Researchers at BRI have noticed a number of problems related to the current theory of

precession. While VLBI, laser ranging and other related technologies do a good job at
determining the earth’s orientation, the sun’s movement through space has not been
coordinated with these findings resulting in unintentional bias of precession inputs. In
examining the phenomenon of precession of the equinox (which was the original impetus
for the development of lunisolar precession theory) we have found that a binary orbit motion
of our sun and solar system is a simpler way to reproduce the same observable without any
of the problems associated with current precession theory. Indeed, elliptical orbit equations
have been found to be a better predictor of precession rates than Newcomb's formula,
showing about ten times greater accuracy over the last hundred years. Moreover, a binary
orbit motion of our sun provides a solution to a number of solar system formation theory
enigmas including angular momentum. For these reasons, BRI has concluded our sun is
most likely part of a long cycle binary system.

A binary system is two stars gravitationally bound orbiting a common center of mass. The
stars can be of the same or differing sizes and orbits can be as short as a few days or as long
as thousands of years. The short ones are easy to detect, the long ones difficult, some
probably impossible to detect because of the very long observation period required.

While there is no obvious visible companion star to our Sun, there could be a dark binary,
such as a brown dwarf or possibly a relatively small black hole, either of which might be
very difficult to detect, without accurate and lengthy analysis.

There is also the possibility that our sun might be in a binary or complex gravitational
relationship with one of several nearby “visible” stars. This scenario may require thinking
beyond standard Newtonian dynamics to embrace MOND or MOG or some similar theory
(that suggests that the constant of G might be stronger between stellar objects or in big space
than between planetary objects within the solar system). This approach to viewing stellar
relationships in the galaxy, and galactic relationships in the universe, might also solve
certain problems that presently require the invocation of dark matter or dark energy. There
are a number of possibilities within the visible star scenario that seem to have some support
in certain myth and folklore (I have speculated on a few in my book “Lost Star of Myth and
Time”) but at this point our work is principally focused on precession, rather than
identifying the object that shares the common center of mass, that indirectly causes the solar
system’s reorientation to space a.k.a. the precession observable.

Beyond direct detection – one way to determine if we are in a binary system is to see if the
Sun is curving through space. To us on Earth that means we should experience a gradual
“changing orientation to inertial space.” Such a phenomenon is observed as the precession
of the equinox.

Precession of the Equinox is the age-old phenomenon whereby an observer on Earth will
notice that after one year (solar, tropical, equinoctial), he will not realign with the exact
same point relative to the distant stars. From two to four thousand years ago observers on
Earth noticed that the sun on the vernal equinox aligned with the constellation Aries, and in
the last few thousand years with Pisces. Now as many know, we are at the "dawning of the
age of Aquarius", meaning the sun on the vernal equinox is close to aligning with the
constellation of Aquarius. This apparent backward motion of the stars (at the time of the
equinox) is the precession of the equinox – whereby the equinoctial point slowly recedes
through the 12 constellations of the Zodiac at the present rate of about 1 degree per 71.6
years. If this rate were constant it would take about 25,700 to 25,800 years to complete one
full precession of the equinox. However, the annual rate is now speeding up, meaning the
calculated length of one full cycle is getting shorter. If the observable of precession is due to
an elliptical orbit of our sun around another star, as we believe, then this explains the reason
for the variable rate of precession, and also tells us the full cycle will average something
different than 25,700 years. All our calculations lead us to believe the period will average
about 24,000 years as will be explained in a later section of this website.
 Current LuniSolar Model

The current explanation for why we see this

precession of the equinox is that the tug of the Sun
and the Moon acting upon the Earth’s bulge (<1%
wider at equator) causes the Earth to gyrate so that
the pole axis slowly traces a circle in the sky over
about 24,000 to 26,000 years. This model,
commonly seen in textbooks, mixes nutation with
precession and obfuscates the fact that these are two
separate phenomenons, one local and short in
duration (nutation) and one non-local and very long
in duration (precession).

The Lunisolor Precession theory was originally

developed before there was any formal knowledge of binary stars or their motions, and
before there was any recognition that the solar system might be moving, While this theory is
a good first attempt at explaining the observed phenomenon (within a static solar system), it
relies on certain untested assumptions concerning the composition and stability of the
earth’s core and the moon’s solidity, and has had to modified a number of times over the
years to get the calculation to fit the ever changing observable. Most astronomers do not pay
attention to precession theory and consider these changes to be minor tweaks but they are
actually telltale signs of the problems with current theory.

Another problem with current theory is the moon is thought to be the principal force acting
upon the oblate earth. However, the moon is slowly receding from the earth (thereby
theoretically producing less torque) whereas the precession rate is slowly speeding up (an
indication of a greater force at work). Few are aware of the changing rate of precession thus
little attention has been paid to the fact that the observable seems to contradict the theory
concerning the forces at work. To date, this issue has not been addressed in the literature.

And of course the biggest failure of the current lunisolar theory is it makes no allowance for
the different reference frames (a moving solar system versus fixed stars) and therefore
requires that the earth change orientation relative to all objects, near and far, at the same
rate, Such is not the case.

The simplest way to produce the precession observable is the binary model. In this common
stellar system, the observable of a moving equinox (or stars appearing to move relative to
the equinox when viewed from earth on the date of the equinox) is simply the geometric
effect of a solar system that curves through space as part of a binary system. As the solar
system curves through space it gently changes the orientation of the Earth relative to the
fixed stars (but not relative to objects within the moving solar system such as the sun or
moon). This model requires little or no local wobble and is fully consistent with
observations that show little or no precession relative to nearby objects and a full 50 arc
seconds of precession relative to distant objects.

Pretend the straight blue line, drawn through the sun and earth, is the sightline of an
observer looking out toward the constellations. Notice the observer now has a changing
orientation to distant space, and with each vernal equinox, his gaze can slightly precess
 (change orientation) relative to the constellations or fixed stars w
Earth required.

Zoom in to see the “incremental change” in earth orientation tha

and solar system curves through space. One year of this change
call one year of precession. Kepler tells us celestial bodies in or
move in elliptical orbits – and that these orbits increase and dec
whether the two objects are moving closer to or farther away fro
mass. Therefore if the precession rate appears to be increasing,
its elliptical orbit where it is moving from apoapsis to periapsis
laws it would be speeding up. Thus the variable rate of precessi
ever since modern records have been kept) is no longer a myste
simply the trait of an object in an elliptical orbit. The rate of cha
predicted using Kepler’s laws if the basic orbit parameters are k
that by using Kepler’s laws we can predict the precession rate 1
Simon Newcomb’s constant.

Notice the Earth does make a 360 degree motion “relative to the
motion relative to inertial space. The reason is simple, as the Su
observer on Earth (attached to the Sun by gravity) to slowly turn
space each year. This is the same “observable” attributed to an E
forces.

As we will show, the Sun curving through space in a binary orb

problems than just precession mechanics.

Angular Momentum The result of the momentum of a rotating body and its distance from
the axis of rotation.
Binary Star A star that is gravitationally bound to another and orbits the other star around a
mutual center of mass. The majority of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy are in binary or other
multistar systems.
Black Hole A collapsed star whose mass is condensed into a single point is space. The
gravitational force generated by a black hole is so strong, that not even light can escape.
Brown Dwarf A celestial body that resembles a star but does not emit light because it is too
small to ignite internal nuclear fusion. Brown dwarfs are extremely difficult to detect and
their existence was only recently confirmed.
Comet A celestial body, having a head consisting of a solid nucleus surrounded by a
nebulous coma and an elongated curved vapor tail arising from the coma when it gets
sufficiently close to the sun. Comets are thought to consist mostly of ammonia, methane,
carbon dioxide, and water.
Kuiper Belt An area of asteroids and debris just beyond the orbit of Pluto. Recent
observations suggest the Kuiper Belt ends abruptly at approximately 50 AU.
Milankovitch Cycles The results of studying past global climate changes over millions of
years. One of the causes in climate change is precession of the equinoxes, which seems to
have a period of 22,000 to 23,000 years, over millions of years.
Oort Cloud Proposed as the source of comets, the area of debris spanning a distance of one
to two light years out from the Sun, and surrounding the solar system.
Precession This catch all term is now used to describe both the phenomenon of the
precessing equatorial point as well as the Earth movement itself.
Precession of the Equinox The age old phenomenon whereby the equatorial point moves
westward (precesses) through the twelve zodiacal signs.
Red Dwarf A small cool star. Approximately 100 times the mass of Jupiter. Can be very
difficult to detect.
Sidereal Year The time required for one complete revolution of the earth around the sun,
measured relative to the fixed stars, a time period equal to a mean 365.2563 rotations of the
earth.
Tropical Year The time required for one complete orbit of the earth, measured relative to
the sun, a time period equal to 365.2422 rotations of the earth.

