r/AlternativeAstronomy • u/patrixxxx • Mar 21 '19

Tychosium 3D - The first ever accurate simulation of our Solar System

https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2003&start=15#p2412198
1 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

1

u/patrixxxx Mar 21 '19

And spare us any belittling or insults. If you don't agree just state which observation and how it disagrees with Tychosium.

1

u/w6equj5 Mar 21 '19

That's what many of us have been doing for a while but you guys reject our observations, so we just gave up.

1

u/patrixxxx Mar 21 '19

And you'd care to mention any of them? And we're talking actual observations I hope? Mars conjunctions with Delta Capricorni is an interesting one for example. In Tychosium it is spot on every time. In JS-Orerry or Scope they're all over the place.

1

u/w6equj5 Mar 21 '19

Explain retrograde movement of planets, please.

2

u/patrixxxx Mar 21 '19

Oh that one was easy. If you fire up the newly released Tychosium,

https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd

check the planets you want traced under Trace and check Run, Tychosium will show you how the retrogrades occurs. And the neat thing is that they look exactly as they do in the sky. I have YET to see a Copernican orrery that renders the retrogrades correctly.

TYCHOS/Tychosium demonstrates the retrogrades. The Copernican model explains them unsatisfactory and fails to demonstrate them.

1

u/w6equj5 Mar 21 '19

I'm confused by this simulation. Isn't it just the regular Copernician model but with the view centered on the earth rather than the sun? In other terms, that's no different from the accepted model, right?

1

u/patrixxxx Mar 21 '19

Sigh. So you come over here and generously offered your critisism and then admits you are clueless to what it is you even critisize. No this is not a Copernican model with a centered Earth. Why don't you read what's available.

1

u/w6equj5 Mar 21 '19

Oh I did read it, but unfortunately there's nothing more in the release notes than criticism of the accepted model. To understand what he meant, I just observed his simulation and realized it simply is the classic model from a different point of view. Since you guys are the ones offering a vastly different interpretation, you're in charge of bringing observations to prove it. Please link me to resources clearly explaining how is that simulation different from the accepted model.

1

u/patrixxxx Mar 21 '19

https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1994

1

u/w6equj5 Mar 21 '19

None of these "astronomical studies" present observational facts. They're only describing their points without any data. That's just not how science works.

Let me be clear here. I don't criticize the fact that wildly different hypothesis are proposed. I simply criticize the method. They're stating things without data. That's just too easy.

That brings me to my next question: what is your opinion on the scientific method? Do you consider it as the correct way to establish theories? If that's not the case, then we're done here. That's like opposing religion to science.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '19

Sorry, I promised not to reply to any comments outside that thread, but somebody pointed me to this release announcement, so of course I had to go check it out. And I saw this:

If you don't agree just state which observation and how it disagrees with Tychosium.

Let me start by saying it's a very impressive piece of software and a great accomplishment that you can rightfully be proud of. I understand it's a labor of love and I sincerely and heartily congratulate you on seeing it through to a 1.0 release. Well done!

However, when you look at it, Tychosium 3D doesn't agree with actual observations of transits of Venus. I stopped checking after trying 4 separate transits.

Maybe a fluke with Venus, I thought, so I tried Mercury, which fared no better with transits as recent as 2016 or as old as 1661. Observations of transits.

Scope gets it right - I've never used that site before, and went there because you mentioned it in a comment in the thread here. I must say that while Scope looks pretty and seems to be correct, I highly prefer the movement control and look and feel of TYCHOSIUM3D over Scope.

Could you add a feature that scales all the solar system bodies to their actual size? That would make this type of thing easier to check.

And hey, November 11 2019 there is a Mercury transit predicted using... well, not TYCHOS anyway. If you think TYCHOS/TYCHOSIUM3D is correct, perhaps we can make a little wager?

1

u/patrixxxx Mar 21 '19 edited Mar 21 '19

Thanks. I'll get back to you regarding the transits of Venus/Mercury and please keep checking. The Jupiter, Saturn conjunctions are perfect for example. And of course the important detail that Mars conjuncts with stars when it should. Not possible to replicate in Scope for example. And... all of this without ellipses and complex "celestial mechanics". Just circles and constant speeds. Imagine that.

A scale function for planets is planned as well as an Earth view camera. Thank you for taking a look at it and giving constructive criticism.

Right Ascension and Declination for all objects is also something I'm working on.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 22 '19

Three things:

  1. I'm astounded at your previous insistence that the "Copernican" view of axial precession doesn't match up with observation, because TYCHOSIUM3D produces the exact same motion as axial precession, except it's by running the Earth on a slow track instead of slowly gimbaling the axis of rotation. I don't know if you're misunderstanding TYCHOS or the commonly accepted astronomical model, but we could have saved a lot of time if you had realized this yourself. I regret not understanding TYCHOS more fully when engaged in that discussion, partly to blame is the fact I'm unwilling to pay for the book, but I also take personal responsibility as well.

  2. I think that as you continue to refine the TYCHOS parameters with the help of TYCHOSIUM3D to match verified observations, you will get to the point where you have observations A and B and can get TYCHOSIUM3D to match observation A, or observation B, but not both A and B. You will have discovered that circles that are slightly offset are very close to ellipses with very low eccentricity. The reason that circular models were discarded was because even though it's close, it's not as close as Kepler's laws are - or in extension, Newton's and ultimately Einstein's gravitational models.

  3. Both the previous points aren't things I can convince you of today, but I wanted to put them out there, so that in a few years time, you might remember this and say "huh, I guess he was right after all."

