Chapter 26: Probing Kapteyn, Hubble and Esclangon

We shall now see how Jacobus Cornelius Kapteyn interpreted the "vexing" issue of negative parallax. From the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"Jacobus Cornelius Kapteyn, (born Jan. 19, 1851, Barneveld, Neth. — died June 18, 1922, Amsterdam), Dutch astronomer who used photography and statistical methods in determining the motions and distribution of stars. While recording the motions of many stars, he discovered the phenomenon of star streaming — i.e., that the peculiar motions (motions of individual stars relative to the mean motions of their neighbours) of stars are not random but are grouped around two opposite, preferred directions in space."

On Kapteyn's all-too-terse Wikipedia page we may read this brief summary of his work: "In 1904, studying the proper motions of stars, Kapteyn reported that these were not random, as it was believed in that time; stars could be divided into two streams, moving in nearly opposite directions. In 1906, Kapteyn launched a plan for a major study of the distribution of stars in the Galaxy, using counts of stars in different directions. The plan involved measuring the apparent magnitude, spectral type, radial velocity, and proper motion of stars in 206 zones. This enormous project was the first coordinated statistical analysis in astronomy and involved the cooperation of over forty different observatories."

I feel compelled to express my warmest gratitude for the stellar work of this brilliant and unassuming man whose lifetime work was ultimately "thrown into the dustbin of history" (much like those of Dayton Miller and Tycho Brahe). If he were still alive today, he would have been my first choice for a "peer-review" of the TYCHOS model - and you will soon understand why. Jacobus Kapteyn is considered as one the world's foremost experts in stellar motions and, in particular, for his exhaustive statistical surveys of the stellar distributions in our cosmos. Under Kapteyn's "Plan of Selected Areas" according to which a number of observatories would coordinate their observational work of selected stellar regions, Kapteyn's astronomical laboratory provided the resources for reduction and analysis of data collected worldwide. His American colleague and friend Frederick H. Seares famously stated that:

"Kapteyn presented the figure of an astronomer without a telescope. More accurately, all the telescopes of the world were his."

In other words, Jacobus Kapteyn had to his disposal a unique wealth of observational data - such as no other astronomer of his time could even dream of. So what exactly, you may now rightly wonder, did Kapteyn ultimately conclude - after decades of methodical studies of the stellar motions? Well, quite simply, Kapteyn found that the stars tend to move in two distinct and diametrically opposed directions. He called this phenomenon "Star-Streaming".

At the time, Kapteyn's discovery obviously caused great astonishment and controversy among the world's scientific community - but no one (including Kapteyn himself!) had any chance to realize and appreciate the world-shattering significance of his findings.

"The well-known Dutch astronomer, Professor Kapteyn, of Groningen, has lately reached the astonishing conclusion that a great part of the visible universe is occupied by two vast streams of stars travelling in opposite directions." Astronomy of To-Day - by Cecil G. Dolmage (1910)

That's right: "TWO VAST STREAMS OF STARS TRAVELLING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS".

Here's another book extract documenting Kapteyn's extraordinary findings:

"Kapteyn and Statistical Astronomy" - by Erich Robert Paul

So what could possibly have led Professor Kapteyn to reach such an "astonishing" conclusion based on his extensive statistical surveys of the observed motions of our stars in the skies? And did Kapteyn submit any theory as to precisely why these "two star streams moving in opposed directions" would even exist? Unfortunately not. And as we shall see, his lifetime work was promptly attacked, defamed and 'destroyed' by a shady (yet highly influential) character by the name of Harlow Shapley.

THE TYCHOS ELUCIDATES KAPTEYN'S "STAR STREAMING"

We shall now see how the TYCHOS model can readily account for what came to be known as "Kapteyn's Universe". Once again, it has to do with Earth's slow motion around its PVP orbit which, of course, Jacobus Kapteyn was wholly unaware of (since he too was a Copernican 'disciple').

