Testable Predictions

The Holistic Universe Model produces specific predictions about astronomical values that differ from conventional theory. These predictions can be tested against future observations.

Near-Term Predictions (Decades)

These predictions could show measurable differences within the next 50-200 years.

1. Mercury’s “Missing” Perihelion Precession Will Decrease

Current theory: Mercury’s perihelion precession includes a ~43 arcsecond/century contribution from relativistic effects (General Relativity). This value has been stable at ~43″ since Newcomb’s 1882 measurement.

Model prediction: The “missing” precession may be due to Earth’s wobble on its Axial Precession Orbit rather than space-time curvature.

What actually changes: Mercury’s precession can be measured against two reference directions (both in the ecliptic plane):

• ~575″/century — relative to fixed stars (ICRF), the inertial frame defined by distant quasars
• ~5,604″/century — relative to the moving vernal equinox (~575 + ~5,028.8 equinox drift from Earth’s axial precession)

The equinox-based value (~5,604″) is what was historically measured on Earth. The model predicts this value will decrease by ~4.5″/century:

The ICRF values (~575″) and anomaly (~43″) are derived by subtracting the equinox drift. Since the Newtonian contribution (~532″) is constant, the “anomaly” decreases accordingly.

Falsifiability: This is a clear test between the two interpretations:

• If geocentric precession remains constant at ~575 + 5,028.8 = ~5,604″/century: Standard GR explanation is supported, model’s alternative is refuted
• If geocentric precession decreases from ~5,601″ toward ~5,597″/century: Model’s explanation is supported

Near-term test — BepiColombo: ESA’s BepiColombo  mission arrives at Mercury on 21 November 2026 (delayed from Dec 2025 due to thruster issues), with routine science operations starting April 2027. The MORE (Mercury Orbiter Radio science Experiment) instrument will measure Mercury’s orbit with 1–2 orders of magnitude better precision than MESSENGER. The model predicts BepiColombo will measure ~574.69″/century or lower versus MESSENGER’s 575.31″/century — a difference of 0.62″/century, which is ~400× larger than MESSENGER’s measurement uncertainty (±0.0015″/century). This makes it the quickest available test of the model’s Mercury prediction.

See Mercury Precession: The BepiColombo Test for a detailed breakdown of the two possible outcomes and what each would mean for the model. See also Scientific Background for the full scientific discussion including academic critiques.

2. RA at Maximum Declination Will Shift from 6h

Current observation: The Sun’s maximum declination (June solstice), when expressed in ICRF coordinates, occurs near Right Ascension 6h.

Model prediction: This ICRF position peaked at exactly 6h in 1246.03125 AD and is now slowly shifting. By ~6,000 AD, the June solstice RA (in ICRF) will be ~5h58m22s.

The underlying pattern follows a 41,915-year cycle driven by obliquity and inclination interference:

What this predicts: The model claims that the Sun’s celestial position at the moment of maximum declination, when expressed in ICRF coordinates (not precessing equatorial coordinates), varies slightly over millennia. This would manifest as a very small timing offset in when the Sun reaches its northernmost point relative to the fixed stars.

Verification method: Testing requires:

1. Expressing the Sun’s position in ICRF at each solstice
2. Tracking whether the ICRF position varies systematically over centuries
3. Precision of ~1 arcsecond over centuries (currently achievable)

The current shift rate is ~17 arcseconds per century (accelerating as we move away from the 1246.03125 AD peak), well within modern astrometric precision.

3. Jupiter and Saturn Perihelion Trends Will Continue

Current prediction (WebGeocalc): Jupiter and Saturn’s perihelion precession rates are predicted to change pattern.

Model prediction: The current trends will simply continue as-is without pattern change.

The model predicts perihelion precession periods of H/5 = 67,063 years for Jupiter (prograde) and H/8 = 41,915 years for Saturn (retrograde) in the ecliptic frame, connected through the Fibonacci identity 3 + 5 = 8 (see Fibonacci Laws). Saturn’s observed ecliptic-retrograde rate is ~−3,400″/cy (WebGeoCalc), consistent with the model’s prediction.