Tropica/Sidereal Delta The time difference between the two years above which is equal to
the value of precession, approximately 20 minutes in time or 50 seconds of arc in a year.
Virtual Observatory A “virtual telescope” capable of processing many years of archived
astronomical data for patterns or tracks of faint orbiting bodies.
Wobble The terminology used by Copernicus to describe the apparent movement of the
Earth in the phenomenon known as "Precession of the Equinox". He said precession of the
equinox was caused by "wobble or libration". He deemed this the "third motion" of the
Earth.
Zodiac A band of the celestial sphere extending about 8° to either side of the ecliptic that
represents the path of the principal planets, the moon, and the sun. The 12 constellations
within this band represent the constellations of the zodiac.
Reference Frames and Precession Riddle

Under the current lunisolar theory of precession it is assumed that the earth goes around the
sun 359 degree 59 minutes and 10 arc seconds in a Tropical year, the period from like
equinox to like equinox, which is equal to 365.2422 rotations of the earth. This is true if you
measure the position of the equinox relative to the fixed stars “outside” the solar system but
it is not true if you measure the movement of the equinox relative to the sun or moon or
other objects “within” the solar system, where the lunar data shows us that the earth goes
around the sun a complete 360 degrees in a tropical year. Unfortunately, neither NASA or
VLBI or any official agency suspects there is any difference in the two measurements so
they do not bother to measure the earth’s orientation relative to nearby objects.

Earth orientation measurements are typically made relative to quasars because these objects
are so distant (outside the galaxy) that they act as virtual fixed points, ideal for making
measurements. And they are ideal. However, failure to consider that the solar system might
be moving (at a rate much faster than the assumed .005 arc seconds per year around the
galaxy) has led to a misinterpretation of the VLBI data.

If the solar system were not moving then simple conclusions about the earth orientation data
would be correct (Footnote 1). Or if we knew exactly how much the solar system was
moving we could account for such movement and add or subtract such amount from the
VLBI measurements. The problem is the solar system moves, and this moving frame needs
to be taken into consideration when using points of reference outside the moving frame. As
of this writing VLBI data interpretations do not account for this motion or any moving
frames.

Ironically, astronomers unknowingly recognize the two different frames at work when it
comes to routine calculations within the solar system. For example, when they plot the
position of planets or moons within the solar system they use a tropical frame, which by
definition excludes precession (Footnote 2) thus no precession adjustment is required or
even considered. However, when the position of a stars need to be found you first find the
object at a point in time (say J2000) then add precession for each year that has passed since
that point. Thus current ephemeris methods account for the two frames; precession is
excluded when plotting objects within the solar system and included when plotting objects
outside the solar system.

Riddle: If there are 50 arc seconds of earth wobble in 365.2563 spins of the earth then how
much wobble (precession) is there in 365.2422 spins of the earth? Please take a moment to
calculate your answer before reading on. Logic would dictate the amount of wobble is
proportional to the earth’s rotation time – meaning it must wobble half as much in one day
as it does in two days. But lunisolar theory does not allow this answer because precession is
the “delta” between the two years.

Logically, if the earth wobbles 50 arc seconds in 365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes and 9 seconds
(a time period equivalent to a sidereal year) then it should wobble 99.99% of this amount in
365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds (a tropical year time period). But because the
cause of precession has been misdiagnosed – the lunisolar theory has no way to logically
answer the question – so the question becomes a riddle.

The best answer under current lunisolar precession theory has to be: there is no wobble in a
tropical year but for the next 20 minutes after that - the earth wobbles a full 50 arc seconds!
The answer under the binary model is simple and logical: The earth does not wobble but it
does change orientation to objects outside the solar system as the solar system curves
through space. In the time period known as a tropical year it has curved through space
99.99% of the 50 arc seconds (of precession) found in a sidereal year. Therefore the
phenomenon known as precession can only be due to the changing orientation of the solar
system as it curves through space – it has nothing to do with a local wobbling of the earth.

Footnote 1: In a paper found in the Astrophysical Journal the authors claim to have
measured the motion of the solar system concluding that it probably only curves about .005
arc seconds per year, allowing it to move once around the galaxy in about 240 million
years. In spite of all the fancy words, the unstated assumption is that the delta between a
sidereal and tropical year is due to a local wobbling of the earth (a.k.a. lunisolar
precession). If the authors understood that there is no local wobbling, they would then find
50 arc seconds of motion per year, and likely change their conclusion!

Footnote 2: Remember precession is the delta between the tropical and sidereal years – the
tropical year doesn’t have it – whereas the 50 arc second longer sidereal year has it.

The Lunar Cycle

There are several different methods employed in measuring the timing of the Earth's orbit
around the Sun. A Tropical Year is defined as the annual interval from equinox to equinox,
while a Sidereal Year is the time required for the Earth to re-align with the fixed stars. The
annual time delta between the two is approximately 20 minutes. Current LuniSolar theory
dictates that the Tropical Year be slightly short of a complete orbit, and that the Sidereal
Year be representative of a complete 360 degree trip around the sun. The 20 minute time
interval is the temporal equivalent to the precession rate of 50.29 arc seconds annually.

If this is the case, it should be reflected in lunar data comparisons, specifically in looking at
the revolution delta between Synodic and Tropical Months within a single orbit. In one
complete orbit around the Sun, the delta should be exactly 1, meaning if there were N
Synodic revolutions there should be N+1 Tropical revolutions. The expectation under the
LuniSolar model would be for the delta of one to occur only within the timeframe of the
Sidereal Year. The following comparisons, though, show that the opposite is the case.
Lunar Data Comparison 1 - Tropical vs. Synodic Months in a Tropical Year
Lunar Data Comparison 2 - Tropical vs. Synodic Months in a Sidereal Year
Lunar Data Comparison 3 - Sidereal vs. Synodic Months in a Sidereal Year

Missing Motion and the Lunar Witness

In Ptolemy's day people thought the Sun orbited the Earth. Everyone could see the Sun rose
in the East and set in the West, and no one could feel the Earth spin, therefore the only way
to explain the Sun’s motion through the sky was to conclude the Sun itself went around the
fixed Earth. Therefore, a missing motion (the Earth's spin) led to an incorrect conclusion.

Although this European belief held for almost a thousand years, the Moon never confirmed
the incorrect motion of the Sun and Earth. Had one bothered to look carefully, they would
notice the phases of the Moon were out of synch with the Moon’s revolutions around the
Earth. The only way the Moon could go around Earth every 27.3 days, yet a new Moon
could only be seen every 29.5 days, was if the Earth itself was curving around the Sun. This
is proved with relatively simple rotation calculations but unfortunately, no westerner seemed
to correlate the two facts for over a thousand years.

A similar misunderstanding; missing motion and failure to look at the lunar data, has led to
another incorrect conclusion about the mechanics of our solar system. Specifically, the
phenomenon known as “precession of the equinox” has been attributed to torque primarily
from the Sun and the Moon, wobbling the Earth. The logic goes something like this:
Everyone can see the Earth does not realign with the fixed stars at the time of the annual
equinox, it is off by about 50.29 arc seconds per year. Copernicus said this is because the
Earth’s pole “wobbles”, and Newton said that if it did wobble it must be due to the gravity
of the Sun and the Moon acting upon the oblate Earth. The combination of these two
principal forces is supposed to cause the pole to shift clockwise by the observable 50.29 arc
seconds per year, meaning the equinox would arrive 50.29 arc seconds short of that point in
the Earth’s orbit path that the equinox occurred at in the prior year. Because this is the
observable, and there are no other theories, this “lunisolar” theory of precession has become
widely accepted.

