Chapter 36 — The Mystery of Negative Stellar Parallax

“Hipparchus of Nicaea (2nd century BC) is the first known astronomer to have made careful observations and compared them with those of earlier astronomers to conclude that the fixed stars appear to be moving slowly in the same general direction as the Sun. Confirmed by Ptolemy (2nd century AD), this understanding became common in medieval Europe and the Near East, although a few astronomers believed that the motion periodically reversed itself.”

Copernican astronomers measure the distance to the stars as follows. They look at a given, nearby star “X” and record its position against far more distant stars. Six months later, they look at star “X” again and, if it has moved by any amount in relation to the distant stars, they call this apparent displacement the parallax of star X. Why six months? Well, Copernican astronomers assume that, in six months, Earth has changed positions by about 300 Million km, from one side of its orbit to the other. Therefore, they figure that these recordings represent the baseline upon which they can perform a simple trigonometric calculation to determine the stars’ distances from Earth. All of this reasoning is done under the assumption that Earth revolves around the Sun. The Encyclopædia Britannica entry on stellar parallax continues:

“The annual parallax is the tiny back-and-forth shift in the direction of a relatively nearby star, with respect to more-distant background stars, caused by the fact that Earth changes its vantage point over the course of a year. Since the acceptance of Copernicus’s moving Earth, astronomers had known that stellar parallax must exist. But the effect is so small (because the diameter of Earth’s orbit is tiny compared with the distance of even the nearest stars) that it had resisted all efforts at detection.”

The techniques of astronomy by James Evans (2017)

Let us not dwell on the question of just how they determine how far those very distant fixed stars are meant to be. Far more interesting to our present discourse is the fact that Copernican astronomers will obviously assume that they are moving in the same direction in relation to all stars at all times. Therefore, they would always expect any stellar parallax shift (between closer and more distant stars) to exhibit what is known as positive parallax, since Earth’s motion around the Sun is certainly not believed to reverse direction!

Above — A graphic from the Encyclopædia Britannica entry on “Parallax”.

Below — My graphic showing why no negative stellar parallax can exist in the Copernican model.

Well, here’s the problem: it has been known for centuries that observational astronomers have kept detecting nearby stars exhibiting “negative parallax”. In other words, nearby stars have regularly been observed to drift in the opposite direction the Copernican model predicts! Strangely, it is extremely hard to find mention of this in astronomy literature. The negative stellar parallaxes appear to be a most inconvenient topic among astronomers — and one which has eluded any rational explanation to this day. Back in 1878, the illustrious astronomer Simon Newcomb briefly commented on the spiny negative parallax issue, suggesting that “such a paradoxical result can arise only from errors of observation”.

“Errors of observation”? Hmm. Well, if that were the case, why then would our modern-day star catalogues contain large amounts of negative stellar parallax values (as well as even more stars exhibiting zero stellar parallax)? This would seem very troubling indeed to a Copernican frame of reference.

As every modern-day astronomer knows, ESA (the European Space Agency) proudly boasts about the purported pinpoint accuracy of their star catalogues, which they claim were compiled with data collected by their space-telescope installed aboard the “Hipparcos” satellite. (Wikipedia entry)

“The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues are the primary products of ESA’s (the European Space Agency’s) astrometric mission, Hipparcos. The satellite, which operated for four years, returned high quality scientific data from November 1989 to March 1993.”

The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, ESA (1997)

In later years, however, a number of serious problems with ESA’s stellar parallax catalogues have been highlighted by well-respected independent researchers (with solid credentials), some of whom have spent several years studying the issue in great detail.

Vittorio Goretti (b. June 17, 1939 – d. June 7, 2016) was a most esteemed observational astronomer from Bologna, Italy. He dedicated the last years of his life demonstrating the many problems with ESA’s Hipparcos star catalogue, as well as their larger Tycho star Catalogue. His critical analyses strenuously demanded answers from, for instance, ESA’s selective choice of the 118,000 stars contained in the Hipparcos catalogue, as well as the claimed accuracy (in the order of one milliarcsecond!) of the stellar parallaxes listed in the same.

