Chapter 20: Understanding the TYCHOS' Great Year

Astronomers (and astrologists) have long known that, every 2000 years or so, the entire star field (a.k.a. our 'firmament') will drift Eastwards in relation to Earth’s equinoxes by about one of the 12 zodiac constellations. In the TYCHOS, this is naturally - and quite simply - caused by Earth’s slow, 25344-year-long circular journey. In short, what we call precession of the equinoxes is just a direct consequence of Earth’s tranquil, 1.6km/h-motion around its PVP orbit.

“At present, signs and constellations are about one calendar month off. In another 2000 years or so, they’ll be about two months off.”

What is the zodiac? by Christopher Crockett (2016) for EarthSky

This very slow backward motion of the stars was discovered by 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. (August 26, 2016)

In the TYCHOS, all of this can be easily explained and illustrated: as the Sun revolves once every year around Earth - while Earth slowly revolves in the opposite direction - the resulting pattern of the Sun's and Earth's motions (over 25344 solar years) will look like this:

Now, please know that I made the above graphic long before I met Patrik Holmqvist - the Swedish computer programmer whose wonderful skills helped me translate my thoughts into 3-D motion graphics. You may imagine my delight when our Tychosium 3-D simulator confirmed the Sun's "spirographic" 25344-year motions that I had tentatively calculated in the early stages of my TYCHOS research:

The exact duration of the Great Year (a.k.a. “Annus Magnus”) has, to this day, never been determined with any degree of accuracy. This, because the observed rate of precession keeps increasing (by minimal amounts) over the centuries - to every astronomer’s perplexity. There currently exists no explanation for this cosmic mystery which is compounded by the fact that the precession's rate of acceleration is observed to grow exponentially. Of course, tentative explanations abound - yet none offer more than speculative theories based on so-called “gravitational perturbations”, “tidal friction effects” and other such entirely conjectural factors.

My below graphic shows how the TYCHOS model accounts for the so-called “precession of the equinoxes”. As Earth moves clockwise around its PVP orbit, it will drift by 30° every 2112 years, which adds up to a full 360° circle in 25344 years (30° X 12 = 360°).

Why does the observed rate of “equinoctial precession” appear to increase exponentially?

Astronomers have long been puzzled by the observed non-linear increase of the stars’ West-to-East precession rate. Many have tried to quantify the exact amount of annual precession increase, only to find that the rate of increase (from one century to the next) isn’t linear, but exponential. For instance, Simon Newcomb offered (back in the 19th century) a constant of annual precession-rate increase of 0.00022″-per-year. Over time, however, this “constant of precession” soon proved to be a misnomer since it wasn’t constant at all! In fact, ever-higher rates of secular increase of the precession have been successively observed. In the last century, the annual rate of change has actually averaged 0.000337". Here's a quote by Walter Cruttenden of the Binary Research Institute:

"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."

Response to The Precession Dialogues – BAUT Forum post by Walter Cruttenden at BRI blog (July 16, 2009)

As Walter Cruttenden also points out:

“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.”

My below graphic shows how the TYCHOS accounts for this observed, exponential increase of the observed rate of precession:

The rate of increase is naturally exponential because it is caused by two separate, cumulative components:

1. The East-to-West motion (i.e. lateral displacement) of Earth vis-à-vis the stars

2. The East-to-West secular rotation of Earth’s equinox vis-à-vis the stars

As it is, this observed secular increase of the stellar precession is intimately related to the apparent accelerations and decelerations of the motions of our Moon, Sun and Earth — and goes to resolve a string of longstanding and still hotly-debated riddles of astronomy:

• The apparent secular decrease of the length of the tropical year;

• The apparent acceleration of the Moon’s orbital speed;

• The apparent secular increase of the length of the sidereal year;

• The apparent deceleration of Earth’s rotational speed.

My next graphic illustrates how, under the TYCHOS model, all four of these apparent secular variations are part of the same effect of perspective. They are caused by the gradually expanding angular shift between Earth in relation to the Sun, our Moon and the background stars. Of course, under a heliocentric model, no such angular shift would be expected, since Earth is believed to revolve around the Sun — and not vice versa. Hence, a Copernican astronomer won’t make any sense of it and will reach the wrong conclusions.

In the TYCHOS model (as conceptually illustrated in my above graphic), these perceived accelerations & decelerations of the Moon and Earth are illusory and only a matter of inverted (geocentric/heliocentric) spatial perspectives. The Moon’s revolution isn’t speeding up — nor is Earth’s rotation slowing down. All such observations are, of course, closely related to the above-expounded secular increase of the equinoctial precession. Most significantly, in a 1932 astronomy paper, J.K. Fotheringham provided this precious piece of information:

“It should be noted however, that when it was discovered that precession was subject to acceleration, the acceleration of precession was not usually included in the acceleration of the Moon’s motion, so that acceleration is generally expressed as if it were a term in the sidereal longitude, not in the longitude as measured from the equinox.”