My below diagram compares the Copernican model's EXPECTED stellar motions with those EXPECTED by the TYCHOS model. This fundamental difference between the Copernican and the TYCHOS model is essential to understand - so please spend a few minutes assessing this important, comparative graphic:

In short, if stellar precession isn't caused by a clockwise "wobble" of Earth's polar axis - but is caused instead by Earth's clockwise motion around its PVP orbit (which, over just 100 years will have Earth moving along an almost straight line), a Copernican astronomer might conclude that there are two distinct star streams travelling in opposed directions. In fact, this is precisely what Jacobus Kapteyn concluded.

Now, as you may recall, at the end of Chapter 23 I listed a series of quotes from various astronomy literature regarding the estimated "20km/s speed of the stars relatively to our Solar System". We also saw that more modern estimates had adjusted this speed to 19.4km/s (or 69840 km/h) and that, by dividing this value by 42633 (our TYCHOS reduction factor) we obtained: 69840 / 42633 ≈ 1.638 km/h (or just about Earth's orbital speed of 1.601669km/h as proposed by the TYCHOS).

Well, here's what we may read in a book titled "The Legacy of J.C. Kapteyn - studies on Kapteyn and the development of modern astronomy" - by P.C. Van Der Kruit and K. Van Berkel:

"Kapteyn continued with the more literal interpretation in constructing his Universe and interpreted the two streams as two systems rotating in opposite directions. The velocity of the two streams would be around 20 km/s, but in opposite directions." Source

Wow! We really couldn't wish for any better confirmation of the basic concept illustrated in my above diagram, showing how our JOE and JIM will see the stars moving in opposite directions! Evidently, Kapteyn's statistical analyses of the observed motions of our surrounding stars were "seeing" just what the TYCHOS model proposes. Of course, these "opposed motions of Kapteyn's two Star Streams" were illusory - yet his gargantuan lifetime work (which was ultimately thrown into 'history's dustbin') is now finally vindicated by the TYCHOS model.

We shall now take a brief look at the murky character who is said to have 'put to rest' Kapteyn's Star Streaming theory.

ABOUT HARLOW SHAPLEY - KAPTEYN'S 'HANGMAN'

Now, who exactly was this Shapley fellow - whom we may well call "Kapteyn's hangman"? Let's start by reading a few selected extracts from his Wikipedia entry:

"Harlow Shapley (November 2, 1885 – October 20, 1972) was a 20th-century American scientist, head of the Harvard College Observatory (1921–1952), and political activist during the latter New Deal and Fair Deal. (...) He used RR Lyrae stars to correctly estimate the size of the Milky Way Galaxy and the Sun's position within it by using parallax. (...) Shapley was born on a farm in Nashville, Missouri, to Willis and Sarah (née Stowell) Shapley, and dropped out of school with only the equivalent of a fifth-grade education. After studying at home and covering crime stories as a newspaper reporter, Shapley returned to complete a six-year high school program in only two years, graduating as class valedictorian. In 1907, Shapley went to study journalism at the University of Missouri. When he learned that the opening of the School of Journalism had been postponed for a year, he decided to study the first subject he came across in the course directory. Rejecting Archaeology, which Shapley later explained he couldn't pronounce, he chose the next subject, Astronomy."

Harlow Shapley - Wikipedia

Remarkably enough, this failed-journalist-turned-astronomer eventually managed to make a name for himself at the highest levels of astronomy. Here he is being received in the Oval Office by President Roosevelt, happy as a clam:

(Image caption: "Members of the Independent Voters Committee of the Arts and Sciences for Roosevelt visit FDR at the White House (October 1944). From left: Van Wyck Brooks, Hannah Dorner, Jo Davidson, Jan Kiepura, Joseph Cotten, Dorothy Gish, Dr. Harlow Shapley)

In a speech at the American Association of Science in Boston (of which he was the elected president), Shapley was reported to have pronounced the following words: "Of the five worst enemies of mankind, the 'genius maniac' is the most potent killer". Shapley then suggested that "genius could be controlled by killing off, in infancy, all primates that show any evidence of promise or genius, or even talent". No kidding.

