KINGS DETHRONEDA H ISTORY OF T H E EVOLUTION OF ASTRONOMY
FROM TH E TIM E O F T H E ROMAN EM PIR E UP
TO T H E PR E SE N T D A Y ; SHOWING IT TO B E AN
AMAZING S E R IE S OF BLU N D ER S FOUNDEDUPON AN E R R O R MADE IN TH E
SECOND CENTURY B.C.

By
GERRARD HICKSONA l l RW BT8 SBSERVBD.
Copyritht V.S.A

Published by
TH E H ICKSO NIA PUBLISH ING CO.
2 Bride Court, Fleet Street. London, E.C.4.
and
21 Newberry Arenue, Stapleton, Staten Island,
New York, U.S.A.

KINGS DETHRONED
A history of the evolution of astronomy
from the time of the Roman Empire up
to the present day ; showing it to be anamazing series of blunders founded uponan error made in the second century B.C.

By
GEREiARD HICKSON

The diagrams in this book, with the exception of Nos. t,
2, 7, 8 and lo , are the original work o f the author,
registered, and may not be reproduced for sale, lectures or
motion pictures without his permission.

r*'P'7'

REFERENCENOTES.

P age

I— 2
5— 9

Hipparchus and Triangulation. 4 Ptolemy.
Copernicus and Galileo. Heliocentric Theory. Kepler.
The creation of the Royal Observatory.
9— 13 Ole Roemer’s Blunder. Eclipses of Jupiter’s SatelUtes.
14— 16 Newton, Gravitation, Hailey. Diurnal method of
measurement.
16— 21 Kepler, Relative distances of the planets.
21— 22 The Theory of the Aberration of Light.
23— 26 The measurement to the Moon, Atmospheric Refraction,
Equatorial Parallax.
27— 28 Triangulation of the earth. Kant, Herschell, Laplace.
29 Nebular Hypothesis, Atomic Theory.
29— 31 Encke— Transit of Venus and distance to sun.
32 Bessel, “ 61 Cygni.” A Light-year, an angle
33of Parallax. Stellar measurement.
34 The Theory of Parallax. 35 Perpendicularity, Geo­
centric Parallax.
36— 37 Conflicting theories. Sidereal time.
38— 39 The Copernican Theory disproved.
40— 41 The Lunar Eclipse and Atmospheric Refraction.
41 The measurement of the distance to Mars. 44 Parallax
unsound.
45—49 Mars— the two lines of sight diverge.
50— 56 The Transit of Venus 1882. The various computationsof the distance to the sun.
57—59 How to measure distance to the sun. Hipparchus
proven in error.
60 The Michelson-Morley experiment.
62 Sir George Airy. Nordmeyer. The Petrograd lectures.
63 Relativity. 66 Einstein’s case simply explained.
68 Einstein’s definitions and theories examined.
70 The Law of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light.
73 The Principle of Relativity.
75 The Special Principle and Electro-Magnetic laws.
76— 78 The Laws of Dynamics i and 2. Theory of Relativity
fails.
79 Einstein’s three crucial tests.
80 Light and Gravity. Meeting of the R.A.S.
83 The evidence proven false.
84 Betelgeuse. 86 Spiral Nebula 584.
86— 87 Conflicting opinions of living astronomers re PonsWinnecke.
88 The ridiculous stories about Mars.
90— 91 Hercules, “ N.G.C. 7006,” and preposterous figures.
Conclusion.
93 The sequel to “ Kings Dethroned.”

PREFACE
In the year 1907 the author made a remarkable dis­covery which convinced him that the sun was very muchnearer to the earth than was generally supposed. The
fact he had discovered was demonstrated beyond all
doubt, so that he was compelled to believe that— however
improbable it might seem— astronomers had made a
mistake when they estimated the distance of the sun tobe ninety-three millions of miles.
He then proceeded to examine the means by which
the sun’s distance had been computed, and found an
astounding error in the “ Diurnal Method of Measure­ment by Parallax,” which had been invented by Dr.
Hailey in the early part of the i%th century, and which
was used by Sir David Gill in measuring the distanceto the planet Mars in 1877 ; from which he deduced his
solar parallax of 8.80".
Seeing that Sir Norman Lockyer had said that the
distance to and the dimensions of everything in thefirmament except the moon depends upon Sir David
Gill’s measurement to Mars, the author set himself thetremendous task of proving the error, tracing its conse­
quences up to the present day, and also tracing it back­wards to the source from which it sprang.
The result of that research is a most illuminating
history of the evolution of astronomy from the time of
the Roman Empire up to April 1922 ; which is now
placed in the hands of the people in “ Kings Dethroned.”
The author has taken the unusiml course of submittingthese new and startling theories for the consideration of
the general public because the responsible scientificsocieties in London, Washington and Paris, failed todeal with the detailed accounts of the work which heforwarded to them in the Spring of 1920. He believes
that every newly-discovered truth belongs to the whole of

