Sean's Tychosium version

The last couple of months I challenged myself to review the tychosium model to the bone and tried to aid you with more hardcore data to back you up to get it to the next level. So I played a lot with the code to understand the model and came up with an improved version.

What is different compared to the existing tychos.space model:

  1. PVP orbit is even smaller
  2. Sun and Mars Barycenters added
  3. Perihelion/ aphelion is added in the model
  4. Precession of the perihelion added
  5. Precession of the ecliptic added (but needs to be looked at).
  6. All added precession values match the Milankovitch cycles
  7. Moon Apsidal/ Nodal precession added
  8. All orbits according to Kepler 3rd law and according to existing data
  9. All values are explained (and to be challenged!)

Whats not in the model (yet):

  1. I mostly focussed on earth, moon, sun and mars. All other planets need to be looked at as well. I added a lot of clues to get those.
  2. The changing eccentricity of the earth is not in the model. Tried to add it, but it makes the model instable. Getting a little eccentricity in, is not the problem but to make the numbers work according to the current world view is difficult.
  3. Getting the exact numbers in the Tychosium as in eg Stellarium is very hard. There are small nutations in place as well which can be added in a model that looks at the sky from earth but it is very difficult to add them to a 3d model as Tychosium. However the RA and Dec numbers more or less match.
  4. There might be other motions in place as well. The model is not complete.

Why do I think the PVP radius is smaller: There are a lot of known natural laws in effect and to have such a big orbit as proposed in the initial version makes it hard to get it working in real life. We need special undiscovered laws if we want that model to work. A smaller orbit makes more sense and it doesnt matter for the 25,344/ 25,345 years value compared to the experienced precession of the equinox. I propose we just move very slowly, and make a circle and therefore experience it as ~25,766 years.

All values are explained in the model: https://codepen.io/dennis74/pen/xxQgpQX

Hope you like it
~Sean

Hello Sean,

This is just to say that I appreciate the time and effort you have put down making your own version of the Tychosium simulator, I will take a good look at it in due time and comment on it - as time permits. :slight_smile:

Dear Sean, I have now spent some time looking at what you call “an improved version” of the Tychosium simulator. As I wrote in my above post, I do appreciate your time & efforts probing the Tychosium - but for you to claim that it’s an improvement over the original, you would have to demonstrate that it is in better agreement with the astronomical observations gathered by astronomers over the centuries (which it clearly isn’t).

As far as I can gather, you seem to ‘dislike’ the PVP orbit and to prefer an almost stationary Earth. Again, you will have to demonstrate that your thesis provides better explanations for a series of observed and well-known ‘phenomena’ which my proposed PVP orbit explains - both qualitatively and quantitatively. You see, the PVP orbit is no minor matter in the TYCHOS model since it goes to explain and resolve a wide variety of questions raised by diverse observational astronomers (as methodically expounded in various chapters of my book). Moreover, I’m rather perplexed by your claim that “we need special undiscovered laws if we want that model to work”. Exactly what “laws” are you referring to? I hope that you’ve realized that, as things stand today (according to official astronomy), Newton’s “gravitational laws” are considered to be entirely falsified - due to the observed behaviours of stars & planets in distant galaxies (see for instance “The Limits of gravitational Theory” )

In short, if you wish to ‘do away’ with the PVP orbit (or to make it much smaller), your version of the Tychosium simulator will have to provide (better) answers to a host of issues treated in my TYCHOS book and, of course, to match or surpass the accuracy of the secular ephemerides (as recorded in countless tables compiled over the centuries) of all the bodies in our Solar System - as provided in the current version of the TS simulator.
I sincerely wish you good luck with that. :slight_smile:

Dear Simon, a little disappointed in your reply. Took me a lot of time to add the improvements to “your model”, and additionally added a comment about the size of the PVP orbit. I was hoping you would come up with some scientific evidence that justifies the size of the PVP orbit to be 0.378453 AU and not smaller (or bigger). eg. why not 0.35? Reason is, changing the size of the PVP oribit doesnt impact the working of the model.

To explain the improvements:

  • The sizes of all bodies are more realistic (especially earth-moon ratio)
  • The numbers in the model have at least an explanation
  • The number can be challenged.
  • Zoom in to the earth and see the aphelion/ perihelion points.
  • Zoom out and you get cycles of 20933 years of the precession of the perihelion
  • etc.