While the observable is true, lunar data shows the purported cause is not. Just as Ptolemy
failed to consider another motion, the spinning Earth, and therefore came to the wrong
conclusion when observing the Sun going around the Earth, so too are modern scientists
forgetting to account for a motion. This time the missing motion is the solar system curving
through space. With the solar system curving through space at about 50 arc seconds per
year, and apparently some light torque upon the Earth, the solar system is gradually
reorienting the Earth to inertial space (or precessing) at this rate. It is the motion of the solar
system that causes precession, not lunisolar forces. Lunar rotation calculations help us
understand this point:

If the Earth were coming up about 50 arc seconds short of the equinoctial point that it was at
in the prior year, then lunar data would show the Earth goes around the Sun 50 arc seconds
short of 360 degrees in an equinoctial year. But it does not show this. It shows that the Earth
goes around the Sun 360 degrees in an equinoctial year. Yet anyone can see that the Earth in
relation to inertial space appears to move around the Sun 360 degrees only in a sidereal year.
Indeed, fixed star to fixed star has almost become the litmus test for what is or isn’t a 360
degree movement. But like Ptolemy’s Sun, that appears to orbit round the Earth, motions in
space can be deceiving.
Lunar calculations based on tropical data clearly show the Earth goes around the Sun 360
degrees in an equinoctial year. Interestingly, if one plugs in only sidereal data they also
show the Earth moves 360 degrees relative to the fixed stars in a sidereal year, yet this orbit
path of the Earth around the Sun takes 20 minutes longer and is 22,000 miles wider in
circumference. Now obviously, the Earth does not have two different orbit paths around the
Sun each year. So which is right? Mathematically, they are both correct; the Earth does
move 360 degrees around the Sun in a solar year and does move 360 degrees relative to the
fixed stars in a longer sidereal year. The startling conclusion is, while the Earth is moving
360 degrees counterclockwise around the Sun in a solar year, the entire solar system
(containing the Earth Sun reference frame) is moving clockwise relative to inertial space.
The mathematical calculations support no other conclusion.

It is the missing motion of the solar system curving through space that modern scientists
have failed to calculate in their lunisolar precession theory. But the Moon does not lie. Its
movement is exact and acts like a witness to the Earth’s motion. The only way the Sun can
appear to move around the Earth, and be confirmed by lunar data, is because the Earth is
spinning on its axis. Likewise, the only way the Earth’s axis can appear to precess or wobble
relative to inertial space, and not wobble relative to the Sun as confirmed by lunar data, is if
the solar system (the reference frame that contains the Sun and Earth) is curving through
space. Furthermore, the only way the solar system can be curving through space at a rate of
50 arc seconds per year, is if it were gravitationally affected by another very large mass: a
companion star.

The angular momentum issue is a well documented problem that has baffled solar system
formation theorists for many years.The Sun contains 99.9 % mass, but only 1% of the total
Angular Momentum. Most of the remainder is typically associated with the Jovian Planets.
Theoretical Physicists developing Formation Theories are thwarted by this anomalous
distribution. The Binary Model provides allocations of Angular Momentum to Mass for
Planets and Stars in line with common expectations.

An object in Rotational motion has an Angular Momentum L equal to its moment of inertia
S (mi r2i) times its angular velocity w. If there is no external Torque, then L = Constant
(Conservation of Angular Momentum).

Our proof here is rather compelling. We first looked at the angular momentum distribution
charts (see here 60 percent of angular momentum lies with Jupiter). We then ran the
formulas ourselves with existing inputs to make sure the textbook data was correct.
Everything checked out.

Next, is the same chart in an "Angular Momentum to Mass ratio" formula. You can see all
the bodies in our solar system have ratios in line with their mass except for the Sun.
We then made one input into the existing formula: we assumed the Sun was moving in a
binary orbit with a period of 24,000 years.
The Sun came right into line.

All these years, the Sun has had the proper angular momentum but it is not in it’s spin, it is
in it’s movement through space.

The chart assumes the Sun is in a binary orbit with an object 8% of Sun's mass at distance of
1000 AU.
 Here is the raw data showing
that traceable objects of any
size seem to end abruptly at
about 50 AU.

The Edge of the Solar System,

Allen, R. L., Bernstein, G., &
Malhotra, R. 2001, The
Astrophysical Journal,
549:L241-L244, 2001 March
10

In April 2001, Discover Magazine reported that scientists from University of Michigan and
University of Arizona found our solar system has a sheer edge meaning matter such as
asteroids, ice and other objects of all sizes appears to abruptly end. A single sun system
should have a very wide dispersal of matter getting smaller and smaller for billions of miles
beyond the Kuiper Belt. To find that all matter seems to end just beyond this Kuiper Belt
was unexpected. Among their conclusions, the reasearchers theorized that one possible
cause of the sheer edge could be the gravitational influence of some as yet undetected large
mass planet, that passed within close proximity to our system at some point in the past.

Interestingly, a sheer edge is also widely thought to be typical of a binary system. In a

binary system, you would expect the two companion stars gravity fields to cause any excess
matter to be sheered away (ejected or captured) on a regular basis.

The sheer edge does not prove we are in a binary system as it could just as easily be caused
by a very large Kuiper Belt object. Nonetheless, the data is important to developing a model
of the overall action of our solar system.
Another fact expected in a single sun system is that comets should come from all directions
more or less randomly. But the data shows comets' paths tend to be non-random. Fully 1/3
of 82 long cycle comets come from a narrow belt.

This could lend support to a binary theory whereby a large, distant mass disturbs comets.
Other scientists have come to a similar conclusion and some think it may be a 10th planet or
failed binary with a large orbital period. Presumably, they are not aware of the evidence to
indicate our Sun is curving through space and that we are therefore in an active binary
system.
Large Celestial Body influencing non-
random Comet paths.

Matese and Whitmire propose band from

Cassiopeia to Polaris.

Murray believes it is in a small patch around

Delphinus.

Richard Muller at UC Berkeley also thinks

periodic extinctions may be indicative of a
very large cycle binary.

There are many common misconceptions about binary star systems, one of the most
common myths is that binary star systems are the cosmic oddity and that single star systems
are the most prevalent, when, in fact, the opposite is true. 50 years ago binary stars were
considered a rarity. Now, most of the stars in our galaxy are known to be paired with a
binary partner or multiple partners.

Just because we cannot see it does not mean it does not exist. We now know that many stars
cannot be seen including blackholes, neutron stars and many brown dwarfs. Furthermore,
long cycle binary systems (those with orbit periods of thousands or tens of thousands of
years) may be quite difficult to detect because of the very long observation period required.
For nearby Sun-like stars, more than 55 percent are confirmed to be in double, triple, or
quadruple relationships. Total estimates are higher, with NASA's Chandra website reporting
that up to 80 percent of all stars are in multiple star relationships. Why wouldn't our own
Sun have a binary partner?

VLBI (Very Long Baseline Interferometry), the process of using extragalactic radio sources,
such as quasars, to pinpoint changes in the Earth's orientation to inertial space is a
tremendously helpful tool. Like LLR (Lunar Laser Ranging), SLR (Satellite Laser Ranging)
and GPS (Global Positioning Systems) VLBI and other space-geodetic technologies have
helped us better understand subtle changes in our Earth and the Earth's orientation.

As precise as VLBI is in recording and documenting the Earths orientation to space it does
not determine the "causes" for the change in orientation. Rather the official NASA VLBI
website recognizes two historically accepted categories of causes for such a change and then
relies on the geoscientists to model the data.

Here is a quote from the NASA VLBI website:

"Changes in the Earth's orientation in inertial space have two causes: the gravitational forces
of the Sun and Moon and the redistribution of total angular momentum among the solid
Earth, ocean, and atmosphere. VLBI makes a direct measurement of the Earth's orientation
in space from which geoscientists then model such phenomena as atmospheric angular
momentum, ocean tides and currents, and the elastic response of the solid Earth."