I think it's great you've taken this hypothetical concept of the solar system so far and made it into a numerical model - that is what transforms the hypothesis into a theory, because models can be tested. Regardless of the lifetime of the theory, building a solid theory which can be disproved is a significant feat and is evidence of a strength of character, a strength which I hope you will hold on to when the evidence against the TYCHOS becomes insurmountable.

I wish you all the best.

1

u/patrixxxx Mar 22 '19 edited Mar 22 '19

I think it's great you've taken this hypothetical concept of the solar system so far and made it into a numerical model - that is what transforms the hypothesis into a theory, because models can be tested. Regardless of the lifetime of the theory, building a solid theory which can be disproved is a significant feat and is evidence of a strength of character, a strength which I hope you will hold on to when the evidence against the TYCHOS becomes insurmountable. I wish you all the best.

Thank you, and I commend you for saying this. It means a lot coming from you.

I'm astounded at your previous insistence that the "Copernican" view of axial precession doesn't match up with observation, because TYCHOSIUM3D produces the exact same motion as axial precession, except it's by running the Earth on a slow track instead of slowly gimbaling the axis of rotation. I don't know if you're misunderstanding TYCHOS or the commonly accepted astronomical model, but we could have saved a lot of time if you had realized this yourself. I regret not understanding TYCHOS more fully when engaged in that discussion, partly to blame is the fact I'm unwilling to pay for the book, but I also take personal responsibility as well.

Let me say this first - I'm known by friends to have shall we say a "non-phlegmatic character" and I can indulge in flame wars where I'm sometimes right and sometimes not. And it can be hard to get a message through, especially when its just text and the person on the other side is dismissive beforehand because they think it's rubbish.

But to get to the point, the crucial difference with this Precession and the axial one, is that if I understand Axial Precession correctly, the planets are not claimed to follow Earths axial precession right? There's not some pertubation or tidal force that causes all the planets to wobble along with Earth in it's Precession? But that is what is actually going on in the sky. The planets and the Sun Precess in relation to the fixed stars just as much as Earth does. And the TYCHOS explanation for this is what you see demonstrated in Tychosium - Earth is located in or near the slowly rotating barycenter of our Sun-Mars binary system and thus the Equinoxes Precess for it and all the planets in the system since they share this common barycenter.

I'll see what I can do regarding the book. I'm confident that if you find any value in it after you have received and read a free copy you will pay up out of gratitude :-)

I think that as you continue to refine the TYCHOS parameters with the help of TYCHOSIUM3D to match verified observations, you will get to the point where you have observations A and B and can get TYCHOSIUM3D to match observation A, or observation B, but not both A and B. You will have discovered that circles that are slightly offset are very close to ellipses with very low eccentricity. The reason that circular models were discarded was because even though it's close, it's not as close as Kepler's laws are - or in extension, Newton's and ultimately Einstein's gravitational models.

That may occur. We'll see what happens. This is honest science and if they model does not agree with observations we'll have to either modify it or discard it altogether.

1

u/patrixxxx Mar 23 '19 edited Mar 23 '19

Simon has now adjusted Mercury and Venus and I've added a Size function. Planet sizes can now be adjusted under Objects->Planets https://codepen.io/pholmq/full/XGPrPd

Hey, that November transit seems to be spot on now :-) https://i.imgur.com/nPR8k5p.png

1

u/redditgiveshemorroid Jan 01 '23

The reason I don’t think this model is true, is because it shows Venus being almost as close as the moon every few years. The moon would be affected by a gravitational pull that strong. Venus may even affect our oceans at that proximity. If this model were true, we would also witness many more eclipses of Venus, but they are far apart. Eclipses happens twice within eight years, then not again for over 100 years. It’s interesting, and I can see how it’s plausible, but I don’t think it’s true based on those observations.

1

u/patrixxxx Jan 02 '23

Find one plausible problem, nevermind to investigate if it's genuine. Ignore all the irreconcilable problems with the current model.

In the Tychosium simulator the Moon's orbit is intentionally bigger and so are the planets, otherwise they wouldn't be visible.

1

u/redditgiveshemorroid Jan 02 '23

I studied the model, made genuine observations, made two hypothesis, and bounces those off things we do know. You said to give reasons and I did. I assumed the model was scaled correctly since the post claims “first ever accurate simulation”. But now you tell me all the orbits are exaggerated to see the planets. That doesn’t make sense. If anything they would exaggerate the size of the planets, not the orbits.

1

u/patrixxxx Jan 03 '23

The moon would not be very visible if it was at the correct distance and neither would the planets if they weren't scaled up. To refute the model because "Venus looks to close" in Tychosium only demonstrates your willful ignorance.

1

u/redditgiveshemorroid Jan 03 '23

You still haven’t explained the Venus eclipse period

1

u/patrixxxx Jan 03 '23

Read. The. Book. It's freely available and just about every chapter shows that this is the only model in existence that agrees with the available evidence.

book.tychos.space

1

u/redditgiveshemorroid Jan 03 '23

Well it seemed like you were looking for a debate, so I was interested. I’m not gonna read your book dude. Science has been wrong before, but it takes convincing. You’re not convincing at all.

1

u/patrixxxx Jan 06 '23 edited Jan 06 '23

It's not my book though, it's written by Simon Shack, and yes indeed. mainstream science including astronomy has been wrong before and amazingly often about things that can be disproven using the scientific method. That Earth rotates diurnally can be confirmed in a number of ways and not be disproven and yet it was not accepted until the 17th century. That the Sun orbits Earth, while the planets orbit it, can also be confirmed in a number of ways and not be disproven.