VI

PREFACEmankind, wherefore, i f those whose business it is toconsider his work fa il in their duty he does not hesitate
to bring it himself direct to the people, assured of their
goodwill and fair judgment.
Astronomy has ever been regarded as a study only
for the few, but now all its strange terms and theories
have been explained in the most lucid manner in “ Kings
Dethroned," so that everyone who reads will acquire acomprehensive knowledge of the science.
The author takes this opportunity of assuring thereader that none esteems more highly than he, himself,
the illustrious pioneers who devoted their genius to thebuilding of astronomy, for he feels that even while point­
ing out their errors he is but carrying on their work,
striving, labouring even as they did, for the same goodcause of progress in the interests of all. On the other
hand, he thinks that astronomers living at the present
time might have used to better purpose the greater ad­
vantages which this century provides, and done all that
he himself has done by fearless reasoning, devoted labour ;and earnest seeking after truth.
G. H.

Chapter One
W H EN TH E W ORLD W AS YOUNGT''H R E E thousand years ago men believed theearth was supported on gigantic pillars. The
siin rose in the east every morning, passed
overhead, and sank in the west every evening ; thenit was supposed to pass between the pillars under theearth during the night, to re-appear in the east again
next morning.
This idea of the universe was upset by Pythagorassome five hundred years before the birth of Christ,
when he began to teach that the earth was round likea ball, with the sun going round it daily from east to
w e s t; and this theory was already about four hundredyears old when Hipparchus, the great Greek scientist,took it up and developed it in the second century, b .c .
Hipparchus may be ranked among the score or soof the greatest scientists who have ever lived. He
was the inventor of the system of measuring the
distance to far off objects b y triangulation, or trigo­
nometry, which is used b y our surveyors at the presentday, and which is the basis of all the methods ofmeasuring distance which are used in modern
astronomy. Using this method of his own invention,
he measured from point to point on the surface ofthe earth, and so laid the foundation of our present
systems of geography, scientific map-making andnavigation.
It would be well for those who are disposed tounder-estimate the value of new ideas to consider
how much the world owes to the genius of Hipparchus,
and to try to conceive how we could have madeprogress— as we know it— without him.

KINGS DETHRONED
T r ia n g u l a t io n .

The principles of triangulation are very simple, but
because it wUl be necessary— as I proceed— to show
how modern astronomers have departed from them,
I will explain them in detail.
E very figure made up
Sfcyton 2.
/ of three connected lines^
is a tri— or three-angle,^
quite regardless of the//length of any of its sides.
//
The triangle differs from//all other shapes or'^figures in this ;— thatthe value of its three
angles, when added together, admits of absolutely
no variation ; they always equal i8o degrees ; while— on the other hand— all other figures contain angles
of 360 degrees or more. The triangle alone contains
180 de^ees, and no other figure can be used formeasuring distance. There is no alternative what­
ever, and therein lies its value.
It follows, then, that if we know the value of any
two of the angles in a triangle we can readily find thevalue of the third, by simply adding together the two
known angles and subtracting the result from 180.
The value of the third angle is necessarily the re­mainder. Thus in our example (diagram 2) an angleof 90 degrees plus an angle.
of 60 equals 150, which2.
shows that the angle atthe distant o b ject— or
apex of the triangle—
Base- lin emust be 30.
Now if we know the length of the base-line A — B,
in feet, yards, kilometres or miles, (to be ascertainedb y actual measurement), and also know the value ofthe two angles which indicate the direction of a distantobject as seen from A. and B., we can readily complete
the triangle and so find the length of its sides. In