Consequently, the earth's orientation is measured to a high degree of accuracy but the exact
forces that cause that orientation to occur are still being identified and weighed. Asteroids
are one area of force that is suspected of causing a change in earth's orientation. Attempts
have been made to quantify the effects of the larger asteroids but the number of such objects
is so large their exact cumulative effect is difficult to determine. Another area apparently
unaccounted for is movement of the Sun around the galaxy. Note there is no mention of
movement of the Sun and solar system through space in the quote from the VLBI NASA
website or related sites NEOS (National Earth Orientation Service) and IERS (International
Earth Orientation Service. Yet obviously if the Sun and solar system were moving through
space it would cause a change in the Earth's orientation (as well as all the other planets)
independent of lunisolar forces, tides or any geophysical activity. This is because the Earth
and all the planets are effectively attached to the Sun via gravity and if the Sun is moving
either around the galactic center or in any unknown intermediate motions it takes the earth
and planets along with it. Because current technology and lunisolar precession equation
assumptions do not account for any such long term or unknown causes, any measured
changes in the earths orientation to inertial space are attributed to known sources. Indeed,
because we know the total of precession (50.29 arc seconds annually), but not the
proportional contribution from all causes, including unknown causes, it is logical to assume
we overweight the known causes.

"Unknown" intermediate motions of the Sun could include the Sun being pulled periodically
by another star sometime during its 200 million year journey around the perimeter of the
galaxy, or it might even include a very long cycle binary or multiple relationship between
our Sun and other stars. If such a motion took thousands and thousands of years to complete
one orbit it would still be undetected based on today's technology and the very long
observation cycle required. The fact of the matter is, unless we had radio telescopes on the
surface of the Sun, that could simultaneously coordinate with such devices on the surface of
the Earth, we cannot be sure that all the causes of the Earth's changing orientation to inertial
space are strictly local.

The binary model is a simpler more logical model for explaining the mechanics of our solar
system and the motions of the earth.
For example, unlike lunisolar theory, the new model does not require concurrent
slippage of the equinoctial point in order make precession work:

An equinoctial year, tropical year and solar year are all reflective of a 360 degree motion of
the Earth around the Sun (relative to the Sun).

The equinox occurs at the same place in the Earth’s orbit path each year (relative to the
Sun). The ecliptic and celestial plane are fixed at the point of the equinox. The reason for the
movement of the equinox is because the solar system moves.

The calendar year, then, represents a complete orbit of the Earth around the Sun. (Except for
the differential between 365.25 (average days in a year) and 365.2422 (actual rotations in a
year) that exists because mans calendar is made of whole days).

Also, the new model does not require extremely complex equations to predict
precession. Nor do the new equations suffer a high degree of degradation over time:

The earth’s changing orientation to inertial space is only minimally affected by the planets,
tides, geo-physical movements, asteroids, etc. The principal source of movement is caused
by the binary motion and the Sun curving through space, slowly changing the Earth’s
orientation.

Therefore, precession can be most easily predicted by plotting the angular velocity of the
Sun in its binary orbit, and using this as the main input in precession calculations. The Sun's
angular velocity is now proportional to its mass, along with the other planets.

Precession’s annual increase is attributed primarily to the increasing angular velocity

(curved motion) of the Sun’s elliptical orbit around it’s binary during the apoapsis to
periapsis phase.

Precession waxes and wanes with the elliptical orbit of our sun around its binary center of
mass. In this model precession is cyclical and the current accelerating precession trend is
now understandable (as we move toward the periapsis point of the binary motion).

Precession was never too small as to not exist and it will never become so large that we all
wobble off the Earth. Minimum precession is about 1 degree every 72 years when the Sun is
at apoapsis, and maximum precession is about one degree every 64 years when the Sun is
near periapsis. The Earth will average about one degree of precession per 66.6 years over
the 24,000 year cycle. This equates to a range in annual precession rates of 50" to 59" per
year, with an average of 54" per year over 24,000 years.

The new model does not require one cause to be given to explain the difference
between a solar and sidereal “day” (orbital curvature) and another completely
different principal to be given to explain the difference between a solar and sidereal
“year”:
The sidereal year realigns with the same stars of a year ago, 20 minutes later than an
equinoctial year (50.29 arc seconds), only because the solar system has curved through
space by 50.29 arc seconds.

Just like the delta between a sidereal day and a solar day, the delta between a sidereal year
and solar year is also due to curvature of an orbit. The “day” delta is due to curvature of the
Earth around the Sun. The “year” delta is due to curvature of the Sun around its binary
center of mass.

The new model might also explain the sheer edge of the Kuiper Belt, non-random
comet paths, the increasing rate of precession and other solar system “anomalies”.

The animation below shows the old model where the equatorial plane slips around the
ecliptic, and the new model where the two are fixed. They both result in precession, but only
the new model avoids the enigmas that occur in the lunisolar model.

As can be seen, the "observable" of the two models is identical relative to distant space. The
difference is that in the binary model the celestial equator and ecliptic are fixed at the point
of equinox.

In the old model, the equinox must move along the ecliptic , meaning the Earth must
"wobble" relative to all objects near and far. In the new model the equinox moves because
the solar system moves, no local wobbling is required.
The Milankovitch Cycles are the results of studying past global climate changes over
millions of years. One of the causes in climate change is precession of the equinoxes, which
seems to have a period of 22,000 to 23,000 years, over millions of years.

But according to the current accepted model of precession, the main source of precession is
due to luni-solar forces and slowly increases (period decreases), has done so for who knows
how long, and will continue to do so. In fact, from 1900 to 1975, Simon Newcomb’s
formula for precession below was used to calculate the yearly increase in precession.

50.2564 + .000222 (year – 1900)

Note the table, below using Newcomb’s annual increase, 100,000 years ago, precession
would have been around 28 arcsec/year for a corresponding period around 46,000 years –
definitely out of sync with the Milankovitch cycle. And the further back we go in time, the
greater the discrepancy.
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

Additional information on this topic can be found at:

We believe our binary counterpart may lay between 848.5 AU and 1515 AU depending on
its mass. For detailed calculations, please download the PDF Document below.
Dual Size/Distance Calculations

There are other possibilities, including the scenario that says our companion star may be a
nearby visible star (see www.SiriusResearchGroup.com), although this now seems
improbable given our current understanding of gravity and visible star distances. Yet, there
are indications such as MOND theory and the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and
11 spacecraft that make this scenario attractive to investigation. Consequently, we urge the
scientific community to keep an open mind on possible forces that might be effecting the
suns motion, and in turn the earth‚s orientation. BRI will initially focus on dark star
scenarios as this best fits with our current understanding of Newtonian physics.

Probably the companion star lies within the invariable plane (the angular momentum plane
of the solar system) inclined to the ecliptic by 1.5 degrees. This would provide the most
stability for the planetary orbits.

There are good reasons why we do not see our dual star. It must be very faint in all ranges of
electromagnetic emission and located in an area of the sky that “camouflages” it.

This basically rules out all types of stars except a black hole giving off only small amounts
of radiation or a brown dwarf. The area toward the center of the galaxy is full of radiation,
dust clouds, and background noise, making it difficult to track a faint object moving at an
angular velocity around 50 arcsec per year.

So we are predicting that our binary companion will be found in an elliptical patch centered
around right ascension 17hr 45 minutes and declination –22 degrees.
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 it’s binary in a 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?

Constant of General Precession – Table

Year/Epoc
Value ("/year) Source Period of Revolution
h
Ptolemy/Hipparchos
150 A.D. 46” 28000
(questionable accuracy)
Walter Fricke Abstract
1900 50.2638 25784.0
(Struve – Peters for 1900)
1900 Astronomical Almanac
1900 50.2564 25787.8
(Simon Newcomb’s value)
50.2564 + (year – Astronomical Almanac for that
1901 – 1975 25779.2
1900)*0.000222 year
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

In this chart we have included precession calculations for 10 year periods, over the last 100
years.

As the annual rate of precession accelerates, the orbit period (or wobble cycle in lunisolor
theory) will decrease.
The ascending line is the plot one would expect to see if our sun were in a binary orbit with
a total period of 24,000 years. Notice the historical data has a high correlation to our
hypothesized orbit period.

