Latest / UK Column Radio / What is the TYCHOS Model of the Universe? | Jerm Warfare

Transcript

What is the TYCHOS Model of the Universe? | Jerm Warfare · UK Column Radio

0:35
None. Let's just quickly do a a very
0:42
brief bio of you and and your background.
0:46
Oh, bio of me. Well, I've been doing lots of
0:53
research in the last 25 years on all sorts of topics, but for the
1:00
last 12 years I've been going 24/7 into astronomy research.
1:06
And thanks to thanks to thanks to the fact that that I can read
1:14
in five languages, I've been able to read lots of material,
1:18
lots of volumes of books of astronomy in original language.
1:22
And that has helped me to get a nice overview of the of
1:28
heliocentrism actually, which because Helios centuries only
1:32
came about, you know, in after capital Galileo, everyone before
1:41
that thought that we lived in a geocentric system with Earth in
1:47
the middle. And but as very few people know,
1:53
for one century after Tycho Brahe's death.
1:57
So Tycho Brahe is the man, the, the Danish astronomer who, whose
2:03
model I, I've based the Tigers on.
2:06
It's obviously that's why it's called the Tigers.
2:09
It's in honour of, of the, the great Tico Broye.
2:14
We call him Sweden. And he had an island on which is
2:19
now between Denmark and Sweden. And he had an island for
2:22
himself, the castle. He was his friend with the his
2:27
yeah, the the the the Danish king finance team generously to
2:35
make incredible incredible. This castle was considered in
2:40
NASA of the time. He has a huge budget.
2:43
So he made fantastic instruments to watch this guys with.
2:47
So. So I'm Swedish like like Tikko
2:53
Broyer was Danish because Denmark was had conquered Sweden
2:58
at the time, but then it's went back to Sweden.
3:01
So I, I kind of considered to have finished Ticobra's work
3:07
with this because his so I was saying that his model was
3:12
considered, it was the ruling model for one, one century after
3:16
his death. It was the one that even, yeah,
3:20
even the church accepted, actually, and mainly people
3:25
don't know that it would. It took a long time before the
3:28
Copernican system model was accepted, right?
3:33
But hang on, hold on. So you're saying that for what,
3:38
about 400 years or so since Copernicus, astronomers have
3:43
been getting it wrong? Yeah.
3:46
Well, that's, that's what this yeah, this underlying, it's the
3:52
underlying statement of the Tychos.
3:54
But what I just said was that the Tychonic model, which we can
4:01
we were going to look at soon. Let's first look at at the one
4:06
we all know. This is the Copernican or
4:09
Keplerian heliocentric model. And I just want to make sure
4:13
that I follow. I'm going to keep interrupting
4:15
from time to time if that's OK with you.
4:16
But so, so just to make sure, we're talking about the model
4:21
where everything orbits around the sun and the sun is the
4:24
centre of the Galaxy. That would that would be the
4:27
heliocentric model which we all learned at school, right?
4:30
Right. OK.
4:31
And that's based on Copernicus. Yeah, it was Copernicus who
4:35
first came up with this idea, at least in there was apparently
4:41
some Greeks, many, many in the ancient times had also thought
4:46
that the sun was in the middle. But it was a very, very, very,
4:50
it was a very novel thing to say that the sun was in the middle
4:56
in the 15th century when Copernicus came up.
5:01
So anyway, but he, he has been accepted.
5:03
Now we have the sun in the middle and beautiful elliptical
5:06
orbits. You see here Mercury, then Venus
5:11
and then the Earth, right in the third vein, the Earth has has
5:15
this moon around it and it's pleasing to the eye.
5:19
It's it's simple. It looks simple because we have,
5:23
you know, these concentric circles and maybe that's why
5:26
it's so much accepted, but it isn't that simple.
5:32
And and this as I've shown in my book, because I have this book
5:38
called the the Tychos, the Geo axial, our Geo axial binary
5:47
system here. You can read it here.
5:52
That's because the Earth is in the middle and but it's not
5:56
stationary like Tycho Broy had it.
5:59
He, he stopped at the idea that the Earth didn't move at all,
6:03
which is not very logical because everything in the sky
6:09
has an orbit. All All Stars have orbits of
6:12
their own, all planets orbits. So why would Earth be the only
6:17
stationary thing? So that's the first thing.
6:20
But anyway, so we, this looks very complicated right here, but
6:24
what we are looking at here is the result of the tracing
6:28
function of the Tacosum simulator, which we are going to
6:33
look at later on, and which is a simulator which simulates the
6:38
tacos very well, perfectly. It it, it is absolutely in
6:42
accordance with every single observation made over the
6:45
centuries. So let's go forward.
6:49
This is to show that it it shouldn't be so strange to see
6:54
all this. You know, chocoeds, we can call
6:58
them these funny shapes because this is what the stars look like
7:04
today with these are this is from 2010.
7:07
These are astronomers looking at stars hosting exoplanets and
7:13
they see these kind of shapes, you know, just like we we we saw
7:16
here. So there's nothing strange about
7:19
this. This is what we know today, that
7:22
these are the kind of motions we are we see up in the skies just
7:28
to just to put this thing. OK, so, so Simon, so let me just
7:33
make sure I'm I'm following at this stage.
7:36
The core issue, or one of the core issues is that mainstream
7:43
astronomy or the current model, the current heliocentric model
7:48
is based on stars that are impossibly big and, and, and
7:54
this is a problem that that that Tiger Bra was trying to solve.
8:00
Yes, his problem, main problem was the with Copernicus was that
8:06
the stars would have to be incredibly far away, absolutely
8:09
unthinkably far away if he's, if Copernicus idea was right and
8:15
he, he didn't, he didn't like that idea, he said.
8:19
So we have our planets here, Venus, Mercury and Saturn and
8:25
Jupiter and then nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing before
8:29
we meet the first star for a for a huge amounts of an incredible
8:36
distances and that didn't sound right to him.
8:42
Yeah. I mean how, what, what, what?
8:43
I mean the first star to or the closest star to to us is what?
8:47
Alpha Centauri. Alpha Centauri, Proxima
8:50
Centauri, which is also binary system.
8:54
We'll we'll talk about binary systems soon.
8:57
It's very recently they discovered that even Proxima has
9:00
a companion. So all these stars have
9:03
companions. Proximae is supposed to be
9:06
supposedly 4.2 light years away. And, you know, light years is,
9:10
you know, incredibly incredible. Stupidly far.
9:14
Yeah, even the the closest star is stupidly far.
9:17
But now if you may, if if I may, I'll start, you know.
9:22
Oh, OK, let's start this. These are the identical models
9:29
of Taika Bra and Patani Samantha.
9:33
Patani Samantha is someone I, I, I only learned about when I went
9:37
to India in 2016. And I went to an old astronomer
9:41
who, who, who, who gave me book with this model.
9:45
And it is identical to Taika Bra's model.
9:49
And I was stunned. I, I mean, no one, very few
9:53
people. I mean, he's got statues in
9:55
India. People know him in India, but
9:58
not even even that much in India.
10:00
But he's completely unknown by running Samantha, but he
10:04
nonetheless came to the exact same conclusion as as Tiger Boy.
10:08
And what is the main thing here which I've highlighted in red
10:12
and yellow? It is the fact that the Sun, the
10:16
yellow one and Mars have intersecting orbits and and all
10:21
the peers. During Dyker Broy's time, in the
10:24
beginning when he was coming, he came up with this model.
