I encourage you to read the paper, it is quite an easy read.
Here are some main points:
There are two basic theories to explain the Earth’s changing orientation to inertial space,
a phenomenon known as “Precession of the Equinox” or often-just “Precession”. The
“Lunisolar” explanation is widely accepted while the “Binary” or “Oriental” explanation,
although quite old, is hardly known. However, recent scientific evidence, as well as new
mathematical models and an expanding knowledge of binary systems call into question
the long accepted lunisolar theory and lends surprising support to the binary view.
Historical Perspective: Not only were Copernicus and Newton unaware of binary
prevalence, they also assumed a “static Sun” when they first postulated a heliocentric
system with a wobbling Earth. They had no knowledge of invisible stars like black holes
or brown dwarfs, and they were unaware that our Sun is moving at great speed through
local space or that it could possibly be gravitationally bound to any other extra-solar
system mass (this is obviously before knowledge of any galaxies or galactic motion).
Consequently, it is not expected that they would consider anything outside the solar
system as a causative factor in producing a solar system (or Earth from our point of
view) that displays an apparent wobble relative to the fixed stars.
In the lunisolar wobble model the Earth changes orientation to inertial space by 50 arc
seconds due to local forces and therefore must also change orientation relative to the Sun
by this same amount each year. But in the binary model the change in orientation is due
to motion of the entire solar system and therefore the Earth does not change orientation
relative to the Sun equinox to equinox. Therefore, in the binary model the period of time
from equinox to equinox represents a 360-degree motion of the Earth around the Sun not
360 degrees less 50 arc seconds as in the lunisolar model. It is clear the binary model
involves another reference frame that has heretofore not been recognized; a solar system
that moves relative to inertial space.
If the Earth itself were coming up about 50 arc seconds short of the equinoctial point that
it was at the prior year, then lunar equations would show the Earth goes around the Sun
50 arc seconds short of 360 degrees in an equinoctial year. But the equations do not show
this. They show that the Earth goes around the Sun, relative to the Sun, 360 degrees in an
equinoctial year. Yet anyone can see that the Earth in relation to inertial space appears to
move around the Sun 360 degrees only in a sidereal year. Indeed, fixed-star to fixed-star
has almost become the litmus test for what is or isn’t a 360 degree movement. But like
Ptolemy’s Sun, that appears to orbit round the Earth, motions in space can be deceiving.
Lunar rotation equations clearly show the Earth goes around the Sun 360 degrees in an
equinoctial year, and contrary to observations of the Earth’s orientation relative to inertial
space, these same equations show the Earth orbits the Sun 360 degrees plus 50 arc
seconds in a sidereal year. Interestingly, if one only plugs the sidereal data into the
rotation equations, they show the Earth moves 360 degrees relative to the fixed stars in a
sidereal year, yet this orbit path of the Earth around the Sun takes 20 minutes longer and
is 22,000 miles wider in circumference than the Earth’s actual path around the Sun. Now
obviously, the Earth does not have two different orbit paths around the Sun each year. So
which is right? Mathematically, they are both correct; the Earth does move 360 degrees
around the Sun in a solar year and does appear to move 360 degrees relative to the fixed
stars in a longer sidereal year. The startling conclusion is, while the Earth is moving 360
degrees counterclockwise around the Sun in a solar year, the entire solar system
(containing the Earth Sun reference frame) is moving clockwise relative to inertial space.
The relationship between the mathematical calculations supports no other conclusion.
Further evidence that precession is not due to local wobbling can be found in studying
eclipse data and planetary occultations. If precession, is a result of local wobbling (which
must cause the axis to slip by 50 arc seconds per year along the ecliptic as well as relative
to the fixed stars) then anything outside the Earth would have to reflect this precession.
But this is not the case. While we do use a sidereal frame (that incorporates precession) to
find the new position of the fixed stars each year, we do not use this frame to find out
where planetary conjunctions will occur. Moreover, the Earth’s wobble is not taken into
account when trying to pinpoint the timing or umbra location of an eclipse. This topic is a
bit difficult to understand for anyone that does not fully comprehend the implied
theoretical aspects of lunisolar precession mechanics. The point is that while precession
theory works in determining orientation to points outside the solar system it does not
work and is not applied to locating fixed points within the solar system. One example of
the is the Perseid meteor shower:
Perseids Meteor Shower shows that the Earth goes around the Sun 360 degrees in a
There are certain meteor showers that can be seen regularly on the same date each year.
They are thought to be the result of the Earth, moving along its orbital path around the
Sun, crossing through that point in space where a comet once intersected our orbit path.
The leftover debris hitting our atmosphere is the cause of these annual meteor showers
that come and go like clockwork. One of the strongest and most well known is the
Perseid Meteor which peaks each year every August 11th and 12th (my birthday). Ever
since I can remember this meteor shower has occurred on my birthday.
The Perseid was first mentioned by the Chinese in 36 AD and is mentioned again in
Japanese, Korean and Chinese chronicles through the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th centuries
according Gary Kronks in his journal on meteors and comets. Sometime around the mid
1500’s, after the St. Lawrence feast day had been established as August 10th, people
began to call this meteor shower the “Tears of Saint Lawrence”, because right after the
feast day the meteor shower would peak for a day or two. Still today the peak of this
meteor shower is August 11th and 12th.
As long as the Earth goes around the Sun 360 degrees equinox to equinox, and we keep
our current system of leap corrections* we should continue to see this meteor shower
peak every August 11th and 12th for centuries to come. This is because our current
calendar system of time loses less than 1 day every 3200 years relative to the actual
motion of the equinox within the calendar. In other words the equinox remains fixed
within the calendar moving only slightly for differences between the calendar days (365)
and the Earth’s actual rotations in a tropical year (365.2422) and always quickly adjusted
by leap days every four years.
BUT WAIT, lunisolar precession theory says the Earth does not go around the Sun 360
degrees every equinox. It says it comes up 50 arc seconds short of 360 degrees every
tropical year and this is why we see the fixed stars precess by 50 arc seconds per average
tropical year. But if the Earth does not go around the sun 360 degrees then the Perseid
meteor shower should reflect precession and slip through the calendar 1 day in every 72
years, meaning it should have moved almost six days exactly since the Gregorian
Calendar Reform in 1582. We know the fixed stars “outside the solar system” have
indeed appeared to move by this much in that time period due to precession but why
hasn’t the Perseid reference point “within the solar system” changed by this same amount
of precession? If precession is caused by local sources wobbling the Earth then anything
and everything outside the Earth should appear to move at the same rate, excluding
Answer: The Earth does not change orientation to the Perseid meteor shower, or to the
Moon, or to eclipses, or to any points of planetary occultations or to anything within the
solar system, because local wobbling of the Earth does not cause precession. What we
call precession only occurs relative to the fixed stars and objects “outside the solar
system” because precession is actually due to the motion of the solar system itself. The
solar system containing the Earth moves as a single reference frame at the rate of about
50 arc seconds annually relative to inertial space. All bodies within that reference frame
maintain their relative gravitational relationships, the Earth does not experience
precession within that frame, and therefore only the tropical frame applies. All bodies
outside that reference frame must be adjusted for precession and the sidereal frame
The lunar equations and the lack of observable precession relative to the Moon, eclipse
junctions, comet debris and other points within the solar system, in all likelihood
disprove lunisolar theory, but they do not in themselves prove we are in a binary system.
However, there are several additional significant arguments based on anomalies in other
solar system theories that appear to give weight to the binary model. Below is a brief list
of known solar system anomalies: