We would like to thank Mr. Peter Bros for his kind permission to publish some of his intriguing thoughts and comments on the subject of Precession & Sun's Motion, as it relates to our own research. Mr. Bros can be contacted at info@copernican-series.com .

The Sirius Research Group

*****************************************************

January 4, 2002

Uwe:

Thanks for the note.

You asked for my thoughts about precession and the motion of the sun in relation to the Sirius Research Project. Looking over the website material, we appear to agree that Newton's concept of precession does not explain the measurement, that the only explanation for the actual measurement is the movement of the sun relative to the star used to measure precession and the importance of Sirius with respect to the sun's movement. However, it would appear that we disagree about the nature of the movement and the basis of Sirius' importance to ancient cultures.

If I am correct, your overall reason for disputing the Newtonian description of precession (other than the simple fact that it doesn't explain the measurement) is to explain why Sirius was such a prominent feature in ancient cultures. If I understand the website material, to do so, you are trying to preserve the preCopernican interpretation of the sun moving through the houses of the zodiac over a long period:

1. The Egyptians measured precession. Thinking that the heavens circled the Earth, the measurement was translated into a time period measurable by using the closed dimensions of a circle. This allowed the event to cycle through the houses of the zodiac over a 26,000 year period.

2. Copernicus had to deal with the measurement when he switched the position of the sun and the Earth. With the Earth now moving, he thought that the Earth's momentum would cause it to move forward in orbit, resulting in the measurement. However, because the measurement is made with respect to the tilt of the Earth in its orbit around the sun, the Copernican concept failed.

3. Newton asserted that the measurement proved his theory of universal gravitation. He made no demonstration that it did so, and, contrary to the Van Flandern assertion in the letter posted on the site that it is a simple proof, the assertion is analogous to Newton's similar claim that the tides proved universal gravitation when no one has ever been able to coordinate the movement of the tides with the movement of the moon. Newton's assertion about precession, as with his assertion about the tides, does not describe reality.

4. This leaves the cause of the measurement hanging. Today, the cause of the measurement, like the cause of gravity, has been incorporated into its measurement. The precessional measurement is mindlessly added on to the existing measurement of the Earth's rotation and thus ceases to be a problem for a science whose basic concepts are based on mindless measurement.

It appears that you wish to save the idea that the precessional event migrates through the houses of the zodiac over a long period, in the case of Sirius, approximately 32,000 years, by having the sun and Earth system orbit Sirius. The idea that precession moves through the houses of the zodiac occurred only because precession was measured as part of a cosmological system that put the sun orbiting the Earth and thus allows it to pass through the houses of the zodiac on a 26,000 year cycle. There is little reason to save a 26,000 (or 32,000) year cycle, a measurement that can only be made with the assumption of the sun's circular motion, after finding out that the sun's yearly movement through the houses of the zodiac is only apparent.

I do not see the sun orbiting Sirius, but rather moving in the direction of Sirius' apparent location. My interpretation of the sun's motion is not the result of examining precession, but rather the result of figuring out how to measure the absolute speed and direction of the sun in space and in fact, my conclusions about precession are based on my measuring the sun's direction and speed.

Although Kepler's Laws prohibit it, and modern science has failed to accomplish it, calculating the absolute speed of the sun in space and the direction in which the sun is moving is absurdly easy. All that is needed is a stick. Putting the stick in the ground and measuring the motion of the shadow it casts allows us to determine with mathematical precision the motion of the Earth with respect to the sun.

Once we have a time related measurement of the Earth's motion around the sun, we can determine that the distance the Earth travels between the winter and the summer solstice is shorter than the distance it travels between the summer and winter solstice. The major mistake of modern science was made by Tycho Brahe, from whom Kepler got the measurements for his laws. Brahe made the same observation with respect to the moon. He measured the interval of the moon's orbit in summer (the winter to summer solstice motion) to be less than in winter (the summer to winter solstice motion). When time differs, it has to be the result of either speed or distance. Because Brahe thought that the Earth was stationary in space, he concluded that the distance couldn't change and therefore that the time differential was the result of the moon speeding up and slowing down.

This incredible mistake, made prior to the universal acceptance of the Copernican View, which has the Earth moving in space, was adopted by Kepler, who believed the Earth did move in space, in his laws which state that the Earth speeds up and slows down in proportion to its distance from the sun, a fiction in which is embedded the inverse square law Newton subsequently capitalized on to correlate to the acceleration of a falling object in his attempted proof of universal gravitation.

The planets do not speed up and slow down as they orbit the sun and Kepler's Laws are easily disprovable simply by measuring the motion of the shadow of a stick in the ground, or more simply by reference to the daily timing of the Earth's motion in the Farmer's Almanac. The Earth does not describe equal areas in equal times because the area described by the the movement of the Earth between the winter and summer solstices takes less time than the same area described by its movement between the summer and winter solstices.

