Chapter 9: Tilts, obliquities and oscillations
Earth’s well-known 23.4° axial tilt is, of course, a fundamental requisite for the Copernican model to work, since Earth’s obliquity is meant to account for our alternating seasons. The most popularly-held, yet academically-supported theory as to exactly why Earth’s axis would be skewed at an angle goes like this:
“When an object the size of Mars crashed into the newly formed planet Earth around 4.5 billion years ago, it knocked our planet over and left it tilted at an angle.”
— "What Is Earth’s Axial Tilt or Obliquity?" - Time and Date website (opens in a new tab)
Yet - and in spite of such a fanciful 'explanation' for Earth's tilt - Copernicans also believe that our planet slowly wobbles around its axis... Anyhow, in the TYCHOS, Earth is also tilted at 23.4° in relation to its orbital plane, yet with some notable differences: it is the Sun that revolves around the Earth, while our planet’s own orbital motion slowly proceeds (at the tranquil speed of 1.6 km/h) with our Northern hemisphere 'leaning outwards' (i.e.; towards the Sun’s external orbital path) at all times.
Interestingly, it appears to be beyond dispute (among geophysicists) that our planet’s Northern hemisphere is much “heavier” than its Southern hemisphere. It is estimated that 68% of the Earth’s land exists in the Northern Hemisphere, while 32% is located in the Southern Hemisphere, meaning that our planet is "top heavy". In any event, it is a notion seemingly agreed upon by mainstream and ‘dissident’ scientists alike:
“The northern hemisphere consists of the great land masses and higher elevations, from a mechanical aspect, the Earth is top heavy, the northern hemisphere must attract a stronger pull from the Sun than the southern hemisphere. This lack of uniformity should impact on the movements of the Earth.”
— "Big Bang or Big Bluff" (p.164) - by Hans Binder (2011) (opens in a new tab)
It would thus seem intuitively logical, even to devout Newtonian advocates, that Earth’s heavier hemisphere would hang “outwards” as our planet circles around its own orbit. Conversely, it is hard to fathom how and why Earth’s axis would maintain its fixed, peculiar inclination while circling around the Sun (whilst also slowly wobbling around its axis) as of heliocentric theory. In fact, one of the latter’s most problematic aspects has to be its proposed cause for the observed secular stellar precession and our alternating pole stars. As will be expounded in Chapter 10, the hypothesized existence of Earth’s “Third motion” (i.e. a slow, retrograde 'wobble' of Earth’s polar axis) has been roundly disproved in recent years.
As illustrated in my next graphic, the TYCHOS provides an uncomplicated solution to account for the General Precession and our alternating pole stars: it it simply due to the Earth’s slow, 'clockwise' motion around what I have called the “PVP orbit” (Polaris-Vega-Polaris), one such PVP orbit being completed in 25344 years. Our current Northern and Southern pole stars are Polaris and Sigma Octantis, but over time they will be replaced by other stars - such as Vega (ca. 11000 years from now) and Eta Columba (ca. 12000 years from now).
The fact that Earth is tilted in such manner may possibly also go to explain why the Sun is further from Earth around July - and closer to Earth around January (the difference is 152.1Mkm - 147.1Mkm = 5Mkm - or a 3.3% difference). As a matter of fact, the Sun is observed to be about 3.3% smaller in July than in January - as viewed from both of Earth's hemispheres (incidentally, one wonders how flat earth proponents would account for this particular empirical observation!):
Now, if we instead envision the Earth's magnetic charge as a ‘repelling’ force (which, so-to-speak, “keeps the Sun from falling into it”), it would make sense that this repulsion peaks around the NH summer solstice – when our ‘heavier’ Northern Hemisphere is maximally tilted towards the Sun (see below graphic). In the NH winter solstice - when the Southern Hemisphere is mostly tilted towards the Sun - this repulsion wanes somewhat, allowing the Sun to get a little closer to Earth (by 5Mkm). However speculative this 'magnetic' explanation for the Earth's axial tilt may be, I nonetheless find it worthwhile to consider - were it only as a stimulus for future inquiry:
In any event, this variation between 152 Mkm and 147 Mkm (a 3.3% difference) would help explain why Kepler strangely concluded that all the bodies in our Solar System keep accelerating and decelerating. According to Kepler’s ‘laws’, as Earth travels around the Sun, it alternately speeds up and slows down; in the TYCHOS, of course, the Sun ‘substitutes’ the Earth as the annually orbiting body: the below orbital velocities (officially attributed to the Earth) would thus apply to the Sun.
