What is the Tychonic system and why does Robert Sungenis favor it?

The Tychonic system, proposed by Tycho Brahe in 1588, keeps the Earth motionless at the center while the sun orbits the Earth and the planets orbit the sun, and I favor its modern form because it accounts for every observation heliocentrism accounts for, without the ad hoc repairs heliocentrism needs to survive. Tycho Brahe was the finest naked-eye observer in history, and in 1588 he put forward a model that most people today have never heard of because they were taught the story as a two-horse race between Ptolemy and Copernicus. It is not. In Tycho's arrangement the Earth stands still at the geometric center of the universe. The sun goes around the Earth. The planets go around the sun. The stars are centered on the Earth and carried around it. That last point is where the modern version differs. Once Mach and Einstein raised the questions about gravitational forces and relative motion that Tycho could not have anticipated, adjustments were made, and what we now call the neo-Tychonic model recenters the stellar distribution on the sun while the whole system turns about the center of mass of the universe, which the Earth occupies. The important thing is what stays the same: a motionless Earth, planets circling the sun, and the sun carrying that whole planetary retinue around us once a year while the universe turns about us once a day. Now, why favor it. Three reasons. None of them is that I dislike modern science. First, the observations do not decide between the two. This is the point almost nobody is told. If you set aside the distant stars, the Tychonic and Copernican models describe identical relative motions for every object in the solar system. There is no bare observation that can distinguish Tycho, taken broadly, from Copernicus, taken broadly. Stellar parallax does not settle it either. If different stars showed different amounts of parallax, that would rule out their all sitting on one sphere, but it still would not decide between Tycho and Copernicus. So when someone tells you the telescope settled this question, he has not thought about it carefully. The role of observation here is nowhere near as direct as people assume. Second, the physics permits it, and Newton himself said so. At the very end of the Principia Mathematica there is a Proposition 43 that was lost for three centuries until a professor at Tufts turned it up again. Newton wrote that if, in addition to universal gravity, there were another force acting on all bodies equally and in parallel lines, equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the sun, then the Earth could remain in equilibrium between the two forces and be at rest. And then he says it outright: "thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system." Newton knew. He simply did not know of any such force, because he had confined his mechanics to a closed solar system, which is an artificial system that cannot even prove heliocentrism from its own equations. It cannot explain the origin of gravity or of inertia, and it has to insert the centrifugal and Coriolis forces by hand. The force Newton was missing was supplied by Ernst Mach: the rotating universe itself. In Machian and Einsteinian physics, a rotating universe produces an outward centrifugal force, an inward Coriolis force, and a diagonal Euler force on everything inside it. Those are the forces that carry the sun and the stars around a fixed Earth, and their combination is also what holds the Earth still at the center. In 2013 the Croatian physicist Luka Popov demonstrated this formally in a peer-reviewed paper, using Mach's principle to show the kinematical and dynamical equivalence of the neo-Tychonic and heliocentric systems. This is not a fringe assertion. It is published physics. Third, and this is the one that ought to give an honest heliocentrist pause: the geocentric model is the simpler of the two. I will let a heliocentrist say it. Gregory Snelgar, who holds a doctorate in quantum physics and who still prefers heliocentrism, writes that if we take the neo-Tychonic model, "it is actually simpler and more elegant than the current standard model. The other planets orbit the Sun as per modern observations, but the Sun orbits the center of mass of the universe, which is the Earth. This is observationally identical to the standard model but philosophically unwelcome. Mathematically it is more elegant because it does away with cosmic inflation, the Lorentz contraction, etc. which were designed with the specific goal of avoiding" a geocentric model. Read that last clause again. A man who rejects geocentrism admits that two of the load-bearing pillars of modern cosmology were built for the purpose of escaping it, and that without them the geocentric model is the tidier one. His objection is not scientific. It is philosophical, and he says so. Why is it philosophically unwelcome? Because an Earth at the center of the universe, around which everything else revolves, smacks of a God who put it there deliberately, without time or chance, as the apple of his eye. It means the Copernican Principle, the foundation stone of modern physics, has crumbled. And it means the Catholic Church was right when she condemned Galileo. One more thing on why Tycho and not Ptolemy. People assume geocentrism means deferents and epicycles piled on top of each other. It does not. Tycho keeps the planets orbiting the sun exactly as modern observations show them to do. He simply declines to move the Earth.