Anyway I dont think you need any help. Good luck

Dear Sean,

in answer to that specific question of yours, I would refer you to a relatively recent realization of mine, namely that Mars regularly passes ‘smack in the middle’ of the PVP orbit (as it transits CLOSEST to Earth) - as illustrated in a section of Chapter 11 of my book titled:

MARS’S CLOSEST PASSAGES TO EARTH - IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PVP ORBIT


Now, you are of course free to think that this is entirely coincidental - but you may agree that I’m equally free to think that it is not! :slight_smile:

Dear Sean, if you have read my TYCHOS book (2nd Edition) with due attention you should know that the PVP orbit is actually a fundamental element of the TYCHOS model since it provides a rational geometric explanation for the observed and all-important General Precession (a.k.a. the famed “precession of the equinoxes”) which causes our North stars to change over time. As heliocentrists have it, the GP would be caused by a very slow wobble of the Earth’s axis (in the opposite direction of its rotation!) ; this wobble would supposedly change the orientation of our polar axis, completing one full 360° wobble in about 25700 years. However, as thoroughly described in Chapter 10 of my book, this so-called ‘Lunisolar’ wobble has been shown by several modern-day independent researchers to be spurious / i.e. non-existent (for a number of reasons - as described in Chapter 10). In other words - and amazingly enough - heliocentrism has NO rational explanation for the all-important General Precession (which proceeds at a rate of ca. 51" arcseconds per year) !

Yet, we know (from solid Egyptian records) that star Thuban was our North star about 4200 years ago. This has allowed astronomers to plot the projected circular motion that our polar axis traces in the sky. Here’s a conventional illustration of this computed / officially-estimated circle:

As you can see, our North pole axis was pointing towards star Thuban (about 4200 years ago) and is currently pointing towards Polaris. So the big question is: WHAT causes this circular alternation of our North pole stars - since we can rule out the existence of a wobble of the Earth’s polar axis? This is where my proposed PVP orbit comes into the picture. There could hardly be any more logical explanation for the General Precession than the motion of Earth around its own orbit, the size of which can be readily calculated / estimated - as described and illustrated in Chapter 11 of my new TYCHOS book.

Dear Simon, Although I don’t think there is any evidence to convince any of your numbers of your model of our solar system is wrong but still give it a try:)

First of all I admire everything you have done to go against the mainstream view of heliocentricity. You and Patrik have put a lot of effort in this true cause. I also believe the current model is wrong. There are unrealistic numbers and movements needed to defend the current model. However, one model being wrong does not automatically mean the other model being right.

Evidence 1:

All the evidence you have provided about the size of PVP orbit is circle reasoning.

  • You calculate the PVP orbit to be ~113mkm via an observation.
  • You estimate the speed based upon that calculation + based upon the assumption of 25,344 years with 51.136 arc seconds movement
  • You take the 51.136 arc seconds to calculate back to a parsec and an angular diameter of 1.
  • With these numbers you go to 1 AU.

With any number as input + a matching tychos year with arc seconds to match the 1,296,000 arc seconds in a circle (eg 25344/ 51.136 ; 25000/ 51.84, etc) you would have gotten to the same conclusion.

Evidence 2:

There is a 20.4 minute delay between tropical and sidereal year. In those 20.4 minutes the sun would have travelled (according to your number 107,226 km/h, I think it is slightly less): ~36.500 km. In that time the Earth has moved by 14,036 km (your number).

That would mean the movement of the earth, would have a ~2.6423 effect on the sun (your number). So let’s say the earth moves 1 km in year, the delay in the sun’s movement is 2.6423 km.

The sun is 23,454.79 times further away.

How would you explain that? Is the sun actually quite near? Is there a formula that describes this behaviour?

Evidence 3:

The numbers in the 3D model don’t have any explanation

I played a lot with the model and you can have the same kind of orbit with all sort of settings. I am ok with any model as long there is an explanation to the numbers.

Evidence 4:

It doesn’t matter how big the PVP orbit is for the numbers in the 3D model.

The same kind of distances will follow if you make the orbit big or small. Also the same behaviour will follow: an experienced Great Year of ~25,770 years instead of 25,344 tychos years/ 25,345 solar years. Visual evidence of the 3D model is no evidence.

The same Polaris, Thuban numbers follow. Check it.

Evidence 5:

Totally neglecting all scientific proof about determined standards (like the size of 1 AU) and coming up with alternative numbers doesn’t really make much sense.

Years of 365.22057 days is also quite hard. Most probably you came to this number by reversing something with factor 25344/25343 or so.

