Chapter 7: The Copernican model is geometrically impossibile

We have often heard that the heliocentric and geocentric models are 'equivalent' (geometrically-speaking), i.e. that they're just "two sides of the same coin" and that "it's only a question of perspective & point of view". However, there can only be one correct interpretation of our celestial mechanics and geometry that unfailingly predicts for all the interactions between the planets of our Solar System’s vis-à-vis each other and the more distant stars. Through sound logic, induction and deductive reasoning (“à-la-Sherlock Holmes”) we should be able to discard the impossible hypotheses and retain the sole configuration which makes physical, geometrical and optical sense - while being consistent at all times with empirical observation.

And here is where the Copernican theory miserably falls apart. As you will see, what follows categorically disqualifies the Copernican model as a viable proposition, since its proposed cosmic geometry isn’t only problematic or questionable: it is outright impossible, unless you contrive fantastical new laws of nature to excuse it (as, in fact, the likes of Kepler and Einstein resorted to do). I shall expound and illustrate this in the present Chapter with, so-to-speak, 'a little help from Mars'.


Before proceeding, we need to review the famous astronomical enterprise of Giovanni Cassini and his colleague Jean Richer:

"In 1672, [Cassini] sent his colleague Jean Richer to Cayenne, French Guiana, while he himself stayed in Paris. The two made simultaneous observations of Mars and, by computing the parallax, determined its distance from Earth. This allowed for the first time an estimation of the dimensions of the solar system: since the relative ratios of various sun-planet distances were already known from geometry, only a single absolute interplanetary distance was needed to calculate all of the distances." Wikipedia - Giovanni Cassini

Here's a simple diagram (from a French astronomy website) illustrating Cassini's ingenious observational experiment:

In short: Cassini and Richer compared their simultaneous observations of Mars (from two earthly locations separated by only 7000 kilometers) and, thanks to the PARALLAX exhibited by Mars against the starry background (and using simple trigonometry), they determined Mars's distance from Earth.

Now, of prime interest to our current discourse is that these mere 7000 kilometers of separation between two earthly observers (Cassini and Richer) caused Mars to be noticeably - and measurably - displaced against the distant starry background. In other words, Cassini and Richer observed Mars (simultaneously) aligning with different stars. Let us now imagine that the two astronomers had not been stationed just 7000km apart but, say, 300-million-km apart; surely, as they both observed Mars's specific position on a given day, they would have recorded a MUCH larger parallax (than they did in reality). Agreed? If so, let us get on.


Here are two successive conjunctions of Mars with a given star - as observed and documented in recent years:

  • On November 5, 2018 - Mars conjuncted with the star Delta Capricorni (a.k.a. “Deneb Algedi”).
  • On May 4, 2020 - (i.e. 546 days later) Mars again conjuncted with that very same star.

Note: BOTH of these conjunctions occurred as Mars was transiting at 21h47min of Right Ascension - or celestial longitude.

Now, here's the thing: according to the Copernican model, after 546 days (or ca. 1½ years), Earth would find itself on the opposite side of its (supposed) 300-million-km-wide orbit. So the question becomes: how can this possibly be reconciled with what is shown by 3-D simulators of the standard heliocentric model?

There are two types of modern Copernican simulators we may take astronomical data from. One attempts to simulate the orbital motions of our planets and moons (such as the JS ORRERY or the SCOPE planetarium which both feature an “outer-space” 3-D view of our solar system - as if we were looking at it from a spaceship. The other type of planetariums (such as STELLARIUM or the now defunct NEAVE planetarium) are far more realistic and verifiable, as they simulate our stars’ and planets’ positions just as we can observe them from our backyard. Bear this in mind in the following comparison.

The two below pairs of screenshots (from the SCOPE and NEAVE planetariums) compare the positions of Earth and Mars on two given dates separated by 546 days (ca. 1½ years). In this time interval, both Earth and Mars would have (according to the Copernican model) moved laterally by about 300 Mkm. Yet, on both of these dates, an earthly observer will see Mars neatly aligned with star Delta Capricorni!

How can this possibly occur in reality (as it does) if the Copernican model were true?

In order to put this problem in due perspective, let's take a look at a classic explanation for the observed retrograde motion of Mars:

Note that this particular parallax issue (the nearby Mars's parallax in relation to a given star) should not be confused with the historical - and still ongoing - controversy regarding stellar parallax (i.e. the microscopic, nigh-undetectable parallax between nearby and more distant stars, which we shall explore in depth later on).

To summarize the above considerations, we may formulate the following general statement:

How Mars can reconjunct with a given star after only 546 days (whereas it 'normally' does so in about 707 days) cannot be reconciled with the geometric configuration of the heliocentric Copernican model - under any known laws of Nature.

On the other hand, the TYCHOS model provides a plain, simple and demonstrable explanation for this 'mysterious' behavior of Mars. I will now guide you step by step through the 15-year period of Mars during which it realigns with a given star 7 times in 707 days and the 8th time around, in only 546 days. Let's start with the latter, shorter period (known as Mars's SHORT ESI - or Empiric Sidereal Interval).