10:28
They were laughing at him saying oh, but then they must crash.
10:31
Sooner or later the Sun and Mars must crash.
10:34
Well no, because they have a 2 to one relationship.
10:38
It's a 2 to one ratio, so they will never crash.
10:41
It's a binary system and exact same model Patani Samantha came
10:47
up with and he's considered genius.
10:50
One of the biggest ancient. I mean, he he was actually he he
10:56
he, he lived in the 18th century, 18th century, but I
11:01
don't think he copied Taco bras idea.
11:04
He worked completely independently in the in the
11:07
forest. He was detached from the western
11:11
world, but he came to the same conclusion, which is Mars and
11:16
Sun intersecting. Their orbits are intersecting
11:20
and the rest of the planets go around.
11:24
But how's that possible that that they intersect?
11:26
Is it just, I mean, it's a sun, it's a sun.
11:30
It's. Just no.
11:32
They it's no intersection. It's just that they are
11:34
overlaid. I mean, they, their paths seem
11:38
to be intersecting if you trace them, but they will never touch
11:41
here, here, over here, they will never crash because it's a 2 to
11:45
one relationship when Mars, Mars needs two years to do one turn
11:51
and and the son needs one year. So they will never touch.
11:56
It's mathematical. So we now really need to get
12:01
into the the question of binary systems.
12:03
Binary systems is something that people really don't know about.
12:07
But it's amazing that, that people don't know about binary
12:10
systems because in, in the later 20 years, we, we keep
12:16
discovering more and more and more.
12:19
Today we know that at least 85%, actually it's more now this is
12:24
an old slide of mine. It's more than 90%.
12:28
It's, it's going to be maybe 100% of the stars in our sky are
12:34
locked in double binary systems. So all the stars you see folks
12:39
in the skies have a companion. I want to say all, OK, maybe I'm
12:45
wrong, maybe it's 99.9, but let's say just all for the
12:50
purpose of this discourse. So obviously then statistically
12:57
the sun can't be the only bachelor in the sky, right?
13:01
He's got to have a, a companion and a companion is Mars.
13:05
And so this, this drawing here, I took it from an astronomy book
13:11
and I just put, you know, what if this is Mars, This was at the
13:14
beginning of my research. What if B here is Mars and, and,
13:18
and the centre of Mars is Earth and the sun is here.
13:22
AB OK, so that was my first postulation.
13:26
So what I say here what what Tycho Brah and Patani Samantha
13:29
had unwittingly discovered was that we live in the sun Mars
13:33
binary system. But they didn't know about the
13:35
binary system. No one had seen any binary
13:38
system. The first discovery of a binary
13:42
of a double star was far later in in 1650 or even later 1650
13:48
was virtually. But anyway, long after Taco
13:53
Broy's death, they discovered double stars.
13:56
OK, so here is William Herschel started looking at many, many
14:01
double stars and look at what he he was this is his first map.
14:05
You can see how many red dots there there are double stars.
14:09
And this is only in 1803 already.
14:12
You know, this should have caused the revolution in
14:16
astronomy. Oh my God, almost all the stars
14:19
are double, but somehow it has never been discussed and most
14:24
people don't even know that it's the stars are all have a
14:29
companion, which is amazing. So anyway, so here we are.
14:34
This is the this is my main. This is my going of the Tychos
14:40
model. We'll we'll see how it works in
14:44
the Tychosome simulator later on.
14:48
But OK, so first thing I want to show you OK, we have the sun and
14:51
Mars intersecting. OK, Sun here, Mars here, Mercury
14:58
and Venus are the moons of the Sun and I have proven this in so
15:04
many ways in the book and. Mercury and Venus are the moons
15:08
of the Sun. They should be called the moons
15:10
of the Sun. I mean, they should be called
15:13
the because moons have very particular Moons rotate
15:18
extremely slowly around their axis, and so do Mercury and
15:22
Venus. They rotate at walking pace.
15:26
No other planet rotates its walking base like 2.7 for Venus
15:31
and 5.4 for Mercury. Actually one is double the other
15:36
and the moon, our moon is 16 kilometres an hour, which is you
15:41
know, it's like a three, what is it now?
15:45
1136 ratio. So the the moons of our moon and
15:53
Mercury and Venus, they all rotate very slowly.
15:58
Now another thing I want to quickly show here.
16:03
You see Mars here. This doesn't mean that the Earth
16:08
goes around Mars. This blue ring is my main
16:13
contribution to Tecobrua's original model.
16:17
I call it the PvP orbits because and it lasts for 25,000 years,
16:24
25,344 to be exact. It takes 25,000 years to for the
16:29
earth to move here. So this blue thing is kind of
16:34
virtual. You just have to understand that
16:36
we're not going around. It's mosque always passing here
16:40
and and I'll show why later on. So the the PvP orbit is because
16:45
why was it called PvP? Because we are now under this
16:49
polar star called Polaris. And in 12,000 years we'll be on
16:55
the other side. And you see my mouse?
16:57
You see my mouse? Yeah.
17:00
In about 12,000 years we'll be here and we'll be under Vega,
17:04
another big star in the sky, very famous star Vega, and then
17:09
Solaris again, and then the M back to Polaris.
17:12
So it's PvP, that's my PvP robot.
17:16
And I mean, keep this in mind because this is what actually
17:21
solves everything and resolves 41 questions of astronomy at the
17:27
end of my book. It's all because the Earth moon
17:30
system is moving around its PvP orbits very slowly at 1.6
17:36
kilometres an hour, which is 1 mile per hour.
17:40
OK, so here we see it's from the side our system here, see here.
17:47
Here we are today around the epoch 2000 with Polaris on top.
17:53
Here we, we, we have Polaris as North star and we have Sigma
17:57
Octantis as a S South Pole star. In about 12,600 years, we'll be
18:04
on the other side and we'll have Vega as a pole star and Columba.
18:10
But this is not something that I've come up with.
18:12
This is accepted by astronomy that we will have Vega in about
18:17
12,000 years. I've just made it, just made a
18:22
system that shows it in, in a much more pleasant way, if you
18:28
like, because this is, this is just because we are inclined
18:33
here. You see, this is Earth inclined
18:35
about 23.400°. We will kind of stay inclined
18:39
more or less like that. Maybe we change one or two
18:42
degrees over over the the spring, but anyway 2340° and we
18:48
keep this tilt around this orbits, we slowly go around this
18:53
orbit in 25,000 years. That is main point of the Tigers
18:58
to understand. It's very slow.
19:01
It's very slow, yeah, But we have, you know, very tranquil
19:06
planets. We don't have incredible winds
19:09
like on Mars or we have a very tranquil planet.
19:12
And so it shouldn't be surprising that we move slowly.
19:16
And there's no wobble. This exactly so the what how do
19:23
how do hell is centrist astronomers explain this.
19:28
This is the procession of the equinoxes right?
19:31
The the fact that we change pole stars and, and, and, and we see
19:34
All Stars moving by by 51 arc seconds every year.
19:38
That's because we're moving simply around this.
19:40
So here, here we go. This is the what we have called
19:45
for for ages. We've called it the precession
19:48
of the equinoxes. Well, it is the motion of the
19:51
Earth simply. So here we are today on June 21,
19:57
OK, we will have the sun here, but. 2112 years ago we were here
20:06
and we had the son was in Cancer.
20:10
Now on in June it's in Gemini and in 2112 to 2112 years from
20:20
now we'll be in Taurus because we have moved this much.
