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, and even visited Cape Canaveral in Florida. I was a true believer in the heliocentric model, 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, exploration, and astrophysical theories.

My career took a different direction. I started working for major consultancy firms 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 thing: making complex stuff simple and clear so the smart people around me can 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 it be completed?

I also try to stay as independent as possible so I’m less likely to fall into groupthink. Over the years, I’ve noticed that groupthink is one of the main reasons organizations hit a wall. Sometimes, you just need a fresh perspective to get things back on track.

While my assignments often place me in highly specialized environments, I still consider myself a generalist at heart. This generalist 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 the 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 space is really tough for me to follow too, especially all those formulas! But with the help of modern AI tools, things have started to make a lot more sense. These tools also helped me translate all the currently established formulas, which has greatly facilitated my understanding. My 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 on the true form of our solar system. 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” (opens in a new tab)

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. This raises questions about the validity of the heliocentric model.

This doesn’t mean I think the heliocentric model is entirely wrong—far from it. But it does 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 version of our universe in the Tychosium software, integrating the latest scientific data.

After diving into all the available evidence, I found that I agree with some parts of the Tychos model. But there are also quite a few areas where I just can’t get on board:

1. The Tychos puts the precession-of-the-equinoxes cycle at 25,344 years, but I couldn’t find anything solid to back that up.
2. The Tychos defines a certain size for the precession orbit (called the PVP orbit), but based on my research, I came to a much smaller size.
3. The Tychos says Earth tilts outward on its PVP orbit—meaning the orbiting point is above Earth’s path. My findings are the opposite. I think the tilt is toward the CENTER.
4. The Tychos claims that solar bodies don’t move in elliptical orbits, only circular ones. But from everything I’ve looked at, that’s not the case. Some solar bodies clearly follow elliptical paths – it’s a well-documented fact.
5. The Tychos suggests Mars is actually a binary companion to the Sun. I just don’t see it. As far as I can tell, Mars is simply one of the planets orbiting the Sun—nothing more, nothing less.
6. The Tychos also makes comparisons between the Sun and Sirius. Honestly, that feels like a bit of a stretch. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it seems more like an interesting theory than something solid.
7. The Tychos model firmly rejects the heliocentric view, and at first, I agreed with that bold stance. However, I’ve come to realize that it’s difficult for someone outside the field to make such a definitive claim. This is a discussion that needs to remain open for debate.

Apart from the differences in theory between the Tychos book and this work, 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. They seem more like rough estimates without background or justification. Most importantly, the model doesn’t align with existing scientific evidence, which I believe we can’t afford to overlook.

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 existing heliocentric model and in 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 universe model described in this book is not that hard to understand and together with the 3D simulator and the related Excel sheet, 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 connect. My goal is to challenge that perspective.

Another fundamental aspect of this model is 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 sense to me.

I’m not sure if the dummy universe model should really be classified as heliocentric or geo-heliocentric - I’ll leave that open for debate. However, this model is structured and calculated using a geo-heliocentric frame of reference (opens in a new tab).

According to general relativity, it shouldn’t matter whether we take Earth or the Sun as the reference point, the physics remains the same.

Additionally, whether the universe is geo-heliocentric or heliocentric does not affect the findings I present in this book. The model holds true in either case.

What is the universe model described in this book?

• The universe operates in balanced cycles over long periods of time.
• Axial precession occurs because Earth moves around a CENTER near us in a clockwise direction. This CENTER may be physical or gravitational.
• Inclination precession (a.k.a. apsidal precession) happens due to the Sun’s HELION POINT moving counter clockwise around a similar CENTER. This HELION POINT could also be physical or gravitational.
• These two major movements — Axial and Inclination precession — are responsible for all observable motions on Earth.
• Axial and inclination precession interact in a Fibonacci ratio of 3:13, producing a repeating cycle of 16 ‘Perihelion precession’ periods. This full cycle is what I call the Great-Great-Year.
• The Great-Great-Year spans 305,760 years, which aligns with the long-term climate cycles we experience on Earth (101,920-year intervals).
• This 305,760-year cycle applies not just to Earth, but also to the Moon and all our solar system planets.
• The precession we CURRENTLY observe isn’t a MEAN value — it reflects short-term fluctuations driven by the Perihelion precession.
• The Perihelion precession governs the length of days, years, and all other observable precession movements.
• Earth's inclination and axial tilt influence each other, shaping the obliquity cycle.
• Eccentricity results from Earth’s motion around the CENTER, which alters its distance to the HELION POINT.
• In 1246 AD, the HELION POINT and the solstice aligned, meaning that the solar year (in days) and the sidereal year (in seconds) reflected their mean values.
• By the year 2000 AD, the actual HELION POINT (longitude of perihelion) had shifted further than what we observe because Earth is moving in the opposite direction.
• The solar day determines the length of the solar year.
• The difference between the sidereal day and what I call ‘True Sidereal Day’ (almost similar to the Stellar day) leads to the length of the sidereal year.
• The length of a solar day is inversely proportional to the movement of the longitude of perihelion.
• 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 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. At some point, either the model will be proven wrong, or it will stand on its own, even convincing those holding tightly to Einstein’s view of the universe.

For anyone curious to verify things for themselves, I’ve created the 3D dummy universe 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 1,000 years or so, the results match existing data. But over longer periods, the numbers diverge. For example, my calculations for eccentricity cycles differ from current theories. While they line up in the short term, they gradually drift apart after 1,000 years.

Writing this book has been a 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 two and a half years researching and working hard—on top of my day job and 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.

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.”

Before I wrap up, I just want to say: I’m not an astronomer by trade. I don’t see myself stepping into that role either. Think of me as the guy working quietly in the background, nudging things in the right direction. I’m here to offer a new perspective, not to take the center stage.

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