Once we know that the Earth travels a shorter distance between the winter and summer solstice than it does between the summer and winter solstice, we have to look for the reason, and the only available reason is the sun's absolute motion in space. With the sun moving in the direction of the winter solstice, the point of the summer solstice moves in the direction opposite to the direction the Earth is moving when it is traveling toward the summer solstice, shortening the distance it has to travel. The reverse is true when the Earth is moving toward the winter solstice. The point of the winter solstice is moving forward which means the Earth has to catch up with it, making the distance it travels to catch it longer.

Once we have a uniform speed and different distances, we can determine the speed of the object that is causing the different distances, the speed of the sun. Although it is hard to overcome the picture of the planets moving in predetermined orbits, the fact is, they are held in the sun's gravitational field while the sun moves through space, with the planets lagging behind the direction of motion. The summer solstice is the Earth at its furthest point as it is carried through space by the sun, with the Earth at its nearest point to the sun when it passes in front of the sun's direction of motion, the winter solstice. The lines of the gravitational field in which the sun is falling are clearly outlined by the stars that occupy the field, the spiraling arms of the galaxy.

There are no gravitational lines that show the sun orbiting Sirius. However, because the ability to measure the speed and direction in which the sun is moving are within the grasp of all except our sophisticated astronomical minds (who, when they understand these measurements violate Kepler's Laws, claim that there is an unknown force that works to conform the actual measurements to Kepler's Laws), the Egyptians would have been able to look up into the night sky on the winter solstice and see where the sun was heading. With the Earth at its closest point to the sun, and thus with its night side facing the direction of the sun's travel, the observer would have seen Sirius shining brightly, a perfect place for the souls of the dead to go to await the arrival of the Earth when the sun caught up with Sirius. As this is the very feature of Sirius that makes it important to the Egyptians, my measurements of the speed and direction of the sun, and the fact that the Egyptians, or their predecessors would as easily have measured this provides the basis for the importance of Sirius to the Egyptians. Sirius does not have to produce the precessional measurement to be important.

Peter

*****************************************************

January 21, 2002

You asked 3 questions in response to my reply to your request how my views of precession relate to the material of the Sirius Project. Like the politician I'm not, I can never resist the opportunity to expand my comments. And sure, feel free to use them. I'm only trying to match words to reality but with something as elusive as galactic movement, it usually takes a lot of words to be precise.

The 3 questions you asked are:

1. How would my observations account for the astrological importance of the zodiac and the assumed 25000 ± year cycle?

2. Do I think such a cycle does not occur in reality?

3. Is the annual regression of the fixed stars including the polestar (about 50.26") fiction?

You also make the observation that the position of Sirius being unchanged is evidence that precession, as commonly believed to occur, cannot exist in reality.

The short answers to your questions are:

1. The zodiac is important because it is actually measurable by assuming that the sun goes around the Earth, an assumption believed for thousands of years to be fact, and the assumed 25000 ± year cycle is important because it is assumed to be a reversal of the sun's assumed movement through the zodiac.

2. The cycles do not occur in reality.

3. The annual regression of the fixed stars including the polestar does occur in reality.

Further, the fact that Sirius does not precess does not affect the precessional measurement.

Here is a longer discussion of these points.

If we imagine ourselves in the cockpit of a plane following the cockpit light of another plane in the dark, we can put precession in perspective. In the cockpit, we're in the position of the sun. It is falling in the spiral arm of the galaxy in the direction of Sirius, which, represented by the cockpit in front of us, is falling in the same direction. The stars of the galaxy, from which we fix stars to measure precession, stretch out to our left.

The planets are orbiting the cockpit. Using the Earth as representative, the Earth moves in a circle around the cockpit starting at the tail, moving to the tip of the right wing, then passing in front of the plane at the nose and moving around to the tip of the left wing and back to the tail. It is held to the plane's motion by the cockpit's gravitational force but because the cockpit as sun is moving in the direction of its nose, the Earth tends to lag behind, reaching its furthest point as it circles the cockpit at the tail and its closest point when it passes the nose. To name the points, the tail is the summer solstice, the right wingtip the autumnal equinox, the nose the winter solstice and the left wingtip the vernal equinox. If we sight Sirius, which is represented by the cockpit light moving in front of us, from either our cockpit, a position directly behind the winter solstice, or the left wingtip, the vernal equinox, the point at which precession is measured, Sirius will always appear in the same position relative to the observation because we, the observer, are moving toward it.