My model uses the current standards as much as possible. In my model a Tychos year takes longer then an earth year simply because of the extra round for the same reason earth spins 1 extra time in 1 year (366.2421875 spins in 365.2421875 days = 25,345 spins/solar years in 25,344 tychos years).

Evidence 6:

In your 3D model on for instance Julian date 9757025, Mars is as close as 0.25 AU to earth. That is unbelievable close and not according to any prediction how close Mars could come.

Take this nice paper from Jean Meeus. He calculated, based on all the evidence available, the closest Mars would ever come is 0.3613 AU by the year 25,000 AD.

There needs to be some consistency in the mars orbit distances and clearly this is not in your current 3D model.

My model does.

Evidence 7:

Let’s say the PVP orbit is as big a size as proposed in your model and the centre of the Mars orbit around a Great Year.

Why does earth move around it and the Sun and Mars are not impacted by it at all?

Why is the current barycentre of Mars totally off set to this barycentre? Why will it never match?

You could argue the same like the circular orbits: We do not know but that will not cover it. My model shows the dance of the barycentres of Sun and Mars.

Etc,

I am absolutely not saying my model is right. My numbers are debatable as well, however they have an explanation in there which can be challenged and changed. I am just one person, not an expert and tried to create a bridge between your model and the current scientific proof. The current value for the Mars orbit in my model is the same as yours, but only according to matching Kepler 3rd law figures between radius and time. If my model is not according to countless tables compiled over the centuries, yours is wrong as well.

My proposal is to first have the basics right as defined by a community:

  • Is the Great Year 25,344 solar years or 25,345 solar years? Or different?
  • Is there a standard duration of a solar year? Or not all?
  • How big is the PVP orbit
  • What are the actual RA values of the longitude of the perihelion on 21 june 2000 12:00 UTC?
  • etc

If we could agree on those we might be able to create the correct model. Until then all is just fantasy

This is my last post. Good luck

What was that about…!!!

1 Like

Haha, not to worry dear Peaker - I’m sure that Sean is a well-meaning fellow, but he certainly is quite confused with regards to several aspects of the Tychos model and the Tychosium simulator.

Mind you, he has actually helped me realize a couple of quite important things - and I will soon post a reply to his “last post” (which hopefully won’t be his very last). :wink:

Dear Sean,

I have some (very) good news and some (mildly) bad ones for you. Let me start with the latter so as to get over and done with them. I shall be a bit ‘harsh’ with you in this first part of my reply - but please do not take offense, after all there’s nothing personal about debating the workings of our Solar System and of Mother Nature! Again, I sincerely appreciate your time and efforts reviewing the Tychosium simulator but, in order for our dialogue to be useful I must first clarify for you some fundamental aspects of the model – lest we indeed keep communicating with each other ‘in circles’. So here we go with the “mildly bad news”, that is to say your poor interpretation of some figures in the model and your general (mis)understanding of it:

For instance, you wrote:

There is a 20.4 minute delay between tropical and sidereal year. In those 20.4 minutes the sun would have travelled (according to your number 107,226 km/h, I think it is slightly less): ~36.500 km. In that time the Earth has moved by 14,036 km (your number).

That would mean the movement of the earth, would have a ~2.6423 effect on the sun (your number). So let’s say the earth moves 1 km in year, the delay in the sun’s movement is 2.6423 km.

The sun is 23,454.79 times further away.

No! The Earth doesn’t move by 14036 km in 20.4 minutes! That’s the distance we cover in one year, a crucial figure that I’ve called the EAM (Earth’s Annual Motion) and is cited dozens of times throughout my book… Have you even spent a few minutes reading it? And how on Earth do you conclude that the “sun is 23,454.79 times further away”? Good Heavens, Sean – you certainly seem to be “at sea” with regards to some fundamental tenets of the TYCHOS model.

But let’s move on. I can’t believe that you actually wrote this line:

“Totally neglecting all scientific proof about determined standards (like the size of 1 AU) and coming up with alternative numbers doesn’t really make much sense.”

Surely, you must have missed this explanatory paragraph to be found in Chapter 4 of my book:

“The Tychosium simulator is built upon the official astronomical tables compiled over the centuries by our world’s best astronomers. That is to say, all of the orbital sizes, relative distances and empirically verifiable sidereal periods within our Solar System have been rigorously respected. In the Tychosium, all the planets and moons revolve around uniformly circular orbits - and at constant orbital speeds. This is in stark contrast with the elliptical orbits and variable speeds that Kepler had to postulate in order to make the heliocentric model “agree” (mathematically) with empirical observations. In all logic, I have therefore used the mean/average values estimated for our planets’ orbital velocities - and disregarded their supposed “maximum” and “minimum” values, as computed by Kepler.”

