Chapter 26: Probing Kapteyn, Hubble and Esclangon
In this last century, a number of remarkable discoveries (by some of the world's most prominent astronomers) have been ignored and / or shoved aside by the scientific community. The reasons for this should become clear as we take a look at the brilliant (yet "incovenient") investigations of Jacobus Kapteyn, Edwin Hubble and Ernest Esclangon; when viewed through the TYCHOS 'lens', their unjustly snubbed and sidelined findings can readily be retrieved from the dustbin of history and effectively reinstated, as their full significance comes into light.
Firstly, we shall see how Jacobus Cornelius Kapteyn interpreted the "vexing" issue of negative stellar parallax. Here's 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." "Jacobus Kapteyn" - Britannica (opens in a new tab)
On Jacobus Kapteyn's all-too-terse Wikipedia entry 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." "Jacobus Kapteyn" - Wikipedia (opens in a new tab)
I feel compelled to express my warmest gratitude for the stellar work of Jacobus Kapteyn whose gargantuan lifetime efforts were largely neglected, ignored and misunderstood (much like those of Dayton Miller and Tycho Brahe). If Mr. Kapteyn 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. In his time, Jacobus Kapteyn was considered as the world's foremost expert in stellar motions due to his rigorous and exhaustive statistical surveys of the stellar distributions in our cosmos. Under his "Plan of Selected Areas" which involved a large number of observatories which coordinated 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 astronomer (past or present) could ever dream of. So what exactly, you may now rightly wonder, did Kapteyn ultimately conclude - after decades of methodical studies of the stellar motions? Well, what Kapteyn found was that the stars tend to move in two distinct and diametrically opposed directions. He called this 'phenomenon' "Star-Streaming".
Kapteyn's discovery obviously caused great astonishment and controversy among the world's scientific community - but no one (including Kapteyn himself) had any chance, at the time, to realize and appreciate the world-shattering (or if you will, 'Copernicidal') implications 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) (opens in a new tab)
That's right: Kapteyn's studies had concluded that there are "TWO VAST STREAMS OF STARS TRAVELLING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS".
Here's another book extract documenting Kapteyn's extraordinary findings:
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? And did Kapteyn submit any theory or justification for the existence of these "two star streams moving in opposed directions"? Unfortunately not. In absence of a rational explanation of his findings, Kapteyn's lifetime work was thus an easy prey for the gatekeepers of the Copernican model. Ipso facto, his work was promptly attacked, defamed and 'demolished' by a bizarre character by the name of Harlow Shapley.
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 some time assessing this important point:
Note: both Joe and Jim are depicted as standing with their backs facing the viewer and looking at stars located above their respective southern horizons.
In short, if the General Precession isn't caused by a "wobble" of Earth's polar axis - but is caused instead by the Earth's 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 papers regarding the estimated 20km/s speed of our Solar System relatively to the 'fixed' stars. We also saw that more modern estimates have refined this value 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" :
"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." "The Legacy of J.C. Kapteyn" - by Piet C. van der Kruit and Klaas van Berkel (opens in a new tab)
Good Heavens! One couldn't wish for any better confirmation of the core 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 unjustly sidelined lifetime work would now seem to be truly and finally vindicated by the TYCHOS model. We shall now take a look at that shady fellow whose machinations effectively put to rest Kapteyn's 'inconvenient' Star Streaming theory, namely Harold Shapley.
Now, who exactly was this Shapley chap - whom we may justly call "Kapteyn's hangman"? Let's start by reading a few selected extracts from Harlow Shapley's 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 (opens in a new tab)
Remarkably enough, our failed-journalist-turned-astronomer eventually managed to make a name for himself at the highest levels of astronomy - and politics. Here he is being received in the Oval Office by none other than 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".