Lunisolor theory gives no logical reason for the trend. A binary orbit, conforming to the
laws of elliptical orbits, is a logical explanation.

How can we find a faint, currently undetected body that could be a binary companion?
Through the use of a Virtual Observatory (VO). A VO is a collection of interacting
astronomical databases (data grid) accessed by specifically created software tools, run on
powerful computers by specially trained experts. A Virtual Observatory is a “virtual
telescope” capable of processing many years of archived astronomical data for patterns or
tracks of faint orbiting bodies.

An example of the power of a Virtual Observatory is the discovery last year of the Kuiper
Belt Object (KBO) 2001 KX76. In a month and a half, 18 years of past data was analyzed
by Astrovirtel (European Virtual Observatory) to discover the orbit of KX76. There had
been many faint images of KX76, but it was the power of a Virtual Observatory that
“recognized” the orbital pattern of the KBO.

If our dual star is a difficult to detect brown dwarf or some other nearly invisible object
within the Newtonian framework, our technology is just reaching the point where we now
have the ability to spot low magnitude, distant objects. Indeed, the largest non-planet, non-
moon object in our solar system was just found last year: Sedna, and the year before this,
KX76 a body larger than Pluto’s moon was found. It was discovered after using virtual
observatory techniques to comb through 18 years of data in 1-1/2 months.

While the probable location of our companion star (under Newtonian dynamics) is 20 to 30
times farther than Pluto, we are hopeful we will be able to narrow its probable location and
possibly detect it within the next few years.

Gravity Probe B is the relativity gyroscope experiment conducted by NASA and Stanford
University to test two predictions of Einstein's general theory of relativity. GPB is
essentially looking for the effects caused by the mass of the Earth bending space-time
around the Earth as Einstein's theories suggest. One observable should be the geodetic effect
estimated to be about 6 arc seconds per year. The other is a frame dragging effect of about .
042 arc seconds per year. GPB will look for these effects by tracking a guide star, about 300
light years away, and seeing how the gyros move in relation to the known proper motion of
this relatively fixed point in space. Important to our purposes, the GPB technology appears
ideally suited to determine if our solar system is curving through space.

GPB is not concerned with subtle motions of the earth, such as nutation or theoretical luni-
solar precession, as it will float about 400 miles above the earth (in a polar orbit) free from
these effects. It will keep one of the outer gyros in freefall position as the spacecraft orbits
the earth, while the earth orbits the sun. Consequently, the spacecraft will track the earth's
larger motions (orbital, and binary if it exists) as it moves with the earth through space,
without mimicking its lesser gyrations. As readers of this site know one predication of
binary theory is that the observable commonly called the “precession of the equinox” is not
due to local forces wobbling the earth but is principally a result of the solar system's motion
through space in its binary orbit. In short, we believe a moving solar system is responsible
for producing the observable called the precession of the equinox, while the earth wobbles
very little relative to objects inside the solar system.
In order to isolate the geodetic effect and the very small GR effect, the GPB team has to
separate out a number of unwanted signals. One, the well-known aberration of light due to
the motion of the spacecraft around the Earth (slightly changing the telescopes orientation to
the guide star with each orbit), amounts to +-5” per orbit, and is easy to identify due to the
short periodicity. Another, the aberration of light due to the Earth’s annual orbit around the
sun (carrying the spacecraft with it), may be less obvious because the Earth only went
around the sun once during the GPB data collection period. But it too is a well-known
effect, and quite large (+- 20.148”p/y), and therefore should also be readily identifiable.
Now here is our part: If BRI is correct that the Earth also has a third motion, moving with
the Sun in a roughly 24,000-year orbit (producing the bulk of the observable known as the
precession of the equinox [360 degrees divided by 25,800 years = 50” of geometric
precession p/y [1]) then there should be a third aberration, unexpected under current theory.
However, because the periodicity of this motion is so long in relation to the data gathering
period of the spacecraft (showing less than 1/12,000th of the binary waveform peak to
trough in one year) it would likely only be detected as drift rather than any obvious cycle,
but the effect will be fairly large, on the order of 50”p/y. Hence, it would mimic general
precession even though there is no cause for such an observation because the spacecraft is
not wobbling like the earth. [2] This would be overwhelming evidence that the bulk of the
observable of general precession of the Earth is actually due to the motion of the SS, and
very little to local effects.
The Stanford team has a big task in separating the enormous amount of data received into
identifiable signals, each with a known and justifiable cause. If they cannot justify each and
every signal then their attempt to isolate the small geodetic and frame dragging effects will
lack credibility. Beyond the binary effect, other theorists are suggesting some small noises
that may also have to be separated out, if they exist. However, none of these is of the
magnitude of the binary (precession of the equinox) observable. So while the analysis might
take some time, we expect the largest surprising effect will be a roughly 50”p/y signal that
seems to show no periodicity, that looks like drift and coincidentally mimics the precession
of the equinox observable.
The GPB program has cost approximately $800 million. Some have argued this cost is
unnecessary, as Einstein's predictions have been largely proven through other experiments.
However, if GPB proves that the observable of precession is due very little to local effects
and mostly due to the heretofore unknown motion of the solar system curving through
space, then it will be well justified. Some of the attendant implications of such a find
include:
The delta between a tropical year and a sidereal year, long known to be the value of
precession, would now be recognized as simply the observable of a solar system that curves
through space.
A tropical year, now thought to represent a motion of the Earth around the Sun that is 50”
less than 360 degrees, would now be understood as a 360 degree motion of the Earth
around the Sun. The reason the background stars change at the rate of about 50”p/y is due
to the solar system curving through space at this rate, not because the Earth wobbles
50”p/y.
The sidereal year would now be seen as a period that is about 50”p/y longer than one Earth
orbit around the Sun. The extra motion has been offset or masked in the solar system’s
journey through space.
As an astronomer friend of mine once said, “"sometimes the real value of experiment is in
what you don't expect to find." GPB could unexpectedly prove to make one of the most
fortuitous finds in the history of astronomy.
[1] This is the rough current rate. The rate will change over time subject to the eccentricity
of the orbit according to Kepler's laws.
[2] This would also show up in all other observations from earth but here we already have a
name for this 50'” observable – we call it precession.

Asymmetrical Shape of Heliosphere Raises Questions

By Walter Cruttenden, July 7, 2008

Ever since the Voyager 2 data confirmed the nonsymmetrical shape of the solar system
scientists have pondered its cause (i). In summary, the edge of the heliosphere (the
place where the solar wind slows to sub sonic speeds) appears to be 1.2 billion
kilometers shorter on the south side of the solar system (and in the general direction of
the winter solstice, the direction of Voyager 2), than it is on the edge of the planetary
plane (where Voyager 1 exited approximately a year earlier). This indicates the
heliosphere is not a sphere at all but a bullet shape. More data is required to determine
the exact shape in all directions.
The initial explanation was there must be some sort of gas cloud pressing against one
side of our solar system. While this hypothesis is plausible there is another possibility
that deserves consideration; stellar wind.

The sun’s solar winds are primarily driven by its magnetic field. When magnetic storms
arise on the sun it produces coronal mass ejections (CME’s), which are like waves or
ripples on the solar wind. The solar wind is constantly pushing on the daylight side of
the earth’s magnetosphere squashing it in a pattern similar to the way the sun’s
magnetic field seems to be squashed where Voyager 2 exited the solar system. Thus it
is possible that the dented solar system might be due to the same type of cause; stellar
winds from a not too distant star.

