The relatively recent realization that our visible stars have a smaller (and oft invisible) companion is the single most significant, paradigm-changing astronomical epiphany of our modern age. Today, astronomers are incessantly discovering new binary systems at an ever-increasing rate. One can only wonder why such persistent findings haven’t yet sparked a major debate as to the validity of the Copernican model and its unique, “one-of-a-kind” configuration.
Below is one of my earliest TYCHOS graphics (2013) as I tried to wrap my head around the proposed geometry of Tycho Brahe’s so-called “geo-heliocentric” model. At the time, I wasn’t even aware that binary systems were by far the most common star formations in our skies. But then again – as already mentioned – neither were great astronomers like Tycho Brahe back in their day.
The intersecting orbits of Sun and Mars : a typical binary system
IMPORTANT NOTE: the above graphic is meant to be a “3/4 view” of our system – as if we were approaching our solar system in an imaginary spaceship at an angle, roughly at 45° above the “March / December” side. Thus, the apparent elliptical shapes of the Sun / Mars orbits are only a matter of perspective. In the TYCHOS model, ALL the orbits of our system’s bodies are uniformly circular.
Note that, in my above graphic, Earth is still lacking an orbit of its own. Yet, we shall see about how I overcame that age-old obstacle in due time. Please know that I have earnestly strived to do my best to document a progressive, step-by-step account of my thought processes, as the TYCHOS model gradually took shape in my mind. I fully realize the initial difficulty to take in and visualize this new configuration of our so-called Solar System – given, perhaps, the novelty of it all. However, I hope that by proceeding in short, descriptive sections it will be easier for everyone to follow the methodological path which led me to formulate the TYCHOS model and to arrive at its logical conclusions.
Let us begin with a classic binary star system, as illustrated on the website previously referenced in Chapter 1.
Notice that, if we substitute the above “high mass star” and “low mass star” with the SUN and MARS respectively (as I have done in the below adaptation) we obtain a neatly-balanced binary system that incorporates the two moons of the Sun (Mercury and Venus) and the two moons of Mars (Phobos and Deimos).
In addition, please separately observe the additional “plot twist” of paramount interest to us Earthlings:
In the TYCHOS, Earth is positioned near the center of mass (or barycenter) of the Sun-Mars binary system.
We can see just how harmonious such a binary system would be: Earth embraced by the Sun-Mars binary duo, each with their own two satellites. Now, if you are trained to think Relativistically, you might wonder: “But what about the highly unequal masses of the Sun and Mars?”
Note that binary star systems, as numerous as they are, pose a serious problem for Einstein’s theory of general relativity.
“If the general relativity method is correct, it ought to apply everywhere, not just in the solar system. But Van Flandern points to a conflict outside it: binary stars with highly unequal masses. Their orbits behave in ways that the Einstein formula did not predict. ‘Physicists know about it and shrug their shoulders,’ Van Flandern says. They say there must be ‘something peculiar about these stars, such as an oblateness, or tidal effects.’ Another possibility is that Einstein saw to it that he got the result needed to ‘explain’ Mercury’s orbit, but that it doesn’t apply elsewhere.”
— The Speed of Gravity — What the Experiments Say by Tom Van Flandern (1998) American Astronomical Society, DDA meeting #30, #10.04
We shall soon see that the highly unequal sizes of, for instance, Sirius A and Sirius B, are just as unequal as the Sun and Mars.
Comparing the moons of the Sun and Mars
In the TYCHOS model, Mercury and Venus are the Sun’s two tidally-locked moons, much as Mars also has two (lesser-known) tidally-locked moons: Phobos and Deimos, which were only discovered as recently as 1877 by Asaph Hall. (Tycho Brahe never observed them).
A closer look at the moons of Mars brings up some interesting interrelationships with their bigger sisters Mercury and Venus. Under the Copernican model, there would be no conceivable motive for these four celestial bodies to exhibit any sort of ‘”sympathy” with each other. Mars is supposed to be just another planet orbiting around the Sun. On the contrary, in the TYCHOS system, this is just the first of many incredible coincidences that suggests our entire system – each planetary body included – is locked in some form of magnetic harmony.
Consider these comparative facts about the moons of the Sun (Mercury and Venus) and the moons of Mars (Phobos and Deimos).
Phobos’ orbital diameter is 2.5X smaller than Deimos’ orbital diameter.
Deimos’ diameter is 1.8X smaller than Phobos’ diameter.
Mercury’s orbital diameter is 1.8X smaller than Venus’ orbital diameter.
Things are beginning to look a little curious, aren’t they? Moreover …
Mercury orbits the Sun near-precisely 5X faster than Venus, while Phobos orbits Mars near-precisely 4X faster than Deimos. The ratios are extremely close to whole numbers, and congruent with the concept of non-relativistic time. That is to say, assuming no Einsteinian “time warp”, these systems are directly interlocked with one another in real time.
Clearly, all this appears to indicate some sort of “kinship” between the two moons of Mars and the two moons of the Sun. Under the Copernican model’s configuration, these multiple resonances would be an utter mystery and would have to be classified as a string of “random coincidences”. Conversely, under the TYCHOS model, all of this can be envisioned much more logically. It is a natural consequence of Mercury and Venus & Phobos and Deimos being, respectively, the moons of the Sun and the moons of Mars.
You might now rightly ask yourself, “Why are Mercury and Venus the only ‘planets’ of our solar system with no moons of their own?”