Ever since day one of my TYCHOS research, I have scrupulously observed all the planetary parameters (sizes / distances/ orbital periods/ etc) and astronomy tables laboriously compiled by our world’s best observational astronomers over the centuries. Not one single parameter integrated in the Tychosium simulator is the result of ‘guesswork’, of pure chance or - worse still - of any sort of fudging or confirmation bias. All the orbital speeds of our Solar System’s bodies, for instance, were quite simply computed relatively to the speed of the Sun (107226 km/h) which, in the simulator, is set to 2π (i.e. 6.283185307179586).

In fact, the only ‘liberty’ I have taken is to ignore / do away with Kepler’s proposed variable orbital speeds and elliptical orbits. Yet, and “in spite” of this, the Tychosium (a work in progress and constant refinement) can already account for – to an excellent degree of accuracy - a vast number of ‘memorable events’ (recorded in astronomy tables) in the last centuries (e.g. all solar and lunar eclipses / all Mercury and Venus transits across the solar disk / all Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions/ etc). Admittedly though, until the other day, I wasn’t quite satisfied with the LONG TERM behavior (in the Tychosium) of the Mars oppositions. I had noticed that, over the millennia, the Martian orbit seemed to ‘wobble’ a tad too much (with respect to all the other orbits), thus causing some Mars oppositions to occur a bit too close to the Earth. And here’s where we get to the (very) good news that I have for you, dear Sean: as you justly pointed out that Mars came (unrealistically) as close as 0.25AU around the year 22001 AD, I decided to give the fine-tuning of Mars’s parameters in the Tychosium another go. In about a day’s work, I managed to substantially improve Mars’s long term motions – as I will describe in a separate post. I thank you for linking to that Jean Meeus paper which was certainly a useful resource towards refining Mars’s long term motions. The Tychosium simulator is now updated with the new, improved Martian parameters.

Now, what you must appreciate and understand is that, whenever performing fine-tuning / micro-adjustments of any planet’s secular, LONG TERM positions (i.e. over many thousands of years) a certain amount of ‘guesswork’ (trial & error) is necessary. This, because available & reliable astronomy tables only go back a few centuries and thus, all LONG TERM predictions (whether heliocentric, geocentric or geo-heliocentric) are based upon relatively short time spans and will therefore always be subject to some degree of approximation.

As for your reckoning that the TYCHOS Great Year should be considered as lasting for 25345 solar years (rather than 25344), you are absolutely correct – and you deserve a huge hat tip for this realization, dear Sean! As the Earth completes a “25344-year” revolution around its PVP orbit, it will obviously ‘subtract ONE revolution from the Sun’ which will therefore need ONE more turn to complete a full Great Year! Now, get this: as I tested the Tychosium in successive steps of 25345 years, it now turns out (to my utter delight) that our Moon returns to very nearly the ‘same place’ every 25345 years! This is a wonderful confirmation of the TYCHOS model’s tenet that our Moon acts as the ‘central driveshaft’ of our entire Solar System. Moreover - and better still – it also elegantly corroborates my proposed 811000-year Mega Cycle (see Chapter 20), and here’s how you can verify it for yourself :

In the Tychosium, set the date at 2001-06-21 (on that day, there was a solar eclipse and we thus see the Moon and the Sun aligned at 6h of RA – or at “12 o’clock”, if you will). Next, start moving the date forwards in steps of 25345 years. You will see that the Moon will gradually ‘tick around the PVP clock’ (in clockwise direction) and, after 405500 years or so (i.e. half a 811000-year Mega Cycle – or about 16 ‘steps’ of 25345 years) it will find itself at “6 o’clock”. Then, after another 16 such steps, it will return to where it was on 2001-06-21 (i.e. 811000 years earlier).

All this to say, dear Sean, that if you have decided to ‘abandon ship’ and to leave this forum for good, please know that I will always fondly remember your fine contributions to the TYCHOS model, in spite of your rather fuzzy grasp of the same. :slight_smile:

the model may not be exact or perfect, but I find the basic “resolved problems” of the Tychos far more logical than the heliocentric model. the model is not the proof itself.

Dear Simon,

You make me react one more time since you are still avoiding critical questions by acting like someone doesn’t understand the model.

  1. This quote: In that time the Earth has moved by 14,036 km (your number).
    The word that refers to the tropical year. That 's the reason why I refer to the 2.6423 effect (~36,500 / 14,036). I doubt you misread this by mistake by replying a bit offensive and downplaying critical questions on purpose.