The key disagreement: Standard theory attributes Saturn’s ecliptic-retrograde motion to a transient phase of the Great Inequality — an ~883-year oscillation from the Jupiter-Saturn 5:2 resonance — which should reverse within ~450 years. The model treats it as permanent. For Jupiter, the disagreement is in period: secular theory implies ~305,000 years vs the model’s 67,063 years. Jupiter’s observed inclination trend favours the shorter period (~3″/cy error vs ~8.5″/cy). See Supporting Evidence §14 and §9 for the full analysis.

4. Neptune’s Ecliptic Inclination Trend

Current JPL trend: Neptune’s ecliptic inclination is increasing.

Model prediction: Neptune’s ecliptic inclination is decreasing. This is the only planet where the model and current JPL trend figures disagree on the direction of inclination change. For all other seven planets, the model’s predicted inclination trends match JPL’s observed directions.

Important context: Neptune’s inclination trend is the least well-constrained of any planet. Neptune was discovered in 1846, completed its first full orbit only in 2011, and has no continuous spacecraft ranging data (only the single Voyager 2 flyby in 1989). JPL’s own inclination rate for Neptune changes by 60% depending on the fit interval used (Table 1 vs Table 2a). With barely one orbital period of observations and position uncertainties of “several thousand kilometers” (Folkner et al. 2014), Neptune’s inclination direction is far less certain than for the other seven planets.

This disagreement will require decades of continued observation to resolve definitively. See Supporting Evidence for the full analysis of Neptune’s observational limitations.

Medium-Term Predictions (Centuries)

These predictions would become measurable over several centuries.

5. Obliquity

Current theory: Obliquity (23.4392° in 2000 AD) will decrease until year 13,900 AD, reaching a minimum of ~22.6° (per Chapront et al. & Laskar formulas).

Model prediction: The model agrees with current theory through year ~11,800 AD. The obliquity will reach minimum ~22.14° and then rise again.

6. Longitude of Perihelion

Current theory: J. Meeus’s formula calculates longitude of perihelion, with solstice-perihelion alignment in 1246.03125 AD.

Model prediction: The model matches Meeus’s formula closely until ~3000 AD. After that, values diverge significantly.

7. Gregorian Calendar Drift

Current situation: The Gregorian calendar year (365.2425 days) doesn’t match the actual solar year (~365.24219 days).

Model prediction:

• By year 6486 AD: June solstice will be on June 17, 20:00 UTC
• By year 11,725 AD: June solstice will be on June 17, 10:00 UTC (4 days earlier than today)

8. Analemma Shape Changes

Current understanding: The analemma (figure-8 pattern of the Sun’s position) depends on perihelion position, eccentricity, and obliquity.

Model prediction: The analemma will shift forward in time with the perihelion precession cycle. Its width changes with eccentricity (20,957-year cycle), while its length changes with obliquity (fluctuating between 22.14° and 24.69°).

9. Axial Precession Period Will Reach a Minimum, Then Increase

Current theory: The axial precession period is decreasing and will continue to do so until year ~10,000 AD (per Capitaine et al. formula).

Model prediction: The axial precession period is currently below the mean (~25,771 years vs mean ~25,794 years) and still decreasing. Both the model and standard theory agree on this current trend. The key difference: the model predicts the period will reach a minimum and then increase again back toward the mean, unlike the Capitaine formula which predicts continued monotonic decrease.

The key difference: Both agree the period is currently decreasing. The model predicts an eventual reversal (increase) that the Capitaine formula does not predict. The underlying cause is the interaction between lengthening day and shortening solar year.

Long-Term Predictions (Millennia)

These predictions distinguish the model from conventional theory over thousands of years.

10. Eccentricity (Key Differentiator)

Current theory: Earth’s orbital eccentricity (0.01671 in 2000 AD) will decrease toward ~0 by year ~27,000 AD.

Model prediction: Eccentricity will reach minimum of ~0.0140 much earlier - around year 11,725 AD - and then increase again.

Why this matters: This is a sharp divergence from current theory. If eccentricity begins rising around 11,725 AD, it would be strong evidence for the model.

11. Inclination

Current theory: Earth’s inclination to the invariable plane (1.578° in 2000 AD) will decrease, but no minimum is predicted.

Model prediction: Inclination will decrease to minimum ~0.845° in year 32,682 AD, then increase again in a 111,772-year cycle.

12. Earth Rotation / Length of Day / Delta-T

Current theory: Earth’s rotation is generally slowing due to tidal friction, causing the mean solar day to grow longer than 86,400 SI seconds.