According to a NASA Fact Sheet:
EARTH’s max. orbital velocity: 30.29 km/s
EARTH’s min. orbital velocity: 29.29 km/s
Ergo, a 3.3% difference… How interesting: we just saw that the Sun-Earth distance fluctuates by 3.3% !
Note that this is no small variation: it means Earth would be traveling as much as 3600 km/h faster (i.e. about 3 times the speed of sound) in January than it does in July! You may now rightly ask: ”how are such hefty (yet formidably stable & immutable) speed variations explained?” Well, this is claimed to be due to the Sun’s ’gravitational pull’: the closer a planet is to the Sun, the faster it will travel – and vice versa...
However, one has to wonder what sort of uncanny forces would cause the Sun’s "gravitational pull" (exerted perpendicularly to a given planet's orbit) to cause it to speed up and slow down, linearly! Yet, this is what Kepler was forced to conclude – in order to "make things work". Anyhow, I trust that the astute reader has already sensed the plain and obvious explanation for these apparent velocity fluctuations: quite simply, since the Sun transits 3.3% closer to Earth in January (perigee) than it does in July (apogee), it will be perceived to travel 3.3% faster (against the star background). In reality though, the Sun always travels at constant / invariable speed (29.78 km/s) and so do all the bodies in our Solar System. In other words, their apparent orbital speed variations are illusory - and are just a matter of relative distances and spatial perspective.
VENUS - AND THE SUN'S 5Mkm OSCILLATION
What follows is something that will require the reader to return to later on (in a second reading) - in order to fully appreciate its remarkable nature and significance. For now, suffice to say that the TYCHOS model submits that Earth's orbital diameter is 113.2Mkm (i.e. the width of the "PVP orbit" which will be expounded in Chapter 11). Venus is, of course, often referred to as "the Earth's sister" - since its dimensions are almost identical to the Earth (Ø of Venus: 12103.6km - and Ø of the Earth: 12756km). Now, as illustrated above, the Earth-Sun distance varies by about 5Mkm between winter and summer - and the average Sun-Venus distance (according to all official estimates) is 108.2Mkm. Well, since Venus is a moon of the Sun (as posited by the TYCHOS), it will also oscillate (in relation to the Earth) by 5Mkm between summer and winter. In other words, the maximal Earth-Venus distance would thus add up to 108.2Mkm + 5Mkm, for a total of 113.2Mkm - i.e. by an amount that would seem to "reflect" the diameter of Earth's "PVP orbit" (as proposed by the TYCHOS)! The significance of this is unclear, yet it would certainly appear to merit further investigation.
THE SUN'S 'MYSTERIOUS' 6 (OR 7) DEGREE TILT
“It’s such a deep-rooted mystery and so difficult to explain that people just don’t talk about it.”
You may have never heard of it, but one of the most baffling mysteries in astronomy is the 6° (or 7°) tilt of the Sun — or, as some have it, what is actually tilted is the “common plane of all of our planets’ orbits with respect to the Sun's polar axis”. Make no mistake: the observable fact that the Sun’s axis is tilted at an angle (with respect to the entire Solar System’s plane) is no petty matter. For why would this be? Isn’t the Sun supposed to be the massive, “central driveshaft” of our system? Shouldn’t therefore all our planets' orbits be co-planar with the Sun’s equator? Well, they are not - and this fact is an absolute mystery for academic astronomy, an unresolved quandary which all by itself falsifies both Newton’s and Einstein's edicts. As recently as 2016, an academic study admitted that it’s “such a deep-rooted mystery and so difficult to explain that people just don’t talk about it”. The study went on bizarrely to speculate that this tilt of the Sun’s axis might be caused by what they call “Planet Nine”: a hitherto unseen and entirely hypothetical celestial body!
Here's from an article at Phys.org musing about this still unexplained riddle:
“All of the planets orbit in a flat plane with respect to the sun, roughly within a couple degrees of each other. That plane, however, rotates at a 6-degree tilt with respect to the sun — giving the appearance that the sun itself is cocked off at an angle. Until now, no one had found a compelling explanation to produce such an effect. ‘It's such a deep-rooted mystery and so difficult to explain that people just don’t talk about it,’ says Brown, the Richard and Barbara Rosenberg Professor of Planetary Astronomy.”
And here’s from a 2016 article published at Astronomy.com :
“The Sun’s rotation was measured for the first time in 1850 and something that was recognized right away was that its spin axis, its north pole, is tilted with respect to the rest of the planets by 6 degrees. So even though 6 degrees isn’t much, it is a big number compared to the mutual planet-planet misalignments. So the Sun is basically an outlier within the solar system. This is a long-standing issue and one that is recognized but people don’t really talk much about it. Everything in the solar system rotates roughly on the same plane except for the most massive object, the Sun — which is kind of a big deal.”
