Preface

I’ve been fascinated by space for as long as I can remember. As a kid, I read tons of books, watched every space-related TV show I could find (fiction and non-fiction), went to expositions, happily visited Cape Canaveral in Florida and working at NASA was my ultimate dream. Though a NASA career was out of reach, I always kept an eye on the latest developments in space technology and astrophysical theories.

My career took a totally different direction. I started working for a major consultancy firm and eventually became a fully independent freelance consultant, specializing in solving tricky problems. Across all my assignments, my role always boils down to the same: making complexity simple and clear so the smart people around me know how to fix it.

To tackle complexity, I usually start by creating a “big picture” and often, that’s quite literally just a picture. This picture is designed to answer three fundamental questions:

• What are we going to do?
• How are we going to do it?
• When will we be ready?

I also try to stay as independent as possible so I’m less likely to fall into groupthink or any other kind of cognitive biases . Over the years, I’ve noticed that groupthink is one of the main reasons organizations hit the wall.

original picture can be found on sketchplanations 

While my assignments often place me in highly specialized environments, I still consider myself a generalist at heart. This generalist and cognitive-bias-aware-mind-set isn’t just useful in consulting – it’s something I believe could benefit even the most specialized scientific fields.

Astronomers and astrophysicists have made incredible advancements, but the complexity of space science can sometimes cloud a bigger picture. Just to be clear, this isn’t meant to insult anyone. I have the utmost respect for scientists and all the amazing work they do.

What I’m trying to point out is that today’s scientists tend to be highly specialized in one specific area, which makes it harder for them (or anyone else) to step back and see the whole picture. The degree of specialization has grown so profound that it is often difficult for anyone outside a specific domain to fully grasp its concepts, let alone connect them to a broader framework. This is particularly true when integrating ideas that challenge established norms or lie at the fringes of accepted theories. In such cases, it can be tempting to rely on familiar approaches rather than exploring new perspectives.

I also have to be honest upfront: a lot of what I’ve read about our universe is really tough for me to follow as well, especially all those hard core formulas! But my generalist background has allowed me to comprehend these ideas sufficiently to incorporate them into a broader perspective.

I hope I can bring something new and meaningful to the field with this work.

Then one day in 2022 I accidentally stumbled upon the investigations done by Simon Shack and Patrik Holmqvist. They propose an alternative solar system model, the Tychos, challenging the widely accepted heliocentric view. It consists basically of two parts working together: The book “The Tychos, Our Geoaxial Binary Solar System and the companion 3D model “The Tychosium” 

In short, unlike the heliocentric model, the Tychos suggests Earth does not revolve around the Sun. Instead, the Sun orbits Earth, while the other planets orbit the Sun. Additionally precession is explained by a relatively slow movement of Earth around a so-called PVP orbit. It is based upon a geo-heliocentric model of our universe as created by Tycho Brahe (1546 – 1601).

The book and 3D model resonated with me because they offer an alternative explanation for what we see and experience when looking at the stars. Despite extensive measurements, no direct evidence of Earth’s movement through space has ever been detected. It did make me wonder if science followed one path when another, competing idea might have been the better direction to follow.

Inspired by the Tychos book, I began modelling my own 3D version of our universe by integrating all known scientific facts.

Although it has been really inspiring to see and explore the new universe model as described in the Tychos book, after diving into all the evidence available and integrating all scientific facts myself in my own 3D version, I come however to total different conclusions. We still live in a heliocentric universe. It is just modelled from Earth’s point of view.

Apart from my objections to the theory, there are also discrepancies in the related Tychosium 3D simulation. In my view, many of the numbers in the Tychos 3D model aren’t explained by the theory at all. They seem more like rough estimates without background or justification. Most importantly, the Tychos model doesn’t align with existing scientific evidence.

We KNOW obliquity changes over time. We KNOW there is eccentricity, inclination, a measurable precession of the perihelion and variations in the length of day. These are well-documented scientific phenomena. While these elements are present in the heliocentric model and the model described in this book, they’re absent in the Tychos model.

If you’re not familiar with the terminology used in the heliocentric model, I highly recommend checking out this excellent resource I found: Introduction to Astronomy and cosmology . It’s a great overview of the current heliocentric theory.

The model described in this book is not that hard to understand and together with the Interactive 3D Solar System Simulation, you can verify the working for yourself.

The core idea behind the model comes from how nature works. In ecosystems, everything is connected. If you mess with one part, it affects the rest. I see the universe the same way. For example, I believe the length of one type of day or year (like the anomalistic year) ties into the precession of another (such as the precession of the ecliptic). But in the current heliocentric model, nothing seems to be connected. My goal is to challenge that perspective.

