All of these questions have been answered in different ways; e.g., angular momentum may have disappeared due to an early solar magnetic force which has also disappeared, the sheer edge may be due to a rogue planet that swept by our solar system in fairly recent times but is now gone, etc. We would like to propose a new model, based on a binary system, which provides a single and greatly simplified solution to all these questions.

Precession of the Equinox is the observed phenomenon whereby the equinoctial point moves backward through the constellations of the Zodiac at the rate of approximately 50 arc seconds annually.

In examining the mechanics of the motion of precession, one notices:

Some years ago it was observed that if the Earth’s axis did wobble due to lunisolar forces it would slowly change the seasons within the calendar. For example, in the Northern Hemisphere it would eventually become winter in July and August, and summer in January and February. This is because the seasons are indirectly caused by axial tilt (summer when that hemisphere leans closer to Earth, and winter when it leans away). Therefore, if the axis were tilted for any other reason, such as lunisolar wobble, it would cause a seasonal shift. Noticing that the seasons have not been changing (the equinox still falls at the same time in the calendar each year after adjusting for leap movements synchronizing the Earth’s rotation with the calendar), lunisolar precession theory requires that the equinoctial point itself must precess around the Earth’s orbit path around the Sun. This theoretical solution avoids the occurrence of seasonal shift that the original theory implied, but causes other problems because it implies the Earth does not complete a 360-degree motion around the Sun equinox to equinox.

To visualize the movement, if the Earth’s path around the Sun were made of 24,000 fixed positions numbered 1 through 24,000, then in year one the vernal equinox would occur in position 24,000, the next year it would occur in position 23,999, the next year it would occur in position 23,998, etc. slipping one position per year. At the end of 24,000 years, the vernal equinox would have regressed all the way around the Sun to occur once again at its original starting position.

Under lunisolar precession theory it is thought that the Sun and Moon’s gravitational influence acting upon the Earth’s bulge causes the Earth’s axial gyration that in turn results in the Earth’s changing orientation to inertial space, observed as Precession of the Equinox. The theorized annual axial tilt of about 50 arc seconds per year is thought to cause the equinox to occur slightly earlier in the Earth’s orbit path around the Sun, resulting in an orbit geometry of 359 degrees 59’ and 10” equinox to equinox. While this proposed solution works mathematically and avoids the problem of seasonal shift it does not agree with lunar cycles which indicate the Earth does indeed travel 360 degrees around the Sun in an equinoctial year. This can be proved by carefully examining lunar cycle equations and eclipse predictions. Indeed, eclipses have been accurately predicted for many years, long before the latest nuances of lunisolar precession theory required the Earth to have a like equinox approximately 22,000 miles short of a complete revolution around the Sun.

The authors of this paper would like to put forth a new model that more simply explains precession and current solar system mechanics. In the new model, our Sun curves through space. This motion of the Sun causes an apparent wobble to an observer on Earth, thus producing a precession of the equinox without creating any seasonal shifting issues, and without requiring any movement of the equinoctial points on the Earth’s orbit path, or new interpretations of equinoctial years, thereby allowing the equinoctial year to which we adjust UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) to reflect a 360 degree motion of the earth around the Sun.

According to Newtonian physics the only force that could cause the Sun to display such a curve would be another large mass to which the Sun is gravitationally bound, which is by definition a binary star system. In this model, the Copernican Third Motion of the Earth [6] would be caused primarily by the Sun’s curved path in a binary orbit, rather than by lunisolar forces.

Visually, the new model is one of a rotating object (the Earth) in an almost circular orbit around a second object (the Sun), which in turn is an elliptical orbit around a third object (the binary center of mass of the Sun and a companion star). If the Earth’s orbit and the Sun’s orbit are given, then the equations of classical mechanics predict that the axis of rotation of the first rotating object (the Earth) will precess (relative to inertial space) at a rate dictated by the Sun’s path around its binary center of mass. To an observer on Earth the first object’s axis will appear to precess by 360 degrees in the same amount of time it takes the second object to undergo a complete orbit around the third object, independent of the masses and distances involved. In this model the Earth’s axis does not really wobble, or change relative to the Sun, but it produces the same observable now attributed to lunisolar precession -- a precession of the equinox. From this we conclude that acceleration (and eventual deceleration) of the rate of precession will depend on the eccentricity of the binary orbit. From Kepler’s Third Law, we know that all orbits are elliptical and objects leaving apoapsis accelerate to periapsis and then decelerate leaving periapsis. Consequently, we now have an explanation for why the precession rate is accelerating, and we also have a logical reason for why the rate cannot be extrapolated ad infinitum . Indeed, the most significant clue that precession represents a binary orbit is its universally recognized but until now, unexplained acceleration.