WHEN THE WORLD WAS YOUNG
this w ay we can measure the height of a tree or church
steeple from the ground level, or find the distance toa ship or lighthouse from the shore.
The reader will perceive that to obtain any measure­ment by triangulation it is absolutely necessary tohave a base-line, and to know its length exactly. It isevident, also, that the length of the base-line must beara reasonable proportion to the dimensions of the triangle
intended; that is to say,— that the greater the distanceof the object under observation the longer the base-line
should be in order to secure an accurate measurement.
A little reflection will now enable the reader torealize the difficulties which confronted Hipparchus
when he attempted to measure the distance to the stars.
It was before the Roman Conquest, when thegeography of the earth was but little known, andthere were none of the rapid means of travelling andcommunication which are at our disposal to-day.
Moreover, it was in the very early days of astronomy,
when there were few— if any— who could have helped
Hipparchus in his work, while if he was to make a
successful triangulation to any of the stars it wasessential that he should have a base-line thousands ofmiles in length, with an observer at each e n d ; bothtaking observations to the same star at precisely thesame second of time.
The times in which he lived did not provide theconveniences which were necessary for his under­
taking, the conditions were altogether impossible, andso it is not at all surprising that he failed to get any tri­
angulation to the stars. As a result he came to theconclusion that they must be too far off to be measured,and said “ the heavenly bodies are infinitely distant.”
Such was the extraordinary conclusion arrived atb y Hipparchus, and that statement of his lies at theroot of astronomy, and has led its advocates into anamazing series of blunders from that day to this.
The whole future of the science of astronomy wasaffected b y Hipparchus when he said " the heavenly
bodies are infinitely distant,” and now, when I say

KINGS DETHRONED
that it is not so, the fate of astronomy again hangs inthe balance. It is a momentous issue which wiU be
decided in due course within these pages.
The next astronomer of special note is Sosigenes,
who designed the Julian Calendar in the reign ofCaesar. He saw no fault in the theories of Hipparchus,but handed them on to Ptolemy, an Egyptian
astronomer of very exceptional abihty, who lived in
the second century a .d .
Taking up the theories of his great Greek pre­decessor after three hundred years, Ptolemy accepted
them without question as the work of a master ; anddeveloped them. Singularly gifted as he was to carryon the work of Hipparchus, his genius was of a different
order, for while the Greek was the more original thinker
and inventor the Egyptian was the more accom­
plished artist in d e ta il; and the more skilful in theart of teaching. Undoubtedly he was eminently fitted
to be the disciple of Hipparchus, and yet for that very
reason he was the less likely to suspect, or to discover,any error in the master’s M^ork.
in the most literal sense he carried on that work,
built upon it, elaborated it, and established thePtolemaic System of astronomy so ably that it stood un­challenged and imdisputed for fourteen hundred years;
and during all those centuries the accepted theory of theuniverse was that the earth was stationary, wliile thesun, moon, stars and planets revolved around it daily.
Having accepted the theories of Hipparchus in thebulk, it was but natural that Ptolemy should fail todiscover the error I have pointed out, though evenhad it been otherwise it would have been as difficultfor him to make a triangulation to the stars in thesecond century a .d ., as it had been for the inventorof triangulation himself three hundred years earlier.
However, it is a fact that he allowed the theory that" the heavenly bodies are infinitely distant ” toremain unquestioned; and that was an error ofomission which was ultimately to bring about thedownfall of his own Ptolemaic system of astronomy.

Chapter Two
COPERNICUS AND G ALILEO .
P t o l e m y ’ s was still the astronomy of the world when

Columbus discovered America, 1492, but there wasliving at that time— in the little town of Franenburg,
in Prussia— a youth of 18, who was destined in later
years to overthrow the astronomy of Hipparchus andPtolemy, and to become himself the founder of a newtheory which has since been universally accepted inits stead ; Nicholas Copernicus.
It is to be remembered that at that time the earth
was believed to stand still, while the sun, moon,planets and stars moved round it daily from east to
west, as stated by Ptolemy ; but this did not seemreasonable to Copernicus. He was a daring andoriginal thinker, willing to challenge any theory— be
it ever so long established— if it did not appear logicalto him, and he contended that it was unreasonable
to suppose that all the vast firmament of heavenly
bodies revolved around this relatively little earth,but, on the contrary, it was more reasonable to believethat the earth itself rotated and revolved around an
enormous sun, moving within a firmament of stars
that were fixed in infinite space ; for in either casethe appearance of the heavens would be the same toan observer on the surface of the earth.
This was the idea that inspired Nicholas Copernicus
to labour for twenty-seven years developing the
Heliocentric Theory of the universe, and in compilingthe book that made him famous :— ” De Revolutionibus
Orbium Ccelestium,” which was published in the lastyear of his life : 1543.