As a matter of fact, this is one of astronomy’s longstanding (and still unsolved) mysteries. The truth of the matter is: no one actually knows why Venus and Mercury are “moonless”. To dismiss the absence by calling it happenstance doesn’t make the question go away. Meanwhile, no compelling theses on this spiny subject have been forthcoming to this day. Here are, for instance, NASA’s (tentative) explanations of this major cosmic enigma.
“Most likely because they are too close to the Sun. Any moon with too great a distance from these planets would be in an unstable orbit and be captured by the Sun. If they were too close to these planets they would be destroyed by tidal gravitational forces. The zones where moons around these planets could be stable over billions of years is probably so narrow that no body was ever captured into orbit, or created in situ when the planets were first being accreted.”
— Why don’t Mercury and Venus have moons? by NASA for Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE) Education Center
Here’s another (perhaps more intellectually honest) quote from a nasa.gov website.
“Why Venus doesn’t have a moon is a mystery for scientists to solve.”
— How many moons? by Kristen Erickson (2017) for NASA Space Place
Now, the TYCHOS model has a short answer to this “mystery”’ : Venus and Mercury have no moons due to the simple fact that they are moons. Moreover, they are the two moons of the Sun just as Mars, its binary companion, has two moons.
ROTATIONAL RESONANCES BETWEEN MERCURY AND VENUS
– Mercury employs 58.44 days to rotate around its axis source: “MERCURY”. Mercury revolves around the Sun in 87.66 days. For every two of its solar revolutions (175.32 days), it thus rotates precisely three times around its axis (175.32 / 58.44 = 3).
– Venus employs 116.88 days to rotate around its axis – exactly twice as long as Mercury (58.44 X 2 = 116.88). As Venus returns to perigee (closest to Earth) every 584.4 days (i.e. every 10 mercurial rotations), it always shows the same face to earthly observers – another fact which is still today considered as a ‘mystery’ by modern astronomers! During this period, Venus rotates precisely five times around its own axis (584.4 / 116.88 = 5) – as stated in Isaac Asimov’s “Book of Physics” (quote translated from Italian):
“Between one approach to the minimum distance from the Earth and the next, Venus makes exactly five rotations on its axis, so it always shows us the same face when it is at its closest position to us.”
Continuing the series of ‘curious’ facts that astronomers are still befuddled about, here’s what we can read at Science Jrank.org :
“A curious relationship exists between the length of the Venusian day and the planet’s synodic period. The synodic period of Venus, that is, the time for the planet to repeat the same alignment with respect to Earth and Sun, is 584 days, and this is five times the Venusian day (584 = 5 × 116.8). It is not known if this result is just a coincidence, or the action of some subtle orbital interaction. The practical consequence of the relationship is that, should a terrestrial observer make two observations of Venus that are 584 days apart, then they will “see” the same side of the planet turned towards Earth.”
Needless to say, since the Earth-Moon system is believed to revolve around the Sun – and thus, around Mercury and Venus – (whereas, in the TYCHOS, the three moons all revolve around the Earth), most current / official reckonings of the rotational rates of Mercury and Venus are in error. Let us now compute the respective _rotational speeds_ (around their axes) of our Moon, Mercury and Venus:
The Moon rotates around its axis in 27.322 days (or 655.73 hours). The Moon’s circumference is 10920.8 km. Hence, a distance of 10920.8 km covered in 655.73 hours computes to a (equatorial) rotational speed of 10920.8 km / 655.73 hours = 16.65 km/h (or just about 100X times slower than the Earth)
Mercury rotates around its axis in 58.44 days (or 1402.56 hours). Mercury’s circumference is 15329 km. Hence, a distance of 15329 km covered in 1402.56 hours computes to a (equatorial) rotational speed of: 15329 km / 1402.56 hours = 10.93 km/h
Venus rotates around its axis in 116.88 days (or 2805.12 hours). Venus’ circumference is 38024.5 km. Hence, a distance of 38024.5 km covered in 2805.12 hours computes to a (equatorial) rotational speed of: 38024.5 km / 2805.12 hours = 13.56 km/h
These are all, of course, exceptionally slow rotational speeds – as compared to all the other bodies in our Solar System: they are all, in fact, in the rotational speed range of a children’s merry-go-round! In any event, these ‘snail-paced’ speeds are clearly in stark contrast with the formidable velocities that we have all been accustomed to (ever since our school days) in the context of astronomy & cosmology in general.
You may now ask yourselves: “Are any other celestial bodies in our system reckoned to have such extremely slow rotational speeds as our Moon, Mercury or Venus?” The answer is no. For instance, Jupiter rotates around its axis at a brisk 43000 km/h and Saturn at about 35000 km/h. These are, of course, hypersonic speeds completely unlike the tranquil lunar rotational speeds. And what about Mars’s axial rotational rate? Well, we shall see about that later (at the end of Chapter 20), as Mars’s axial spin turns out to be synchronous with the Earth’s axial rotation (i.e. just about 24 hours).
DEFINITION OF A “MOON” (or “lunar body”)
In view of all the above considerations, we may thus formulate a set of peculiar properties which distinguish a ‘moon’ from a ‘planet’:
1\. No moons have satellites of their own, since they are moons themselves.
2\. Moons rotate _exceptionally slowly_ around their own axes – compared with all other celestial bodies.
3\. Moons always show the same face to their host star or planet (in astronomy jargon they are ‘tidally locked’).
If you ask me about Mars, we will see about that later, as Mars’s axial rotation turns out to be synchronous with Earth’s (24-hour) axial rotation.