There is no precisely logical and/or widely accepted reason for why the Earth's axis precedes its orbit by 20 minutes per year. It is theorized that the gravity of other planets causes the Earth's axis to wobble. Although this idea is quite widespread, I cannot determine its origin neither historically nor logically. But it is still unproven as the greatest cause, even if it is likely that it is playing some role. This section offers a very clear answer to the cause of the Precession of the Equinox in theoretical terms. One that may be verified/falsified via evolutionary algorithm at a later stage, and through proposed observations.

It is vital to appreciate that any such theory must also be able to fit into the Axial Precession of the other planetary bodies. I was able to calculate the Period of Axial Precession of the major planets from the data listed on this web-page:

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html

The results of that last column were a revelation in itself. Just compare those numbers very closely before continuing on to the cause of those Axial Precessions.

My intuition being that there are 7 quite separate causes for the Precession of the Equinox, but through the method of logical deduction we can extract the dominant cause from the given data. First let us outline these ideas before deconstructing them.

1) Non-spherical shape of the Earth (T-handle effect):
Once you have observed the zero-gee experiment it should be seen that this effect would be decreasing the time it takes for the Axial Precession. And, that this process would also be widening the angle of the axis. But some reports claim the rate of Axial Precession is increasing. This would mean that it may have recently passed the reversal phase, and that it is in the process of centering the axis vertically; before widening and flipping the Earth over on its axis again. Is there evidence for the poles having flipped?

This idea can also explain why Venus has a retrograde rotation, and why Uranus is on its side. However, the rings of Uranus are aligned with its rotation, and I cannot see how a planet's rings can be effected by movement of the axis via the T-handle phenomenon.

The other problem with this idea is that the rate of Axial Precession is clearly proportional to the imbalance in the shape of the planet. Now on Mars, the mountain of Olympus Mons is 3x higher than Everest, and Mars is only 1/9th of Earth's mass. So Mars should have a faster Axial Precession than Earth; crudely: 27x faster. But Mars' Axial Precession rate is 7x slower than Earth. So although this must play some role, the prima facie logic is out by a factor of about 200 times.

2) The gravity of Jupiter:
The problem here is that Mars is closer to Jupiter than Earth is, and with a very similar axial tilt, and lesser mass, it would be expected that Mars's Axial Precession should be much faster than Earth. So Jupiter is not the primary cause.

3) The Moon:
We have to rule this out because the moon is the largest in the solar system in comparison to the planet it orbits. Venus and Mercury have no moon at all, so they should have almost no Axial Precession if it was caused by the moon. The NASA data does give lesser amounts for Venus and Mercury, but note that those amounts are calculated from the difference between the sidereal and tropical year. And those values are rounded off in such a way that there is only a single digit as a factor. So the lesser Axial Precession given for Venus and Mercury are most likely just rounding errors.

4) The Sun:
We need to realize that Mars is much less regular than Earth and has less mass, so the Sun would have a greater effect on Mars than it does on Earth for Axial Precession. A perfect sphere would have its axis of rotation unaffected by the gravity of the Sun, because there is no overall difference in a smooth planet's rotation due to how gravity effects different parts of a perfect sphere. So Mars should have the fastest Axial Precession from the Sun, but it does not - it is the least! In fact it sticks out as being quite strange compared to the rest.

But the only clear correlation in planetary Axial Precession I can see is that the Axial Precession itself has an axis of its own. That being almost exactly aligned to Solar North. So the Sun seems to be playing an important role in this. There is however, no data on just how upright this secondary axis is, and if it varies. There is also no data on whether the Sun's axis is wobbling. If the Sun's axis also has a 26000 year cycle (as I intuit that it does), then the cause could hardly be the Sun itself!?

5) The inner structure of the Earth:
The Earth's liquid magma is also a suspect. But the problem here is that Jupiter is less solid than the Earth. So if the liquid state of the Earth was a primary cause then Jupiter should have greater Axial Precession than the Earth. Saturn has the least density so should have the most extreme value. But most of the Axial Precessions are so similar to one another when the inner structures are quite variable. Only Mars is problematic but it is far more similar to Venus and Mercury in terms of inner structure, so this idea is not consistent with the given values.

6) Electromagnetism:
Is Mars electromagnetically different from the other planets? No. Earth is vastly more electromagnetic than Venus, and so there is just no correlation here at all.

7) The Cosmic Coriolus:
My hypothesis is that the Universe has the shape of a 3d hyper-surface of 4d hyper-sphere, and this shape is rotating. Details on this structural theory are here:
www.flight-light-and-spin.com/simulator/universe-shape.htm
So we need to understand how Foucault's pendulum operates in 4 dimensions of space.

I am quite far from achieving this. But if Cosmic Coriolus is the primary cause of Axial Precession, then I would expect all the planets to have the same rate of Axial Precession which would be a simple linear reflection of the the time the Universe takes to rotate.

After all, it does not matter (almost) where you are on the Earth , Foucault's pendulum still reflects a 24 hour frequency. So it should not matter where in the Universe you are, the frequency of the effect would be identical to the rotation of the Universe. Foucault's Pendulum does not quite work on the equator and the poles, but that only means that we could determine where the Universes' 4d equator and poles both are, if we could eventually measure Axial Rotation anywhere in the Universe.