20:25
All right, so you see this cake I've divided in 12 pieces, it's
20:31
2112 years and by 12 it's 25 thousand 7044.
20:39
Meanwhile, Mars will always pass in the middle of the PvP orbit.
20:44
And that's the most astonishing thing I only discovered after
20:50
after we made with my Swedish colleague, he's Patrick
20:56
Holmquist. He's computer programmer.
20:59
And he, he, he was able to do the simulator we're going to
21:02
look at. And when the simulator started
21:06
working, I, I finally understood why Mars was passing when it
21:10
passes closest to Earth, it is exactly in the middle of this
21:14
orbit. So now a little philosophical
21:19
interlude, because it it goes to answer your, your, your question
21:24
before he said, you know, we're moving very slowly.
21:28
Yes. So could Earth's snail paste
21:32
motion be a key prerequisite? How do you pronounce that in
21:36
English? Yes, that's correct
21:37
prerequisite. Prerequisite for a biological
21:41
life and for any given planet's habitability.
21:44
I mean, just think about it philosophically.
21:47
Doesn't it make sense that we are moving slowly?
21:49
We're not going around at 90 times the speed of sound around
21:53
the sun because that's what they are saying we should be going
21:57
right now. You sit on your chair, they're
22:00
very comfortably, but you're moving at 90 times the speed of
22:03
sound, Jerm, you feel. It it's it's the numbers that
22:09
they use are just absurdly big. Yes, yes.
22:14
So anyway, let's let's get on now.
22:16
Do we have the question is do we have any similar system up there
22:22
that we that looks like the Tychos?
22:25
Oh yes, we have this largest star in our skies.
22:29
I mean, the largest, it's twice the size of the second largest
22:35
star in optically, It's not the largest star.
22:39
Apparently many are larger, but Sirius isn't is the number one
22:43
biggest star we have right when we look out in the sky.
22:48
OK, so when in the 18th century, some.
22:51
Yeah. Around there, they discovered
22:53
that Siri had a companion and they call it Sirius B.
22:57
Right. And Sirius A goes around here.
23:02
See, it goes around clockwise. Sirius, this is the, you know,
23:06
the main star of of the series system Series A.
23:09
But then then he discovered series B which goes like this
23:14
around the much larger one larger orbits.
23:17
Well, look at this how this compares to our system in the
23:19
Tychos. We have Mars, which is
23:23
comparable to series B, We have the Earth comparable to series
23:28
C, which we will see later about and the sun here.
23:35
And even the proportions between the near most passage of series
23:42
B and the near most passage of Mars and the farthest passage of
23:46
Mars is is 1 to 7. So it's a very, very similar
23:51
system to ours. And but what I really, I fell
23:59
off my chair when I discovered that, you know, they have been
24:03
able to measure the proportion between the big one and the
24:06
small one. Well, it's 205 to one that
24:09
happens to be the same proportion as Sun and Mars.
24:13
So, so This is why I can write a series binary system, the twin
24:20
sister of the Sun Mars binary system.
24:24
It's not such a crazy question because they are incredibly
24:29
similar, right? Do you agree, Germ?
24:32
So far, yeah. Yeah, yeah.
24:34
OK, so we have, you know, we have, but we have, you know, we
24:39
don't have any system we've ever seen that that that's like the
24:43
the first slide I showed, you know, with the Copernicus
24:46
system. We, we've never seen a star with
24:49
lots of planets going around in circles in ellipses, perfect
24:53
ellipses. We, we don't have a similar
24:56
system in our skies. I tell you we don't.
25:01
And, and, and lately in, in astronomy journalists, they're
25:05
starting to talk about it is, is our solar system an outlier in,
25:10
in the universe? Are we the only ones with that
25:14
shape? No, we were like all the others.
25:16
All the binary systems are like this.
25:19
So I mean, the logic of the typos is it's absolutely clear.
25:26
So here is a little thing I put together.
25:30
This is this blue, blue image. You can find it on Wikipedia.
25:34
It shows Series A and series B, right?
25:38
The tiny series B and the big Series A OK, So what is series
25:43
C? It is something that they have
25:45
not found in the telescope here. They can't see it in
25:48
telescopically. Telescopically with telescopes,
25:52
they can, though. There has been a large French
25:55
study with the spectrometry that they have determined that, yes,
26:00
there should be a serious sea, right?
26:02
But it's so close to the big stars that we can't see it in
26:06
any telescope because it's, it's in the glare of the big star.
26:09
Well, what if that's exactly the same case for if you would be on
26:14
Sirius, you would look down on our system.
26:16
Maybe you could see Mars, but you wouldn't see Earth because
26:20
it's blinded in the in the glare of our sun, right?
26:24
And as we saw, they are very similar to those two systems.
26:28
So this might be what reality. I mean, if you, you know, take a
26:32
spaceship to Sirius, you might see the same thing as we see
26:36
Sirius, how we see Sirius. So here we come to the question
26:42
of the Suns, the the moons of the sun and Mars, I told you
26:49
before, right? That's Venus and Mercury are the
26:53
moons of the sun. They are the the sun.
26:56
Yeah. And you know what, Mars also has
27:00
two moons. Not, not many people know that
27:03
they're called Phobos and Damos. So you see, we have like, you
27:07
know, husband and wife with two kids, whatever you want to
27:12
compare it to, very kind of balanced, you know, couple with
27:17
both have two moons and, and, and we have 1 moon and we have a
27:24
very large moon. The Earth has has the biggest
27:27
moon we know of proportionately to its host planets.
27:32
We have a huge moon. It's almost a third, almost a
27:37
third. It's 3.6 times smaller than
27:41
Earth only. So we have a huge moon and we'll
27:43
look at the moon soon as we go ahead.
27:49
So why can I say firmly that Mercury Venus are the moons of
27:55
the sun? Well, well, oops, I don't have
28:00
it here. I don't have this light.
28:02
But I'll tell you just here because in the Tacosum simulator
28:06
how the way it works now, you can see their orbits.
28:10
If you see it's from the side they are inclined, Both orbits
28:15
are Mercury Venus at 7°. And do you know what a mystery
28:21
in astronomy is? Why is the sun the sun's axis
28:26
inclined by 7°? Because it is.
28:29
Well, the Sun is inclined at 7° and its moons have 7° inclined
28:36
orbits. So.
28:38
So the Venus in America are are going around the Sun's equator
28:43
because it's a big, big unresolved question why the sun
28:46
is tilted. You know, it's supposed to be
28:48
the central thing. Why aren't we all going around
28:50
this equator? No, no, no.
28:53
Only Venus in Mercury go around in the same plane as the science
28:59
equator. And that came out only in the
29:02
Tacosum simulator. You can't see that in in the
29:06
heliocentric simulator. So now we get to the moon, which
29:11
is absolutely fantastic. I mean, what what this is maybe
29:16
also one of the most astonishing things of the tigers.
29:23
If you, I found out that the Maya people, they knew that the
29:28
the actual average cyanotic period of the moon is 29.22
29:32
days. It's too long to explain now,
29:34
but just accept this. 29.22 days is 1 here.
29:38
OK, so that's the moon. If you multiply this by 4, you
29:43
get Mercury's exact cyanotic period.
29:47
Cyanotic periods means the time a body employs to get back to
29:54
the Sun. You know, in front of the sun,
29:57
return in front of the sun on the same line as the sun.
30:00
Then you multiply this by 20, you get Venuses.
