Chapter 10: Requiem for the “Lunisolar Wobble” theory

Does Earth’s polar axis wobble? Can the "Lunisolar" theory be demonstrated empirically? Not a chance in Heaven. Let us see why.

According to the Copernican “Lunisolar” theory, Earth’s equinoctial precession is caused by an extremely slow 'reverse' wobble of Earth’s polar axis which, to complete just one single 360° rotation, would require approximately 26000 years!... The so-called "Precession of the Equinoxes" (which is the slow 'backward' motion of our entire firmament) 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)

As the official theory goes, this odd, once-every-26000-year retrograde rotation of our planet's axis (which would proceed in the opposite direction of Earth's ) would be caused by some combined gravitational forces generated by the Moon and the Sun (hence “Luni/Solar”) that would somehow act upon the oblateness of planet Earth. Here follows the current explanation for this supposed phenomenon which, allegedly, would be responsible for the so-called 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" - by Matt Williams (2010) Universe Today

This bizarre theory is still obstinately upheld by academia as a firmly established scientific fact. And this, in spite of many glaring problems afflicting its fundamental tenets - as most 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 Mode" by Walter Cruttenden (August 12, 2003)

Here are two conventional illustrations of the so-called “Lunisolar wobble” (a.k.a. "the Third Motion of Earth"):

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

Let us now recall that the Copernican model necessarily requires three distinct motions of Earth in order for it to 'work':

• 1. Earth’s (“anticlockwise”) daily rotation around its polar axis - every ≈24h
• 2. Earth’s (“anticlockwise”) hypersonic motion / revolution around the Sun - at ≈90X the speed of sound!
• 3. Earth's ("clockwise") extremely slow retrograde wobble of its polar axis - once every ≈26000 years

Hence, the “Third Motion of Earth” always was an essential prerequisite for the Copernican theory’s very survival, since it was meant to account for the observable fact that the stars precess (or “drift Eastwards” - in relation to Earth’s equinoxes) by about 50.3 arcseconds per year - thereby causing our Pole stars to change over time.

However, as mentioned above, the official explanation for the all-important 'Precession of the Equinoxes' simply does not hold up to close scrutiny. What is known today as the “Precession Paradox” is best summarized in the following statement by Walter Cruttenden, whose Binary Research Institute has thoroughly exposed the untenable principles of the Copernican “Lunisolar” 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 his Binary Research Institute (along with number of other independent authors) have dealt a mortal blow to the Lunisolar theory. Hence, as incredible as it may seem, the all-important “precession of the equinoxes” remains to this day a wide-open question: it is a cosmic mystery still awaiting for a sound and rational explanation. The demonstrable absence of the so-called "Lunisolar wobble" invalidates - all by itself - the heliocentric model of Copernicus we were all taught at school.

Here follow some quotes and links to other papers expounding the insurmountable problems with 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―The Third Motion of Earth" 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" 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 by Walter Cruttenden and Vince Dayes (2003)

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" by Ann Blair, Journal of the History of Ideas (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" just because, according to some critics, they (allegedly) required too many different motions of our solar system’s bodies.

Here is a graphic (from an Italian Wikipedia page illustrating those “simple & elegant” earthly motions that the Copernican theory requires:

Note that the white clockwise arrows represent the so-called “Lunisolar precession”, while the other arrows represent all the other motions piled onto Earth to "explain" the true motions of our system. Enough to make you dizzy, is it not? One can only wonder why the Copernican “Lunisolar” 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.

At the above-linked Italian Wikipedia page, there once used to be a most amusing comment by one of its editors / fact checkers. It is now redacted but, at the time, I luckily decided to save it 'for posterity'. Below is my English translation of that brief Wikipedia section (titled "Clockwise precession of the Earth's axis") - along with that editor's sagacious objection (in bold type):

“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." 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."”

Unfortunately, that editor's righteous appeal to common logic has now been redacted from that Wikipedia page - and replaced with some formidably tortuous 'explanation' as to why Earth would slowly wobble in the opposed direction of its axial rotation...

Most people will be familiar with the old Occam’s-razor-inspired adage that states that “the simpler explanations are more likely to be true than the more complicated ones.” Evidently, such elementary wisdom was lost on the proponents of Copernicus’s heliocentric theory. Indeed, the idea of Earth slowly wobbling (once every ≈25500 years) around its polar axis in the opposed direction of its very rotation doesn’t conform to any physical phenomenon known to humankind.

In short, the Copernican model is falsified by the observed Precession of the Equinoxes - since its proposed explanation for its existence is inconsistent with empirical observation. The above-cited Binary Research Institute has long demonstrated the non-existence of Earth's 3d motion; although they still hold on to the idea that Earth's revolves around the Sun, they have proposed that 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 Mode"_ by Walter Cruttenden (August 12, 2003)

As it is, the TYCHOS model requires no more than two terrestrial motions:

• 1. Earth’s "anticlockwise” rotation around its polar axis (once daily)
• 2. Earth’s “clockwise” 1 mph-motion around its “PVP” orbit (once every 25344 years)

In the next chapter I will be introducing my proposed PVP orbit which, as you may appreciate, provides the simplest imaginable explanation for the Precession of the Equinoxes. The PVP orbit is essentially my humble yet primary 'mechanical' contribution to the near-flawless 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 ingenious (yet unjustly 'arrested') Tychonic world view; its persisting confinement in the dungeons of science is no longer acceptable.