Some indication of this might reside in the data recently received by NASA's sun-
focused STEREO spacecraft. The twin STEREO spacecraft were launched in 2006 into
earth's orbit about the sun to obtain stereo pictures of the sun's surface and to measure
magnetic fields and ion fluxes associated with solar explosions. Between June and
October 2007, the STEREO spacecraft detected atoms “originating from the same spot
in the sky: the shock front and the heliosheath beyond, where the sun plunges through
the interstellar medium”, and found “energetic neutral particles from beyond the
heliosphere” that are moving toward the sun (ii). While this might be due to other
causes such as “charge exchange between hot ions and neutral atoms” as hypothesized
by scientists at UC Berkeley, it may also indicate the source of the asymmetrical solar
system is due to the stellar wind from another star rather than an interstellar gas cloud.
More data is needed and should be forthcoming with the pending launch of the
Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX), due to begin receiving data some time in the
next year.
(i) Science Daily, Voyager 2 Proves Solar System is Squashed, December 13, 2007
(ii) E Science News, First Images of Solar System’s Invisible Frontier, July 2, 2008

Response to The Precession Dialogues - BAUT Forum post

By Walter Cruttenden, July 16, 2009

Several posters on the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum (BAUT) have expressed
doubts about the non-conventional “binary model” of precession. The main critic is a poster
that goes by the name of “Celestial Mechanic” (CM) who has called the binary model
“rubbish, pure and simple”. While this is not the most constructive way to frame a scientific
discussion it does express the current attitude of most astronomers when it comes to non-
conventional theories of precession. It also hints at why several seemingly unrelated solar
system problems (such as the sun’s lack of angular momentum relative to the planets) have
gone unresolved. [More...]

NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes

Mysteriously, four spacecraft that flew past the Earth have each displayed unexpected
anomalies in their motions. These newfound enigmas join the so-called "Pioneer anomaly"
as hints that unexplained forces may appear to act on spacecraft. A decade ago, after
rigorous analyses, anomalies were seen with the identical Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft as
they hurtled out of the solar system. Both seemed to experience a tiny but unexplained
constant acceleration toward the sun. [More...] via Space.com

MIT Instrument Finds Surprises at Solar System's Edge

The Voyager 2 spacecraft's Plasma Science instrument, developed at MIT in the 1970s, has
turned up surprising revelations about the boundary zone that marks the edge of the sun's
influence in space. The unexpected findings emerged in the last few weeks as the spacecraft
traversed the termination shockwave formed when the flow of particles constantly streaming
out from the sun--the solar wind--slams into the surrounding thin gas that fills the space
between stars. [More...] via MIT

Asymmetrical Shape of Heliosphere Raises Questions

By Walter Cruttenden, July 7, 2008

Ever since the Voyager 2 data confirmed the nonsymmetrical shape of the solar system
scientists have pondered its cause (i). In summary, the edge of the heliosphere (the place
where the solar wind slows to sub sonic speeds) appears to be 1.2 billion kilometers shorter
on the south side of the solar system (and in the general direction of the winter solstice, the
direction of Voyager 2), than it is on the edge of the planetary plane (where Voyager 1
exited approximately a year earlier). This indicates the heliosphere is not a sphere at all but a
bullet shape. More data is required to determine the exact shape in all directions. [More...]

Precession of the Equinox: The Ancient Truth Behind Celestial Motion

By Walter Cruttenden

Hardly a week goes by without an announcement that some ancient structure or

astronomical artifact has been found, or some civilization is discovered to be older or more
advanced than previously thought. Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, John Anthony West,
and many other leading edge thinkers are now correcting years of academic bias that filtered
out anything that didn’t fit with a linear progression of history. We are learning that the
Sphinx and other megalithic structures are probably much older than we first thought and
they almost always align to key astronomical coordinates or reflect the patterns of the
heavens...
[Download PDF]

Comparison of Precession Theories: An Argument for the Binary Model

By Walter Cruttenden

There are two basic theories to explain the Earth’s changing orientation to inertial space, a
phenomenon known as “Precession of the Equinox” or often-just “Precession”. The
“Lunisolar” explanation is widely accepted while the “Binary” or “Oriental” explanation,
although quite old, is hardly known. However, recent scientific evidence, as well as new
mathematical models and an expanding knowledge of binary systems call into question the
long accepted lunisolar theory and lends surprising support to the binary view.

This paper will explain and examine the two theories and provide a model of each. It
concludes that the lunisolar model has serious flaws that need to be reexamined whereas the
binary model also needs more research but better fits observation, uniformly explains
known solar system anomalies and does not contradict any solar or lunar rotation equations.
Interestingly, it also appears to be a better predictor of long-term precession trends and is
supported by Kepler’s laws on elliptical orbits...
[Download PDF]

On Newton's Paradoxes
By Carlo Santagata

Reading the Principia [1] it is easy to realize that Newton, without being aware of the fact,
has
corrected the law of the fall of bodies formulated by Galilei. In the present paper we
examine the consequences of such a fact and show that they affect the entire Celestial
Mechanics, being related to the very small 43” per century of the perihelion shift of Mercury
as well as to the substantial 50” per year of the grand phenomenon of the lunisolar
precession...
[Download PDF]

Understanding Precession of the Equinox: Evidence Our Sun May Be Part of a Long
Cycle Binary System
By Walter Cruttenden and Vince Days

A recent study of the phenomenon known as “Precession of the Equinox” has led
researchers to question the extent of lunisolar causation and to propose an alternative solar
system model that better fits observed data, and solves a number of current solar system
anomalies.
The standard model was theorized before there was any knowledge of the life cycle of stars,
or awareness that some stars are non-visible and could thereby exert unseen gravitational
influence. Also, the old model was developed before knowledge of binary prevalence or any
understanding of binary star motions. Indeed, the standard “single sun with lunisolar wobble
causing precession”, was originally developed at a time when the Sun had only recently
replaced the Earth as the center of the solar system and the Sun was thought to be fixed in
space. Consequently, any theory to explain the observed phenomenon of precession of the
equinox had to be based solely on movement of the Earth. Although, it has stood for almost
500 years with only minor tweaking, it fails to answer a number of well documented solar
system anomalies...
[Download PDF]