30:03
Venuses periods by 25 you get Mars, by 150 Jupiter, by 375
30:15
you'll get Saturn and then all the way up to all the way up to
30:19
Pluto. They are multiples of our moons
30:24
period. So I naundic period.
30:26
So it's like a a clockwork. It's a perfect clockwork.
30:31
So I call the moon the central time shaft of the clockwork
30:36
jokingly, but it's it's not a crazy way to define it because
30:44
it is here in the centre. I mean, if the moon was just one
30:49
appendage that's in the 3rd lane went around the sun, why would
30:53
it have have have these resonances with everyone, with
30:57
all our planets? OK, just ask yourself this
31:01
question. Here's another point.
31:07
Well, I, I, I tried to, to, you know, take, you know, the
31:10
slides. It's maybe just a no overview of
31:14
the, the Tycos because I can't really in one hour talk about,
31:18
you know, 300 pages in my book. But this is another strong
31:21
point. It's about Mars because Mars was
31:24
Ty Cobra's problem. That's why he he, he has Kepler.
31:28
Kepler was a young 26 year old good mathematician, but he's as
31:32
Kepler helped me with Mars because I don't understand it.
31:36
And it was the number one problem.
31:38
Mars. Well, you can imagine why now,
31:42
because it's, it's the companion of the Sun.
31:44
So it's very special. So the I I boldly say here, the
31:51
heliocentric model is geometrically impossible.
31:54
Oh, how dare you, Simon? Well, here's one thing.
31:59
The Maya people, as I mentioned briefly before, the Maya people
32:04
were experts in Mars cycles, and they found that Mars has this
32:08
very strange cycle. If you if you look at Mars and
32:13
you align it with a star, Right. Jeremy, you follow me.
32:17
Yes, yes, yes. You're in your garden.
32:19
You look at Mars and you, you choose a star and you say, let's
32:22
see how how long it takes before Mars comes back to that star.
32:25
Well, it will be 7 seven days and then again 707.
32:29
And for 7 * 707 days Mars will return in front of the star.
32:36
But the eighth time it would only take 546 days.
32:41
Now go and explain that in the heliocentric model.
32:44
Well, here is how here this is heliocentric comparison from
32:48
heliocentric simulator we're looking at.
32:51
So if it would be like that, we'd have we'd have Earth here
32:54
with Mars in front of a given star.
32:56
I chose this control star called enable Jetty and 546 days is 1
33:03
year and a half, right? So 1, you know, 1 1/2 and we
33:09
will be here 300 million kilometres apart from the first
33:13
observation. Yet in reality, Mars will return
33:18
in front of that same star as if 300 million kilometres didn't do
33:23
nothing. And how do mainstream
33:27
astronomers, Spain this oh, they say because it starts us so far
33:32
away that not even 300 million kilometres will will make a
33:35
difference. You know, maybe they're
33:37
slightly, you know, converging here.
33:40
Now they are exactly parallel when you look at them.
33:44
Actually, I've been testing various allocentric simulators,
33:48
the most, you know, famous simulators which are this, this
33:55
configuration, they actually diverge.
33:58
So they can't say that they they diverge slightly.
34:00
So anyway. But so how does tigers explain
34:06
this? You must be wondering.
34:09
Well, before you go any further, So what you're saying is that
34:15
the heliocentric model and the Flat Earth model are wrong.
34:22
Oh, let's not talk about the Flat Earth model.
34:24
Please. Please, no.
34:28
Please spare me that. Spare me that.
34:33
OK, no, let let me just continue here with Mars because it's an
34:37
important fact, an important thing.
34:40
So here's a here's how a heliocentric simulator depicts 8
34:44
successive conjunctions of Mars with a given star.
34:48
I I'm still using the Nabal JD as a control star, right?
34:52
So this is what would happen according to the heliostatic
34:57
model. So, you know, 012345677
35:05
conjunctions with the same star, which is what actually happened.
35:09
But but all these lines are, are on in different places and
35:13
they're all parallel. Well, they're supposed to, to
35:15
reach the same star, although Mars is much closer to the star.
35:20
I mean, you know that there should be some parallax.
35:22
If you put your finger close to your nose, you only move your
35:25
head a very little bit and, and you know, think of your finger
35:28
as Mars, you move your head a little bit and, and you'll see
35:31
everything moving behind it. Well, Mars is very close, so
35:35
this can't happen. And this from between 7:00 and
35:41
8:00, it's a famous 546. That's it.
35:45
That's the shortest periods Mars has, but but it shows the Earth
35:53
being the farthest away from from one point to the other.
35:57
Well here is how the Tychos explains it shows it.
36:01
This is how the Tychosome simulator shows it.
36:04
Every single eight of these 8 conjunctions are on the same
36:08
line towards the star, all in the lay same line of sight.
36:13
Why? Because the eighth time you see
36:17
this, you know, you see how Mars does and it it, it kind of does
36:20
a spirograph. When the spirographs closes
36:24
every 8th 8th rings, it does it, it comes, it crosses this this
36:31
line. It's hard to explain it.
36:33
You have to see it and you you can you can check it out on the
36:36
Tricosum simulator, which we hopefully we'll have time to
36:40
look at. But anyway, don't you think this
36:45
looks a bit more credible, Germ? Yes.
36:51
And it it, it what? What happens here is that it
36:54
makes a lot of mental gymnastics no longer necessary.
37:02
No, but mostly you would have just if, if you have, you would
37:06
have to criticise, you know, someone pays you to go and
37:09
falsify the tigos. You would have this really tough
37:13
task Germ. You would have to say that what
37:16
we see here is just a result of coincidence that all 8 dates
37:24
line up on the same line of sight to the star.
37:28
But in the Tychosome, Mars goes at constant speed, constant
37:35
speed and in in circles all the chocoidal circles.
37:39
We'll look at choco weights later.
37:42
So there is no, you know, this Capra had had to come up with
37:48
variable speeds. All, all, all planets are
37:51
supposed to speed up and slow down all the time.
37:55
You know, he had to come with these fudge factors to make it
37:58
work. But no need for that in a
38:00
Taikos. That's why a Taikos simplifies
38:03
things. People think that first.
38:05
Oh, it's complicated. No, it simplifies many things
38:09
and does a way with so many arbitrary things.
38:14
They had to add 1 up top of the other to make the geometry work
38:20
in in the halocentric mall. OK now look here.
38:25
What did I find in in Keppers big famous, super famous book
38:30
Astronomia Nova. In the beginning of the book he
38:34
was playing around with this idea.
38:36
You know he was playing around, but he he threw it away.
38:39
He threw it in the dustbin. But look, it was his work was to
38:44
try to to to explain Mars, what Mars did in the sky, how it
38:50
moved. Well, this was one one of his
38:53
first proposals, but he ditched it.
38:56
But what do I see when the Tachosum simulator starts
39:01
working? It drew exactly this, what
39:06
Kepler had calculated. He was a good mathematician, but
39:10
he couldn't understand why they, you know, those loops will
39:13
happen, why we would move, why everything would move like this
39:18
because he, he didn't have computers at the time.
39:21
So to see how you know they would evolve like this, you see
39:28
here he has Mars in 1580 and Mars in 1596.
39:33
It's a 16 year cycle of Mars, which the type goes on
39:38
perfectly. You can you can put this on the
39:41
top on that it's it's practically the same.
39:44
You see. And also note that even managed
39:47
to pepper it drew this is thinner and these are larger.
39:52
This is thinner and this is larger.
39:54
Well, oh, it's very, very good. And this is another question
39:58
that I cover in my book. But why?
