The TYCHOS is my proposed cosmic model. It is based on, inspired by and built around both modern and time-honored astronomical observations. In particular, my work has relied and expanded upon a number of lesser-known, overlooked and/or neglected teachings from the 1500’s to the 1800’s (as well as from antiquity). I dedicate this study to a few brilliant astronomers whose work has been passed over in favor of the so-called “Copernican Revolution”. These early insightful architects who laid the groundwork for what should be our current model for the solar system include Nilakantha Somayaji (author of the Tantrasangraha, 1501), Samanta Candrasekhara Simha – (a.k.a. Pathani Samanta, 1835-1904), the ancient Maya/Aztec/Sumerian/Greek/Egyptian (et al) astronomers and, of course, Tycho Brahe (along with his trusty helper Longomontanus) whose impeccable observational data and tables still stand today as the most exacting ever made.
In spite of Brahe’s rigorous and unchallenged documentation, his own model of the solar system was ultimately flipped on its head by his assistant, the famous Johannes Kepler. Kepler used his master’s observations in his laborious attempts to validate his diametrically opposed Copernican model. As only a few people will know, Kepler was ultimately (in 1988) exposed for having falsified Brahe’s all-important observational data (pertaining to Mars) so as to make them agree with his heliocentric thesis. His legacy is therefore eminently questionable; Brahe had specifically entrusted him with resolving the bewildering behavior of this particular celestial body, and Kepler’s laws of planetary motion were almost exclusively (mathematically) derived from his relentless “war on Mars” (as he liked to call it). Just why the Mars data presented such exceptional difficulties should become self-evident in the following pages.
I trust that any earnest astronomer will concede that the currently-accepted Copernican model is by no means flawless. It is afflicted by a number of still unresolved anomalies and incongruities. The persistence of several longstanding enigmas are readily admitted throughout (the more honest and candid sort of) astronomy literature. It is thus a widely-diffused, popular misconception that the Copernican model has provided mankind with the most indisputable interpretation of the formidable wealth of astronomical observations gathered throughout human history: as we shall see, the Copernican model is not only disputable – it is outright impossible.
In short, the TYCHOS provides the “missing pieces” which prevented Tycho Brahe from completing the puzzle of his “geo-heliocentric” system, in spite of the basic soundness of its geometric design. The TYCHOS model, while stopping far short of proposing a TOE (“Theory of Everything”), submits nonetheless what may be the most exacting, logical and intuitively sound geometric configuration of our local cosmos ever devised. As I discovered, following the reason of the data itself resolves a series of cosmological paradoxes that falsify the currently-adopted Copernican theory of our universe. It is an unfortunate characteristic of their present proponents to be recalcitrant towards and dismissive of data that they’ve failed to incorporate into a holistic self-consistency.
To ease explanations, I have done my best to employ simple graphics. I have also strived to use the simplest possible maths at all times, so as to make this text accessible to the widest possible readership range, including myself: I have always found complex equations both tedious and laborious. Fortunately, the core principles of the TYCHOS model can be expressed and outlined with a bare minimum of computations — all in the good tradition of Tycho Brahe’s very own philosophy.
So Mathematical Truth prefers simple words since the language of Truth is itself simple.
— Tycho Brahe
The TYCHOS is built upon the unchallenged raw data collection of thousands of years of human study of the stars and planets. Hence, my model may simply be considered the natural evolution of Tycho’s work, enabled at last by a number of modern astronomical discoveries. It is the result of a fresh re-interpretation of ancient and modern astronomical knowledge, as well as a few lucky hunches of my own. I will humbly ask this world’s scientific community and all free-thinking people of integrity to carefully assess its principles with an open mind, devoid of prejudice and preconceptions.
I am aware that you will naturally ask yourself the following question: “Why has no one seen or thought of all this before? And who is this impertinent fellow – without any academic credential to his name – having the gall to question the current, universally-accepted cosmic model?” All I can say is: please read on. Let your own mind decide whether the Copernican or the TYCHOS model works best for you, that is to say, for your inborn faculties of intuition and logical thought. As I dived into this cosmic research odyssey some five years ago (driven by sheer curiosity and an earnest passion for intellectual inquiry) I had no way to expect, even in my wildest imagination, that I would reach any solid conclusions worthy of your time. Yet, it now appears (to my pleasant surprise) that I was wrong about that. My best guess is that some lucky star has helped me along in what has certainly been the most enthralling discovery journey of my lifetime.
Rudolf Steiner once wrote:
“Now today we have a very remarkable fact, my dear friends. This Copernican system, when employed purely mathematically, supplies the necessary calculations concerning the observed phenomena as well as and no better than any of the earlier ones. The eclipses of the Sun and Moon can be calculated with the ancient Chaldean system, with the Egyptian, with the Tychonian and with the Copernican. The outer occurrences in the Heavens, in so far as they relate to mechanics or mathematics, can thus be foretold. One system is as well suited as another. It is only that the simplest thought-pictures arise with the Copernican system. But the strange thing is that in practical Astronomy, calculations are not made with the Copernican system. Curiously enough, in practical Astronomy, — to obtain what is needed for the calendar,- the system of Tycho Brahe is used! This shows how little that is really fundamental, how little of the essential nature of things, comes into question when the Universe is thus pictured in purely mathematical curves or in terms of mechanical forces.”
— Third Scientific Lecture-Course: Astronomy (Schmidt Number: S-4337 Lecture II — Stuttgart, January 2, 1921)
Evidently, Steiner’s acumen, clairvoyance and intellectual honesty were admirable in this subject. This is more than can be said about many of our modern-day men and women of science (in particular those in the fields of astronomy & cosmology) who oft refuse to consider new ideas which may challenge their long-established beliefs. The process of discovery requires, of course, the very opposite intellectual attitude. I apologize to those entrenched in their application of principles they have only inherited from other minds — for any embarrassment (or even distress) that the TYCHOS might cause. However, I earnestly propose that it is now high time to think differently. Many important new discoveries have, in later decades, severely imperilled the very foundational precepts of the heliocentric theory of our cosmos as submitted by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein et al. The failure to act upon these new discoveries casts a shadow over the credibility of our world’s scientific community — as a whole.