Beyond explaining why precession now seems to accelerate, a binary star model also better explains other observed phenomena. For example, it explains the unusual distribution of angular momentum, a fact that has long perplexed scientists developing solar system formation theories [7] (Figs. 1 and 2).

Fig. 1 Angular momentum distribution of our solar system (standard model). Note that most is in the Jovian planets. The Sun has less than 1%.

Fig. 2 Log angular momentum to mass ratio of our solar system (standard model).

Fig. 3 Binary model; log angular distribution to mass ratio assuming the solar system is in a binary orbit with an object 8% of the Sun’s mass at a distance of 1000 A.U.

In a binary model the Sun’s angular momentum is not just in it’s spin axis but also in its movement through space (Fig. 3). The binary model might also help explain the non-random path of certain long-cycle comets [8], without requiring the existence of a tenth planet or huge quantities of dark matter within the solar system. Also, recent finding that our solar system has a sheer edge [9] is now readily explainable (Fig. 4), indeed expected in a binary system.

Fig. 4 Raw data showing that traceable objects of any size seem to end abruptly at about 53 A.U.

In this paper we argue that the following statements are consistent with observed data:

Occam’s Razor requires consideration of the binary star concept unless physical evidence is available that is clearly inconsistent with the model.

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. Therefore, it was theorized that the equinox must slip about 50 arc seconds per year along the ecliptic and the equinoctial year is only 359 degrees 59’ and 10” not 360 degrees. Although this solves the seasonal slippage problem it does not agree with lunar cycle data.

Astronomers sometimes use a 360 degree geometry to describe the Earth’s motion around the Sun, and they sometimes use 359 degrees 59’ and 10”. The 360 degree motion in an equinoctial year works for calculating the Moon’s position, eclipses, Saro’s cycles and the like, but the lunisolar model of 359 degrees 59’ 10” in an equinoctial year works best for calculating the position of stars, quasars, and other extra solar system phenomena. In other words the lunisolar model works fine relative to the fixed stars but the other works well for purposes where the position of the fixed stars do not matter. Although both are useful for various calculation purposes, there can be only one physical reality and therefore only one geometry. The only model that works for both is one in which the entire solar system is curving through space at the rate of about 50 arc seconds per year. In this way, the Moon can travel with the Earth, the Earth and Moon and Sun can keep the integrity of their mathematical relationships, and the Earth can still appear to precess relative to the fixed stars.

If one assumes the cause of the equinoctial point slipping backward around the Earth’s orbit path at a rate of 50.29 arc seconds per year is due simply to the Earth wobbling at this exact same rate, then one must look deeper and realize that this implies the barycenter (center of mass) of the Earth stays the same with each 360 degree motion of the Earth around the Sun, and the reason the equinox happens earlier and earlier is because the Earth’s axial shift has caused the equinoctial position to appear earlier and earlier. This would mean that the center of the Earth travels exactly 360 degrees, or once around the Sun each equinoctial year. Because the equinoctial year is now presumed to be less than 360 degrees (by the amount of precession) and only the sidereal year is presumed to represent a complete 360 degree motion of the Earth around the Sun (supposedly this is why we line up with the same stars in a sidereal year), then the barycenter to barycenter motion of the sidereal year would have to be more than 360 degrees. If the slippage is not due solely to precession then why is the time delta between an equinoctial year and sidereal year attributed to precession, and why does the barycenter of the Earth slip at the same rate as precession?

If the delta between a sidereal day and a solar day is compensation for the curvature of an orbit (per textbooks), so too is the delta of a sidereal year vs. a solar year compensation for the hypothesized orbital motion of our solar system (Fig. 5). The former is the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, the latter, the Sun around its binary center of mass. Just as the Earth’s delta between a sidereal day and a solar day times the Earth’s orbital period is equivalent to the daily rate of change around the Sun (4 minutes x 365 = 1 day), so too should the Earth’s delta between a sidereal year and a solar year times the Sun’s orbital period be equal to the annual rate of change around its apparent binary center of mass (20 minutes x 25,770 years = 1 year).

Fig. 5 Sidereal day delta compared to sidereal year delta. Note that both deltas account for orbits.

A simple way to produce all the same observables as lunisolar precession theory - a precessing equinox and changing pole star without any motions that are unexplained by classical mechanics - is a Sun curving through space in a binary system. In this model, planets gravitationally bound to stars curving through space, experience a changing orientation to inertial space, commensurate with the stars rate of motion, unless offset or exaggerated by other local forces.

While many potential binary system configurations are possible, we have narrowed the range by making three assumptions: