"The TYCHOS" Lecture August 23, 2018

[SEmert]

Those of you who attended ALCON may have noticed the table of Simon Shack, author of a different model of the Solar system, he calls "The TYCHOS" model. He is lecturing on his mathematical model Thursday evening, August 23rd, 2018, at 6:30 PM. It will be located in room 110 of the Tate Hall of Physics on the U of M campus, 116 Church St. SE, Minneapolis. He notes that Q&A follows the presentation, and coffee and gluten-free vegan refreshments will be provided. Attendance is free, and there is no reservation required.

Now, I must state that in no way am I endorsing his model (I am still firmly convinced the Copernican/Keplerian model of the Solar system works well, as evident by NASA's and ESA's ability to successfully navigate the Solar system with the various space probes), but the lecture may be interesting... especially if some U of M research astronomers/physicists and/or grad students attend...

TYCHOS_Lecture_8-23-18.jpg

[Deane Clark]

His diagram reminds me of Ptolemy’s system, with epicycles, which worked pretty well until we had good enough measurements to show it didn’t.

[SEmert]

There are similarities, although he doesn't use epicycles. He contends that the orbits of the major planets are all circular (dwarf planets and asteroids are elliptical). That extra orbit with Earth on one side of it is a representation of his theory that the precession of the equinoxes over the approximately 26,000 year period (he states it is 25,344 years) is not due to a wobble of Earth's axial tilt over time, but rather something he calls the "PVP" orbit (Polaris-Vega-Polaris, for the stars the Earth's north pole points to at two opposite points of its precession). With the size of this orbit and the ~ 26000 year period his theory is that the Earth, which is the otherwise stationary center of the Solar system, has a motion of approximately 1 MPH. He originally created his model with this "PVP orbit" inclined to the ecliptic at Earth's inclination of 23.5 degrees, but since then has modified his model to have the "PVP orbit" in line with the ecliptic.

The turnout for the lecture last night was disappointingly light. One U of M student (major in communications, not physics), four other people, then Dave and myself from the MAS accompanied by my daughter and one of her friends. Not enough that I could stay back and passively listen to the Q&A discussion.

[Deane Clark]

So, is his earth flat, too?

[tugger]

This dude is a crackpot.

[Deane Clark]

Yeah, maybe we should say the turnout was comfortingly light.

[SEmert]

LOL. No, at least his Earth is spherical.

His approach is entirely mathematical, based on historical observations and measurements. To me, the error of his approach is that instead of taking the heliocentric model as it is and working within that framework to come up with a solution to his perceived gaps or inconsistencies, he throws out the standard heliocentric model and replaces it with his own, wedging in several theories that explain the observations, but at the same time ignoring the other physics that corroborates and validates the standard heliocentric model using Kepler’s laws of planetary motion.

He also basically ignores gravity. That is why he makes the Solar system out to be a "binary" system (or at least a "two body system"), with the two components of the binary system being the Sun and Mars. Part of his reasoning as to why those two particular bodies is a comparison with the Sirius double star system. He says that the ratio of the sizes of Sirius A and Sirius B is the same ratio as the sizes of the Sun and Mars. Size, not mass.

[Deane Clark]

That seems to be a big part of the problem with the flat earthers, they don’t trust any measurements or physics they didn’t come up with (or confirm) themselves. They’re just skeptics to the point of extreme paranoia.

[MandelbrotMermaid]

I'm glad someone went. I was planning to go, then ended up fighting a sore throat that night.
I got into a discussion with him at another vendor's table (about Brahe of course, who I've always found a fascinating character) during the ALCON conference, and then he ended up jabbering at me at his own table once I reached it. Given his mathematical bent, and thinking I might write something for Skeptical Inquirer or another magazine, I decided not to dismiss him outright and followed his argument until I began to roll my eyes. You have to pay money and join his website even for a review copy. I asked if he wrote any peer-reviewed articles on this, but no, he only self-published his book (and that's familiar).There is someone of the same name who is a 9-11 conspiracy theorist. Oh, dear. My BF asked me if he was even worth debunking. Good point; I'd rather raise the profile of real science.