# The Multiplicity of Great Years

The Tychos Great Year takes 25,344 years.
According to wikipedia, there are numerous different “great years” that have been calculated over several millennia.

I have a few questions regarding some figures from wiki:

1. It seems Newton was using the same metric as Hipparchus for determining precession: 1 degree westward shift every 72 years (1:72). The Tychos says the shift is 30 degrees every 2100 years which comes out to 2100/30=70, or, 1 degree every 70 years.

2. Why are there so many “great years?” It seems each astronomer had a slightly different metric for determining this, which makes the concept seem altogether speculative. However, I must say it is definitely not taught or discussed, and I didn’t realize this concept has been around since ancient times.
Would the Tychos be more accurate than Newton/Hipparchus, with a given value 1 degree shift every 70 years?

3. Why is 25,772 very close to 25,344 (difference of 428)?

As a disclaimer, it seems to me that there are numerous ways of arriving at a “great year” calculation. What makes the Tychos Great Year metric correct? Wouldn’t this calculation simply be a consequence of the motions described in your geo-axial binary system?

1. Did the Copernican/Keplerian system have a “great year?” What about Tycho Brahe?

Thanks Simon and Patrik

Based on all of Simon’s other discoveries, I would guess that the extra half-millennium or so is due to a heliocentric miscalculation. There may even be another geometric puzzle solved by the PVP, which basically shows why they are getting the Great Year’s length wrong.

1 Like

Dear babayaga,

The difference between the modern, officially estimated duration of a Great Year (25772) and the TYCHOS estmation of the same (25344) is about 1.68%. The reason for this 1.68% discrepancy is expounded and illustrated in this section of Chapter 12 :

The “SOLAR YEAR” versus the “SIDEREAL YEAR” - in the TYCHOS

You will need to read the whole section in order to fully understand just what this 1.68% represents - and why astronomers are not ‘seeing it’. In short though, it is (demonstrably) caused by the fact that, since they are unaware of the Earth’s 1-mph motion, they will fail to account for a tiny part of the true annual precession of 51.136" arc seconds. In my below graphic, it is what I have labeled (in purple type) “unobservable” :

Moreover, modern astronomers are still baffled over the fact that the annual precession’s rate of increase is observed to grow in an exponential fashion over time. The TYCHOS readily explains why this is the case - as illustrated in this other graphic from Chapter 19 of my book :

In simple words, astronomers fail to account for two factors:

• The lateral / sideways E->W motion of the Earth against the stars (14036km-per-year)
• The secular, rotational ‘clockwise ticking’ of the Earth’s orientation vis-à-vis the stars

Simon,
Thanks for clarifying once again - I have to admit you explain it simply even though it’s a bit over my head. Now, at 30° drift per 2112 years approx., doesn’t this mean the “zodiac” or cycle of constellations we see will also shift? I haven’t experimented much with the stars in the Tychosium, and not sure if you had a chapter addressing this? I realize the north star rotates over very long periods as well - doesn’t this mean the other visible stars change position?

I’m trying to do some digging into the other estimations of “great years” but am not finding much. It seems the favored numerical systems of past civilizations had some say over their calculations - or was it simply errors or incomplete sets of data? Anyways, when you addressed it in the book I didn’t realize there even was a concept of a “great year” in general.

Thanks again

Yes, of course! For millennia, it has been known and observed that the entire firmament (i.e. ALL the stars) drifts ‘eastwards’ by about 30°, roughly every 2160 years or so. In fact, in many old history books you will find the estimate of “25920” years for the duration of the Great Year (i.e. 2160 X 12). This is because they used the rounded / approximated value of 50" for the annual eastward drift of the firmament.

50" X 25920y = 1296000" (which equals 360°)

However, Tycho Brahe’s more accurate estimate for the annual drift (or “precession”) of the starfield was 51" per year - which of course is very close to the TYCHOS model’s refined estimate of 51.136" per year (simply caused by the Earth’s motion around its PVP orbit).

