Chapter 10: Requiem for the “Lunisolar Wobble” theory

The Precession of the Equinoxes is the slow and nearly imperceptible ‘backward displacement’ of the entire firmament over an extended period of time. The motion was known to Hipparchus as long ago as the second century BCE:

“Hipparchus was the first person to notice the earth’s precession. He did this by noting the precise locations stars rose and set during equinoxes – the twice yearly dates when night length and day length are exactly 12 hours.” "Hipparchus" - Famous Scientists (2016) (opens in a new tab)

To account for this phenomenon, the heliocentrists have contrived a fantastic scheme referred to as the ‘lunisolar wobble’ theory. Earth’s equinoctial precession is said to be caused by an extremely slow ‘reverse wobble’ of Earth’s polar axis which, to complete a single 360° rotation, would require approximately 26000 years. But does Earth’s polar axis really wobble? Can the lunisolar wobble theory be tested empirically? As we shall see, these questions can be answered with a resounding “no”.

In order to work, the Copernican model requires three distinct motions of Earth:

→ A ‘counterclockwise’ rotation around the polar axis (~24 h)

→ A ‘counterclockwise’ revolution around the Sun at breakneck speed (~365 days)

→ A ‘clockwise’ retrograde wobble of the polar axis (~26000 years)

As the official theory goes, this apparent retrograde rotation of our planet’s axis would be caused by a combination of gravitational forces generated by the Moon and the Sun (hence ‘lunisolar’) to which the Earth is susceptible due to its oblateness. The ‘wobble’ allegedly resulting from this pull is the currently favored explanation for the Precession of the Equinoxes:

"It is now known that precessions are caused by the gravitational source of the Sun and Moon, in addition to the fact that the Earth is a spheroid and not a perfect sphere, meaning that when tilted, the Sun’s gravitational pull is stronger on the portion that is tilted towards it, thus creating a torque effect on the planet. If the Earth were a perfect sphere, there would be no precession." "Precession of the Equinoxes" (opens in a new tab) by Matt Williams (2010)

This bizarre theory is still obstinately upheld by academia as a firmly established scientific fact, despite the many glaring problems afflicting its fundamental tenets, as compellingly demonstrated in later years by a number of independent authors:

“In summary, a number of independent groups, all studying the same problem of lunisolar mechanics have concluded that precession is most likely caused by something other than a local wobbling of the Earth.” "Comparison of Precession Theories: An Argument for the Binary Model" (opens in a new tab) by Walter Cruttenden (2003)

Fig. 10.1 Two conventional illustrations of the hypothetical ‘lunisolar wobble’, also referred to as ‘the third motion of Earth’.

Above left: "Precession of the Equinoxes" - by Roy Taylor(2008) (opens in a new tab) / Above right: "Orbital Spin: A New Hypothesis to Explain Precession of Equinox" - by Rama Chandra Murthy Mothe (2014) (opens in a new tab)

This ‘third motion of earth’ has always been a prerequisite for the Copernican theory’s survival. Without it, astronomers are left without an explanation for the observable fact that the stars precess (i.e. ‘drift eastwards’ in relation to Earth’s equinoxes) by about 50.3 arcseconds per year, thereby causing our pole stars to change over time.

"The dynamic universe model has revealed serious problems with the wobble or Lunisolar theory. Newtonian equations that use the Lunisolar theory to calculate the rate of precession don’t work. (...) Precession of the equinox is far better explained as a movement of our entire solar system against the background stars. The binary-star system helps fix the Lunisolar theory. It includes the speed of movement of the sun, with the motion of the whole solar system that follows." "The Science of Sirius Mythology & Our Two Sun Solar System" (opens in a new tab) by The Human Origin Project

The above article goes on listing a number of issues afflicting the current explanation for the Precession of the Equinoxes (mostly related to the observed secular behaviour of the star Sirius). However, it fails to mention what may be the most glaring problem with the ‘lunisolar wobble’ concept: what is known today as the ‘precession paradox’ is best summarised in the following statement by Walter Cruttenden, whose Binary Research Institute has thoroughly exposed the untenability of current precession theory:

“Precession only occurs relative to objects outside the solar system – the Earth does not precess or change orientation relative to objects within the solar system.”

Cruttenden and several other independent researchers have dealt a mortal blow to the ‘lunisolar wobble’ theory by showing that, as astounding as it may seem, the Copernican model is unable to account for the all-important Precession of the Equinoxes—one of the heliocentrists’ many ‘cosmic mysteries’ awaiting a rational and verifiable explanation. Actually, the demise of the ‘lunisolar wobble’ theory is enough to invalidate the heliocentric model we were all taught in school.

The following quotes expound the insurmountable problems afflicting the ‘lunisolar wobble’ theory:

“When Earth spins on its axis in West to East direction (Anti clockwise) it is natural that North Pole of the axis moves in the same direction. It is how North Pole can describe a circle of precession about star Polaris in a clockwise direction opposite to the natural rotation of North Pole of the axis conspicuously that remains unexplained. The hypothesis of Earth’s wobble does not explain above contradiction. Hence, the hypothetical proposition that the retrograde motion of North Pole is due to Earth’s wobble is not credible.” "Orbital Spin: A New Hypothesis to Explain Precession of Equinox" (opens in a new tab) by Rama Chandra Murthy Mothe (2014)

“If the slow wobble of Earth’s axis causes the precession of the equinoxes, it is a product of shifting perspective and should affect everything we view from Earth. Some astronomers argue that objects within our solar system do not appear to precess. Only objects outside of the solar system do. If this is the case, then the Earth’s wobble cannot be the cause of precessional movement.” "Our Sun: Biography of a Star" (opens in a new tab) by Christopher Cooper (2013)