This dubious individual then went on to denigrate Kapteyn's discoveries by saying, basically, that our Milky Way is far larger than previously imagined. At the time, Shapley was assisted by some fellow theoretical astrophysicists who concocted a number of entirely conjectural ideas 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 belittled the 'cosmo-philosophical significance' of our 'Pale Blue Dot' (i.e. Mother Earth). Subsequently, Kapteyn's vexing Star Streaming theory (which seriously threatened to bring down the entire heliocentric edifice) was 'safely' swept under the rug. Once more, heliocentrism was rescued - temporarily -from its inevitable demise.
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, heliocentrism would be toast. As 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.
Well, would you be surprised to know that it was once again that fishy Shapley fellow who 'led the assault' on the ever-growing evidence pointing to the very distinct possibility that all star systems 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' ('Cepheids' appear to heftily grow and shrink periodically) is that most Cepheids are believed to be hundreds or thousands of light years away; as the current 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) since this would imply that they move at phenomenal / utterly implausible speeds. 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:
In the abstract of his 1914 paper titled “Of the Nature and Cause of Cepheid variation” (opens in a new tab), Shapley made his intentions clear—albeit under a disingenuous ‘appeal to investigate the question’:
"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 - Ed) interpretation of Cepheid variation."
In time, none other than Sir Arthur Eddington (the man who propelled Einstein towards universal stardom) joined the fray in support of Shapley's novel and bizarre thesis - i.e. that Cepheids were not eclipsing binaries, but rather some sort of "pulsating staroids" that would somehow physically grow larger or smaller in diameter at regular intervals. To be sure, neither Eddington nor Shapley ever explained just what kind of exotic phenomena would cause those stars to dramatically shrink and grow! Yet, their weird thesis for the behaviour of the so-called "Cepheid variables" was eventually embraced by most astrophysicists around the world; those few who argued against it (providing data showing that the Cepheids could very well be eclipsing binaries) were gradually silenced - or simply ignored.
Another tell-tale extract from Hearnshaw’s book shows that Eddington was standing on thin ice in his defense of Shapley and that his ideas about the nature of ‘Cepheids’ were vigorously rejected by a number of his international peers:
All in all, one is left with the impression that the notion that ALL stars are binaries is abhorrent to our 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 indicative of a proper and objective dialectic which should be upheld, at all times, in the context of any scientific discourse.
The incredible thing about Edwin Hubble is that “Big Bang” theorists have somehow seized upon his work to back up their 'constantly-expanding universe' convictions. 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). In any event, the expanding universe theory has been refuted in later decades by scores of eminent researchers - and is far from being universally accepted. The Wikipedia’s entry for Edwin Hubble 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 (opens in a new tab)
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" - by W. H. Sorrell (2009) (opens in a new tab)
It is therefore most ironic that the "Big Bang" proponents are, still today, referring to Edwin Hubble's lifetime work as being supportive of their fanciful, explosive theories that purport to date and to scientifically determine the birth of our Universe (born out of a primal explosion of nothing). Fear not, though: the TYCHOS model does not pretend to offer any replacement to the cringy "Big Bang" narrative. All it aims for is to correctly interpret the empirical observations gathered by the most proficient, rigorous and level-headed astronomers whose lifetimes of patient work have contributed to our understanding of the Solar System's configuration.
Having said that, the TYCHOS model does offer a rational explanation as to why the components of distant galaxies appear to revolve far too fast around their nuclei (in violation of Newton's gravitational laws): this would simply be due to all stars and galaxies being far closer than currently believed. If they are, in actuality, 42633 times closer (as illustrated in Chapter 21), the true orbital velocities observed in these galaxies would, of course, be much slower than what is currently estimated. Consequently, none of that elusive & invisible 'dark matter' (currently thought to make up most of our universe and to cause these apparent, formidable orbital speeds in distant galaxies) would need to exist or be theorized at all.