40:01
Why would it be different? But this is the geometry of the
40:04
system. So here's what a chocoid means
40:08
just to people understand, it's nothing magical.
40:13
It's just, you know, a thing rotating a thing, rotating
40:18
around around another wheel, another wheel, a wheel carrying
40:22
a thing and rotating around. It's that makes it chocoid.
40:27
And that's why we see Mars doing these things.
40:29
And not only Mars, all the other planets do this because they are
40:35
all rotating around the sun somehow magnetically attached.
40:40
I suppose we we don't know. Is it Newtonian gravity?
40:45
Is it electric universe? Is it maybe it's ether vortex
40:55
that makes everything go around the sun?
40:57
We don't know and we don't. I don't pretend to explain this
41:00
in the tyre 'cause this is not the scope of the book.
41:03
The scope of the book is to make geometry match with
41:06
observations. And those are hard and solid.
41:11
We can, we can touch them, I mean, and they're our own
41:16
tables. They can everything matches with
41:18
observations in the Tigers. So what I'm showing you here,
41:23
they call it the man's, a man's yearly path.
41:25
And this is also crucial to understand.
41:31
So what is this funny chocolate here?
41:37
This chocolate, you have to imagine a man in London here.
41:41
You see, this is England, this is London.
41:43
I just imagine a man in London, an astronomer, it's midnight.
41:47
He takes a picture of a star here in March.
41:51
Then a month later he takes another picture of the same star
41:56
here in April, always the same, you know, 21st of March, 21st of
42:03
April, 21st of May. And so you, you really, you can
42:06
imagine the time if if you were hovering with in this, with this
42:10
spacecraft above this guy, you would see him doing this because
42:17
the earth slowly it it irrotates every every day once and it's it
42:23
moves slowly from left to right here on the screen.
42:27
So that makes it chocolate. So no astronomer has ever known
42:35
this. So they don't know why the sea
42:38
stars doing, because it sees what the sea stars doing, as we
42:42
shall see. So this funny shape is the
42:49
reason why, first of all, why James Bradley?
42:55
Have you heard of James Bradley? No.
43:00
All right, James Bradley was, you know, he became the royal
43:05
astronomer. Well, he, he, he spent two years
43:07
looking at the stars from he had a big telescope in his chimney
43:14
and he looked at the kind of a polar star and he was absolutely
43:18
flabbergasted because the star was moving in a way, completely
43:22
unexpected way. It was moving like this.
43:25
What do we see here? Like today, this is a modern
43:29
depiction of what Vega does in three years, 123 loops in three
43:33
years. Well, easy.
43:36
That's that's easy. One year.
43:38
So you do 123. This is what this is simply why
43:43
Brady saw this, but he he had to come up with a very, very
43:47
convoluted explanation. He's called the, he called it
43:49
the stellar aberration. You can read about it.
43:52
It's absolutely incomprehensible.
43:54
I still, you know, I still don't get it myself.
43:57
But he, you know, he tried to find an explanation and and when
44:02
he found this explanation, it was hailed as a triumph of the
44:06
hello centric system. Nobody protested.
44:11
Nobody understood it really. But they said, oh, yeah, no,
44:14
that actually proves that we are going around the sun.
44:17
Yeah, right. But this is really funny.
44:20
This is interesting. Do you know, Jerm?
44:25
You know that our clocks only strike noon correctly four times
44:30
a year. I did hear that.
44:32
Yeah, I did. I did hear that.
44:34
I don't know why though. OK, here.
44:37
Hey, here we have the explanation.
44:39
You'll never, you've never seen it before, but here it is.
44:44
So this is the fact. I mean this is the fact that the
44:48
sun is aligned with us in these four dates, December 24, April
44:53
15, June 16, August 29. And another fact is that we can
45:00
photograph the sun during full year and the sun will do this
45:04
Anna Lemma, an 8 shaped thing. And no one has really explained
45:09
why he does this funny and asymmetric H because it's, you
45:13
know, it's smaller up here and larger up down here, right?
45:17
It's at 3:00 to 1:00 ratio. Here is the explanation.
45:22
We move it, you know, by a factor of 3 here and then we
45:26
move backwards by a factor of 1 kind of backwards, right?
45:30
So this makes if you look at the Suns on the side here, it will
45:34
make this eight. Well, the eight is the the
45:38
height of the 8 is because in June.
45:41
This is because it's tilt of the Earth, right?
45:43
But why why does the sun goes drift sideways?
45:49
No one has explained it's convincingly.
45:52
They say it's because the elliptical shape of of the
45:57
Earth's orbit. But no, it it hasn't got this
45:59
enormous elliptical shape. This is why and look, see here,
46:06
the four dates where the clock strikes noon correctly are
46:12
December 24, April 29, April 15. They are on the line here.
46:18
Here you see geometrically it, it is in a perfect match.
46:22
And then June 16 up here. These are the four times where
46:28
we have we are on this line. That means we are exactly
46:32
aligned. Our clocks are aligned with
46:34
this. But why are clocks aligned only
46:36
four times? Because our clocks go around in
46:38
circles. I mean constant speeds.
46:40
We don't have clocks that that can slow down or speed up.
46:46
So we have just adjusted. We have invented the equation of
46:49
time to make it work good enough for our daily purposes.
46:54
The clocks are OK, but they are only right four times a year
46:58
just because, because we are moving around like this.
47:04
This is the reason why, because we move in a chocolate every
47:09
year. You understand this is one year,
47:11
right? And here we go again, Vega.
47:17
So here now the distances to the stars, which you asked about
47:23
before. Still there, Jim.
47:27
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, the distances to the stars
47:31
was Tycho Braw's biggest problem.
47:34
He he didn't like the idea that the stars would be so far away.
47:39
Didn't make sense to him. So how are star distances
47:44
currently measured? Well, this is what they do.
47:49
So they look at the star in June, right?
47:53
This star here, they want to measure how far this star is a
47:56
nearby * nearby means, you know, stair, which is reasonably close
48:02
that we are interested to measure.
48:04
And then we have very, very, very distant fixed stars.
48:08
So they, they use this background and this look at the
48:11
star and take a picture here. And then they wait six months,
48:14
OK, six months. You go around here.
48:17
And then in December they take another picture and then they,
48:20
they do the trigonometric calculation and it's Oh my
48:23
goodness. So it's very far away, but they
48:26
are basing their idea that we move by almost 300 million
48:31
kilometres sideways, right? 2099.2 This is 2 AU, 2
48:36
astronomical units. This is a huge distance.
48:39
Well, what does Tycos, what does the Earth do in the in the in
48:43
the Tycos only 14,036 kilometres a year, therefore 77,018 every
48:53
six months. 718 kilometres is 42,633 times less.
49:01
This is why in my book I dare say that the stars are probably
49:06
like 40,000 times closer than currently believed.
49:11
And but if they, if they also. Demonstrate.
49:15
But when you say the stars are are are closer, they would still
49:18
be stars further than that. Oh yeah, I mean, it's the stars.
49:22
So the way I mean at every distance, of course.
49:27
But let's let's if if you look at our closest 20 stars, you
49:33
know the most important ones, first of all, you'll you'll
49:36
notice that your double all, all our closest stars are double
49:39
stars, very, very few that still are thought to be single.
49:44
Very, very few. This is important point because
49:48
I'm, I'm saying how can the sun be a single star when every
49:52
everyone else is double? So in the Copernican model, now
50:01
we're talk, we're going to talk about stellar parallax.