The question is still open (just like other questions in the post)

  1. I have seen the changed parameters in the 3D model but they are not making it better. What about for instance julian date 6093626 with mars at 0.23 AU in the new model?

  2. Although I am happy you finally admitted to the 25,345 solar years (I already made a comment and a drawing half a year ago over here Tychos link with Egypt? - #11 by Sean), the additional conclusion that follows is a Tychos Year takes longer and not shorter. So it can’t be 365.22057

  3. I really have spent a lot of time and effort in the study of your model and implementing the improvements. I did it to help you. It seems you do not want any help since all replies are done without even looking at a comment/ model and by being a bit offensive.

This was one of your comments in our private conversation:
Hi Sean, I’m reading all your messages - don’t worry. I’m just too busy at this time with issues related to the publishing of the 2nd Edition (in hard copy) of my book - and no, don’t expect me to re-write it all on the basis of your computations - which I will nonetheless take a good look at in due time. See, you probably don’t realize just how well the latest / current Tychosium simulator performs - and I find it unlikely that your calculations would provide any sensible improvement of its accuracy. Mind you, the Tychosium is an open source javascript software, so if you are a proficient programmer you may try and modify its parameters with your own computed values - but don’t expect the much over-worked Patrik to do this for you in the near future! :slight_smile:

Based upon this answer I dived even more into your world and came with this post (which you also reject).

Why don’t you want any help from the community?

  1. As a small reader for one of the improvements in the v2 version:
    a) Look at summer solstice in year ~1246 AD. Summer solstice was on 14th of June back then (because of the julian calendar). You see the alignment between solstice/ aphelion.
    b) look at the current date of summer solstice. aphelion is on 3rd of July.
    c) look at year ~6480 AD: aphelion is on autumn equinox.
    etc

For explanation of the 1246 AD figure:

The shift of the perihelion is forwards, about 1.7 days every century. In 1246 the perihelion occurred on 22 December, the day of the solstice,

So the precession of the perihelion is added in the model based upon an estimation of the anomalistic year. And that is independent of the PVP orbit size. Change it to whatever you want.

I also added all moon movements and added Mars settings based upon RA values as according to mainstream science. Also added ecplictic settings according to mainstream science. It was very hard to get it all in and I can honestly say I learned a lot:-)

I feel a bit like Kepler:-) Johannes Kepler - Wikipedia

Kepler’s laws of planetary motion were not immediately accepted. Several major figures such as Galileo and René Descartes completely ignored Kepler’s Astronomia nova. Many astronomers, including Kepler’s teacher, Michael Maestlin, objected to Kepler’s introduction of physics into his astronomy. Some adopted compromise positions. Ismaël Bullialdus accepted elliptical orbits but replaced Kepler’s area law with uniform motion in respect to the empty focus of the ellipse, while Seth Ward used an elliptical orbit with motions defined by an equant.[98][99][100]

And again: I am not saying my model is right. I only want a community to step in and make the correct 3D model aligned with the current science as much as possible. Is there anyone interested at all?

Id be willing to help with writing “unit tests” for the Tychosium model. We would need a list of agreed upon “configurations”. Some contrived example, on the date June 2, 1350 “mars is diametrically opposed to the sun”, or 1630 Dec 1 “mars makes its closest transit to Earth”.

this can provide assurance thats when values change within the Tychosium, the accuracy of the model remains, or improves.

1 Like

Thanks chocopeluche!

For an extra explanation of the beauty of the perihelion precession in the model:

As a starting point, since we don’t have exact numbers for the durations of all different year settings due to the movement of the earth itself (nothing is fixed), it’s based upon the following assumptions:

  • Assumption 1: There is a fixed duration of the Solar year aka Tropical year: 365.2421875 days a year
  • Assumption 2: Sidereal year = 365.256362996094 days a year
  • Assumption 3: Anomalistic year = 365.259635653036 days a year
  • Assumption 4: Tychos year = 365.256598886817 days a year (Tropical * 25,345 / 25,344)

The background of all these numbers can be found in codepen (also have a look after the section “const earthRotations = 366.2421875” in codepen for more explanation)

Additionally we had to find the proper exact current setting for the perihelion precession on 21-06-2000 12:00.
We have however the settings on 01-01-2000 12:00
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html
Longitude of perihelion (deg) 102.94719

You can also view them per planet over there. Or if you want to have the planets all in 1 place: Planetary Orbital Elements

With this info I created some pictures:

Picture 1 is an overview of all the NASA defined longitude of the perihelion settings on 01-01-2000 12:00 (same settings as mentioned in link above but then plotted in a circle)

Picture 2 is the corrected settings to move from 01-01-2000 12:00 UTC to 21-06-2000 12:00 UTC (start date of the model)

Picture 3 is the settings that need to be used as “startpos” for the different planets since we have to move from vernal equinox settings to 21-06-2000 12:00 UTC settings.