Now, remember: in Chapter 6, we saw that the rotational axes of both Mars and our own Moon are also inclined by about 7° degrees! One has to wonder just how the Copernican / heliocentric advocates would 'justify' this most remarkable state of affairs!
As it turns out, the 6° (or 7°) tilt of the Sun’s rotational axis with respect to our ecliptic plane was known long before 1850; it was discovered by Christoph Scheiner back in the 1600’s during his extensive 20-year-long sunspot observations. His work was richly illustrated and published in his monumental treatise Rosa Ursina (1630). In fact, the “sunspot-issue” triggered a bitter and infamous 30-year-long feud between Galileo and Christoph Scheiner (who, incidentally, was a staunch supporter of the Tychonic model). To be sure, the observed inclination of the Sun was no trivial matter: it was - and still is - a crucial issue within the endless heliocentrism-vs-geocentrism debate.
“Scheiner, in his massive 1630 treatise on sunspots entitled ‘Rosa Ursina’, accepted the view of sunspots as markings on the solar surface and used his accurate observations, to infer the fact that the Sun’s rotation axis is inclined with respect to the ecliptic plane.”
In the below illustration by Cristoph Scheiner, I have highlighted in red the 6° inclinations of his observed sunspot transits in January and July.
In September, the Sun's North pole tilts towards us; in March the Sun's North pole tilts away from us - as described in this paper by Bruce McClure:
“The Sun’s axis tilts almost 7.5 degrees out of perpendicular to Earth’s orbital plane. (The orbital plane of Earth is commonly called the ecliptic.) Therefore, as we orbit the Sun, there’s one day out of the year when the Sun’s North Pole tips most toward Earth. This happens at the end of the first week in September. Six months later, at the end of the first week in March, it’s the Sun’s South Pole that tilts maximumly towards Earth. There are also two days during the year when the Sun’s North and South Poles, as viewed from Earth, don’t tip toward or away from Earth. This happens at the end of the first week in in June, and six months later, at the end of the first week of December.”
— "The Tilt of the Sun’s Axis" - by Bruce McClure (2006) (opens in a new tab)
In the TYCHOS model, this 6° (or 7°) tilt of the Sun can be illustrated as follows:
In this other drawing, Scheiner showed how two sunspots were observed to be moving around the solar sphere in the month of March:
Please note that the inclination I have marked as 23° is simply caused by Earth’s own axial tilt. What concerns us in Scheiner's above drawing is the tilt highlighted by my yellow arrows and blue arcs. It’s hard to make out exactly what amount of inclination they show, but 6° or 7° would seem to be fair estimates. In any case, the drawing clearly indicates that the Sun’s North Pole tilts away from us earthly observers in the month of March. We may also be satisfied that the Sun's polar axis is indeed tilted by 6° or 7°, perpendicularly to the ecliptic.
ARE THE ORBITS OF VENUS & MERCURY CO-PLANAR WITH THE SUN'S AXIAL TILT?
We shall now proceed to verify whether the orbits of Venus and Mercury - i.e. the Sun's two moons (as of the TYCHOS) - may show some relationship to the Sun's 6° or 7° tilt. Firstly, let us remember that the orbital tilts of Venus and Mercury, as of official astronomy data, are as follows:
Orbital tilt of Venus: 3.4°
Orbital tilt of Mercury: 7°
In reality however, Venus can - from our earthly perspective - be observed to be as many as 9° below or 9° above the Sun (again, spatial perspective can be misleading as it depends on several factors - such as relative distances and inclinations).
Whenever VENUS transits in perigee in September, we see it BELOW the Sun (by about -9°, as viewed from the Earth).
Whenever VENUS transits in perigee in March, we see it ABOVE the Sun (by about +9°, as viewed from the Earth).
On the other hand, whenever MERCURY transits in perigee in September, we see it BELOW the Sun (by about -3°, as viewed from the Earth); and Whenever MERCURY transits in perigee in March, we see it ABOVE the Sun (by about +3°, as viewed from the Earth).
In the TYCHOS model, the above factual / empirical observations can be conceptually illustrated by the following graphic:
All of this leads to the stunning realization that Venus and Mercury's orbits are, in fact, co-planar with the Sun's approximate 7° tilt!