50:04
Stellar parallax is, is what we we saw here, right?
50:07
They use this parallax angle to calculate the distance, right?
50:12
So, but the problem is, is it in the Copernicus model where we
50:17
supposedly go around the sun? So I didn't done a car here
50:20
jokingly, you know, as if you were in a car going around the
50:26
the sun, you would see the stars only out from your right hand
50:31
window. Hang on, Simon, Actually the the
50:34
car can work because as you well know, Elon Musk apparently sent
50:41
a car into space. Yes, yes, yes, a sports car.
50:47
Yeah, yeah, that's funny. People believe in that.
50:53
It's amazing. But anyway, so this is a problem
50:58
with the Air centric model. Why?
50:59
Because I'll tell you why now shortly.
51:04
In the Tycos model though, we would expect both positive and
51:07
negative parallax. What does it mean, positive and
51:10
negative parallax? Well, it means that if you're in
51:14
this system, you will always see, you will always see the
51:18
stars when you pass it going from your see from your left to
51:24
the right, right from your left. You know, in the in your window,
51:27
left to right, not from right to left, because that means you
51:30
would go backwards, which no one says we are going either
51:33
backwards. But in the Tychos model, since
51:36
we're going slowly, slowly at one mile per hour around our PvP
51:39
orbit. You remember my PvP orbit, we're
51:42
moving very slowly. We, we, we've done a very small
51:45
piece of this, of this orbits in thousand years.
51:48
So we, we're kind of moving on a straight line and almost.
51:53
And so we can see both types of parallax, a positive and
52:01
negative. So that's expected in the
52:03
turgos. Here it is illustrated even in
52:09
more detail with the man's yearly path.
52:12
Remember my man's yearly path? Well, see if you decide to
52:19
measure this yellow star here between March and September, you
52:28
will conclude that it has a positive parax because you have
52:33
moved from let's see now as we look at the screen, you will
52:38
have moved from left to right this much, OK.
52:43
But if you decide instead of looking at this other star,
52:47
which is, I mean close to the, this other one, almost the same
52:50
star between September and March, simply reversing the six
52:55
months, the the choice of your periods, you will see that star
53:00
going having negative parallax because you have gone backwards
53:05
for a little piece here that will be negative and this will
53:09
be positive. All right.
53:13
And sure enough, in the European Space Agency's tables, they
53:21
have, I'll show you now how, what, how they are distributed.
53:30
I'll show you here. This is this.
53:32
Let's first look at this. As of the official star parallax
53:36
catalogues, 25% of the stars exhibit positive parallax, 25%
53:42
exhibit negative, and the rest 50% exhibit 0 parallax.
53:48
They can't find any parallax, as if those 50% of stars won't be
53:54
moving at all. But that's impossible.
53:57
If we're going around the sun, they should move a little bit.
53:59
But anyway, this is absolutely absurd in an eccentric paradigm.
54:07
What I wish to show you here that this speculation here, you
54:11
make, you know, people make clothes in speculation.
54:14
How can you prove it? Well, it, it was proven by
54:18
Bessel himself. You see, the first time Bessel
54:22
is famous for having found the first parallax of a given star,
54:26
because for many, many years they couldn't find any parallax.
54:30
And there was a big problem for alien centuries.
54:32
And Tycho Breyer was saying, see, you can't find any
54:35
parallax. So we are, we are immobile.
54:38
We don't move at all. That was Tycho Breyer's point.
54:43
But then Bessel came later on. Breyer was dead by then, but you
54:48
know what I found in a in a in a book how to find astronomy
54:54
astronomy book that Bessel the first time he looked at this
55:00
Sydney, which is famous in for astronomers.
55:03
Sydney was the first star with a detective parallax.
55:06
Well, wait, the first observations he made of Sydney
55:10
was between August and March and he he saw a negative parallax
55:16
and as stated in the book, Bessel was disappointed.
55:20
Again, his results were negative.
55:24
It must have been an error of the instrument.
55:27
You know, they always explain away.
55:30
Oh, it was an error of the instrument.
55:32
But he did see first signi having a negative paragraph, a
55:36
small one. But then he looked from between
55:40
March and July and I found these dates.
55:44
I found it and see he he got in a +1.
55:48
So this vessel, the guy famous for having discovered the first
55:52
seller parallax proves my point all right.
55:59
Proves this negative positively parallax point.
56:02
Yeah, that's that's that's a smoking gun, isn't it?
56:06
I would say SO models the and humbly.
56:10
I mean, what can I say? I mean, is this also a
56:13
coincidence that I found this and and and no one has explained
56:17
why he first saw negative parallaxes.
56:19
And then no one has explained why, why many other astronomers
56:25
of the time kept seeing negative parallaxes and they couldn't
56:28
explain why they couldn't understand it.
56:33
And they can't understand it today because still in the
56:36
modern tables. So here, let's read this.
56:39
In the Take Us model, any given store can exhibit either
56:42
positive or negative parallax depending on the time window
56:45
chosen for any given parallax measurement.
56:48
We saw that this is due to a man's healing path outroach,
56:51
remember, that's why, that's why it's so it's complicated.
56:57
But in the in the official modern tables, this is the
57:01
distribution that we can find if we are patient enough as as one
57:07
Italian astronomer, he went through all the huge 1,000,000
57:11
star catalogue and he came up to this subdivision.
57:16
Well, this is exactly what we would be expecting into that
57:19
Tycos. Here I explain why 50% of the
57:23
stars will have no practise at all because see Germ, I mean,
57:28
this is you, OK? This is not Joe, this is Germ,
57:31
right? Going going this way, you're
57:33
moving across, you know, along our orbit very slowly going away
57:38
from the star. Well, if you go away from a tree
57:42
straight away from it, you won't see it moving against the, the
57:45
trees behind it, behind it, right?
57:47
It will stay aligned and the same will happen.
57:52
Oh, wait. So if Joe takes a picture of
57:54
this star in March and waits six months and takes another
57:57
picture, he will see no parallax because he's he's he's gone away
58:01
from the star. He hasn't moved sideways.
58:04
See quickly to show you how it's work.
58:11
If he he takes a picture star in March here this he wants to see
58:15
a star here in March, then he OK, he he does a little curve,
58:19
but in September he will be on the same line to that star.
58:23
So he we see no paradox. You see same in the opposite
58:28
direction. If he wants to measure a
58:30
parallax star here between March and September, he will see no
58:34
parallax at all, right? So that's why 50% of the stars
58:40
are unmeasurable. They don't have any parallax, so
58:45
we're reaching the end of my short compact presentation here.
58:51
I understand that what you're talking about is very difficult
58:54
to compress into a space of about an hour, but I'm enjoying
58:57
it. Thank you.
59:00
I did my best. I mean it, it's really hard to
59:03
to condense such. So there's so many other things
59:06
in the book that's really I really hope people will read it.
59:11
It's even available for for free now in in several languages on
59:16
my website. So but you can buy the hardcover
59:21
book as well. It's very nice.
59:24
And so and you should read at the end of the book comes the I
59:32
think that's the the clincher of the whole the whole model,
59:36
because this is really something you can't explain.
59:39
Anyway, you can't you can't say that my Halis chapter is a
59:44
result of immense amount of coincidences, but shortly.
59:53
So this is the green. The green orbit you see here is
59:56
Halis orbit, the famous HALIS comet.
1:00:00
Which I've seen. It.
