Falsifying the model

Any new theory needs to proof itself against merits of the existing ones and the existing theories need to be resilient to the new ones.

Below picture  created by Michael Paukner perfectly explains the process to get to a new scientific theory. It is another representation of the Scientific theory on Wikipedia .

One of the questions in this diagram is: Does the evidence support the idea?

To answer this question, I would actually like to turn it around: Can you find evidence to disproof the idea?

As consultant I have led many big projects/ programs and dealt with all sort of biases . To tackle the conformation bias, let’s therefore search for evidence to falsify the model in this chapter.

original picture can be found on sketchplanations 

1. The current orbital eccentricity theory does not fit the model completely

   According to the theory Earth’s eccentricity fluctuates between approximately 0.0047 and 0.0747 over long periods . These variations occur in cycles, with the major component having a period of about ~400k years.

   The formula as provided by Astronomer William Harkness predicts the Earth’s eccentricity almost with a linear straight line going down until the year ~27,000 AD. See e.g. the graph on the Wikipedia page . The formula predicted a J2000 value of 0.0167089 but according to NASA the J2000 value was 0.01671022 which to me indicates the formula is indeed wrong just like predicted in this model.

   The source of the current eccentricity theory as shown in the picture in chapter 6 is based upon the study done by Bretagnon  who published a paper in 1984 including formula calculations of orbital eccentricity over long period of time.

   I could not find the study and especially the methods used and how he came to the conclusions. Additionally he might have made the prediction for the J2000 value to be 0.0167089 which turns out to be 0.01671022 which would mean his model is not completely correct.

   Currently we do not have enough data about the true movement of the eccentricity so we can’t verify if Bretagnon study is correct.

   So only time will tell if the current orbital eccentricity theory is correct or if eccentricity indeed follows the perihelion precession cycle.

2. The planet orbits are not 100% completely as observed in the Interactive 3D Solar System Simulation

   This is correct. I mostly focused this model on the movement of Earth in our solar system and the perihelion movements of the planets, but all planet are already added according to their scientific details. They can however be improved.

   More importantly, the perihelion points and movements of the planets are added so adding the correct planet movements on top of it should be quite easy.

   I think we first need to agree on the correct movement of the Sun and once that is done, we can focus on the correct movement of all planets perihelion points, and only then we can add the planets correctly.

3. If the planet orbits are not 100% as observed in the Interactive 3D Solar System Simulation, why would Earth’s precession movements be fully correct?

   All movements of Earth are modelled in three.js. There are however two orbital elements missing as features:

   • Kepler 1st law: Ellipse shaped orbits
   • Kepler 2nd law: Speeding up and down

   The movements of Earth around the EARTH-WOBBLE-CENTER or the PERIHELION-OF-EARTH around the Sun could indeed be ellipse shaped/ speeding up and down.

   The trend however will be exactly the same: Inclination and Axial movements work upon each other in a balanced system. I therefore don’t think these features will disturb the model.

4. The distance from Earth to EARTH-WOBBLE-CENTER is arbitrary chosen.

   This is really a valid argument because we could have select other options.

   The length of the Holistic-Year has been set as 298,176 years in the Holistic Universe Model to meet up with the observed behaviour of the difference between the sidereal day and stellar day, and the resulting difference between the solar year and sidereal years. Additionally it aligns with the movement of the longitude of perihelion of Earth and Mercury. As a result the distance from Earth to EARTH-WOBBLE-CENTER has to be in the in the ratio 1:324.5 compared to the mean distance from Earth to the PERIHELION-OF-EARTH.

   The current modelled value of the Holistic-Year however can be modified. The consequence would be all movements change so if you find a better number feel free. The basics of the model will not change.

5. The link from the 3D model to the excel is too weak

   The excel contains all input parameters as used in the Interactive 3D Solar System Simulation.

   In my view it sufficiently grounded.

6. The link within the excel to the length of days & years is weak

   First of all the link is based upon the mean length of a solar year (6,806,655 solar days in 18,636 years). Second of all the link is based upon the longitude of perihelion value related to the length of the solar day in seconds. And Thirdly there is a inversely connection between the movement of the perihelion and the length of the solar day.

   The rest of the excel calculations are based upon the inversely proportional connection between the solar year in days and the sidereal year in seconds.

   In my view it sufficiently grounded.

7. Why would the Axial- and Inclination tilt both be ~0.564°?

   In a balanced system forces work upon each other but need to balance out at one moment in time. If one of these forces is stronger than the other, the end result will be another balance at one moment in time.

   The balanced system described in this book is a system based upon two counter forces working upon each other and which is already balanced for quite some time (one million years).

   That does make you wonder what’s the actual driver of the two movements? Will it stop at one moment in time?

8. There are no perpetual motion machines, so you cannot model it this way

   These machines do not exist and yet we are here on Earth, in an endless space which is billions of years old and still no energy shortage and we keep on moving. We have no clue how we ended up here, why we are here, what we are doing here and where we are going.

   There are many mysteries and the mystery of what’s the driver of all movements around us is not known. Closer to us, Earth is rotating on its axis.

   So far I don’t think anyone has discovered we are losing energy on Earth’s orbit around the Sun which ultimately should result in a complete stop. Modelling it this way therefore seems just fine.

9. The stars do not move in the interactive 3D solar system simulation

   The interactive 3D solar system simulation is modelled in such a way as-if the stars are fixed in their position.

   The distances are that big, we hardly see them moving. This is not only valid in this model but also in the currently accepted heliocentric model.

10. It seems all that simple - almost too good to be true

    A model that simple which explains obliquity, eccentricity, inclination, all precession movements and length of days & years must be wrong.

    There is however the Occam’s Razor  theory which mentions “of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred”.

    The current model is way too complex. There are not many people understanding it and it is very hard to even grasp the surface.

    Simpler models are preferred over complex models.

I can’t think of all arguments by myself so feel free to shoot holes in the model.