Regardless of Earth's orbital motion and regardless of the orientation of Earth's rotation axis in space, any motion of the vernal equinox in space requires an equal motion (apparent or real) of the Sun relative to the system of the stars.

The vernal equinox is nearly fixed with respect to the system of stars; i.e. it only moves by about 9 ms per day and NOT by roughly 3 s per day with respect to the stars!

The rigorous mathematical relationship between the two constants of the mean solar day and the mean sidereal day is expressed by the following equation:

365.24219878 × 86400 s = 31,556,925.97474 s* = 366.24219878 × 86164.0905382 s

* (This is the precise time interval of the tropical year for 1900.0 as it was used for the definition of the unit 'second'. It is based on and derived from the mean sidereal day of 86164.0905382 seconds. The unit 'second' has remained constant to within one nanosecond, at least for the last 100 years)
 
As for the sidereal year, astronomers say that Earth's period of rotation with respect to the quasars now consists of 86164.0989 s**. Hence, the rate of precession would have to be 45.93"/year instead of 50.26"/year:

0.00836 s* × 366.24219878 × 15"/s = 45.93"

*(The difference between 86164.0989 s and 86164.0905382 s)

Consequently, a Platonic year should consist of 1296000" ÷ 45.93" = 28216 years (instead of 25786 years). In fact, the latest figure of the sidereal day with its shorter rotation period completely contradicts the assumptions made by astronomers that tidal frictions, winds and an increasing distance of the Moon supposedly slow down Earth's rotation.

** (NOTE: Despite distant quasars and more accurate methods of observation, no precise measurement can be made from an oscillating Earth. Optimal results can only be achieved by making long term observations. In practice, the constant of the mean sidereal day is used)

From a mathematical point of view, it could be argued that the time period of an approx. 20 minutes longer sidereal year is also expressed by a 360° equation:

86400 s × 365.256361 = 31,558,149 = 86164.0989 × 366.256361

In reality though, it makes no sense since both 360° orbits (tropical and sidereal) must either occur in the same orbital path or in two different orbital paths around the Sun.

The "360-degree" equation of the tropical year proves, however, that Earth's equator does NOT wobble relative to the Sun and that the tropical year is the true 360° orbit of the Earth around the Sun. The so-called "Precession of the Equinox" ONLY affects the rotation period of the Earth, as measured with respect to the system of the stars. The length of the mean sidereal day and the length of the tropical year are NOT affected by such a "precession".
 
Accordingly, IF the 360° orbit period of the Earth around the Sun consists of about 31,558,149 s and IF Earth's equator does NOT wobble relative to the Sun:

1. Earth MUST travel in a wider orbit around the Sun

2. The mean solar day of 86400 s is therefore, shorter timewise

3. The constant of the mean sidereal day of 86164.0905382 s remains unaffected

These conclusions are contrary to Dr. Van Flandern's statement.
 
The mathematical facts, practical observations and repeatable experiments prove conclusively that the current theory of lunisolar precession is invalid.

The phenomenon of the precession of the equinox requires therefore, an objective scientific explanation.
In view of some of the latest theories about non-linear gravitation, the underestimated energy potential in the vacuum of space and quantum mechanical phase coherence of electrons in super dense matter, some researchers suggest that our solar system could be in a highly eccentric and long-periodic orbit with a nearby visible star around a common center of gravity. Such a hypothesis demands further studies.
It would not be the first time in the history of science that seemingly insignificant irregularities of celestial mechanical phenomena have been overlooked or misinterpreted.

 
December 2003

© Sirius Research Group, Canada

____________________________________________________________________________________
 
References:
W. Cruttenden, Binary Research Institute, Comparison of Precession Theories: An Argument for the Binary Model, 2003, http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/ComparisonPaper.pdf

W. Cruttenden, Binary Research Institute, Precession of the Equinox: The Ancient Truth Behind Celestial Motion, 2003, http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/AboutPrecession.pdf

U. Homann, Time Equivalence of the Tropical Year and the Sidereal Year, 2001, http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-3/Uwe.pdf

K.-H. Homann, Solar Eclipses and the Precession-Time Paradox, 2002, http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/moon.htm

K.-H. Homann, Three simple models to explain the observed phenomenon of PRECESSION, 2001, http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/9.12ms-models.htm

K.-H. Homann, Beelzebub's Buried Dog - The Mathematical Problem of the Precession-Time Paradox, 1999, http://www.poleshift.org/ps/From_KHomann.html

IAU Report of Commission 31 of the Proceedings of the IX General Assembly, 1955

JPL NASA, Solar System Dynamics Group, Primary Astrodynamic Constants and Parameters, http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/astro_constants.html

R.A. Nelson, D.D. McCarthy, The leap second: its history and possible future, 2001, http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/time/metrologia-leapsecond.pdf

page 1 - 2 - 3