1:00:02
I think I've seen. Twice after I think, Oh no, no,
1:00:05
no, no, you're not that old. Oh no, wait once.
1:00:09
Yeah, because it takes 76 years to come back 75.7 exactly as you
1:00:16
will see in the book. And so the hell is also like all
1:00:21
the other planets, even the comets go around in these
1:00:24
trochoidal, these trochoidal orbits.
1:00:28
This mind you, we look, we're seeing it sideways.
1:00:31
It is not elliptical. It is if you see it from above,
1:00:34
it's exactly circular business screen.
1:00:37
Everything is circular. There is no elliptical orbits in
1:00:40
the Tychus, No need for elliptical orbits, which are
1:00:44
absurd in my mind. So Alice returns every 76 years,
1:00:49
but do you know what they say officially?
1:00:52
But sometimes it returns in 73 years and other times in 79
1:00:57
years. Whoa.
1:01:00
Why would that be 6 years a difference?
1:01:04
Yeah, yeah. That's that's because of
1:01:07
perturbations. When it comes close to Jupiter,
1:01:09
it kind of slows down for six years.
1:01:13
What is he doing a kind of a sightseeing store for around
1:01:17
Jupiter for six years. But that's what they say tell
1:01:20
you officially that Alice is chaotic.
1:01:23
It's that doesn't have a regular period.
1:01:27
Why Why do they think that This is why?
1:01:31
Now we're looking at the screenshot from the Tychosum
1:01:34
simulator where where helipasses in in it's in a time span of
1:01:41
four years. So when Alice arrive comes close
1:01:46
to Earth, it can be seen here one it can be seen here two or
1:01:52
three or four Halis comic can be seen from the Earth for three or
1:01:58
even up to 4 consecutive years. And that's why sometimes in the
1:02:03
history a guy saw it when he was here.
1:02:06
Sometimes another guy saw it, he was here.
1:02:09
So they they see these differences and they couldn't
1:02:11
make make sense of it. And so it's chaotic, but it's
1:02:17
not chaotic at all. It's just the the fact that they
1:02:19
don't understand what he's doing.
1:02:21
You know, it was seen three times in 19081909 and 1910,
1:02:29
Alice was seen, but the only one they, they identified it, they
1:02:34
said, oh, that's how it is, was this one which was came pretty
1:02:38
close. The other ones, they gave other
1:02:40
names to them. They they, they baptised them
1:02:43
with different names and that has that has occurred for every
1:02:48
single passage in known history. They have given other names two
1:02:54
comments they couldn't understand they were going in
1:02:56
the wrong direction, you know, compared to what they were
1:02:59
expecting Alice. So they oh, that can't be Alice.
1:03:02
We have to give it another name. And my book is full of I have
1:03:06
found up to 7070 occasions where they have called a comet another
1:03:15
name, but it was always Alice 70.
1:03:19
You have to understand them reading by reading the book
1:03:22
because it's it's what I'm saying is that these 70 are of
1:03:26
course, you know, we are going back.
1:03:32
I mean in the even back to 1000 some someday to 1100 before
1:03:40
Christ. There is an old tablet that says
1:03:43
talks about the comets and that corresponds in the simulator to
1:03:47
Alice. So 70 examples of misnamed
1:03:54
comments are in in my research. And if you want to call that 70
1:04:02
coincidence as well, I think I think you're insane.
1:04:07
Simply right. I mean, there is a limit of
1:04:12
believing coincidence. And OK, I had these extra
1:04:17
slides, which I thought maybe I'll put these slides in.
1:04:21
You know, people would say, but isn't Mars supposed to be a
1:04:23
planet? All right, But you know, Mars is
1:04:26
kind of reddish, right? So this is from, this is from a
1:04:31
scientific paper. Can a star turn into planets?
1:04:35
Yes, a star can turn into planets, but this transformation
1:04:39
only happens for a very particular type of star, known
1:04:41
as a brown dwarf. So I'm not saying like
1:04:44
necessarily Mars is a brown dwarf, but it is.
1:04:48
Brown dwarf stones shine with their own lights.
1:04:50
There are no brown dwarf is visible in the sky.
1:04:54
They're all undetectable with a naked eye.
1:04:59
Despite his name, a brown dwarf that is still glowing does not
1:05:02
appear brown, rather it appears magenta or reddish orange.
1:05:06
OK, sounds a bit like Mars, despite beginning life, is a
1:05:10
star, a brown dwarf quickly uses up its head hydrogen, goes dark,
1:05:14
cools, and spends the rest of its life as a planet.
1:05:18
Sounds a bit like Marx could be one of them.
1:05:23
Not necessarily just just for food food thought.
1:05:29
But you know, we don't even know exactly what series B is.
1:05:32
You know, series B is 205 times smaller than Series A, and Mars
1:05:37
is 205 times smaller than the Sun.
1:05:39
These are things that awaken my interest.
1:05:43
I don't know, you know, and I'm not so interested in qualifying
1:05:47
what exactly Mars is supposed to be.
1:05:50
Is it a red dwarf? Is it planets?
1:05:52
It's not important to me, but here is what I talked about
1:05:57
before this. This was absolutely amazing when
1:06:01
I realised this, that when Mars comes as close as 56.6, this is
1:06:06
the closest it can get every time because it does it
1:06:10
regularly. It is exactly in the middle of
1:06:13
my PvP orbit, which I calculated independently long before this
1:06:19
happened in the simulator. So that was a really nice, you
1:06:24
know, like a presence that the simulator gave me.
1:06:30
I mean, how, how wonderful Mars is.
1:06:34
Therefore you could here it's like the pivot, what are, what
1:06:41
are we looking at here? I've just superimposed 4
1:06:45
screenshots separated by 6336 years.
1:06:50
That's one quarter of the famous 25,033 four right So 1234 and a
1:06:59
mass keeps passing in the middle of our PvP orbit.
1:07:05
So here we have you know, start of trying to comprehend what is
1:07:11
this is Newton's gravity still valid?
1:07:15
Do we have to find some other Yeah.
1:07:19
I mean, I don't pretend I don't have, you know, I don't have no
1:07:22
pretension to replace Newton's gravity laws.
1:07:27
Like may even work, but just in a different way.
1:07:30
So because that's the biggest objection people say, are you
1:07:34
going to throw away Newton's gravity?
1:07:36
Oh, no, my goof. My goodness, no, you're crazy.
1:07:40
But see, see, it's beautiful. First of all, I mean, what what
1:07:46
our system does in 25,000 years and this is what the sun does in
1:07:53
25 thousand, 3044 years. So here is our orbit, we're
1:07:58
going this way, we're going clockwise and the sun is going
1:08:03
counter clockwise, OK? Like, and the distances will
1:08:09
never change. You will have to understand
1:08:11
this. The sun will never be this
1:08:12
close, OK? Because when the sun is here, we
1:08:15
are here. So the distances remain exactly
1:08:17
the same relative distances. OK, but so let me just like a
1:08:24
last philosophical thought, you will ask yourself, maybe so why
1:08:30
are we going around in a clockwise direction and the sun
1:08:34
and every everybody else goes round counter clockwise.
1:08:38
And you could imagine, you could a, a good, you know, comparison
1:08:51
would be with cyclones. You know that cyclones and
1:08:55
hurricanes on Earth in the Northern hemisphere, they in the
1:09:00
Northern hemisphere, all cyclones rotate
1:09:02
counterclockwise. It's called a cyclone.
1:09:08
In the eye of the storm, everything is very, very, very
1:09:11
calm. And actually anticyclonic winds
1:09:14
go clockwise in the Northern hemisphere.
