Precession Data Analysis
We have many arguments with supporting data that indicate we are in a binary system, but one of the strongest is the “trend in precession rates”.
Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period. There is no reason the relatively constant mass of the Sun and Moon torquing the Earth should produce such figures. There is every reason a binary system would – because these numbers are not caused solely by local mass torquing – they are annual rates of our Sun’s path around its binary in an elliptical orbit. They will increase and decrease as the Sun speeds up and slows down as required by elliptical orbits (according to Kepler’s laws).
In the lunisolar model, if this trend were extended in either direction by a few million years one could say precession was once non-existent – and in the future, the earth will wobble so fast that we will all eventually fall off. We only know the historical geological record, which indicates a cyclical pattern – like an orbit.
What is more logical: Is the mass of the Sun and Moon changing this rapidly? Or is the Earth changing orientation to inertial space reflective of a common elliptical pattern?
Year/Epoch |
Value ("/year) |
Source |
Period of Revolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| 150 A.D. | 46" | Ptolemy/Hipparchos (questionable accuracy) | 28000 |
| 1900 | 50.2638 | Walter Fricke Abstract (Struve – Peters for 1900) | 25784.0 |
| 1900 | 50.2564 | 1900 Astronomical Almanac (Simon Newcomb’s value) | 25787.8 |
| 1901 – 1975 | 50.2564 + (year – 1900)*0.000222 | Astronomical Almanac for that year | 25779.2 |
| 1994 | 50.2877 | J. G. Williams | 25771.7 |
| 2000 | 50.290966 | 2002 Astronomical Almanac | 25770.036 |
| 2002.5 | 50.29164 | 2003 Astronomical Almanac | 25769.69 |
Using Newcomb’s Formula: 50.2564 + .000222 (year – 1900): Backward in Time
Year/Epoch |
Value ("/year) |
Period of Revolution |
|---|---|---|
| 150 B.C. | 49.8013 (-.4551) | 26023 |
| (-10,000 years) | 48.0364 (-2.22) | 26980 |
| (-50,000 years) | 39.1564 (-11.1) | 33098 |
| (-100,000 years) | 28.0564 (-22.2) | 46193 |
Using Newcomb’s Formula: 50.2564 + .000222 (year – 1900): Forward in Time
Year/Epoch |
Value ("/year) |
Period of Revolution |
|---|---|---|
| (+10,000 years) | 52.4764 (+2.22) | 24697 |
| (+20,000 years) | 54.6964 (+4.44) | 23694 |
| (+100,000 years) | 72.4564 (+22.2) | 17887 |
| (+ 1 million) | 272.2564 (+222) | 4760 |
Binary Model – Kepler Solution
An observer on a planet in a binary system would notice a change in orientation at a rate commensurate to the orbit period around the common center of mass. (USNO) With minor local effects and no eccentricity, this type of change in orientation at 50´´p/y would equate to an orbit periodicity of 25,920 years. (1,296,000/50 = 25,920). At 54´´p/y, again with minor local effects and no eccentricity, this type of change in orientation would equate to 24,000 years (1,296,000/54 = 24,000). In 1894, about the same time that the great astronomer Simon Newcomb gave us a precession formula with a constant of .000222 p/y (designed to predict changes in the precession rate), an Indian astronomer, Sri Yukteswar, explained that the moving equinox (precession) was a result of a moving solar system and he gave us a binary orbit periodicity of 24,000 years, with apoapsis at 500 A.D. Thus, one scientist gave us a strictly local dynamics model and the other a strictly non-local dynamic SS model. Which model was more accurate over the next 100 years?