Model prediction: LOD will slightly increase until ~6,000 AD, then decrease until ~23,000 AD, before increasing again. Short-term fluctuations (like the 2020–2022 speedup) occur around this long-term trend.

Delta-T implications: The model predicts LOD varies cyclically over millennia, which would affect the long-term accumulation of Delta-T.

Sidereal day and stellar day implications: Both sidereal day and stellar day follow the same cyclical pattern as solar day.

13. Solar Year Length in Days

Current theory (Laskar): Solar year in days is slowly decreasing until year 10,900 AD (based on fixed 86,400-second day).

Model prediction: Solar year in days will decrease until 12,300 AD.

14. Sidereal Year in Seconds

Current theory (Chapront et al.): Sidereal year in seconds is slowly increasing until year 15,600 AD.

Model prediction: The sidereal year in seconds is fixed at 31,558,149.76 seconds - it’s the anchor point of the model.

15. All Precession Movements Are Related

Current theory: Different precession movements (ecliptic, axial, etc.) are largely unrelated to each other.

Model prediction: All precession movements are related and follow a clear pattern repeating every 20,957-year perihelion cycle.

Structural Predictions

These predictions relate to the model’s framework rather than time-varying parameters.

16. Invariable Plane Tilt

Model prediction: Earth’s path relative to the invariable plane has a mean tilt of ~1.48128° with amplitude ~0.63603°. This specific value should be observable and shared by all planetary movements.

Additionally, Jupiter and Saturn precession will be found to be directly connected:

• Jupiter’s precession = Determines Earth’s Ecliptic precession

• Saturn’s precession = Determines Earth’s Obliquity cycle

Saturn is unique among the planets in two ways: it is the only planet whose perihelion precesses retrograde in the ecliptic frame (confirmed by JPL WebGeoCalc at ~-3400 arcsec/century; see Supporting Evidence §14), and it is the only planet that is anti-phase — its inclination reaches maximum when all other planets are at minimum (at the balanced year). This places Saturn alone in the anti-phase group, while all seven other planets belong to the in-phase group. Each planet has its own per-planet phase angle (its ICRF perihelion longitude at the balanced year), but the in-phase/anti-phase distinction defines whether the planet is at MIN or MAX inclination at that moment. These two groups are not arbitrary: the angular-momentum-weighted inclination amplitudes of the in-phase group and the anti-phase group cancel to 100% (with dual-balanced eccentricities), keeping the invariable plane balanced. Saturn single-handedly carries the entire anti-phase side of this balance. The same two groups also satisfy an independent eccentricity balance condition (100%). See Fibonacci Laws: Derivation for the full derivation.

In the 3D Simulation , you can explore this balance visually via Tools > Invariable Plane Inspector.

Climate Prediction

17. Temperature Trends

Model prediction: As inclination tilt decreases and axial tilt approaches its midpoint, the warmer period will end, transitioning toward a longer ice age period.

18. Planet Obliquity Cycles (Two-Component Structure)

Model prediction: Every planet with an obliquity cycle follows the same two-component structure as Earth. The obliquity is the sum of two cosines with equal amplitude — one at the ICRF perihelion period (inclination component, negative sign) and one at the obliquity cycle period (positive sign):

obliquity(t) = mean − A × cos(ICRF period) + A × cos(obliquity cycle)

Three obliquity cycles are already confirmed by observation:

Three remain as testable predictions:

Venus and Neptune have rate numerator 1 (cannot decompose into a Fibonacci sum) — correctly predicting no obliquity cycle, consistent with observations (Venus tidally damped, Neptune frozen).

Mean obliquity: The time-averaged obliquity (over the Grand Holistic Octave = 8H) differs from the J2000 value. A notable finding: Mars and Saturn have nearly identical mean obliquities (26.81° vs 26.80°), despite very different J2000 values (25.19° vs 26.73°). See Obliquity: A Universal Pattern for the full analysis.

Summary: Verification Pathways

The quickest ways to test this model would be:

1. BepiColombo data (~2027): The model predicts ~574.69″/century or lower versus MESSENGER’s 575.31″/century — a 0.62″/century difference, ~400× larger than measurement uncertainty
2. Noticing the RA at max obliquity beginning to shift from 6h
3. Monitoring Mercury’s geocentric precession — the model predicts decrease; GR predicts it stays constant

Only time will tell if these predictions prove correct.

← Supporting Evidence