“The Earth’s changing orientation to inertial space (as required by any binary orbit of our Sun), can be seen as Precession of the Equinox. This fact has been masked by the illusion called the lunisolar explanation for precession.”(...)"“Lunisolar wobble required the pole to move by about one degree every 71.5 years based on the current precession rate, hence the pole should have moved about 6 degrees since the Gregorian Calendar change (420 years ago), thereby causing the equinox to drift about 5.9 days. This has not happened; the equinox is stable in time after making leap adjustments.” "Understanding Precession of the Equinox: Evidence our Sun is part of a Long Cycle Binary Star System" (opens in a new tab) by Vince Dayes (2003)

"How the clockwise slow wobbling motion of axis causes the earth to fall back by 36581.97 km in the orbit equivalent to 0.0139688667° relative to the center of the sun is beyond imagination and mathematically incomprehensible concept. So, the notion of axial precession, assumed to create difference between sidereal and tropical years (Capderou, 2005; Snodgrass, 2012; Yang, 2007) lacks mathematical substantiation and absolutely has no possibility to be illustrated diagrammatically." "New Model of Solar System: Legitimate Refutation of Heliocentric Model" (opens in a new tab) by Abdul Razzaq (2022)

Tycho Brahe rightly predicted that ‘the triple motion of Earth’, as proposed by Copernicus, would be refuted.

“The Copernican system, Tycho Brahe proclaimed, with its ‘triple motion of the earth will be unquestionably refuted, not simply theologically and physically, but even mathematically, even though Copernicus hoped that he had proposed to mathematicians sufficiently mathematical statements to which they could not object’.” "Tycho Brahe’s critique of Copernicus and the Copernican system" (opens in a new tab) - by Ann Blair (1990)

It is ironic that Copernicus is often hailed as the man who ‘simplified’ and ‘elegantly resolved’ the complex riddle of our cosmic motions, while the models of Ptolemy and Brahe were dismissed as ‘too complex’ simply because, according to some critics, they allegedly required too many different motions of our solar system’s bodies. Figure 10.2 depicts the not so simple and not so elegant motions of Earth required by the Copernican theory:

Figure 10.2 “Precessione degli Equinozi” (Illustration from an Italian Wikipedia page)

Note that the white clockwise arrows represent the so-called ‘lunisolar precession’, while the other arrows represent all the other motions piled onto Earth in an attempt to explain the observable motions of our system. One can only wonder why the Copernican ‘lunisolar wobble’ theory was accepted by the world’s scientific community in the first place, and how it can possibly have remained unquestioned and unchallenged for so many centuries.

The Italian Wikipedia page referred to above contains the following statement in the section titled “Clockwise precession of the Earth’s axis”:

“Clockwise precession of the Earth’s axis**. The fact that the precession motion of the Earth is clockwise while that of rotation on itself is counterclockwise is not in contrast with the example of the spinning top. In fact, if the Earth were straight and a force tried to tilt it, then it would develop a motion of counterclockwise precession, in the same direction as the rotation on itself, just as in the case of the spinning top. In this case, however, the opposite situation occurs: the Earth is inclined and a force tends to straighten it, giving rise to a clockwise precession motion, contrary to the counterclockwise direction of Earth's rotation."_

An editor or fact checker of the section posted a sagacious comment which has since been redacted, but the original comment deserves to be reproduced here, translated into English:

"Editor’s note: This lacks an explanation for the exact reason why the direction of rotation of the precession is opposite to that expected by common logic."

Sadly, this much-needed appeal to common sense has been replaced with a formidably tortuous explanation as to why Earth would slowly wobble in the opposite direction of its axial rotation.

Most people will be familiar with the notion, inspired by Occam’s razor, that simpler explanations are more likely to be true than more complicated ones. Evidently, such elementary wisdom was lost on the proponents of the heliocentric theory. Indeed, the idea of Earth wobbling around its polar axis in the opposite direction of its own rotation once every twenty-six thousand years or so does not conform to any physical phenomenon known to mankind.

In short, the Copernican model is falsified by the observed Precession of the Equinoxes: its proposed explanation is simply inconsistent with empirical observation. The Binary Research Institute has long demonstrated the non-existence of Earth’s third motion. Although they still hold on to the idea that Earth revolves around the Sun, they believe the apparent clockwise rotation of our earthly frame of reference is due to our entire solar system revolving around a distant binary star companion of the Sun, such as Sirius (which, in fact, does not precess like all the other stars).

"Lunar rotation equations clearly show the Earth goes around the Sun 360 degrees in an equinoctial year, and contrary to observations of the Earth’s orientation relative to inertial space, these same equations show the Earth orbits the Sun 360 degrees plus 50 arc seconds in a sidereal year. Interestingly, if one only plugs the sidereal data into the rotation equations, they 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 than the Earth’s actual path around the Sun. 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 appear to 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 relationship between the mathematical calculations supports no other conclusion." "Comparison of Precession Theories: An Argument for the Binary Model" (opens in a new tab) by Walter Cruttenden (2003)

The TYCHOS model requires no more than two terrestrial motions:

→ A ‘counterclockwise’ rotation around the polar axis (~24 h)

→ An exceedingly slow ‘clockwise’ motion around the PVP orbit (25344 years)

The next chapter will introduce the concept of the PVP orbit which, as you may appreciate, provides the simplest imaginable explanation for the Precession of the Equinoxes. The PVP orbit is my most essential contribution to the celestial mechanics of the geoheliocentric model devised by Tycho Brahe and Longomontanus and may just be the ‘missing cog’ of the same. In fact, the TYCHOS model is no more than a respectful—yet long-overdue—revision of the unjustly abandoned Tychonic world view. The assignment of this ingenious system to the dusty cellars of science history is no longer acceptable.