1:09:19
Now I've been checking and it's not like the eye of this of the
1:09:25
storm. They say the eye of this storm
1:09:27
is very, very calm and we we never seen exactly which way it
1:09:30
goes. But but we know that
1:09:33
anticyclonic very slow winds rotate clockwise, whereas
1:09:38
cyclones, hurricanes, fast winds rotate counterclockwise.
1:09:43
So it's like an analogy we could imagine, just to understand
1:09:48
maybe, maybe we live in an ether vortex.
1:09:54
The whole system around us is the ether rotating like a wind
1:10:00
and we are stuck in the eye of the storm.
1:10:05
Just a philosophical thought. Sure.
1:10:14
Oh, this is my last extra slide. I didn't think we could reach
1:10:19
all this way, but I just put it in there to because it makes me
1:10:23
mad. I mean this is what they are
1:10:26
saying that comets do cigar shaped orbits, very very thin,
1:10:31
elongated, whereas asteroids which are about the same size, I
1:10:36
mean arrows just about the same size as as Comet Alley, about 15
1:10:41
kilometres of diameter. It also comes very close to
1:10:47
Earth, like you know, 0.1 AU. They they come as close to
1:10:51
Earth, both of them. But the one has this kind of
1:10:56
orbit and the arrow says practically circular one.
1:11:00
What kind of universal law of gravitation would make two such
1:11:06
similar objects have such different orbital shapes really?
1:11:12
Can anyone explain, is there an astrophysicist here on board to
1:11:18
explain this? Really it's is, it is something
1:11:23
that's astronomers will have to to to address.
1:11:31
And I I'm saying that comets don't do this.
1:11:34
They are doing ground, even all the chocoidal orbits.
1:11:41
And that's what Eros does too in, in the Tychos, the Tychosum.
1:11:45
So maybe now I can show you quickly a little piece of the
1:11:52
Tychosum which I've opened here. And so we, we shall put up, we
1:11:58
should look at the the Tychosum moving and moving Tychosum and
1:12:06
put on the trace maybe which put on the trace tracer on Mars.
1:12:11
Maybe we'll go a bit faster. There we go a bit faster.
1:12:18
This is Morris leading, you know, the trace that he's doing.
1:12:21
I mean, this is the the trajectory that he does in
1:12:24
reality. And so we will make these
1:12:28
retrograde loops from time to time.
1:12:36
I could go even some bit faster. Let's do it three months.
1:12:41
All right, so the sun orbits Earth.
1:12:46
Yes, the sun orbits Earth. It's it's still a very important
1:12:53
object because it's the one that's everyone rotates around
1:12:59
but the Earth because. We are in the.
1:13:01
Very centre. I can see the shape that it's
1:13:04
creating. Right, we can put another.
1:13:10
We can put Venus, Venus is traced now as well.
1:13:14
Let's see, we can start, start again with both Venus and Mars,
1:13:19
right? And I can hear your.
1:13:22
Computer fan working overtime there.
1:13:25
Yeah, yeah, of course it's a lot of power, computer power needed
1:13:31
here. And we can stop it here and we
1:13:34
can look at, we can change the time at will.
1:13:39
It's a wonderful simulator. It's it really is the best.
1:13:42
OK, you're back. Germany.
1:13:45
I dropped out. Yeah, your your computer was
1:13:47
working overtime there. Oh yeah.
1:13:51
OK, we are out of time, Simon. Yes, so.
1:13:57
Edit stuff. If you don't mind, please give
1:14:01
me a very quick summary of this conversation for those who might
1:14:05
have struggled to follow. All right, well, yes, it is.
1:14:11
It is for everyone to think about the, the very idea that we
1:14:17
are just one of many planets going it's hypersonic speeds
1:14:22
around the sun is to me it's unbelievable.
1:14:28
We have accepted it because all right with we've been told that
1:14:34
we don't feel the speed because we don't feel the rotation, but
1:14:38
the rotation is very, very slow. We rotate every 24 hours at
1:14:44
0.0007 RPM. It's extremely slow and that's
1:14:50
why we don't feel any centrifugal force.
1:14:53
But it's another whole other deal to think that we are going
1:14:58
at 107,000 kilometres an hour, that's 67,000 kilometres an hour
1:15:04
around the sun. That's incredible speed.
1:15:07
And and that is absolutely imperceptible and no one has
1:15:12
ever managed to measure it, that people must know.
1:15:17
They tried. They have tried.
1:15:18
Oh my goodness, Michael Small experiments, Dayton Miller,
1:15:22
they're all mentioned in my book.
1:15:24
And they just failed to measure this incredible speed.
1:15:28
And Einstein was almost, he went into panic mode when Dayton
1:15:35
Miller repeatedly couldn't find this speed they were expecting.
1:15:40
So we have no proof for the translational speeds around the
1:15:44
sun. We don't have it.
1:15:45
We have very, very repeatable scientific experiments of the
1:15:50
rotation of the Earth's, the sun, yak effect and, and other
1:15:55
things. So these are two separate
1:15:57
things. Absolutely agree that we, we, we
1:16:02
rotate because every single planet we see, every sun or
1:16:07
moon, they all rotate. I mean, let's use logic.
1:16:11
Of course we rotate. I'm saying this for Flat Earth.
1:16:14
You know, we say that we don't even rotate and, and, and to
1:16:20
geocentrist, you know, old fashioned geocentrist that say
1:16:23
that Earth is completely mobile. That doesn't make sound sense at
1:16:30
all. And and then of course, the
1:16:33
distance to the stars. I mean, the distance to the
1:16:36
stars is absolutely ridiculous when you think about it.
1:16:41
We have the 19th most brightest star called Deneb, 19th
1:16:47
brightest of, you know, thousand stars.
1:16:50
That's supposed to be well, they actually don't know exactly, but
1:16:54
they are the, the, the estimated range from 2600 light years to
1:16:58
3200 light years. I mean, just take a calculator
1:17:02
and look at how far that would be.
1:17:05
And so how far. But we can see with our naked
1:17:08
eyes the 19th prior to star and that, but we can't see.
1:17:14
And then the, the absurdity is we can't see within naked eyes
1:17:17
our closest star Proxima that's too dim, but that's, that's 4.2
1:17:23
light years. So there are so many absurdities
1:17:25
in the claims of the star distances, it all makes more
1:17:30
sense if they're closer. OK Simon, as I said, we are out
1:17:36
of time. How can I follow your work?
1:17:41
You can, you can go to the Tigers forum where we keep
1:17:44
discussing the model. We have a, well, it's really
1:17:47
becoming a quite active forum actually.
1:17:51
You can obviously go to the website and find a book and
1:17:55
we'll soon have seven or eight language versions.
1:17:59
It's in Russian, Dutch, soon in Portuguese and in Italian and
1:18:06
French. So it's for everyone to even
1:18:10
read in their own language now. For many people, and especially
1:18:17
the Tycos forum, it's all the updates.
1:18:19
Everything, especially the Tycos simulators, has become very
1:18:24
popular now and people want to see this and that.
1:18:28
So we are improving that every day.
1:18:31
Of course, it's not ready completely yet, but it's
1:18:34
remarkably accurate and that's what I'm what has to be said.
1:18:40
The tech causium works. It is absolutely equivalent.
1:18:45
It shows these planets and stars where they have always been
1:18:49
seen. Simon Shack, thank you for
1:18:51
joining me in the trenches.