A Unified Model of Earth's Precession Cycles via Two Counter Rotating Reference Points
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
We present a unified geometric model that derives Earth's axial precession, obliquity variation, eccentricity cycle, perihelion precession, and day/year length changes from a single framework: two counter-rotating mathematical reference points. The EARTH-WOBBLE-CENTER, around which Earth traces its axial precession clockwise with a mean period of 25,684 years, and the PERIHELION-OF-EARTH, which orbits the Sun counter-clockwise with a period of 111,296 years, interact in a ratio of 13:3 — both Fibonacci numbers. Their interaction produces a master cycle of 333,888 years (the Holistic-Year), from which all subsidiary cycles emerge as integer divisions. The model matches established astronomical values at epoch J2000 — including obliquity (23.4393°), eccentricity (0.01671), axial precession rate (50.29″/yr), and planetary inclinations to the invariable plane — with ascending node positions refined from Souami & Souchay (2012) to achieve < 0.0001° accuracy for all planets' ecliptic inclinations — while generating 16 testable predictions that diverge from standard theory. Key predictions include a 20,868-year eccentricity cycle (versus the Milankovitch ~100,000/400,000-year cycles), a decreasing Mercury perihelion anomaly (versus General Relativity's constant ~43″/century), and a reversal in Earth's Length of Day trend. A unified 273-term predictive formula system predicts the precession fluctuation of all seven planets with R² > 0.998 using only time and Earth's orbital parameters — no observation of each planet's perihelion is required — supporting the interpretation that planetary precession "anomalies" are reference frame effects calculable entirely from Earth's perspective. The model's Mercury prediction offers a near-term test: BepiColombo data (~2027) should show ~574.69″/cy versus MESSENGER's 575.31″/cy if the model is correct, a difference ~400× larger than measurement uncertainty. The model uses 5 free parameters and explicitly separates calibration inputs from genuine predictions. An interactive 3D simulation and complete formula set are publicly available.