51.136 X 2112 = 108000" (or 1/12th of 1296000", i.e. 360°).

And 51.136" X 25344 = 1296000" (i.e. 360°)

For more explanations as to how the TYCHOS duration of the Great Year was determined, please go to Chapter 11 of my book - and read it carefully.

Ok thanks again Simon,
But - this is only our “perception” of the stars/zodiac of constellations, correct?
As far as Tychos or the official “science” goes, the stars aren’t actually shifting 30° every 2112 years, right?
This section in Chapter 2 which talks about perception of binary star systems for example - this means the movement of the stars is barely perceptible, correct?

Thanks

That’s right, the so-called “proper motion” (in any given x, y, z direction) of the various stars is minuscule - and is typically in the order of only 0.1" arc seconds per year.

Proper Motion is the apparent angular motion of a star across the sky with respect to more distant stars. Typical proper motion is ~0.1 arcsec/year . Largest: 10.25 arcsec/yr (Barnard’s Star).

Simon,
I’m responding with sort of a divergent thread. This probably isn’t the right thread to post under, but since it’s related to the long periods of time and the Tychos Great Year I figured would respond here with a few more questions related to the Milankovitch cycles. I was wondering if you have any thoughts or could elaborate on the “eccentricity,” “obliquity,” and “precession” periods inherent to the Milankovitch cycle.

Now, does the Tychos accept some eccentricity of orbit? Is there a percentage or number that reflects the shift from earth’s more circular to less circular orbit that you addressed in the Tychos, or that is correctly reckoned by the science/physics community? Also, it seems the Milankovitch cycle uses heliocentric/Keplerian logic when describing cosmic motions - how can this be translated into the language of the Tychos?

Something interesting I found is that the Milankovitch “eccentricity” is related to the Tychos 25,344 yr Great Year. I don’t know if you or others have already researched this, but, in addition to the “eccentricity” cycle of 405,000 years, the “obliquity” of 41,000 years is also “resonant” or “synchronous” with other Tychos numbers, at least as concerning Mars.

Ex:

41,000 / 16 = 2562.5.
2562.5 is about 34.5 more than 2528.
2528 is 32 x Mars’ 79-year cycle.
34.5 / 2 = 17.25

or:

41,000 / 32 = 1281.25
1281.25 is close to 1264 (1264 = 16x79 [16 x Mars 79-year cycle]).
1281.25 is 17.25 greater than 1264.
17.25 reminds me of the alternating 15/17/15/15/17 cycle of Mars’ oppositions.

It’s also worth noting that 2528/2562.5 = 0.986
In other words, is it possible that the .01% discrepancy is a margin of error?
It’s very strange that this “obliquity” cycle very closely parallels Mars.

If we look at 34.5 / 15 = 2.3, this is somewhat slightly more than the two 15/15 year periods.
Regardless, the alternations from 15+17 add to 32, or, 15+15 = 30, so again, 34.5 is close to both of these, which is strange.

And lastly, 41,000 / 25,344 = 1.6177
In other words, the so-called obliquity cycle is 1.6 x the 25,344 Great Year.
This proportion is strangely resonant with the 1.6 km/h orbital speed of earth.
Which is tying right back into sacred geometry and the phi / golden ratio number 1.618 almost exactly.

Also, the “precession” cycles between 19,000-26,000 years sure seem to align with the 25,344 Great Year cycle, clearly. 41,000 is 0.808% of two Great Years at 50,688 (while 50,688 is 1.23% of 41,000). This is once again curiously synchronous with the “mean variation coefficient” of 0.8 in chp. 14. This ties to the “8 km/h vs 0.8 km/h” argument in chp. 24 regarding the Michelson-Morley measurements.
Once again if we take 41,000 yr Milankovitch “obliquity” cycle / 51,000 yr Mars Great Year = 0.8, as this is close to the 50,688 of two Tychos Great Years.

I don’t know what else to make of these similarities, but, I do find it interesting that Mars is associated with war, destruction, and wolves, from Babylonian Nergal to Germanic Tyr/Tiw from which we get Tuesday, and, that this association with destruction may relate to the “volatile” variations of climate (every 41,000 years).