“The Hipparcos Catalogue stars, about 118,000 stars, are a choice from the over 2,000,000 stars of the Tycho Catalogue. As regards the data concerning the same stars, the main difference between the two catalogues lies in the measurement errors, which in the Hipparcos Catalogue are smaller by about fifty times. I cannot understand how it was possible to have such small errors (i. e. uncertainties of the order of one milliarcsecond) when the typical error of a telescope with a diameter of 20÷25 cm is comprised between 20 and 80 milliarcseconds (see the Tycho Catalogue). When averaging many parallax angles of a star, the measurement error of the average (root-mean-square error) cannot be smaller than the average of the errors (absolute values) of the single angles”

Research on Red Stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue by Vittorio B. Goretti (2013)

Short of denouncing ESA for outright fraud, Goretti nonetheless suggested that the scientific community should urgently address the many issues raised by ESA’s catalogues, such as their flagrant cherry-picking and evident misrepresentation of their stellar parallax data. Yet, Goretti’s most perplexing discovery was that nearly half of the 1 million stars listed in ESA’s “Tycho 1” Catalogue exhibit negative stellar parallaxes although no satisfactory explanation has been offered as to why this would possibly be the case.

“As a matter of fact, about half the average values of the parallax angles in the Tycho Catalogue turn out to be negative! […] The parallax angle, which is one of the angles of a triangle, is positive by definition.”

To wit, under the Copernican model, negative stellar parallaxes simply cannot exist. If Earth were revolving around the Sun, all of the observed stellar parallaxes would have to be positive. So how is this negative parallax data officially explained so far? This scholarly answer (courtesy of Mike Dworetsky – senior lecturer in astronomy at UCL / London — from a SpaceBanter Forum thread in December 2016) gives us a hint.

“If you have a list of parallaxes of very distant objects, so that their parallaxes are on average much smaller than your limit of detection, then the errors of parallax are distributed normally, with a bell-shaped curve plotting the likely distribution of values around a mean of nearly zero. Hence we expect there to be approximately half of those published parallaxes with values less than zero and half with values more. […] Negative values are unphysical, but form the part of the statistical distribution of values that happen to lie below zero when the mean is close to zero”.

In other words, someone is actually trying to tell us that since most stellar parallax angular measurements are so very minuscule (“even smaller than the optical limits of detection”), the fact that half of them are negative is just a matter of statistical error!

If this were the case, why would ESA even go to the trouble of publishing stellar parallax figures? If the published negative parallax figures are inherently useless (since they are allegedly “false negatives” imputable to the error margins of the instruments being larger than the observed parallax itself) why then should the positive parallax figures be any less useless or any more trustworthy? Why would the US Naval Observatory outside of Flagstaff, Arizona spend 60 years on a dedicated mission to document stellar parallax, if all measurements are beyond reliability and no better than merely guessing?

Some geocentrists have also noticed the nonsensical negative parallaxes published by ESA. Naturally, they cannot explain them, but being on the “other side” of the debate gives them a certain valuable perspective.

“I believe that conventional astronomical community are in open fraud because they completely ignore negative parallax readings, explaining them away as measurement errors, at the same time as they happily use positive parallax readings to ‘prove’ their theories in opposition to geocentrism. That is intellectual skulduggery of the worst kind in my view and is basically a lie. If negative parallax readings are ‘errors’ then what cause do we have to assume that positive parallax readings are not themselves also ‘errors’.”

Negative Stellar Parallax Proof of Geocentrism and a Smaller Universe at forums.catholic.com (May 2010)

“The Hipparcos satellite recorded that 50% of the parallax readings were negative which is not possible. In one of the biggest cover ups in scientific history the readings were ‘adjusted’ (or I would call it cooked) to make them all positive”

Please provide a Geocentric diagram at The Thinking Atheist Forum (February 2013)

It has been pointed out by other researchers that ESA’s “Tycho 1 Catalogue” actually features three distinct categories of stellar parallaxes, the latter category actually making up 46% of them all.

