We have many arguments with supporting data that indicate we are
in a binary system, but one of the strongest is the “trend in
precession rates”.
Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing
precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.
There is no reason the relatively constant mass of the Sun and Moon
torquing the Earth should produce such figures. There is every reason
a binary system would – because these numbers are not caused
solely by local mass torquing – they are annual rates of our
Sun’s path around it’s binary in a elliptical orbit. They
will increase and decrease as the Sun speeds up and slows down as
required by elliptical orbits (according to Kepler’s laws).
In the lunisolar model, if this trend were extended in either direction
by a few million years one could say precession was once nonexistent
– and in the future, the earth will wobble so fast that we will
all eventually fall off. We only know the historical geological record,
which indicates a cyclical pattern – like an orbit.
What is more logical: Is the mass of the Sun and Moon changing this
rapidly? Or is the Earth changing orientation to inertial space reflective
of a common elliptical pattern?
Constant
of General Precession – Table
Year/Epoch

Value ("/year) 
Source 
Period of Revolution 
150 A.D. 
46” 
Ptolemy/Hipparchos
(questionable accuracy) 
28000 
1900 
50.2638 
Walter Fricke Abstract
(Struve – Peters for 1900) 
25784.0 
1900 
50.2564 
1900 Astronomical Almanac
(Simon Newcomb’s value) 
25787.8 
1901 – 1975 
50.2564 + (year – 1900)*0.000222 
Astronomical Almanac for that year 
25779.2 
1994 
50.2877 
J. G. Williams 
25771.7 
2000 
50.290966 
2002 Astronomical Almanac 
25770.036 
2002.5 
50.29164 
2003 Astronomical Almanac 
25769.69 

Using Newcomb’s Formula: 50.2564
+ .000222 (year – 1900): Backward
in Time
Year/Epoch 
Value ("/year) 
Period of Revolution 
150 B.C. 
49.8013 (.4551) 
26023 
(10,000 years) 
48.0364 (2.22) 
26980 
(50,000 years) 
39.1564 (11.1) 
33098 
(100,000 years) 
28.0564 (22.2) 
46193 

Using Newcomb’s Formula: 50.2564 + .000222 (year – 1900):
Forward in Time
Year/Epoch 
Value ("/year) 
Period of Revolution 
(+10,000 years) 
52.4764 (+2.22) 
24697 
(+20,000 years) 
54.6964 (+4.44) 
23694 
(+100,000 years) 
72.4564 (+22.2) 
17887 
(+ 1 million) 
272.2564 (+222) 
4760 

Binary Model  Kepler Solution
An observer on a planet in a binary system would notice a change in orientation at a rate commensurate to the orbit period around the common center of mass. (USNO)
With minor local effects and no eccentricity, this type of change in orientation at 50´´p/y would equate to an orbit periodicity of 25,920 years. (1,296,000/50 = 25,920).
At 54´´p/y, again with minor local effects and no eccentricity, this type of change in orientation would equate to 24,000 years (1,296,000/54 = 24,000).
In 1894, about the same time that the great astronomer Simon Newcomb gave us a precession formula with a constant of .000222 p/y (designed to predict changes in the precession rate), an Indian astronomer, Sri Yukteswar, explained that the moving equinox (precession) was a result of a moving solar system and he gave us a binary orbit periodicity of 24,000 years, with apoapsis at 500 A.D. Thus, one scientist gave us a strictly local dynamics model and the other a strictly nonlocal dynamic SS model. Which model was more accurate over the next 100 years?