This disturbed individual then went on to "disprove" Kapteyn's discoveries by saying, basically, that our Milky Way galaxy is far, far larger than previously believed. At the time, Shapley was assisted by some fellow theoretical astrophysicists who concocted a number of entirely conjectural theories which attempted to explain why some stars are seen to move in the opposite direction of other stars - 'due to their speed differentials around the galactic center' (or something to that effect). In fact, it appears that we have to 'thank' Mr Shapley for having further inflated the size of our galaxy - and further shrunk and demeaned the 'cosmo-philosophical significance' of our 'Pale Blue Dot' (i.e. Mother Earth). After which, the vexing question of Kapteyn's Star Streaming (which seriously threatened to bring down the entire heliocentric edifice) appears to have been definitively swept under the rug.

THE "ASSAULT" ON THE NOTION THAT ALL STARS ARE BINARIES

There was, however, an even greater menace looming upon the heliocentric / Copernican world view: namely, the notion that ALL stars are locked in binary systems. As should now be crystal clear to the reader, if it should eventually emerge that ALL stars (without exception) have one or more binary companions, Copernicanism would be toast. As previously mentioned (in Chapter 3) it was Jacobus Kapteyn who famously stated that...

...if all stars were binaries there would be no need to invoke ‘dark matter’ in the Universe.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, it was once more that fishy Shapley chap who led the 'assault' on the ever-growing evidence pointing to the very distinct possibility that all stars are binaries. The circumstances of this other effort by Shapley to salvage heliocentrism are recounted in a book titled "Analysis of Starlight: Two Centuries of Astronomical Spectroscopy"(1990) by John B. Hearnshaw. At the beginning of the 20th century, a heated debate had flared concerning a type of stars that astronomers refer to as "Cepheid variables". From the Wikipedia: "A Cepheid variable is a type of star that pulsates radially, varying in both diameter and temperature and producing changes in brightness with a well-defined stable period and amplitude. (...) The number of similar variables grew to several dozen by the end of the 19th century, and they were referred to as a class as Cepheids". Now, the problem with these 'radial pulsations' (i.e., Cepheids appear to heftily grow and shrink periodically) is that most Cepheids are believed (by Copernican astronomers) to be hundreds or thousands of light years away; as their reasoning goes, this would rule out the possibility of these Cepheids simply being binary stars periodically eclipsing each other as they revolve around intersecting orbits. This, because it would imply that they move at phenomenal / implausible speeds (even by 'Newtonian standards'). Here's an extract from Hearnshaw's book documenting the fact that it was indeed Mr. Shapley who first suggested to "abandon completely" the idea that Cepheids were binary stars:

Source:"Analysis of Starlight" - by John B. Hearnshaw

For reference, here's a link to Harlow Shapley's paper titled "Of the Nature and Cause of Cepheid variation", the introductory sentence of which goes like this: "The purpose of the present discussion is to investigate the question of whether or not we should abandon the usually accepted double-star (i.e. binary star) interpretation of Cepheid variation."

As it is, none other than Sir Arthur Eddington (the man who 'launched' Einstein) was soon to provide support to Shapley's novel and bizarre thesis - i.e. that Cepheids were not eclipsing binaries, but some type of "pulsating staroids" that would somehow physically grow larger or smaller in diameter at regular intervals!... To be sure, neither Eddington or Shapley were ever able to explain just what phenomena would cause such a 'thing'. Yet, the 'things' they now call "Cepheid variables" were eventually accepted as 'established science' by astrophysicists around the world. Those few who argued against it (providing data showing that the Cepheids could very well be eclipsing binaries) were promptly / or gradually silenced. The Copernican theory was once again (temporarily) salvaged from its inevitable demise.

Here's another tell-tale extract from Hearnshaw's book (see above) showing that Eddington's ideas about the nature of the Cepheids were standing on thin ground - and were vigorously rejected by a number of his international peers (whose work was ostensibly discouraged and/or ignored):

All in all, one is left with the impression that the notion that ALL stars are binaries is abhorrent to our current scientific establishment. Moreover, it would appear that practically "anything goes" - when it comes to rescuing the heliocentric model from its many fallacies and aberrations. This is not, in my world, a constructive attitude towards the advancement of human knowledge - nor is it conformant with a proper and earnest dialectic which should be, at all times, prevalent in the context of any scientific discourse.


THE GREAT HUBBLE MISCONCEPTION

The incredible thing about Edwin Hubble is that “Big Bang” theorists have somehow seized upon his work to back up their “constantly-expanding universe” claims. This, in spite of the fact that Hubble himself eventually stated that his observations did not suggest that our universe is continuously expanding, i.e. that the higher redshift detected in ever more distant galaxies does not indicate / or equate to ever-faster recession rates of the same (“recession” is the supposed motion of galaxies drifting away from our solar system). More likely, as concluded by a number of eminent dissenters who seem to have been silenced by academia in later decades, our universe is static and stable. Even Wikipedia’s Edwin Hubble entry states the following:

“In December 1941, Hubble reported to the American Association for the Advancement of Science that results from a six-year survey with the Mt. Wilson telescope did not support the expanding universe theory.” Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia

The below newspaper clip bears testimony to the fact that even Edwin Hubble himself questioned the idea that 'redshift' (which modern-day astronomers still hold as proof that most stars are receding from us) could be used to argue for an ever-expanding universe:

Moreover, in his paper titled “Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law” (2009), Wilfred H. Sorrell points out what follows:

“Almost all astronomers now believe that the Hubble recession law was directly inferred from astronomical observations. It turns out that this common belief is completely false. Those models advocating the idea of an expanding universe are ill-founded on observational grounds. This means that the Hubble recession law is really a working hypothesis. (...) One approach is to use a simple deductive argument with only one basic premise. This premise states that the universe is static and stable. Here static means that the whole universe is undergoing no large-scale expansion or contraction. The past eight decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the idea of an expanding universe. This statement is the final answer to the question asked in Sect. 1 of the present study. Reber (1982) made the interesting point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding space-time geometry.”

Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law (2009

It is therefore quite ironic that the "Big Bang" proponents are, still today, referring to Edwin Hubble's lifetime work in support of their fanciful, explosive theories that purport to date and 'scientifically determine the Birth of our Universe'. Fear not, however: the TYCHOS model certainly doesn't pretend to offer any replacement to the cringy "Big Bang" narrative. All it aims for is to correctly interpret the empirical data gathered by the most earnest and acute observational astronomers who have contributed to our understanding of the Solar System's configuration.


ESCLANGON'S "DISSIMMETRY OF SPACE"

I never cease to marvel at the amazingly precise observations made by some of the best astronomers of yesteryear - as they tried to make sense of this enigmatic Solar System of ours. Their tireless dedication to the noble quest of unveiling the secrets of our cosmos has not been in vain - and I'm glad to have contributed to highlight the significance of their invaluable lifetime efforts.

Ernest Esclangon (17 March 1876 – 28 January 1954) was the director of the Strasbourg Observatory and the Paris Observatory before becoming the President of the Société astronomique de France. In France, he is acknowledged as one of the most rigorous astronomers of his time. At his Wikipedia entry we can read that "Esclangon was attached to the establishment of the Chart of the Sky; it improved the precision of measurements in the fields of astronomy: measurement of time, variation of longitudes, variation of gravity." In short, Esclangon was certainly a major authority in astrometry - even though most people will never have heard of him. I came across his work while navigating the website dedicated to Maurice Allais (the man who effectively disproved Einstein's theory of relativity).

Here's an extract from the Maurice Allais foundation's website that describes Esclangon's most peculiar observational program carried out around the years 1927/1928:

The observations of Ernest Esclangon

Between 25th February 1927 and 9th January 1928 Ernest Esclangon carried out, at the Strasbourg Observatory, a programme of optical observations following a very different procedure from that which had been almost exclusively used until then in interferometric observations. It was as follows:

a) A refracting telescope placed in the horizontal plane facing north-west, autocollimation is used to cause a horizontal thread located at the focus of the telescope to coincide with its image reflected on a mirror that is integrated with the telescope. The angular displacement required for this coincidence is denoted by c.

b) Turning the device to face north-east, the operation is repeated. The angular displacement required to obtain the coincidence this time is denoted by c'. The magnitude whose evolution has been monitored over time is (c-c').