—p. 306, The Determination of the Accelerations and Fluctuations in the Motions of the Sun and Moon by J.K. Fotheringham (1932) for The Observatory, Vol. 55, pp. 305-316

In other words, the Copernican astronomers who vividly debated about the Moon’s puzzling, apparent secular acceleration were measuring the Moon’s motion against the starry background and not in relation to Earth’s equinoctial points. Thus, they never envisioned the possibility of an illusory acceleration caused by the clockwise motion of the Earth-Moon system, slowly curving in space against the starry background. Nor did they, of course, ever consider the Sun revolving on an external orbit around Earth.

THE 51000-Y (or ca. 25344 X 2) “GREAT YEAR" OF MARS

As we saw earlier, Copernican theorists attribute the ca. 25,500-year precession of the equinoxes (i.e. the “Great Year”) to the supposed wobble of Earth's axis (as of the now fully-disproved Lunisolar theory). Well, if this were the case, WHY then would Mars exhibit a “Great Year” of its own - almost precisely twice as long (namely, 51,000 years)? What sort of 'cosmic sympathy' could possibly cause the equinoctial precession rates of Mars and Earth to be locked at a 2:1 ratio? (and no, Mars is not believed - nor observed - to wobble around its polar axis!...).

“The Martian equinoxes also precess, returning to an initial position over a period of about 51,000 years.”

— p. 60, A Change in the Weather by Michael Allaby and Richard Garratt (2004)

Now, the fact that the Martian equinoxes precess in about 51,000 years (roughly two Great Years) would be entirely expected under the TYCHOS model paradigm since our two binary companions (Sun & Mars) are locked in a 2:1 orbital ratio. Mars will thus quite naturally employ twice as much time to complete its own equinoctial precession.

“As a combined effect of the precession of the spin axis and the advance of the perihelion, alternate poles of Mars tilt towards the Sun at perihelion every 25,500 years – that is, on a 51,000-year cycle.”

—p. 200, The Planet Mars: A History of Observation & Discovery by William Sheehan (1996)

Under the TYCHOS paradigm (and its proposed 25344-year duration of the Great Year), Mars is expected to have a 50688-year period (25344 X 2). And in fact, the Tychosium 3D simulator shows Mars returning to almost precisely the same place in our skies between the year 2000 and the year 52688 (i.e. a 50688-year interval).

As you can see, the body of evidence in support of Mars having a binary relationship with the Sun is overwhelming.

Why Mars appears to rotate around its axis a little slower than Earth

As of the best astronomical observations, Mars appears to rotate once around its axis only about 40 minutes slower than Earth. One may rightly wonder: why would the rotational periods of Earth and Mars be so similar? Could perhaps Mars’s rotation around its axis be, in actuality, synchronous with Earth’s rotation rate? Let’s see if we can find any indications in support of this interesting hypothesis.

Each year, as we have seen, Earth covers 14036 km or 0.0039457% of the total PVP orbit. Since the 'mean' orbital circumference of Mars's orbit (of 1 435 079 524 km - see diagram at the end of Chapter 5) is 4.034266 X larger than Earth’s PVP orbit, this will correspond to a segment of Mars’s orbit equal to:

14036 km X 4.034266 ≈ 56625 km (which is in fact 0.0039457% of Mars’s 'mean' or - if you will - 'external' orbital circumference).

As Mars completes one of its habitual 'long ESI's' of 707-days (or 16968h) around the celestial sphere, its perceived orbital speed will be:

1 435 079 524km / 16968h = 84575.6km/h

Mars will therefore employ roughly 40 minutes to "catch up" with the earthly observer:

56625km / 84575.6km/h = 0.6695h (or 40.17 minutes).

Thus, Mars will only appear (to an earthly observer) to rotate around its axis slower than Earth, since he will be offset by that amount in relation to Mars’s celestial position. He will thus conclude that Mars rotates around its axis about 40 minutes slower than Earth.

My below graphic conceptually illustrates how Joe (our earthly, Copernican observer) will erroneously conclude that Mars rotates around its axis slightly slower than Earth; the green dot marking a given point on the Martian surface will be seen by Joe from another angle after 2 years, but in reality, Mars has returned to the same angular orientation in space it had two years earlier. Note that since Joe believes that Earth also revolves around the Sun, his computations for the green dot's expected spatial orientation will be based on the assumption that Earth has 'subtracted' one half of Mars's biyearly revolutions around the Sun. Hence, his estimation of Mars's 'rotational delay' will correspond to 'one yearly unit' (rather than two).

It is also worth noting that Mars’s rotational speed around its axis would therefore be 891.5 km/h, which is 1.88 X slower than Earth’s rotational speed of 1676 km/h. As it is, Mars revolves once around the Sun in 686.9 days (on average) - or just about 1.88 X 365.25 days.

Moreover, consider this: the axial tilt of Mars's polar axis is reckoned to be 25.2°. This is 1.8° more than Earth's axial tilt of 23.4°. However, the inclination of Mars's orbit (in relation to our ecliptic) is reckoned to be 1.8°. In other words, Mars's polar axis may quite possibly be tilted at the exact same angle as that of Earth!

In conclusion, Mars may well rotate around its axis in the very same amount of time as Earth (i.e. 23.9345 hours) - and be tilted at the very same angle as Earth. The significance of all this is unclear, but it would certainly seem to jar with the notion that Mars and Earth are just two 'random, unrelated planets' revolving around the Sun - as implied by the Copernican, heliocentric theory.