“Over 1 million objects are listed in the Tycho Main Catalogue, and they state: ‘The trigonometric parallax is expressed in units of milliarcsec. The estimated parallax is given for every star, even if it appears to be insignificant or negative (which may arise when the true parallax is smaller than its error). 25% have negative parallax, 29% positive parallax and 46% assumed zero parallax.’ ”

Amateurs measuring parallax at the CosmoQuest X Forums (February 2014)

Now we are getting to the meat of the matter. The various groups of stellar parallaxes listed in ESA’s vast Tycho Main Catalogue are distributed as follows:

Positive parallaxes

29%

Negative parallaxes

25%

“Assumed ZERO parallaxes”

46%

Anyone blessed with the gift of patience should be able to document and confirm for themselves the same parallaxes collected in the best repositories known. The Hipparcos Main Catalog is one of them.

“Parallax : The trigonometric parallax pi in units of milliarcseconds: thus to calculate the distance D in parsecs, D = 1000/pi. The estimated parallax is given for every star, even if it appears to be insignificant or negative.”

Hipparcos Main Catalog, NASA (2012)

See: Hipparcos and Tycho Main Catalogues

Well, under the TYCHOS model’s geometry (and its implicit spatial perspectives), all of this would make perfect sense.

My below graphic shows not only why these three different categories of stellar parallaxes would exist. It also illustrates why their respective distributions (as documented in all official stellar parallax catalogs) should be naturally expected.

As you can see, the distributions of the circa 1 million stellar parallaxes (as listed in ESA’s Tycho Main Catalogue) would seem to be perfectly congruent with the TYCHOS model’s cosmic configuration. As Earth slowly moves (from “left to right” in my above graphic) by 7018 km every six months, astronomers will measure the parallax of any given nearby star against more distant, fixed star clusters. Depending on which of the four quadrants is scanned (and on the time period chosen for any given survey), nearby stars will appear to drift by different amounts and directions. In all logic, the stars in the “lower quadrant” (of our celestial sphere) will exhibit positive parallax. Stars in the “upper quadrant” will exhibit negative parallax. Also, in the TYCHOS model, it would appear self-evident that the large portion of “zero parallax stars” would be equally split (23% on each side) between the two opposed “equinoctial” quadrants — as I shall shortly clarify with another graphic.

It also stands to reason that the percentage of positives will be somewhat higher than the negatives (29% versus 25%), given what we saw in Chapter 33 regarding Earth’s extra 45° rotation every 2112 years. Once again, this has to do with the Gregorian calendar’s year count which, little by little, skews the ideal perpendicular axial alignment between Earth and the Sun.

Note that it is a matter of historical record that about ¼ of the observed stellar parallaxes have negative values (or “not greater than their probable errors”). In fact, this was noticed already back in 1921, when the parallaxes of only 1013 stars had been measured.

“Then there are occasional stars for which the different observed parallaxes are discordant in amounts far exceeding the probable errors. The true distances of these stars must remain in doubt until further investigations are made […] Stated as percentages, 26 per cent of these parallaxes are negative or have positive values which are not greater than their probable errors; 14 per cent more have positive values which are not larger than twice their probable errors.”

Recent Determinations Of Stellar Perallaxes By Photographic Methods. A Review by Robert G. Aitken for Astronomical Society of the Pacific (Vol. 33, No. 191, February, 1921)

It cannot therefore be reasonably argued that those 25% of negative parallax values listed today in ESA’s Hipparcos catalogues could be ascribed to some sort of “systemic” or statistical defect peculiar to their allegedly satellite-based telescopes. It would be a most unlikely coincidence that both old and modern observational techniques (one century apart) would yield a near-identical amount of negative stellar parallaxes, all imputable to the error margins and limitations of the respective state-of-the-art equipments of their days.

The biggest question of all answered by the TYCHOS model might just be, “Why do most stars exhibit practically no parallax at all?” Almost half of the stars listed in ESA’s monumental catalogue are listed as having zero assumed parallax. Under the TYCHOS model’s geometry, this is something that would be fully expected.

Here is how the Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the methodology used by astronomers for measuring stellar parallaxes.

“The introduction of the photographic method by American astronomer Frank Schlesinger in 1903 considerably improved the accuracy of stellar parallaxes. In practice a few photographs are taken when the star is on the meridian shortly after sunset at one period (epoch) of the year and shortly before sunrise six months later.”