This is, of course, nothing that heliocentric astronomers have ever noticed - nor debated. You may now wonder: "does the TYCHOSIUM 3D simulator show that the orbits of Venus and Mercury are co-planar with the Sun's axial tilt?" Indeed it does: as you can personally verify, the TYCHOSIUM shows how the virtual 'disk' that encompasses the orbits of Venus and Mercury around the Sun remains - at all times - tilted by about 6° or 7° in relation to the Sun's orbital plane. The orbits of Venus and Mercury are thus co-planar with the Sun's axial tilt! Here follow 4 screenshots from the TYCHOSIUM 3D simulator:
One could not wish for stronger - and more spectacular - evidence that Venus and Mercury are the two lunar satellites of the Sun. As it is, Venus and Mercury are not just the only moonless 'planets' of our Solar System; they are also the only two bodies whose orbits are inclined 'in sympathy' with the Sun's axial tilt. Everything suggests that we really ought to start calling them 'moons' (the Sun's moons) - instead of 'planets'. Add to this the afore-mentioned important fact that our own Moon's rotational axis is also tilted by about 7° in relation to the ecliptic (in 'sympathy' with the Sun, Venus and Mercury)! Now, you may rightly ask: "HOW would all this be explained within the Copernican / heliocentric model?" Well, you'll have submit this question to your local astronomy professor. Let me know how it goes!
The Sun’s 79-Year cycle (and 39.5-year oscillation period)
The Sun is observed to slightly oscillate around its own nucleus. Under current theory, the reason for this oscillation is explained as follows:
“The center of mass of our solar system is very close to the Sun itself, but not exactly at the Sun’s center (it is actually a little bit outside the radius of the Sun). However, since almost all of the mass within the solar system is contained in the Sun, its motion is only a slight wobble in comparison to the motion of the planets.”
According to the Wikipedia, what is observed is actually “the motion of the Solar System’s barycenter relative to the Sun”.
“The barycenter (or barycentre) is the center of mass of two or more bodies that are orbiting each other, or the point around which they both orbit. It is an important concept in fields such as astronomy and astrophysics. The distance from a body’s center of mass to the barycenter can be calculated as a simple two-body problem. In cases where one of the two objects is considerably more massive than the other (and relatively close), the barycenter will typically be located within the more massive object. Rather than appearing to orbit a common center of mass with the smaller body, the larger will simply be seen to wobble slightly.”
— “Barycenter” - Wikipedia (opens in a new tab)
The Wikipedia goes on to say that the Sun’s observed wobble / oscillation is caused by "the combined influences of all the planets, comets, asteroids, etc. of the Solar System”. Under the TYCHOS model's paradigm, however, we may ask ourselves the following question: could it possibly be, instead, that this slight wobble of the Sun is just a direct consequence of the influence of Mars, its binary companion? After all, such subtle oscillations on the part of host stars in binary systems are precisely what our modern-day astronomers look for (using sophisticated spectrometers and assorted state-of-the-art techniques) when trying to determine if a given star may host a smaller binary companion. In light of this, it would therefore seem perfectly reasonable to surmise that the Sun’s small oscillation around its nucleus may be caused by none other than its binary companion, Mars.
Earlier on we saw how Mars has a distinctive 79-year cycle within which it returns to the same celestial location. As it is, even Mercury - the Sun's junior moon - exhibits a 79-year cycle and thus conjuncts regularly with Mars every 79 years (the next Mars-Mercury conjunction will occur on October 28, 2023). Now, it turns out that, according to modern-day researchers of solar activity, the Sun also has a 79-year cycle. According to Theodor Landscheidt’s studies, the cycle of solar activity is related to the sun’s oscillatory motion about the center of mass of the solar system.
Swinging Sun, 79-Year Cycle, and Climatic Change - by T. Landscheidt (1981) (opens in a new tab)
Theodor Landscheidt (1927-2004) is held in the highest esteem by many independent astronomers and climatologists who have noticed that our Earth’s climate is correlated to the periodic fluctuations of solar activity, which themselves depend on the Sun’s observed oscillations around the “center of mass of the planetary system (CM)” – to use Landscheidt’s own words. Now, as their theory goes, this observed oscillation of the Sun would be caused by the gravitational pull of the larger planets of our system (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune). Some say that even Mercury and Venus may be involved in this collective “solar nudging”. Oddly enough, Mars – and Mars only – is never mentioned in their papers, despite Landscheidt’s discovery of the Sun’s peculiar 79-year synchronicity with Mars.
Interestingly, Landscheidt also points out in his above-linked study that the Sun’s nucleus and CM (center of mass)...“can come close together (i.e. return to the same place in space) as in 1951 and 1990" (i.e. within a ca. 39.5-year period). Landscheidt’s study features the below, well-known diagram plotting the Sun’s observed oscillation around its own CM. I have borrowed and captioned this diagram to highlight the fact that the Sun’s CM returns to the same place in approximately 39.5 years. Since the Sun and Mars are locked in a 2:1 orbital ratio, it would stand to reason that the Sun exhibits a such a period, since Mars exhibits a 79-year (39.5 X 2) orbital cycle. Much as the Sun revolves twice for every Mars revolution, the Sun’s nucleus would thus complete two 39.5-year oscillatory periods for every 79-year cycle of Mars.