However, any of the stars off the left wingtip which we use to measure precession, the passage of the stars at the vernal equinox, move in relation to the cockpit because we are moving forward in the darkness. We can determine how the stars move in relation to our movement by using the tip of the left wing combined with the point in the Earth's orbit around the cockpit at which it appears to touch the wingtip to simulate the objective point at which the tilt of the Earth measures the vernal equinox. We fix the position of a star in relation to the point at which the Earth touches the wingtip. Because we consider the period the Earth takes to make a full rotation from left wingtip to left wingtip to be a complete cycle, we know exactly when the star whose position we fixed should reappear if there is no precession. When we take the next measurement, however, we find that the Earth hits the wingtip before the star appears. The point of measurement, the Earth hitting the wingtip, has preceded the point we measured last time around, the point at which it coincided with the appearance of the star we used to fix the measurement. In the real world, we use the vernal equinox to fix the appearance of a star and when the next year the vernal equinox occurs before the appearance of the star, we say the equinox has preceded it or precessed.

So to rebut the observation about the stable sightings of Sirius being evidence that precession does not exist as it is described in reality, we are dealing with two different perspectives. We could never measure precession by sighting Sirius because Sirius lies in the direction of the sun's travel. The fact that sighting Sirius doesn't produce precession does not affect the actual measurement of the precession of the equinox in relation to stars that are positioned at right angles to the sun's direction of travel. They appear to move because of the sun's forward movement in relation to them.

Thus, the third question dealing with the reality of the annual regression of the fixed stars including the polestar can be answered in favor of precession. The pole star, which is positioned so that in our imaginary cockpit we would have to look up 67° to see, moves just like the stars used to measure precession. It moves toward us in relation to our motion because it is only 23° from being at a right angle from the sun's direction of travel. The fixed stars and the polestar are actually changing position relative to the solar system because of the solar system's forward motion. We can't measure movement relative to Sirius simply because Sirius is in front of us moving in the same direction we are moving (and probably at about the same speed, just over 300 mph).

As to questions 1 and 2, the astrological movement of the sun through the houses of the zodiac and the assumed 25000 ± year cycle are two different things. The first is very apparent, the second assumed on the basis of the first. We are all familiar with the appearance of the sun moving around the Earth. It rises in the east, moves across the sky and sets in the west. If we were not aware that the Earth was moving, we would be hard put to refute the idea that the sun moves around it. The preCopernican astronomers measured the sun moving through the houses of the zodiac on a yearly basis the same way we observe it moving across the daytime sky. If we sight across the solar system using the rising sun as a fixed point, we can see the orderly movement of the constellations that make up the houses of the zodiac as a result of the changing perspective. We can simulate this movement by using our hand as the sun and our head as the Earth. If we put our hand a foot in front of our eye and then move our head to the right, our hand appears to move to the left. The stationary objects behind our hand, the constellations, appear to move to the right as they are disclosed by our eye's changing perspective. However, if we believe that it is the sun moving rather than the Earth, then we don't see the constellations moving, we see the sun moving through the stationary constellations. Moving our hand to the left instead of our head to the right shows this changed perspective.

With the experience of measuring the sun coming up in different houses of the zodiac as obvious as the sun moving across the daytime sky, preCopernican astronomers could not fail to assign it importance. It is the most significant yearly occurrence in the heavens, just as the change in seasons is the most significant yearly occurrence on Earth. But the sun is not actually moving through the houses of the zodiac. It's apparent movement is a result of the Earth orbiting the sun. The cycle therefore does not occur in reality.

With the first cycle not an occurrence in reality, what about the 25000 ± year cycle based on it?

The sun appears to move across the daytime sky east to west and through the houses of the zodiac west to east. Precession appears to make the Earth move back in its orbit because it is late arriving at the point fixed by the appearance of the measuring star. If the forward motion of the Earth causes the sun to appear to move through the houses of the zodiac in a west to east motion, precession, its assumed backward movement, would cause the sun to appear to move in the opposite direction, producing a cycle with the sun moving in an east to west direction through the houses of the zodiac. The assumed 25000 ± year cycle is actually another cycle based on the sun's assumed orbit around the Earth, a cycle that sees the sun making a slow cycle in the opposite direction. Both measurements are based on real motions. The measurement of the yearly cycle of the sun is based on the Earth's orbit around the sun. The measurement of the 25000 ± year cycle is based on the sun's forward motion in space. Precession was described as circular motion because it was thought to result from the sun failing to reach a fixed point in its orbit around the Earth each year. Its measurement is so small that it would take more millennia than have passed since its original measurement to prove the assumption of circular motion. The way we see precessional motion is therefore dependent on the explanation we use for its cause.

Precession was misinterpreted as circular motion because it was assumed to result from the sun's orbit around the Earth. The yearly cycle could actually be measured because it was based on the yearly orbit of the Earth around the sun, but the 25000 ± cycle was too long to measure, making its assumption of circular motion disprovable. With the stars used to measure precession actually drifting past as we move forward in space, the 25000 ± year cycle does not occur in reality.