Another fundamental aspect of this model is the presence of the Golden Spiral, a pattern found throughout nature. From the grand structure of galaxies to the design of a sunflower, this spiral appears consistently. So why wouldn’t our solar system follow that same natural pattern? It just makes more sense to me.

The Interactive 3D Solar System Simulation is modelled from a geo-heliocentric frame of reference . According to general relativity, it shouldn’t matter whether we take Earth or the Sun as the reference point, the physics remains the same.

What is the essence of the model described in this book?

• The universe operates in balanced cycles over long periods of time.
• The two major movements — Axial and Inclination precession — are responsible for all observable motions on Earth.
• Axial precession moves clockwise and inclination precession moves counter clockwise in a repeating cycle of one Holistic-Year.
• Axial and inclination precession interact in a Fibonacci ratio of 3:13, resulting in a repeating cycle of 16 ‘Perihelion precession’ cycles in one Holistic-Year.
• The Holistic-Year spans 298,176 years, which aligns with the long-term climate cycles we experience on Earth (three times 99,392 years = 298,176 years).
• This 298,176-year cycle applies not just to Earth, but also to the Moon and all our solar system planets.
• The precession movements we CURRENTLY observe aren’t the MEAN values. They are all governed by the repeating Perihelion precession cycles.
• Earth’s inclination tilt and axial tilt influence each other, resulting in the obliquity cycle.
• Our Earth is wobbling clockwise around the EARTH-WOBBLE-CENTER in one Axial precession cycle.
• The PERIHELION-OF-EARTH is wobbling counter clockwise around the Sun in one Inclination precession cycle.
• Earth orbits the PERIHELION-OF-EARTH in one solar year. This perihelion point is just outside the Sun and shows as eccentricity.
• The eccentricity changes because Earth is wobbling around the EARTH-WOBBLE-CENTER, which alters its distance to the PERIHELION-OF-EARTH.
• On 14 December 1245 AD, the PERIHELION-OF-EARTH and the December solstice aligned, meaning that the solar year (in days) and the sidereal year (in seconds) reflected their mean values.
• By the June solstice in year 2000 AD, the PERIHELION-OF-EARTH (longitude of perihelion) as seen from the EARTH-WOBBLE-CENTER, had already shifted further (~105.8°=07h03m17s) than the PERIHELION-OF-EARTH as seen from Earth (~102.95°=06h51m48s) resulting in an experienced longer than average duration of Axial Precession.
• The length of the solar day is connected to the length of the solar year.
• The difference between the sidereal day and the stellar day is connected to the length of the sidereal year.
• All durations of observed precession, day lengths, and yearly cycles can be calculated with high precision using this model.

I’ve created the overview picture below to give you a better sense of how everything is connected.

I know that for anyone familiar with the heliocentric model, a lot of what I’ve said so far might sound strange, maybe even absurd. But I hope to take you along on this journey, showing my reasoning step by step, backed by scientific evidence and references.

One thing I realized while developing this model is that certain terms could use a refresh. If we’re going to rethink how we should see the universe, it makes sense to rethink the language too. I propose renaming some terms and introducing new ones to reflect the connections between different types of days, years, and precessions. The goal is simple: Let’s make it easier for everyone to grasp the wonders of our universe.

I don’t expect this model to be welcomed with open arms right away. In fact, I’m sure some astrophysicists will scrutinize it heavily. That’s fine. To address that, I have added a lot of predictions that can eventually be tested in time. At some point, either the model will be proven wrong, or it will stand on its own. The proof is in the pudding.

For anyone curious to verify things for themselves, I’ve created the Interactive 3D Solar System Simulation and an Excel sheet as part of this project. I’ve done my best to align the model with the latest scientific measurements, at least in the RELATIVELY SHORT TERM. Over the next 500 years or so, the results match with existing theories. But over longer periods, the numbers diverge. For example, my calculations for eccentricity cycles differ from current theories. While they line up on the short term, they gradually drift apart after 500 years.

Writing this book has been a major challenge. Developing a new model, illustrating it, writing, revising, and making sure it’s understandable took a lot out of me. From the early stages of developing the model to publishing this book, I spent three years researching and working hard—on top of my day job and busy family life. Interestingly, the model sometimes surprised me along the way as well. The final behaviour wasn’t exactly what I imagined at the start, so my conclusions changed as I went along. But looking back, it all feels like it makes sense now.

original picture can be found on sketchplanations 

I can’t count how many times I felt stuck, convinced I’d hit a dead end. But somehow, something always nudged me back on track. It felt almost like the pieces of the puzzle just fell into place when I needed them to. I’m incredibly grateful for that spark of inspiration which kept me going. In the end, the complex model turned out to be quite simple.

”Simple is hard and complex is easy.”

This book will most probably change the way you see life and our universe. It certainly did for me. Enjoy the ride!