The below diagram shows how Mars can return to the same celestial longitude in only 546 days:

As you can see, the 546-day period occurs when Mars's spirographic orbital pattern (which has it realigning with a given star every 707 days on 7 successive occasions) 'skips' its retrograde loop - on the 8th time around. Mars will thus transit across vector "X" earlier than it did during its previous 7 revolutions. It's just plain geometry.

As mentioned in Chapter 5, Mars returns to face a given star over a 15-year cycle in this rather curious sequence:

707 days ‒ 707 days ‒ 707days ‒ 707days ‒ 707days ‒ 707days ‒ 707days ‒ 546 days

In short, Mars returns facing the same star for seven successive intervals of 707 days, followed by a far shorter interval of 546 days.

You will now rightfully ask: Is this what is ACTUALLY observed? And does the TYCHOSIUM 3D simulator confirm this bizarrely irregular behavior of Mars?"

The answer is 'yes' to both questions. Here’s the observed sequence of Mars-Deneb Algedi conjunctions - between the years 2005 and 2020 (i.e. a 15-year Martian cycle):

+706 days2007-03-29
+709 days2009-03-07
+710 days2011-02-15
+710 days2013-01-25
+709 days2015-01-04
+707 days2016-12-11
+694 days2018-11-05
+546 days2020-05-04

And here's how the TYCHOSIUM 3D simulator accounts for these 9 transits of Mars at about 21h47m of RA (i.e. the celestial longitude of the star Deneb Algedi):

We see that, in the Tychosium simulator, all of these Mars transits occur on the very same line of sight towards star Deneb Algedi - including the last one (of 2020-05-04) which took place only 546 days after the previous one (of 2018-11-05); and all this, "in spite" of the constant orbital speeds and uniformly circular orbits proposed by the TYCHOS model.

In stark contast, here's how the Copernican JS ORRERY simulator depicts these same 9 transits of Mars. Let it be clear that it was Kepler's "mathemagics" which allowed the heliocentric model to retain some measure of credibility: by postulating "variable orbital speeds" and "elliptical orbits", he was probably satisfied that his calculi got Earth and Mars to at least point towards the same general direction in space...

Note that all of these Mars-Deneb Algedi conjunctions, as viewed from Earth indeed occur when Mars finds itself at 21h47m of right ascension (RA) in our skies - although, according to Kepler - the Earth would find itself each time in a wholly different location - perpendicularly to that star. So how could this possibly happen, if the Copernican model is correct? To wit, how could Mars conjunct with Deneb Algedi on both 2018-11-05 and 2020-05-04, two dates between which both Earth and Mars would have "drifted sideways” by about 300 million km? It matters little how distant that star is from us; what matters is that Mars is far closer to us than that star and should, therefore, exhibit some substantial parallax with the star. Or else, that star would have to be at least 300 million kilometers wide!

Now, Copernican astronomers will tell you that this is indeed a matter of the star being so vastly distant, so that this 'tiny' 300Mkm displacement has no effect on the line of sight towards it! They will also argue that those 9 lines (in the above graphic) are perhaps not quite parallel. Yet, consider this: if you are prone to agree with their objections, you would then have to dismiss what is shown in the Tychosium simulator (what with ALL of these 9 conjunctions occurring on the exact same line of sight towards Deneb Algedi) as being some sort of 'sensational coincidence'. At the end of the day, it is up to you to decide which model (the Copernican or the TYCHOS) provides the most sensible explanation for the observed behavior of Mars.


In order to verify the accuracy of the Tychosium 3D simulator, I have often used the Star Atlas (another Copernican solar system simulator) as a “control reference”. The below table (which compares the Mars-Deneb Algedi conjunctions between the year 1900 and 2099) shows just how well the two simulators agree.

But wait! What do we see happening in the year 2050? Well, in 2050 we will see a triple conjunction of Mars and star Deneb Algedi (unfolding over a 117-day timespan). The question is: WHY? How could such a triple conjunction possibly occur in the Copernican model? And if Mars gets overtaken by Earth (every 2.13 years or so), why wouldn't such triple conjunctions be observed each and every time that Earth overtakes Mars? One thing is certain: the Copernican model has no rational explanation for these very rare events. On the other hand, the Tychosium 3D simulator provides a clear-cut, graphic explanation for the odd occurrence of triple conjunctions of Mars with a given star. What will happen in 2050 is that Mars's 'retrograde loop' will be almost perfectly centered around the line-of-sight vector joining Earth and Deneb Algedi. This will cause Mars to conjunct with that star on three occasions (A - B - C), within only 117 days.

My below screenshots from the Tychosium simulator describe this better than a thousand words ever could:

As you can see, in 2050 Mars will be retrograding 'right in front of' star Deneb Algedi - and thus conjunct with it three times.

You may now wish to verify all of the above for yourself by perusing the TYCHOSIUM 3D

The impossible (Copernican) 816-day re-conjunction of Earth and Venus with a given star

We shall now take a look at Venus. We will compare two screenshots from the SCOPE planetarium depicting two conjunctions of Earth and Venus with star Regulus (in the Leo constellation) occurring within an interval of 816 days (or 2.234 years). In that time period, according to the Copernican model, Earth and Venus would both displace themselves laterally (i.e. perpendicularly to Regulus' celestial location) by about 200 million kilometers. Yet, Venus was actually observed to conjunct with star Regulus on both of these dates (2018-07-10 and 2020-10-03). How can the Copernican model possibly account for these empirical observations?