Response to The Precession Dialogues - BAUT Forum post

By Walter Cruttenden, July 16, 2009

Several posters on the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum (BAUT) have expressed
doubts about the non-conventional “binary model” of precession. The main critic is a poster that
goes by the name of “Celestial Mechanic” (CM) who has called the binary model “rubbish, pure
and simple”. While this is not the most constructive way to frame a scientific discussion it does
express the current attitude of most astronomers when it comes to non-conventional theories of
precession. It also hints at why several seemingly unrelated solar system problems (such as the
sun’s lack of angular momentum relative to the planets) have gone unresolved.
On the plus side CM appears to be an excellent mathematician. While I might disagree with
many of his over simplifications concerning the distribution of the earth’s mass (which
immediately creates an unrealistic model) and direction of force (he uses mainly the sun even
though the moon is the main culprit in the lunisolar model), and I might also question his
comment to “ignore the eccentricity of the earth and moon” and “ignore the inclination of the
moon’s orbit”, etc. none of these are really the main issue. CM’s dynamist approach adheres to
past practices. And I can confirm his lengthy defense of the widely accepted lunisolar model of
precession (the current prevailing theory to explain why the fixed stars seem to shift about 50 arc
seconds per year relative to the equinox) is within the standards of conventional thinking.
My issue with CM and others physicists is 1. The lack of recognition that the standard
assumptions (built over a long period of time) have been selected, adopted or eliminated to fit a
value that is close to the precession observable, and 2. The missing component in understanding
the problem is the failure to comprehend that earth orientation measurements are made to points
outside the moving frame of the solar system (to which the earth appears to wobble 50” p/y),
while at the same time, failing to understand that the earth shows no evidence whatsoever of
wobbling in relation to objects within the solar system. In short the problems of lunisolar theory
are far more fundamental than matching assumptions about the earth’s mass and local dynamics
to the observed rate of change in earth orientation. We are measuring from a moving solar
system, to points outside that system, yet relying on a static solar system model.
The purpose of this writing is to address CM’s comments in enough detail so those interested
may understand where CM, and other astronomers less familiar with precession mechanics have
failed to solve the problems with lunisolar theory or make any logical rebuttal of the binary
model. In fact, by omission CM has confirmed the current consensus view that overlooks the
motion of the solar system as a factor in earth orientation calculations (relative to points outside
the solar system), and makes no provision for multiple reference frames at work in earth
orientation measurement practices. This recognition is key to understanding changes in the
precession observable.
Part One– Framing the Problem
Precession mechanics (which underlie precession equations) are poorly understood within the
astronomical community. For example, some websites and professors when discussing earth
orientation parameters (EOP) lump in nutation with precession. Nutation is clearly a local
phenomenon caused the moon’s orbital motion around the earth with an easily identifiable 18
year signature, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the observable of the stars moving
backward across the sky at the rate of about 50 arc seconds per year (a.k.a. precession).
Precession is now increasing at an exponential rate, decreasing in periodicity, its cycle duration
is more than a thousand times longer than nutation, and there is much uncertainty about tidal,
atmospheric and geo-dynamic assumptions needed to derive the precession rate under lunisolar
protocol. Nutation has a purely local cause and a short and exacting periodicity. This is not a big
point in itself but helps illustrate the tendency to involve all local dynamics in the precession
observable, whether or not they have any bearing. What we call the precession observable, as we
will show, is the result of non-local dynamics; the solar system’s motion through space.
The confusion is understandable considering the lunisolar theory is the only explanation
presently taught in schools and textbooks to describe the earth’s changing orientation to the fixed
stars, and considering the binary model requires a companion star, with no obvious candidate in
view (at least within the realm of commonly accepted assumptions). Consequently the arguments
of CM, even though they may be incorrect, are not unfounded or unexpected.
If the sole cause of the earth’s changing orientation were local wobble (as dictated by current
lunisolar theory) then the earth would change orientation relative to near objects (i.e. the planets,
moon and sun), and far objects (i.e. quasars and other common points of reference) by the same
amount. However, if the precession observable (earth’s changing orientation to the fixed stars) is
mostly the result of a moving solar system (as found in the binary model), then there would be
practically no local wobble, and the measurement of changes in the earth’s orientation would be
different to objects “inside” the moving solar system than to objects “outside” the moving frame
of the solar system.
This is exactly what our lunar studies have shown: the earth appears to change orientation to very
distant objects at the rate of about 50” p/y while at the same time showing less than 1” p/y of
change relative to objects within the moving solar system. Unfortunately, this phenomenon has
gone wholly unnoticed as objects within the solar system move to such a large degree when
compared to objects outside the solar system that NASA VLBI and others do not even bother to
use local objects as fixed reference points. EOP measurement systems are focused on reference
points far outside the moving frame of the solar system (typically quasars beyond the galaxy) but
those measurements do not consider or adjust for any motion of the solar system, meaning the
measurements fail to account for the motion of the frame or platform on which the earth resides.
Nonetheless, those measurements and values are given to geoscientists to model and explain, as
if the solar system were static.
Consequently, geoscientists have to come up with assumptions about the earth’s viscosity, core,
mantel movement, oceans and tides etc. that fit the EOP observable given to them by radio
astronomers. In other words, assumptions about the content and elasticity of the earth and moon
are driven by precession measurements - not the other way around. Here is a quote from the
NASA VLBI website:
"Changes in the Earth's orientation in inertial space have two causes: the gravitational forces of the Sun and Moon
and the redistribution of total angular momentum among the solid Earth, ocean, and atmosphere. VLBI makes a
direct measurement of the Earth's orientation in space from which geoscientists then model such phenomena as
atmospheric angular momentum, ocean tides and currents, and the elastic response of the solid Earth."
As you will note CM’s equations rely on these same assumptions about the earth and moon in
order to derive his precession results. In short, he made the same mistake as most other scientists
where protocol has forced them to rely only on local mechanics without consideration of all
reference frames. This has resulted in circular reasoning where the assumptions are slowly
changed to fit the slowly changing observable.
Part Two – History and Predictability
Predictability is the hallmark of scientific theory. One telltale sign that lunisolar theory does not
work is its inability to predict changes in the annual precession rate. The binary model accurately
predicts changes in the annual precession rate, with a high degree of precision, whereas the
lunisolar model has been “constantly” (no pun intended) tweaked. Background:
1543 Copernicus said the earth has three motions; 1.it rotates on its axis, 2.it revolves around the
sun, and 3. it “librates” or wobbles. He needed this third motion to explain the widely observed
precession of the equinox against the fixed stars. So he assumed the earth wobbled. He could not
posit a moving solar system (an unknown reference frame) as people of the time could barely
believe the earth itself was moving.
1686 Sir Isaac Newton, was also unaware that the solar system moved. However he discovered
the laws of gravity, and determined that if the earth wobbled (as Copernicus said) then it must be
due to the gravity of the sun and moon (the two largest local objects) acting upon the earth. He
offers equations for precession but these equations do not work.
1749 Jean le Rond d'Alembert, with a new understanding of fluid dynamics,
“corrects” Newton’s equations and adds provisions for torque and inertia. These allow for much
more elastic and dynamic ideas about the earth and help to create a set of assumptions, which
seem plausible to “explain” the then precession observable. But they turn out to be totally
lacking in predictability. d’Alembert was also unaware that the solar system moved.
Late 19th Century Astronomers, notice the actual precession rate is changing faster than the
equations predict. Although no one knows why this is so, a “constant” is introduced to help the
calcualtion better match precession observations on an ongoing basis. Even though the force of
the moon acting upon the oblate earth should be “decreasing” ever so slightly, as the moon
slowly recedes in distance each year, a constant of .000222” p/y is “added” to bring the equation
up to speed with the observable. Solar system motion is still an unconsidered topic.
20th Century The constant seems to work for a while until a close examination of the precession
observable shows it is increasing at an exponential rate, outstripping the fixed constant. Thus the
equation, even with an annual addition falls a little farther behind each year. Sometime during
this period scientists broadly accept the idea the solar system is moving but it is never related to
the apparent backward motion of the fixed stars.
Present. Astronomers and geoscientists are still trying to tweak the precession equation through
purely local dynamics so every few years they adopt new inputs and or change a few
assumptions about the elasticity of the earth, tidal action, etc. These include a suspicion the outer
planets might exert a larger influence than heretofore acknowledged, the inclusion of the 300
largest asteroids as a factor in precession equations, and a recent suggestion that the earth’s core
might be elliptical in shape, playing some role in the ever increasing precession rate. But while
these accounting “plugs” are useful in bringing the equation closer to observations they have
failed so far to allow more reliable predictions. Meanwhile every scientist knows the solar
system moves, and even a few realize that precession measurements are made to points outside
the moving solar system, but none seem to connect the two issues. We will show the precession
rate curve can finally be predicted by applying Kepler’s laws to the sun’s motion.
Part Three - A Keplerian Solution
If our solar system were in orbit around another star, producing the observable (from earth) of
stars appearing to move backward across the heavens at the rate of about 50 arc seconds per year,
then that rate of change (of that observable) would be commensurate with our solar system’s
change in angular direction.
In other words, the rate of change in earth orientation (what we call “precession”) would increase
as we moved toward the common center of mass, peaking at periapsis, and decrease as we
moved away, and therefore be most easily plotted using Kepler’s laws.
To test which model was more accurate over the last 100 years (Binary or Lunisolar) we have
input our orbit parameters (24,000years and apoapsis in 500AD) as provided by Sri Yukteswar in
his book, The Holy Science, published in 1894, and compared these against the leading
astronomer of the time, the great Simon Newcomb, who refined his formula for precession
around 1900:
Simon Newcomb’s precession calculations were quite lengthy but resulted in:
50.2564 + a constant of 0.000222” p/y (U.S. Navel Observatory 1900)
To find the binary model equivalent we apply Kepler’s laws to a body in a 24,000-year orbit
(with mild eccentricity), 1500 years past apoapsis, which yields a current rate of change of .
000349 in the year 2000. It would average slightly less than this for the preceding 100 years (and
a bit more each year until periapsis).
The actual observed change between 1900, when the precession rate was 50.2564” p/y and the
year 2000 when the rate was 50.290966” p/y (Astronomical Almanac) was 0.0337, equating to
an annual rate of change of 0.000337” p/y over the last 100 years. Thus the Keplerian approach
(based on the binary model) has proved to be 10 times more accurate than Simon Newcomb over
the last 100 years.
Recognizing that the phenomenon of the stars moving backward across the sky (precession) is a
result of the sun’s orbit not only provides accurate rate of change information it also gives the
model clear parameters. In contrast, none of the precession computer models (based on lunisolar
precession theory) I have seen include a logical terminus point. For example, the computer
model Epoch v2009 (sent to me recently by a friend), if run for thousands of years, shows the
precession rate declining the farther you go into the past (until it is almost non-existent), and
increasing the farther you go into the future, until the speed of the wobble surpasses that of the
earth’s rotation – which is just ludicrous! (We have called this to the attention of the programmer
so hopefully he has now come up some logical reason under lunisolar theory to set parameters on
that model).
Some say the binary model must be wrong because we posit a 24,000-year precession cycle
whereas the observed rate of annual change now extrapolates to a cycle period of 25,700.035
(Astronomical Almanac 2000). But understanding Kepler’s laws we can see the reason for the
high current estimate is because we are now in the slow part of the orbit, much closer to the last
apoapsis (500AD), and far from the next periapsis (12,500AD). The cycle periodicity should
never deviate more than about 7.0% from the average (Current: 25,700 – 24,000 = 1700,
1700/25,700 = 6.6%), unless the orbit changed, which is highly unlikely.
Part Four – Where is the wobble?
A requirement of lunisolar theory, computed within the constraints of a static solar system, is
that if local forces wobble the earth, the earth must show the same rate of wobble relative to local
objects within the solar system, as it does to distant objects outside the solar system. But the
binary model has no such requirement. There can be one rate of change relative to local objects,
which we find to be less than 1” p/y, and another rate relative to distant objects, which we find to
be about 50” p/y.
So which is true, does the earth wobble the same locally and non-locally? Or are the
measurements different?
Studies of the moon’s phases in relation to the tropical and sidereal years show beyond a shadow
of doubt (no pun intended) that the earth goes around the sun 360 degrees (relative to the sun) in
the period known as a tropical year (365.2422 rotations of the earth), and therefore has no
meaningful wobble in relation to the sun, while at the same time anyone can see that the earth
comes up 50” short of 360 degrees in a tropical year when measured relative to the fixed stars.
Details of the lunar study can be found on the BRI website.
But if there is no precession within the solar system wouldn’t this present a problem for
astronomers trying to determine the position of the planets and moons?
Ironically, it is rectified in everyday astronomy by the use of different frames of measurement.
For example, a tropical frame, which makes no adjustment for precession is generally used to
plot the position of moons and planets and objects “inside” the solar system, whereas a sidereal
frame that must be adjusted for precession (i.e. J2000 + precession, times number of years) is
generally used to plot the position of stars, galaxies and objects “outside” the solar system. Thus
astronomers unwittingly adjust for the fact that the earth does not precess relative to local objects
and does precess relative to distant objects – and everything works fine.
The inflexible model proposed by lunisolar theorists is incompatible with astronomer’s practical
use of a precessing sidereal frame and non-precessing tropical frame. Whereas the binary model
accounts for the two separate frames and conforms perfectly, not only with the systems used by
astronomers, but with the reality of the cosmos around us.
What this means is all the efforts by dynamists to determine the local twists and torques upon the
earth and convert these to lunisolar precession equation inputs is for naught. The earth does not
wobble relative to local objects, more than a smidgen (excluding Chandler wobble, nutation, etc.
none of which affects its rotation). But the earth does change orientation (and therefore appear to
wobble) in relation to the stars but only because the solar system moves.
Part Five – Riddle Me This
It is assumed that most who are reading these pages realize the delta between a tropical year
(365.2422 spins) and a sidereal year (365.2563 spins) is the value of precession. The math is
straightforward:
365.2563 (rotations in a sidereal year)
- 365.2422 (rotations in a tropical year)
= 0.0141 (delta between tropical and sidereal year = value of precession in rotations)
0.0141 x 86,400 (#seconds in a day) = 1,218.24s = value of precession in time
1218.24 divided by 31,558,144.32 (seconds in a sidereal year) = 0.0000386030 (amount of earth
rotation attributed to wobble in a sidereal year)
0.00003860 x 1,296,000 (number of arc seconds in a circle) = 50.029527
This value is within 1/3 of 1 percent of the current precession value. The reason for the slight
inaccuracy is the delta of the tropical year and sidereal year is slowly expanding and there may
be a small bit of real local precession, plus or minus cluster or galactic rotation that is seen in the
observable when measuring to quasars outside the galaxy.
Riddle: If there are 50 arc seconds of earth wobble in 365.2563 spins of the earth then how
much wobble (precession) is there in 365.2422 spins of the earth? Just for fun, please take a
moment to calculate your answer before reading on.
Logic would dictate the amount of wobble is proportional to the earth’s rotation time – meaning
it must wobble half as much in one day as it does in two days. But lunisolar theory does not
allow this answer because precession is the “delta” between the two years (Tropical and
Sidereal).
Logically, if the earth wobbles 50 arc seconds in 365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes and 9 seconds (a
time period equivalent to a sidereal year) then it should wobble 99.99% of this amount in 365
days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds (a tropical year time period). But because the cause of
precession has been misdiagnosed – the lunisolar theory has no way to logically answer the
question – so the question becomes a riddle.
But the binary model provides an easy answer: The earth does not wobble. It gradually changes
orientation to the fixed stars because the solar system curves through space.