Parallax by Kaj Aa. Strand and The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica (2018)

In the light of this, my below graphic should clarify why almost 50% of the stars do not exhibit any parallax at all.

In other words, any nearby star located in the two “equinoctial quadrants” of our celestial sphere will not exhibit any detectable parallax for the simple reason that Earth doesn’t move laterally in relation to such stars. Earth is instead either approaching or receding from them. In the TYCHOS, the “equinoctial quadrants” will always (at all times and epochs) be in front of and behind Earth’s direction of travel. This, providing of course that we use the “Tychos Optimal” calendar’s year count as described in the Tychosium Planetarium (see Chapter 21), which will ensure that our equinoctial points of March 21 and September 21 correctly follow Earth’s slow revolution around its PVP orbit.

Needless to say, all of this would make no sense whatsoever within the Copernican model’s geometry.

At this juncture, I need to make the following point quite clear:

The TYCHOS model generally agrees with the established distances between Earth and the nearby planets & moons of our own solar system. This is because those distances have been measured using the trigonometric baseline of the diameter of Earth itself – a respectable and reliable measurement which should be safely beyond dispute. How Cassini is said to have measured the distance to Mars using Earth as a “parallax yardstick” can be found in this brief outline:

Background: Parallax by Lindsay Clark (2000) for Princeton University

On the other hand, the TYCHOS model emphatically rejects the currently-accepted stellar distances, which is a wholly different matter. The trigonometric baseline used for stellar parallax calculations is based on the errant assumption that Earth revolves around the Sun. Astronomers that adopted the Copernican solar system theory have thus been using the diameter of Earth’s assumed 299.2 Mkm-wide orbit around the Sun as the baseline for computing the Earth-to-Stars distances.

Here is how the TYCHOS model accounts for an observed, six-month (December to June) parallax of a nearby star:

Note that if Joe should choose to measure the parallax of the nearby star at 6 PM on December 21 — and then, six months later, at 6 AM on June 21 (red dot in above graphic) — he will not detect any parallax of that nearby star, and he’ll classify it as a “zero parallax star”.

No wonder that those stellar parallaxes are extremely difficult to detect. Even our largest and sharpest earthbound telescopes, every six months, only move by 7018 km and rotate by 12,756 km. On a cosmic scale, these distances are very small indeed.

For centuries this has been a major problem for the Copernican model with its theorized 300 Mkm orbit of Earth around the Sun. Following the invention of the telescope, and for a very long time, no astronomers were able to detect any amount of stellar parallax. Only as late as 1838 did Friedrich Bessel triumphantly announce to have observed the parallax of 61 Cygni (another binary pair).

“At the end of 1838, Bessel announced that over a period of one year 61 Cygni made a small ellipse in the sky. The greatest displacement from the average position was just 0.31” with an error of 0.02”. This tiny motion of 61 Cygni was a direct consequence of Earth’s motion around the Sun. Bessel had finally discovered an annual parallax.”

— p.71, Measuring the Universe: The Cosmological Distance Ladder by Stephen Webb (1999)

Of course, according to the TYCHOS model, what Bessel saw was not a consequence of Earth’s motion around the Sun, but of Earth’s small displacement in relation to star 61 Cygni (currently believed to be the 7th nearmost star) and the more distant stars. Yet, Bessel’s observation was widely celebrated as conclusive proof of Earth’s motion around the Sun!

To recap, here is what is understood under the TYCHOS paradigm:

The distances between Earth and our own little family of celestial companions (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, the Main Asteroid belt and so on) have always been computed using the trigonometric baseline of Earth’s diameter (12,756 km).

Correctly so.

On the other hand, the Earth-to-stars distances have always been computed using the trigonometric baseline diameter of Earth’s supposed orbital diameter (299,200,000 km — or roughly 300 Mkm).

Incorrectly so.

Thus, since the true baseline (of 7018 km) is far smaller than 300 Mkm, the stars should be much closer than currently believed.