These observations comprised 40 000 sightings carried out by day as well as by night and divided into 150 series. The published reports included, in addition to a detailed description of the equipment used, the values for (c-c') for each series and the average temperature during each series as well as temperature evolution over each series.

By adopting the standpoint of sidereal time, Ernest Esclangon had detected a sidereal diurnal periodic component, whereas nothing in particular emerged when solar time was adopted.

He published his findings in a communication to the Académie des Sciences: “Sur la dissymétrie optique de l’espace et les lois de la réflexion” (On the optical dissymmetry of space and the laws of reflection - December 27, 1927) in the April 1928 issue of the “Journal des Observateurs”, in which he also provided the experimental data collected: “Sur l’existence d’une dissymétrie optique de l’espace” (On the existence of dissymmetry of space). In making use of these data, Maurice Allais established the presence, in addition to the sidereal diurnal component, of at least one long periodic component (estimated on the basis of a rapid analysis to be half-yearly)." Fondation Maurice Allais

To the layman, this may all sound like a dreadfully complex affair - and it certainly took me a while to wrap my head around what exactly Esclangon's observational program was all about. "An optical 'dissymmetry' of space"? Hmm... What could this possibly signify? Well, please stay with me as I shall now illustrate the physical cause of this dissimmetry that Esclangon (unwittingly) observed. As it is, it all amounts to yet another confirmation of one of the main 'pillars' of the TYCHOS model, i.e. Earth’s proposed orbital speed of 1.6 km/h around its PVP orbit.

Here is the conclusive section of Esclangon's paper describing his observational program of Earth's daily motions:

Source: ESCLANGON-Séance du 27 décembre 1927

In short, here's what Esclangon's rigorous and exacting series of telescopic observations (in Strasbourg) established :

  • Between 3AM and 3PM (i.e. a 12-hour interval), the star quadrants at either side of Earth (looking North and South) appear to be "offset" by -0.036" and +0.036" - for a total of 0.072".

  • Between 9AM and 9PM (i.e. a 12-hour interval), the star quadrants at either side (looking East and West) of Earth show NO such dissimmetry in relation to the meridian.

These were Esclangon's concluding thoughts: "What is the origin of this dissimmetry? Does it come from the absolute movement of our star system? Categorical explanations would be premature. The question for now belongs to the experimental domain."

Before proceeding, I must remind the readers of the following key figures established by my Tychos research over the years:

  • Earth moves at 1.6km/h around its PVP orbit - and thus covers 38.428 kilometers each day - and 14036km every year.

  • This yearly motion of Earth causes the stars (located perpendicularly to Earth's motion) to appear to 'drift sideways '- or to 'precess' - by 51.136 arcseconds annually.

  • In 12 hours, Earth will therefore move by approximately: 1.6km/h X 12h = 19.2 km (or 0.1368% of 14036km)

Note that 19.2 km (the distance covered by Earth in 12 hours) is 0.1368% of 14036km (the annual distance covered by Earth). Now, Esclangon's observed "dissimmetry" amounted to 0.072 arcseconds - yet, in a subsequent paper* he published in 1928, he appears to have slightly redacted this figure to about 0.07 arcseconds.

Ernest Esclangon - " Sur l'existence d'une dissymétrie optique de l'espace" (1928)

And in fact, 0.07" amounts to - lo and behold - 0.1368% of 51.136", i.e. the annual stellar precession as of the Tychos model!

In other words, what Esclangon had observed was the "semi-diurnal dissimetry" caused by Earth's orbital motion between 3AM and 3PM! Essentially, what he had witnessed (to his great puzzlement) is precisely what I expounded in my diagram at the top of this chapter featuring "JOE and JIM".

As illustrated in my below graphic, the 12-hour stellar parallax observed by Esclangon concerned the two celestial star quadrants ("A" and "B") that lie perpendicularly to Earth's direction of motion. The other two quadrants ("C" and "D") were not affected since we move at all times either away (from "C") or towards ("D") these two celestial quadrants. Hence, they will not exhibit any dissimmetry between each other:

Et voilà. What Esclangon observed was a direct consequence of Earth's motion around its PVP orbit. Needless to say, Mr. Esclangon had - in his time - no manner of realizing the significance of his observed 'dissimmetry', nor much less to identify its causality. However, this great observational astronomer should now be smiling in Heaven!