Part Six – Comments and Conclusion

In part one CM states that Sol would have to travel 630 km/s to get around Sirius in 26,000
years. This is incorrect because Sol does not have to go all the way around Sirius. In a binary or
multiple star system stars orbit the common center of mass. Therefore, the speed required for Sol
(1 solar mass) to travel around a common center of mass with Sirius (3 solar masses, including
Sirius B) would be less than 500 km/s. This is still an incredible speed but coincidentally it is
near the speed the solar system is moving (at least relative to the CMB) according to a paper by
Dr. Reg Cahill, an astrophysicist at Flinders University in Australia.
CM also comments that we do not observe Sirius moving at a high rate relative to the
background stars. Actually, this has been an issue in question ever since Arabic records
mentioned that Sirius (and Canis minor) crossed the Milky Way. The great mathematician
Fourier also noticed that Sirius seems to move with the Sun, against the background stars,
although Biot disagreed. A recent article by Jed Buchwald, astronomer at Caltech, mentioned
this issue and published a diagram that shows Sirius seems to track the sun “in spite of
precession”. Also, the Homann’s of Canada have made specific transit measurements of Sirius
for over 20 years and found no “precession” adjustments are required to track the star Sirius. I
visited their fixed observatory, viewed a Sirius transit through the crosshairs of their telescope,
examined their instruments (including radio beeping time from atomic clock at Fort Collins) and
found the data reliable and records impeccable. Here is a quote from their website concerning
their findings:
Even more surprising is the observation that the mean time interval of the sidereal year, as
measured with respect to Sirius is nearly identical (by less than one second) to the time interval
of the tropical year. According to the theory of 'precession', a yearly time difference of about
1223 s is supposed to occur between a sidereal year and the tropical year.
This of course is exactly what you would expect if Sirius were the sun’s companion – it would
move with the sun just as the Egyptians and other ancient cultures attested. But it is all so hard to
believe given the vast resources and current capabilities of modern astronomy. Who can blame
CM for his position if the astronomical almanacs say nothing about Sirius racing across the sky?
To be fair several more independent studies of the earth’s motion relative to Sirius should be
undertaken – and they should be based on first principles. This should settle the matter.
In part one BH asks CM what is moving at 50 arc seconds per year and CM answers “the axis of
the earth’s rotation…” and proceeds with the standard lunisolar answer. This is a problem among
astronomers today. The observable is described in a way that is only partially correct and only
supports lunisolar reasoning. The proper answer should be that it “depends on your frame of
reference”.
There are many other things to be said about companion star scenarios, both in the visible and
invisible spectrum, issues concerning MOND and MG, Voyager 1 and 2 and GP-B, the angular
momentum of the sun versus planets, etc. all of which provide clues to the motion of the solar
system, and many of which are mentioned in my book “Lost Star of Myth and Time”.
Unfortunately, I am running out of time for this post.
Finally, my sincere thanks to CM, an excellent mathematician; he has properly represented the
dynamists point of view. Hopefully, he will soon come to understand
To be continued, maybe…