Hello,
This is my first time on Github and I had to go through the full verification process just to ask a question. My question is really left field but I hope that you will be patient as it concerns ancient Gematria etc. First let me say that I like the Tychos model very much and it makes sense to me. The ancients knew of the Great Precession which is related to the 360 degree Babylonian circle and possibly the Sexagesimal system. Following Newton’s calculation each degree is 72 years which according to some tracts equates to the “72 names of God” blah, and the 72 nations in Gen 10 LXX. But the MSS has 70 (Sanhedrin) etc. That info is by way of background to demonstrate that the ancients were aware of the Great Precession Year and it featured in their myths. Now for something entirely different before I ask my question have a look at this diagram which represents the standard value of Genesis 1:1 in the Hebrew.

1 Like

Now, the above diagram is a simplification because there are a number of other factors all relating to 37 (which is the standard value of the Hebrew wisdom, the ordinal value is 73). Now comes the question (lolz) eventually. When I watched the video with Diamond on (Oppenheimer ranch I think) I misheard the precession calculation as 25,334 not as 25, 344. I then proceeded to delve into the wrong number and found amazing (coincidental???) connections. Then I went to look at the Tychos documentation and saw that I had made (to my disappointment) a mistake.

Here is what I originally wrote before I noticed that I was working with the wrong figure.

25,334

The product of its digits is 360, while the sum is 17. The number 153 is the 17th triangular number (the mega fish of Jon 21:11). Of course this intrigued me with regards to the creation narrative the first verse in Genesis encoding the word wisdom the 37th triangular number a triangle of 703 dots within the larger verse matrix of 2701 dots consisting of Gen 1:1a “In the beginning God created the heaven” (=1,998=3*666)and Gen 1:1 b “and the earth” (=703).

25,334/360 = 70.37222222

Do you spot 703 and 37 as well as 72 and of course 22 (first and last)?

Is this then a coincidence? When we subtract the values of Gen 1:1a and Gen 1:b we achieve unusual symmetry, which when summed with the reverse delivers a solution whose first four digits and last four digits (both beginning with eight) gives us the value of the tetragrammaton (yhwh) which is 26.

25334-1998=23,336 (23,336+63,332) =86,668= 8+6+6+6 (adding four digits from either end is 26)

23,336-703=22,633

=================
I bet you can figure out my question? (lolz). Could you be ten years out? 25,334 fits elegantly with the ancients penchant for sacred geometry.

1 Like

Very interesting. I wonder if 25,334 was man’s attempt to square the proverbial circle which may be closer to 25,344? Maybe 25,344 indicates an irregularity or irrationality (like the pi and phi numbers, as well as 153, 37, 137 and so many others you mentioned and mentioned in the Tychos). Numbers/arithmetic is an “abstraction” that best mirrors/stands in for our observations. Do perfect circles really exist, or, is 360° the most convenient and useful number for us when describing “circles?” and so on. Every time I get on this forum I think of the Procrustean bed - either we’re trying to stretch our numbers to match nature, or we’re rounding off and generalizing to keep them within a symbolic picture of nature. Ex: the whole ancient proof that 22/7 is slightly greater than Pi.

The Babylonians were already calculating the square root out of 2 in about 1600 BC (before the Greeks) and they had a Sexagesimal system. See here: https://www.biblaridion.info/video/bab-math.pdf
The proto-Siniatic (paleo-Hebrew) alphabet has 22 letters and the number 7 is constantly used to structure narratives. The ancients loved to reverse image numbers, and sum them, create numerical palindromes etc. you might enjoy this presentation: https://www.biblaridion.info/video/Egypt%20redux.pdf I believe that the Precession Cycle was extremely important to their cosmogony and the basis of much of their religion because repeat cycles of catastrophe were understood as punishment from the gods. I just wondered if the calculation might be 10 years out or whether the ancients were 10 years out? They were pretty good with their numbers.

1 Like