As a final note, I would like to point out that this (only apparent) "dissimmetry of space" observed by Esclangon is most probably what made Kepler postulate his bizarre elliptical orbits. This long-held inkling of mine was recently bolstered as I stumbled upon a fascinating paper by Laurence Hecht titled "Optical Theory in the 19th Century - and the Truth about Michelson-Morley-Miller". The entire paper is well worth the read - but the following sentence made me jump in my chair:

**"The difference between the major and minor axis of the ellipse, which, as every school child is taught, constitutes the Earth's orbit around the Sun, is about one part in one thousand." ** Optical Theory in the 19th Century

One part in one thousand? Well, that sounds quite interesting (as viewed through the 'Tychos lens'): if Earth rotates at 1670km/h and moves across space at about 1.6km/h, this means that its orbital velocity is approximately 1/1000th of the value of its rotational velocity. But in the interest of precision, let's perform a quick calculus using the more exacting figures at our disposal:

1670km/h ÷ 1.601169km/h (Earth's rotational speed ÷ Earth's orbital motion) = 1042.98

40075km ÷ 38.428km (Earth's circumference, a distance covered daily by a man at the equator ÷ the orbital distance covered by a man every day)= 1042.85

In other words, that "one part in one thousand" mentioned by Laurence Hetch is, in all probability, due to this ≈1/1043 relationship between Earth's orbital motion and Earth's surface rotation.

One may thus easily fathom how this circumstance would have brought Kepler to conclude that Earth's supposed orbit around the Sun is (very slightly) elliptical rather than uniformly circular. In any event, the two below extracts from Wikipedia's Johannes Kepler entry clearly state that Kepler never actually explained how elliptical orbits could be derived from observational data - and that he only extrapolated this assumption from his work on Mars; in his "Epitome of Copernican Astronomy" he then simply 'copy-pasted' this assumption to all the other planets!...

"Finding that an elliptical orbit fit the Mars data, Kepler immediately concluded that all planets move in ellipses, with the Sun at one focus—his first law of planetary motion. Because he employed no calculating assistants, he did not extend the mathematical analysis beyond Mars."

"The Epitome contained all three laws of planetary motion and attempted to explain heavenly motions through physical causes. Although it explicitly extended the first two laws of planetary motion (applied to Mars in Astronomia nova) to all the planets as well as the Moon and the Medicean satellites of Jupiter, it did not explain how elliptical orbits could be derived from observational data."

For those readers with an advanced knowledge of Kepler's and Newton's theorems, I would warmly recommend the below-linked research paper by Gopi Krishna Vijaya (the conclusions of which are synthesized in the following citation):

"Newtonian celestial mechanics is dependent on a proper understanding of Kepler's Third Law, and its application, the wording of the law has been studied in its entirety in this paper. It has been shown that the form of Kepler's Harmonic Law that is used in the literature, with reference to the semi-major axis alone, is primarily Newtonian – and ignores the constraint introduced by Kepler that the Law works in the way he had presented it only for small eccentricities. (...)The implicit application of the Newtonian version of Kepler's Harmonic Law in order to make it suitable for rectilinear ascents and descents is shown to be fundamentally flawed."

"Original form of Kepler's Third Law and its misapplication in Propositions XXXII-XXXVII in Newton's Principia" - by Gopi Krishna Vijaya (2019)

In any event, it is safe to say that both Kepler's and Newton's 'universally-accepted' theories are by no means flawless; since they can be shown to be mutually contradictory, they cannot therefore be used as 'proof' against the tenets of the Tychos model - or in support of heliocentrism. In the next chapter, we shall take a look at what may be the gravest and most 'momentous' incongruity of Newtonian physics. Namely, the "missing" (near-zero!) angular momentum of the Sun - as implied by the heliocentric model's paradigm.