Two screenshots from the SCOPE simulator:

Copernican astronomers will tell you that the reason why this would occur is that the stars are so immensely distant that these two PARALLEL lines of sight (towards Venus and Regulus) are "perhaps not QUITE parallel" and will thus somehow ultimately converge towards star Regulus. Now, we may debate this question of parallelism (or non-parallelism) until the cows come home - but these empirically-observed and documented facts remain: Venus did indeed conjunct with star Regulus on those two dates.

The NEAVE planetarium which simulates realistically what we can actually observe in our skies (from our backyard) confirms that Venus and Regulus indeed conjuncted at both ends of our chosen 816-day period example (2018-07-10 --> 2020-10-03):

Two screenshots from the NEAVE simulator:

Once more, the TYCHOSIUM shows just how and why Venus can and will indeed return facing a given star in 816 days:

Two superimposed screenshots from the TYCHOSIUM simulator:

As you can see, in the TYCHOS model Venus will physically return to the same celestial longitude after an 816-day interval - and will therefore re-conjunct with star Regulus. Again, the reader is the judge as to which model makes more sense:

  • The Copernican model has Venus returning facing the same star after 816 days even though, during this time period, Earth & Venus would both have moved 'sideways' - i.e. perpendicularly to that star - by about 200 million kilometers).

  • The TYCHOS model has Venus naturally reconjuncting with that same star - simply because it physically returns to that same celestial longitude.

"Tycho Brahe already refuted the Copernican system"

The above sentence is the title of a short essay (2014) by a Polish blogger, "Zbawienie". In the paper, the author cites a few extracts from "The Contradictions in Astronomy (1869)" by Carl Schöpffer. Zbawienie's paper starts with these words:

"According to the testimony of today's astronomers Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) was one of the greatest astronomers ever. Kepler was his employee. Tycho Brahe postulated a world system of his own and fought against the Copernican with good reason. Now this is odd and certainly there is a special reason for the fact that in the later works of astronomers to this day, although the Ptolemaic world view is described in detail, Tycho Brahe's system is either not mentioned at all, or dismissed with a few meaningless words. Those reasons for the rejection of the Copernican system by Tycho Brahe, which are believed to have been invalidated successfully today, are being addressed at great length in modern books on astronomy. But the main reason of Tycho Brahe opposing Copernicanism is not mentioned anywhere. Unfortunately the astronomers succeeded in ignoring him completely". (Zbawienie's own bolds)

Zbawienie then proceeds to describe how the comets are never observed to retrograde - as all our surrounding planets do. This is indeed a documented observational fact that no earnest astronomer can deny. However, it would appear that this fact (which all by itself falsifies the Copernican theory for our planets' retrograde motions) has been all but suppressed from astronomy literature. Carl Schöpffer (a geocentrist) was a prolific, polyhedric German writer and the author of "The Earth Stands Fast". Unsurprisingly perhaps, Schöpffer appears to have been dismissed as a 'kook and a charlatan' in academic circles. Be it as it may, he was evidently proficient in astronomical matters - and well-versed in the history of cometary motions. Here follows an excerpt from his 1869 treatise, "The Contradictions in Astronomy":

"All comets retain their course unchanged, are either immutably prograde or immutably retrograde.(...) Tycho had also observed these peculiarities of comets, but had also immediately drawn the conclusion from them that the adopted movement of the earth must be a false conclusion, because otherwise it would have to exert an influence on the apparent motion of the comets. In addition to that, two comets, which came into opposition with the sun, showed apparently enough, that the earth in fact does not move, because their adopted motion had no effect on the previously calculated and even course of the latter, as is the case with planets, of which Copernik says that they would retrograde for this reason. Later on there has often occured an occasion in which comets could be observed long enough to become convinced of their inconsistency with the Copernican system. The Great Comet of 1811 was observed 511 days, 359 days the comet of 1825, 286 days Halley in 1835 and 269 days the Great Comet of 1858 - but with all of them the course in the sky was an even one, no semblance of deviation was brought about by the assumed orbit of the earth.(...) How is it, then, that in the textbooks on astronomy only those of Tycho's pleas against the Copernican system, which arose from the ignorance of his time with physical things, are mentioned and refuted with unnecessary garrulity, whilst this strong objection is carefully concealed or only superficially touched?"

As we shall see further on (in Chapter 29 and 30), the fact that both comets and near-earth asteroids exhibit no (or extremely small) retrograde motions squarely contradicts the Copernican theory for our planets' observed retrograde periods. In fact, the heliocentric model can be shown to be geometrically impossible in many different ways.

Next, we shall take a closer look at the Sun's two moons, Venus and Mercury. "Pardon me? The Sun's 'two moons'?!..." Yes. As will be thoroughly demonstrated, Venus and Mercury are unquestionably the Sun's two lunar satellites - beyond reasonable doubt.