So where does that leave the assumed 25000 ± year cycle and Newton's use of it in his wobble business? Newton's precession is one of the most amusing assertions in a science filled with observations that describe reality in terms of a stately tree resting firmly on its branches as its roots reach deep into the sky. The 25000 ± year cycle is the result of assuming that precession resulted from the sun moving opposite its movement through the houses of the zodiac. The 25000 ± year cycle is a time cycle. To measure time, we need rate and distance. With precessional time, we only have a raw measurement, the time differential between the appearance of a star measured at the vernal equinox and its appearance at subsequent equinoxes.

If we don't assume circular motion, we don't have anything to measure. Thus, we assumed a 360° course because it closed the distance and eliminated the need for rate. By assuming that the precessional time is a result of the sun's yearly orbit around the Earth, we can calculate the number of precessional times needed for the sun to make a complete cycle around the yearly orbit. Because precessional time occurs on a yearly basis, the number of precessional times needed for the sun to make a complete cycle would equal the precessional cycle in years.

There is no way to come up with the 25000 ± year cycle other than to assume that it is the result of the sun's circular motion around the Earth. When Copernicus realized that the sun didn't move around the Earth, he was left trying to explain the precessional measurement because, without the sun moving around the Earth, precession could not be the reverse movement of the sun around the Earth. He tried to save the 25000 ± year cycle by claiming that precession was the result of the Earth drifting in its orbit in the direction of its axis, which would cause it to drift back to the winter solstice. However, this is an impossible outcome because it would cause spring to eventually occur in winter where it would become fixed because the tilt of the Earth's axis doesn't follow its orbit. Further, the vernal equinox cannot move because it is fixed by the specific tilt of the Earth in relation to the sun.

This left the explanation for precession up in the air until Newton gave it his slant. Newton didn't so much explain precession as use it as proof for his theory of universal gravitation. He was faced with certain dictates. He assumed that the sun replaced the Earth as the center of the universe, so the sun couldn't be moving through space. The vernal equinox was the relation of a specific tilt of the Earth to the sun, so it couldn't move either. He was aware that it was the tilt of the Earth that made the sun appear to move north and south as the Earth moved around the sun. With the sun fixed in space and the Earth's position in its orbit fixed by the angle of its tilt to the sun, Newton's only option was to conclude that the tilt itself rotated, reversing the north south motion of the sun as the Earth orbited the sun.

Newton's picture of the actual measurement of precession is erroneous on its face. It had been several hundred years since Copernicus. The description of precession tracing an east west path along the ecliptic had apparently become obscure because Newton's north south movement does not describe the measured movement of precession along the plane of the Earth's orbit. Looking out our cockpit at the left wingtip, precession causes the stars to drift past us. We would have to make the plane rock back and forth on its axis to create Newton's picture of the precessional movement. According to Newton's picture of precession, precession would be duplicated by the rise and fall of the stars off the left wingtip as it rose and fell as a result of the plane rocking on its axis. This Newtonian precession exists only in software approved by the astronomical community and has no relation to the precession measured in reality.

As far as the assumed 25000 ± year cycle is concerned, once Newton created a north south motion for the stars by claiming that it was the result of the rotation of the Earth's axis, he was mathematically incapable of calculating the cycle because he had eliminated the 360° circle needed to establish the number of precessional times in years. The precession of the sun could be measured as a 25000 ± year cycle only because precession was assumed to be the result of the circular motion of the sun around the Earth. Had Newton never heard of the 25000 ± year cycle, he would have been at a loss about the length of his precessional cycle because wobble produces a north south motion, not an east west motion that could be divided into a circular orbit. The only circles wobble creates are the circles made by the points that define the extension of the Earth's axis rotating in space. This produces a cone with an infinite number of circles from which to choose, leaving Newton's precession incapable of calculating a precessional cycle.

By adopting the 25000 ± year cycle, Newton was saying, "I agree with a computation made from the disproved assumption that the sun goes around the Earth because it appears to prove my theory of universal gravitation."

Just the name wobble is an onomatopoeia describing the idea, the shaky notion that a solution that describes north south motion can explain a measurable east west motion. The fact that Newton could create an explanation with no proof, one that doesn't describe what it seeks to explain, assign it evidence that could only be produced by disproven assumptions and then sit back while the scientific community accepts the bald assertion, mindlessly claiming that an assertion with no basis in reality is routinely provable by anyone with a gyroscope speaks volumes about what we have to deal with as we move into the 21st century attempting to make sense of ourselves, the world around us and the universe it occupies.

Peter

info@copernican-series.com