NOTE: Because the earth makes some small movements, the dates for vernal equinox/ solstice are not fixed on 1 date. However the settings for the longitude of the perihelion move with a fixed duration. They are not wobbling per year. Therefore the 0h ascension “angle” is defined by the sun at 21 March 12:00 UTC.

The precession of the perihelion can then be calculated as followed (and is also in codepen):

// perihelion makes a 360 degree circle in 20,933 years (actually in 120,273.396629475 years but since the precession of the equinox is moving in opposite direction, solstice/equinox meets aphelion/perihelion every 20,933 years)
// calculation: tropical / ( anomalistic - tropical) = 365.2421875 / (365.259635653036 - 365.2421875) = 20,933 years
// calculation: anomalistic / ( anomalistic - tropical) -1 = 365.259635653036 / (365.259635653036 - 365.2421875) -1 = 20,933 years

And I already mentioned above: This number is debatable also because in nature most probably there will not be rounded duration of the precession of the perihelion. But is somewhere near.

We know around the year 1246 AD the aphelion/perihelion and summer/winter solstice was aligned. Therefore we need to set the settings in “Earth perihelion precession” with the right angle

These are the settings in codepen:

“orbitCentera”: 1.62834,
// average difference aphelion - perihelion = eccentricity (1.67086342) but since it is not aligned on 21-06-2000 12:00 UTC you can calculate the setting based upon the angle of the longitude perihelion as defined by NASA
// The angle on 21-06-2000 12:00 UTC is 102.9541872 - 90 = 12.9541872. With 1.67086342 as the longest side you will get triangle values 1.62834 and 0.37456
// value 1.67086342 from Jean Meeus - More Mathematical Astronomy Morsels, Chapter 33
“orbitCenterb”: -0.37456,
// needed since aphelion is not aligned with solstice in year 2000. The last time was in 1246 AD 14 june (because of the julian calendar back then summer solstice was not around 21 june but was shifted to 14 june; this is corrected with the introduction of the gregorian calendar).
// resulting in alignment with perihelion in year 2000 on 3rd of July 22:53 UTC (aka longitude of the perihelion).
// this is the starting point for the visible anomalistic shift of 20,933 years.

With the speed of 20,933 years in the Earth precession settings + all angle settings you can see, you end up on 14th of June 1246 AD alignment perihelion/ aphelion with solstices.

So to summarise: There are assumptions in the calculations. There is no way we can know for sure how long for instance an anomalistic year on average takes since we are wobbling.
However we see the correct behaviour in the model.

Dear Sean,

Just a quick question. In the Codepen notes of your model it says:

// The earth makes 1 orbit of 40,075.0166847467 km per Great Year to have an Experienced Precession of the equinox of 25,766.7595163 earth years (25,765.74287561 tychos years).

Shortly after it then says:

// The earth only needs to move 607.0410651 km per year to have an Experienced Precession of the equinox of 25,766.7595163 years (= 25,765.74287561 tychos years)

So what would be the actual diameter of your version of the PVP orbit and how exactly was it estimated?
Thanks ! :slight_smile:

This is the setting in the model:
“orbitRadius”: -1.66407384630578,

The calculation is in there as well so this means

  • Circumference PVP orbit: 1.66407384630578 * 149,597,870.698828 /100 * 2 * PI() = 15,641,481.1413815 km per great year
  • Radius: 1.66407384630578 * 149,597,870.698828 /100 = 2,489,419.0409295300 km
  • The diameter would be twice the radius setting so: 4,978,838.08185906 km

All calculations and reasoning are in codepen. The above first remark is there to clarify the wobble. Hopefully it is clear enough.

// The PVP radius compared to the sun radius is the extra time we experience for the precession of the equinox = 25,345 + 1.66407384630578 % = 25,766.7595163 years.

Note: The diameter is more or less the same as the average difference perihelion/aphelion.
Raw data can be found here: Earth at Perihelion and Aphelion: 2001 to 2100

The Earth and Sun seem to orbit the same center.