (see Chapter 18)

19 • Why do we need "leap years"? The leap year - or the leap day of February 29 - can also be shown to be a necessity (to allow us to have a calendar of 365 integer days) caused by Earth's 'clockwise motion' around its PVP orbit. (see Chapter 19)

20 • Why Mars is reckoned to have a “great cycle” of about 51000 years. This time span is very close to being twice the duration of the “Great Year” (of 25344 solar years), as determined by the Tychos model. In the Tychos, the motions of the Sun and Mars are, of course, firmly “locked” at a 2:1 ratio (for every Martian revolution there are two solar revolutions); hence, it is fully expected that the “great cycle” of Mars would be twice as long as that of the Sun. (see Chapter 20)

21 • Why Earth’s rotation appears or is believed to decelerate and its equinoctial precession to increase. This is also an illusory conclusion drawn by heliocentrists which the Tychos can readily explain and demonstrate - both geometrically and mathematically. (see Chapter 20)

22 • The reasons for the curious 8-shaped 'Analemma' traced by the Sun and for our need of the Equation of Time'. The principal cause for the Sun's 8-shaped, asymmetric annual displacement is the trochoidal path around which any observer will gyrate each year ("A Man's Yearly Path"). The analemma turns out to be Earth’s “speedometer” since it can be shown to reflect its 1.6 km/h orbital velocity - as posited by the Tychos model. Moreover, the analemma directly falsifies the current theory for the apparent solar (or earthly) accelerations and decelerations: this, because the Sun is observed to “accelerate” (which, in the heliocentric model, would be equivalent to Earth speeding up) between June and July, i.e. when Earth is furthest from the Sun. The core principles of Kepler’s and Newton’s laws of planetary motion and gravitation are thus disproven - since they predict that Earth will decelerate as it transits farthest from the Sun (i.e. the very opposite of what is observed!) (see Chapter 21)

23 • Bradley's 'stellar aberration' was hailed as "the ultimate proof of Earth's revolution around the Sun. (yet, it was soon to be disproved by "Airy’s failure"). The Tychos demonstrates that Bradley's abstruse theory was entirely spurious: the observed, annual trochoidal motion of the stars (which was totally unexpected under the heliocentric paradigm) is simply caused by the trochoidal path that earthly observers will be carried around annually. (see Chapter 22)

24 • The flagrant fallacy of “the anomalous precession of Mercury’s perihelion”. This infamous and hotly-debated "anomaly" was purportedly resolved by Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, making him a world-famous celebrity overnight. The Tychos model shows that there is no such anomaly whatsoever: the seemingly inexplicable extra 43″-per-century precession of Mercury’s perihelion is nothing but a natural and demonstrable corollary of the General Precession. Once we consider that Mercury revolves around Earth (and not vice versa), this alleged "anomaly" simply disappears. (see Chapter 22)

25 • Why we can see so many stars with our naked eyes. Copernican astronomers tell us that the closest star system (the Proxima Centauri A and B duo and their "parents", the Alpha Cen A and Alpha Cen B binary pair) is some 4.3 light years away, while the farthest stars we can see with our unaided eyes are said to be up to 6000 light years away (or more)! These extraordinary claims become considerably less implausible in the Tychos model which posits that the stars are about 42633 times closer than currently believed. This is because star distances are estimated (using simple trigonometry) under the assumption that Earth moves laterally by 299.2 million km every six months. In the Tychos, however, Earth only moves by 7018 km every six months (i.e. 42633 times less than currently assumed). (see Chapter 23)

26 • The perceived relative speed of our solar system vis-à-vis the stars ”. Our entire Solar System is estimated to move at approximately 19.4 km/s in relation to the stars (or vice versa). Once more, the Tychos has a plain and simple explanation for this generally agreed-upon relative speed: if we convert 19.4 km/s to km/h, we obtain 69840 km/h. If we now divide 69840 by 42633 (the Tychos “reduction factor”), we obtain 1.638 km/h, or almost exactly 1.601169 km/h - i.e. the proposed orbital speed of Earth in the Tychos. As it is, the evidence available from observational data pointing to the Earth’s 1.6 km/h motion is overwhelming. _(see Chapter 23)

27 • The 'failure' of the Michelson-Morley experiments. The numerous interferometer experiments which attempted to detect the supposed hypersonic motion of Earth around the Sun and through the ether all 'miserably failed' (as stated all over academic astronomy literature). However, at a closer scrutiny, the minuscule (yet NON-null) velocities recorded by the most advanced of these experiments can actually be shown to support Earth's 1.6km/h orbital speed - as proposed by the TYCHOS. Moreover, Michelson is even quoted as saying that he “thought of the possibility that the solar system as a whole might have moved in the opposite direction to the Earth”. This is, of course, precisely what Earth does in the Tychos model: it slowly moves in the opposite direction of all of its 'family members' in the Solar System. (see chapter 24)

28 • The existence of negative and zero parallax. The curious and apparently inexplicable so-called 'negative' stellar parallax exhibited by a good 25% of our stars, as well as the baffling amount of stars (nearly 50%) registering zero parallax, can both be shown to be natural corollaries of the Tychos geometry. In other words, the “mysterious” existence of three types of observed stellar parallaxes (positive, negative and zero) is to be fully expected in the Tychos model. Conversely, the existence of negative stellar parallax is a physical impossibility under the Copernican/heliocentric model. Note that the Tychos model does not negate the vast amount of stellar parallax data gathered to this day; on the contrary, it actually provides a logical explanation for its observed distribution (i.e. roughly 25% positive, 25% negative, and 50% zero). (see Chapter 25)