Of course, the given rate of Axial Precession of Mars may be in error. I have not seen anyone else give a proper account of Newtonian Perihelion Precession, and that is a much simpler algorithm, than Axial Precession. As far as I can tell, mine is the only genuine 3d n-body gravity algorithm. Proper understanding of orbital dynamics are full of inaccurate observational theory. And I struggle to see how an accurate measurement of orbits is possible without a solid n-body-gravity algorithm, so it would not surprise me if Mars' Axial Precession has been miscalculated.

The Earth's Axial Precession reveals a difference of a full day every 70 years. Going back to the original Vedic and Greek accounts would expose the Axial Precession's effect on the length of a year by months, so this must be considered a fairly accurate observation as regards the Earth.

Let us return to the difference between sidereal and tropical year from NASA's planetary fact sheet. This data is not easily noticeable. And as far as I can tell, nobody else has extracted these values.

from: https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html

At first glance it appeared that differences between sidereal and tropical year were a reflection of the Earth's tropical/tropical year. But on closer examination and calculation these details became apparent. So the resultant data in the final column is very easy to miss.

It was after converting the values to the column second from the right (arc-seconds per orbit) into Earth-years (far right column) that it became apparent that the larger planets all had much the same Axial Precession per year that the Earth does. The arc-seconds per orbit were increasing at much the same rate that the length of each orbit was. Only Mars is significantly disagreeable, and that is possibly due to Jupiter and the Sun's effect on its misshapen surface. Mercury and Venus must be rounding errors due to the yearly values differing by just one digit. But note the highlighted word in this quote:

Tropical orbit period (days):
"The average time for the body to make one revolution
about the Sun from one point in its seasonal orbit to
the equivalent point (e.g. equinox to equinox) in days."
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/fact_notes.html

I have deliberately left my initial thoughts in thus section in much the same fashion as I arrived at them. I had already almost given up on Cosmic Coriolus until I found the NASA factsheet data hidden in the ambiguity of the word 'tropical', which I had not initially taken to be a local equinox for each planet; until I read the notes on the fact-sheet, and also noticed that the arc-second values are proportional to the orbit-duration for each planet, not just Earth. I had already decided that Mars' slow Axial Precession had disproved the idea of a Cosmic Coriolus force as the cause of axial precession. But in the light of the calculated table, all the other data is solid evidence for a Cosmic Coriolus force. Any differences could be due to secondary causes, rounding errors, or discrepancies in measurement. Methodologically it is fairly clear that all the other theories are unsystematic and often contradictory to observation - as major causes. If there is a better theoretical account it has eluded my numerous searches. But from the philosophical perspective, Socrates would be amused to see that it is the dominant sophistry of Relativity that has been quite systematically disproved. After all, knowing what logically cannot be true, is a primary step in revealing the sole remaining idea that could well be true. This particular analysis was a consequence of a study on the Perihelion Precession of Mercury, specifically because I had already disproved Relativity, and thus the claim that Relativity was causing Mercury's Perihelion Precession was glaringly suspect. I had not really meant to unearth the idea of the Cause of the Precession of the Equinox at all, but was merely being systematic in looking at exact values of the various orbits of the planets when I realized that the difference between sidereal and tropical years of the planets themselves were not proportional to those of Earth, and must be local to those planets. Furthermore we must realize that the Perihelion Precession of Mercury under Newtonian law falls short of observations by more than double what the Relativists miscalculated. And we note that even their 2d account for Newtonian Perihelion Precession is still far less (13%) than the real 3d Newtonian calculation. Then we combine that with the ideas in this section, we have a fair intuition of some or other systematically uniform oscillating effect pulling the planet's Axes around, beyond mere gravity itself. Perhaps Mercury's orbit is itself effected by Cosmic Coriolus? That may well be a wrong intuition, but its the only theory that can fill the gap as to why observations of Mercury's Perihelion Precession is in advance of the Newtonian calculation. Most of the other planets have the Newtonian calculation less the the observation. See Newtonian-Planck Gravity for more on that. I have also proven in other chapters, that the only way for planets to have formed such concentric orbits is if they began from the Sun's twin star going nova. And the only way for a twin star system itself to form, is if they had the same common spinning origin. Moreover, spiral galaxies must at their core themselves be binary systems in order to have pairs of stellar-arms being emitted from these super-massive star-creators - this also solves the problem of rotation curves of spiral galaxies without any adjustment to Newton's law of gravity. See The Summary of Rotation Curves of Galaxies for those details. The question then remained: Is the force of spin which caused all these structures still in existence, or was it only evident at the beginning of the Universe? It is clear that a Cosmic Coriolus is going to sustain orbital circularization in much the same way that the Earth's Coriolus forms cyclones. So because the only remaining theory for Axial Precession is that the Universe is spinning in four dimensional space, then we have a smoking gun for Cosmic Coriolus and a fairly clear example of dark energy: the fifth fundamental force of the universe.

<— Page Back — Start Page — Next Page —>

see also: — Dark Energy & How the Solar System Formed & The Big Unwind