Incidentally, the aforementioned Italian astronomer Vittorio Goretti came to the conclusion after decades of personal stellar parallax studies that the stars must be closer than currently believed. About a dozen little-known stars that he had closely monitored turned out to exhibit larger parallaxes than Alpha Centauri (thought to be our nearmost star system) suggesting that they were all closer to Earth than the Centauri binary star system.

As for Goretti’s repeated requests to ESA (and the wider astronomical community) to address the many aberrations contained in the Hipparcos and Tycho star catalogues, they all fell on deaf ears. To challenge data diffused by the official science hubs of this world may be, in our day and age, one of the most frustrating obstacles in the life of a thoughtful individual in any field of scientific research. Sadly, Goretti left this world of ours in the summer of 2016 (about six months before I stumbled upon his work) without having received any cogent answers to his eminently rightful questions from the scientific community. Much less from the European Space Agency.

The TYCHOS 42633 reduction factor

As we have seen, in the TYCHOS model, Earth only moves by 14,036 km every year or 7018 km every 6 months.

Therefore, if Earth does not move laterally every six months by 299,200,000 km but only by 7018 km it follows that the currently-accepted Earth-Stars distances are inflated by a factor of:

299,200,000 / 7018 ≥ 42633

This will be our proposed reduction factor for the currently-claimed stellar distances.

This means that, in the TYCHOS, the distance unit known as “1 Light Year” corresponds to less than 1.5 AU.

9,460,730,472,580.8 km (i.e.; one “light year”) ÷ 42633 = 1.48366 AU

Alpha Centauri A, is said to be 4.37 LY away. In the TYCHOS, therefore, Alpha Centauri would be as close as

4.37 X 1.48366 ≈ 6.48 AU

That is rather interesting, for this TYCHOS-computed distance (6.48 AU) to Alpha Centauri would place our nearmost star at a distance ‘somewhere between’ Jupiter (4.2 AU) and Saturn (8.5 AU). Note however that the Alpha Centauri binary system is NOT located in the same plane as our solar system – but some 62° ‘below’ it.

Distances Between Planets from ThePlanets.org (2018)

Undoubtedly, Tycho Brahe would be most satisfied with that, since his primary objection to the Copernican model was that the stars would have to be “absurdly large and distant” and that there would have to be a most unlikely enormous void between Saturn and our nearmost stars. In fact, Tycho Brahe’s expert opinion was that the stars were “located just beyond Saturn and of reasonable size”.

“It was one of Tycho Brahe’s principal objections to Copernican heliocentrism that in order for it to be compatible with the lack of observable stellar parallax, there would have to be an enormous and unlikely void between the orbit of Saturn (then the most distant known planet) and the eighth sphere (the fixed stars).”

— from Wikipedia entry on “Parallax

In any event, should Alpha Centauri be located between Jupiter and Saturn, this would certainly help explain why we can see so many stars with our naked eyes and why they appear to be only marginally smaller than our so-called “outer planets”.

We shall now see how some other well-known astronomical data go to support my proposed “42633 reduction factor”.

About the perceived speed between our “Solar System” and the stars

The velocity value of 20 km/s (or more precisely, 19.4 km/s) keeps popping up all over astronomy literature. As shown in the below-quoted papers, there appears to be some sort of general consensus regarding this velocity value, although its actual meaning is rather nebulous. “A 20 km/s speed in relation to what?”

Nonetheless, it appears this value represents the “perceived average relative speed” between our solar system and the stars (as computed under the tenets of the Copernican theory).

“…The solar system itself has a velocity of 20km/s with respect to the local standard of rest of nearby stars…”

— p. 10, Cross-Calibration of Far UV Spectra of Solar System Objects and the Heliosphere edited by Eric Quémerais, Martin Snow and Roger-Maurice Bonnet

“…the mean motion of the Solar system at 20 km/sec relative to the average of nearby stars”

The ABC’s of Distances by Edward L. Wright (2011)

“The average radial velocity of the stars is of the order of 20 km per second”

— p. 113, The Motion of the Stars by J. S. Plaskett (1928) for Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 22, p.111

“The Sun’s peculiar velocity is 20 km/s at an angle of about 45 degrees from the galactic centre towards the constellation Hercules.”