Above graphic from p. 44, "Sun-Earth-Man: a Mesh of Cosmic Oscillations" (opens in a new tab) by Theodor Landscheidt (1989)
Landscheidt’s caption for the graphic reads (my bolds):
“Master cycle of the solar system. Small circles indicate the position of the center of mass of the planetary system (CM) in the ecliptic plane relative to the Sun’s center (cross) for the years 1945 to 1995. The Sun’s center and CM (Center of Mass) can come close together, as in 1951 and 1990 (ed- i.e. ca. 39.5 years) or reach a distance of more than two solar radii.”
— "The Golden Section: A Cosmic Principle" - by Theodor Landscheidt (1993) (opens in a new tab)
Other independent authors in addition to Landscheidt have also detected a peculiar “80-y / 40-y” periodicity (an approximation of the TYCHOS’ 79-y / 39.5-y periodicity) in relation to the Sun’s barycentric dynamics and what is described as “the solar angular momentum inversions”.
“We apply our results in a novel theory of Sun-planets interaction that it is sensitive to Sun barycentric dynamics and found a very important effect on the Sun´s capability of storing hypothetical reservoirs of potential energy that could be released by internal flows and might be related to the solar cycle. This process (which lasts for ca. 80 yr) begins about 40 years before the solar angular momentum inversions, i.e., before Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum, and before the present extended minimum.”
In any event, the observed 'wobble' (oscillatory motion) of the Sun - and its 39.5-year periodicity - would certainly seem to lend additional support to the notion that the Sun and Mars constitute a binary system locked in a 2:1 ratio.
GALILEO AND SCHEINER
As a brief anecdotal aside, it is interesting to note that Galileo (a staunch crusader for Copernicus' theories) seemingly perceived Cristoph Scheiner’s sunspot observations as a threat to heliocentrism. Notoriously, the ill-tempered Galileo engaged in fierce verbal battles with numerous astronomers of his time, often wrongfully claiming primacy over new discoveries made (by others) with the aid of the telescope. As Scheiner (outraged by Galileo’s accusations of plagiarism regarding the discovery of the sunspots) decided to move from Ingolstadt to Rome in order to better defend his work, the bitter feud between Galileo and Scheiner turned ugly. Here is what that great man of science, Galileo, had to say about his German colleague whom he calls a “brute”, a “pig”, a “malicious ass”, a “poor devil” and a “rabid dog”!
One may thus be forgiven for questioning the legacy of this most revered 'icon of science', what with his dreadful arrogance and contempt of his peers. In any case, Galileo's most acclaimed telescopic discoveries (the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter - both of which had, in fact, been previously observed by other astronomers) did not contradict in any way the Tychonic model which, in his time - and as few people will remember today - was the ruling 'system of the world'. Yet, in his writings, Galileo virtually ignored the geoheliocentric model proposed by Brahe and Longomontanus!
“After 1610, when Galileo engaged himself fully in astronomy and cosmology, he showed little direct interest in Tycho’s system and none at all in Longomontanus’ version of it. (...) Moreover, he never mentioned explicitly the Tychonian world system by name.”
One must wonder why Galileo Galilei (the man hailed as the 'father of the scientific method') would have been so dismissive of his illustrious Danish colleagues and instead used Ptolemy (and his already moribund geocentric system) as a straw man in order to forward his heliocentric convictions. For Galileo to 'pass over' the Tychonic (or Semi-Tychonic) system will forever remain a mystery - and doesn't say much about his adherence to the scientific method. To be sure, Galileo never provided any sort of evidence for the Earth's supposed revolution around the Sun - and the only argument he put forth towards this idea (i.e. his infamous 'Tide Theory') proved to be entirely spurious:
"Clearly inspired by the behaviour of water when boats come to a halt, Galileo Galilei concluded that the ebb and flow of the tides resulted, similarly, from the acceleration and deceleration of the oceans. This, in turn, was caused by the movement of the Earth around the Sun, and its rotation on its own axis. However, Galileo was completely mistaken in this theory." "Defeated by the Tides" - by Jochen Büttner (2014) (opens in a new tab)
In the next chapter, we shall tackle the so-called "Third Motion of Earth" and see if the idea that the Earth would slowly wobble around its axis - in the opposite direction of its axial rotation - holds water. (Spoiler: it does not).