THE "DOUBLE NUCLEUS" OF THE ANDROMEDA GALAXY
Everyone has surely heard of Andromeda, the nearest 'galaxy' to the Milky Way - allegedly located at some 2.5 MILLION light years from our Solar System (which, in kilometers, converts to the fantastic value of ca. 24 000 000 000 000 000 000 km!...). Andromeda is easily visible with the naked eye on dark nights and we are told that "it is expected to collide directly with the Milky Way in about 4 billion years" - because it is (supposedly) approaching our Solar System at the formidable speed of 301km/s (or over 1 million km/h!). Now, one must wonder how these predictions would 'jive' with the idea of an ever-expanding universe - but the National Radio Astronomy Observatory assures us that "the Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies are moving toward each other due to mutual gravitational attraction. This mutual gravity force is stronger than the force which causes the expansion of the Universe on the relatively short distances between Andromeda and the Milky Way." In other words, they are actually telling us that "yes, the Universe as a whole is expanding - yet, if two 'galaxies' are close enough to each other, their 'mutual gravity force' will prevail over the primal forces governing the Universe (and supposedly released by the "Big Bang!")... Good Lord - does this even make any sense?
Oh well, let's leave this at that - and instead take a look at a far more interesting aspect of the Andromeda galaxy (a.k.a."M31"). As few people will know, it was discovered back in 1991 that M31 has a distinct double-structure: a larger & brighter component - and a far smaller & dimmer component; still more interestingly, on the official ESA website we may read that "the true center of the galaxy is really the dimmer component". (In the TYCHOS, of course, the larger & brighter component - the Sun - is not the center of our Solar System).
Caption for the above image (courtesy of astronet.ru): "The center of M31 is twice as unusual as previously thought. In 1991 the Planetary Camera then onboard the Hubble Space Telescope pointed toward the center of our Milky Way's closest major galactic neighbor: Andromeda (M31). To everyone's surprise, M31's nucleus showed a double structure."
I trust that the reader will appreciate the importance (as viewed through the TYCHOS "lens") of this little-known 1991 discovery credited to Tod R. Lauer of the National Optical Astronomy Observatory; if even "galaxies" are observed to exhibit 'double structures'(the smaller component of which is located in the center of the same), this is clearly reminiscent of the double / binary structure of our Solar System where the smaller component (in our case, the Earth) is located in the middle of the same. Now, if the currently-estimated star distances are inflated by a factor of 42633 (see Chapter 23), this would still put Andromeda at a hefty (yet far more 'reasonable') 3 763 000 AU - i.e. about 3.7 million times farther away than our Sun.
As further evidence that binary systems are omnipresent in our Universe, we have this most recent paper (June 2022) published in the Astrophysical Journal which is all about the various discoveries of "a large number of binary systems" within the Andromeda / M31 system itself:
"In this paper, we report the discovery of two massive binaries with twin components (identified as massive twin binaries) in M31. These two twin binaries were reported in the catalog of Vilardell et al. (2006). (...) A large number of EBs (eclipsing binaries) have been discovered in M31 by ground-based surveys, e.g., DIRECT (Kaluzny et al. 1998, 1999; Stanek et al. 1998, 1999; Mochejska et al. 1999; Bonanos et al. 2003), Pan-STARRS 1 (PS1; Lee et al. 2014), and other photometric observations (Todd et al. 2005; Vilardell et al. 2006). So now we have the opportunity to test stellar evolutionary models by analyzing the evolutionary stages of these EBs (eclipsing binaries) in M31." The Astrophysical Journal(2022) (opens in a new tab)
Incidentally, the fact that Andromeda is currently observed to approach our Solar System would make sound sense in the TYCHOS model - since the Earth is currently moving almost straight towards it (Andromeda is located at 00h42min of RA). If we then apply our 42633 reduction factor to its officially-estimated approach velocity of 301 km/s (or 1 083 600 km/h), we obtain: 1 083 600 km/h / 42633 = 25.4 km/h (or what we may call a 'bicycle speed'). This 25.4 km/h motion could therefore just be due to some minor oscillation between our Solar System and Andromeda - and does not necessarily imply that the two systems are on a cataclysmic collision course...