29 • Why Kapteyn believed there were two star streams - traveling in opposed directions. Once more, this thesis (upheld by the famed star statistician Jacobus Kapteyn) is in perfect agreement with the Tychos model's tenets: as our planet moves along an almost 'straight line" (over several centuries), the closer stars "to our left" and the closer stars "to our right" will exhibit opposed (i.e. positive AND negative) parallaxes in relation to the more distant, 'fixed stars'. Remarkably, Ernest Esclangon was later able to detect this minute "dissimetry of space" (as he called it) over only a semi-diurnal period (i.e. 12 hours). (see Chapter 26)

30 • Why Kepler erroneously concluded that all planetary orbits must be elliptical and that planets have variable speeds. In the Tychos, all orbits are uniformly circular and all celestial bodies travel at constant speeds. Since they all revolve around the Earth (as it slowly proceeds along an almost rectilinear path over a few centuries), they will alternately find themselves on either side of Earth - and thus move in the same or in the opposite direction of our planet. These apparent velocity fluctuations lie at the root of the “space-time” illusion that Kepler fell for. (see end of Chapter 26)

31 • The Sun's "Angular Momentum problem". It is calculated, under the heliocentric theory, that the Sun would account for only 0.3 percent of the total angular momentum of our entire Solar System - since it would employ as many as 240 million years to complete just ONE of its orbital revolutions. This is a major riddle (and a glaring violation of Newtonian physics) that has eluded, to this day, any satisfactory explanation. In the Tychos, on the other hand, the Sun revolves around its 'local orbit' in ca. 365 days (completing a full cycle in 25344 years) - something which would bring the Sun right in line with its expected angular momentum. (see Chapter 27)

32 • The peculiar motions of the Barnard's star. Our fastest-moving star displays a peculiar (4month / 8month) annual lateral oscillation as it ascends in our skies. The Tychos shows just why earthly observers, as they revolve around their annual trochoidal path, will observe this peculiar trajectory of the Barnard's star. (see Chapter 28)

33 • The minuscule retrograde periods of the Eros asteroid. The Tychos explains the almost non-existent retrograde periods of Eros, the first Near-Earth-Asteroid (NEA) ever discovered. Under the heliocentric model, this behavior of Eros would violate the most basic laws of perspective; this, because the close-passing Eros should be observed to retrograde by a far larger amount than our more distant planets - yet this is not the case. (see Chapter 29)

34 • The 'chaotic' periodicity of Halley's comet. According to current theory, Halley's comet has a most "chaotic" behavior: the famous comet would sometimes return every 76 years - and in other epochs in as many as 79 years! The Tychos (and the Tychosium 3D simulator) can demonstrate how the comet's peculiar orbital motions (as it alternately transits above and below our planet) have befuddled and deluded astronomers for centuries on end. (see Chapter 30)

35 • Why our Solar System would be the only non-binary system in our neighboring cosmos. Well, it isn't. The very idea that this would be the case is beyond foolish - as it would constitute a statistical absurdity. The TYCHOS model does away with this glaring aberration and exhaustively demonstrates that Mars is the obvious binary companion of the Sun - and that it regularly transits smack in the middle of Earth's PVP orbit. The latter is a natural consequence of our entire Solar System's 25344-year 'clockwise' precession. We live in a geoaxial binary system.

36 • Why we can't feel the Earth's rotation and orbital speed. The orthodox explanation as to why we cannot feel the Earth's axial rotation is quite correct: we don't feel it because Earth rotates at a constant & invariable speed. Besides, its rate of rotation is a mere 0.00069 rpm - hardly something that would produce any noticeable centrifugal force that we might possibly "feel" in a physical way. On the other hand, the orthodox idea that Earth would be circling around the Sun at a (variable) 'breakneck' average speed of about 107226 km/h (i.e. 90X the speed of sound!) is quite simply absurd. To wit, this silly Copernican notion implies that the Earth, in the course of a year, would (according to Kepler's "laws") be speeding up / and slowing down by as much as 3.4%. This means that we would be accelerating & decelerating - between June & December - by as much as 3660 km/h (or ≈ Mach 3) without sensing any such speed variations! In the TYCHOS model, of course, the Earth's orbital velocity is a tranquil, "snail-paced" 1.6 km/h (or just about 1 mph) - again, nothing that we could possibly "feel" in any physical way.


In conclusion, all of the extant, above-listed astronomical puzzles and quandaries find sensible and forthright answers when assessed within the Tychos paradigm and its proposed 1.6 km/h motion of Earth around its PVP orbit. In light of this, the Tychos model stands on solid ground, whereas the Copernican / heliocentric theory emerges as an utterly untenable proposition. It is often (and rightly) said that a scientific theory cannot be definitively proven as long as it can be falsified. I will therefore humbly ask our world’s scientific community to spend a little time and endeavor to try and falsify the Tychos model’s tenets while observing the highest degree of intellectual honesty with regard to my rigorous interpretation of the vast volume of observations gathered by our world’s astronomers: I believe to have duly observed, throughout my own research, an objective and respectful approach to their indefatigable efforts throughout the centuries. It would therefore seem fair that the contents of this book be granted similar manners of scientific inquiry, methodical appraisal and dispassionate dialectic.