Spiral Galaxies by Dmitri Pogosian (2018) for University of Alberta, Astronomy 122: Astronomy of Stars and Galaxies

“The Sun is moving towards Lambda Herculis at 20km/s. This speed is in a frame of rest if the other stars were all standing still”

What is the speed of the Solar System? by Deborah Scherrer, Hao Tai and J. Todd Hoeksema (2017) for Stanford University Solar Center

“The speed of the Sun towards the solar apex is about 20 km/s. This speed is not to be confused with the orbital speed of the Sun around the Galactic center, which is about 220 km/s [or 800.000 km/h] and is included in the movement of the Local Standard of Rest.”

— Wikipeda entry on “Solar apex

Here we have a more detailed account as to exactly how a 20 km/s motion between the Sun and the stars was determined.

Furthermore, here are some more recent quotes concerning this approximate 20 km/s velocity (or more precisely, 19.4 km/s).

“The point on the celestial sphere, in the constellation Hercules (at about RA 18h, Dec. +30°), toward which the Sun is moving with respect to the Local Standard of Rest, at a rate of about 19.4 km/s (about 4.09 AU/year). As the Sun slowly orbits the galactic center, nearby stars (as seen from Earth) appear to move away from the solar apex because of the Sun’s relative velocity.”

Solar Apex by David Darling (2017, daviddarling.info)

Solar apex: The point on the celestial sphere toward which the Sun is apparently moving relative to the Local Standard of Rest. Its position, in the constellation Hercules is approximately R.A. 18h, Dec. +30°, close to the star Vega. The velocity of this motion is estimated to be about 19.4 km/sec (about 4. AU/year). As a result of this motion, stars seem to be converging toward a point in the opposite direction, the solar antapex.”

Antapex: The direction in the sky away from which the Sun seems to be moving (at a speed of 19.4 km/s) relative to general field stars in the Galaxy.”

An Etymological Dictionary of Astronomy and Astrophysics by M. Heydari-Malayeri (dictionary.obspm.fr)

The last sources quoted above seem to agree on the more exacting figure of 19.4 km/s rather than the rounded 20 km/s value. Hence, in the interest of accuracy, we should probably use this value of 19.4 km/s that appears to be our modern-day, currently-accepted value. Before we get on, let us convert this value from km/s to km/h.

19.4 km/s = 69,840 km/h

Note that this velocity is essentially described as representing the motion of the Solar system relative to the stars.

Now, remember that in the TYCHOS, Earth’s orbital velocity is deemed to be 1.6 km/h. This would constitute, of course, our proper motion in relation to the stars. Hence, if the stars are much closer to us than currently believed, their perceived velocity as viewed from Earth would be “inflated” by our previously-computed “42633 star-distance reduction factor”. So let us divide this velocity by our proposed reduction factor and see what we obtain:

69,840 km/h / 42,633 ≈ 1.638 km/h

Good heavens! This is very nearly 1.601169 km/h – Earth’s orbital speed as of the TYCHOS model!

In other words, this “general velocity perceived to exist between the stars and our Solar System” (ca. 20 km/s) neatly goes to support both of the TYCHOS model’s boldest assertions.

• Earth travels around space at approximately 1.6 km/h.

• The stars are ca. 42,633 X closer than currently believed.

At this point, I will venture to say that the TYCHOS model is more than just another alternative cosmic theory.

It is the current best explanation for every observed geometric phenomenon of the cosmos.

I am satisfied that it represents the most solid interpretation of the vast body of astronomical observations available to mankind today. These observations, gathered tirelessly over the centuries by admirably diligent and hard-working individuals, constitute the very foundation around which the TYCHOS model has woven its logical conclusions. All I have done is to assemble the many pieces of a gigantic puzzle which were already there for everyone to see.

My infinite gratitude goes to all these people who have dedicated their lives to the noble cause of understanding our surrounding cosmos. To name them all would be unrealistic, so let me just symbolically tip my hat to Tycho Brahe whose widely snubbed, sidelined and even ridiculed observational work is now well and truly vindicated.

Let a very peaceful “Tychonic Revolution” begin!


Previous Chapter

Epilogue