In conclusion, one may reasonably assume that:
Andromeda may just be a particularly large binary system.
Its larger component revolves around its smaller component - much like the Sun revolves around the Earth.
The 'bicycle speed' (25.4 km/h) of its apparent approach to our Solar System does not mean it will eventually crash into it.
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 relentless 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 efforts. Professor Ernest Esclangon was one of them.
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 and exacting 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)." "The re-examination of Miller’s interferometric observations and of Esclangon’s observations" - Fondation Maurice Allais (opens in a new tab)
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"? What could this possibly signify? Well, please stay with me as I shall now illustrate the physical cause of this "dissymmetry" that Esclangon observed. As it is, it all amounts to yet another confirmation of the main 'pillar' of the TYCHOS model: namely, the Earth's 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:
In short, here's what Esclangon's rigorous and exacting series of telescopic observations (from 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 dissymmetry in relation to the meridian.
These were Esclangon's concluding thoughts: "What is the origin of this dissymmetry? 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, let me remind the readers once more of the following key figures stipulated by the TYCHOS model :
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 '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 "dissymmetry" amounted to 0.072 arcseconds - yet, in a subsequent paper he published in 1928, he appears to have slightly reduced this value to 0.07 arcseconds.
And - lo and behold - 0.07" amounts to just about 0.1368% of 51.136", i.e. the annual general precession - as of the TYCHOS model!
We may therefore conclude that the minuscule "dissymmetry" that Esclangon detected was caused by the Earth's 19.2-km displacement during the 12-hour-periods between 3AM and 3PM. In fact, what he witnessed (to his great puzzlement) is fully consistent with what is expounded in the diagram at the top of this chapter, featuring "JOE and JIM".
My below graphic should help illustrate the point: if we assume stars “X” and “Y” to be Esclangon’s referential points on either side of Earth, he would have expected both of them to be displaced towards the right of his meridian (or ‘line of sight’) following each of his 12-hour measurements. This, because he believed that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Instead, to his great surprise, he saw his control stars “X” and “Y” moving in opposed directions in relation to his meridian. He therefore concluded that there must be some mysterious “dissymmetry of space” at play. Needless to say, Esclangon could not have realized the crucial significance of his observations or identified their underlying cause. But, if it is any consolation so belatedly, his expert observations may now be given the merit they deserve.
As a final note, I would like to point out that this (only apparent) "dissymmetry of space" observed by Esclangon is most probably what made Kepler theorize 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 (opens in a new tab)
"One part in one thousand?" Well, as viewed through the TYCHOS 'lens', this is quite interesting: if the 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 (at the equator). Similarly, the Earth's daily motion amounts to approximately 1/1000th of its equatorial circumference. But in the interest of precision, let's perform a couple of simple calculi using the more precise figures at our disposal:
1670km/h / 1.601169km/h (i.e. Earth's equatorial rotational speed / Earth's orbital speed) = 1042.98
40075km / 38.428km (i.e. Earth's equatorial circumference / the daily distance covered by Earth) = 1042.86
In other words, that "one part in one thousand" mentioned by Laurence Hetch would seem to be commensurate to the ≈1/1043 relationship that can be found between Earth's rotational and orbital speed - as well as between its equatorial circumference and its daily motion!
One may thus start to fathom why Kepler concluded that the Earth's supposed orbit around the Sun is (very slightly) elliptical rather than uniformly circular. In any event, the two below extracts from the 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; later on, in his "Epitome of Copernican Astronomy", he then simply applied this assumption arbitrarily 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." "Johannes Kepler" - Wikipedia (opens in a new tab)
For those readers with an advanced knowledge of Kepler's and Newton's theorems, I would warmly recommend the below-cited research paper by Gopi Krishna Vijaya (the conclusions of which are synthesized in the below extract):
"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."
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 evidence 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" (or near-zero!) angular momentum of the Sun - as implied by the heliocentric model's paradigm.