KINGS DETHRONEDCOPERNICUS AND GALILEO

And now it is for us to very carefully study thisfundamental idea of the Heliocentric theory, for there
is an error in it.
Ptolemy had made it appear that the sun and stars
revolved around a stationary earth, but Copernicus
advanced the theory that it was the earth which
revolved around a stationary sun, while the stars
were fixed ; and either of these entirely opposite
theories gives an equally satisfactory explanation of
the appearance of the sun b y day and the stars b ynight. Copernicus did not produce any newlydiscovered fact to prove that Ptolemy was wrong,neither did he offer any proof that he himself wasright, but worked out his system to show that hecould account for all the appearances of the heavens
quite as well as the Egyptian had done, though work­ing on an entirely different hypothesis ; and offered
his new Heliocentric Theory as an alternative.
He argued that it was more reasonable to conceive
the earth to be revolving round the sun than it wasto think of the sun revolving round the earth, because
it was more reasonable that the smaller body should
move round the greater. And that is good logic.
We see that Copernicus recognised the physical lawthat the lesser shall be governed b y the greater, andthat is the pivot upon which the whole of his astronomy
turns ; but it is perfectly clear that in building up his
theories he assumed the earth to be much smaller
than the sun, and also smaller than the stars ; and thatwas pure assumption unsupported b y any kind offact. In the absence of any proof as to wlxether theearth or the sun was the greater of the two, and having
only the evidence of the senses to guide him, it would
have been more reasonable had he left astronomy as
it was, seeing that the sun appeared to move roundthe earth, while he himself was unconscious of any
movement.
When he supposed the stars to be motionless inspace, far outside the solar system, he was assuming
them to be infinitely d ista n t; relying entirely upon

the statement made b y Hipparchus seventeen hundredyears before. It is strange that he should haveaccepted this single statement on faith while he wasin the very act of repudiating all the rest of theastronomy of Hipparchus and Ptolemy, but the fact
remains that he did accept the " infinitely distant ”
doctrine without question, and that led him to suppose
the heavenly bodies to be proportionately la rg e;
hence the rest of his reasonings followed as a matterof course.
He saw that the Geocentric Theory of the universe
did not harmonise with the idea that the stars were
infinitely distant, and so far we agree with him. He
had at that time the choice of two courses open toh im :— he might have studied the conclusion which
had been arrived at by Hipparchus, and found theerror there ; but instead of doing that he chose tofind fault with the whole theory of the universe, tooverthrow it, and invent an entirely new astronomy
to fit the error of Hipparchus !
It was a most unfortunate choice, but it is now
made clear that the whole work of Copernicus depends
upon the single question whether the ancient Greek
was right or wrong when he said “ the heavenly
bodies are infinitely distant.” It is a very insecurefoundation for the whole of Copernican or modern
astronomy to rest upon, but such indeed is the case.

6'7

Some thirty years after the publication of the workof Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, the Danish astronomer,
invented the first instrument used in modern astronomy.
This was a huge quadrant nineteen feet in height (theforerunner of the sextant), which he used to very good
purpose in charting out the positions of many of themore conspicuous stars. He differed with some ofthe details of the Prussian doctor’s theory, but
accepted it in the main ; and took no account what­ever of the question of the distance of the stars.
Immediately following him came Johann Kepler,

8

KINGS DETHRONEDCOPERNICUS AND GALILEO

and it is a very remarkable circumstance that thisGerman philosopher, mystic and astrologer, shouldhave been the founder of what is now known as
Physical Astronomy. Believer as he was in theancient doctrine that men’s lives are pre-destined andmysteriously influenced by the stars and planets, henevertheless sought to discover some physical law
which governed the heavenly bodies. Having accepted
the Copernican Theory that the sun was the centreof the universe, and that the earth and the planets
revolved around it, it was but natural that all his
reasonings and deductions should conform to thoseideas, and so it is only to be expected that his con­clusions dealing with the relative distances, move­ments and masses of the planets, which he laboured
upon for many years, and which are now the famous“ Laws of Kepler,” should be in perfect accord with
the Heliocentric Theory of Copernicus.
But, though the underlying principles of Kepler’s
work will always have great value, his conclusions
cannot be held to justify Copernican astronomy,
since they are a sequel to it, but— on the contrary—
they will be involved in the downfall of the theory
that gave them birth.

astronomy who came after him accepted it the more
readily. Nearly eighteen hundred years had passed
since Hipparchus had said the heavenly bodies were
infinitely distant, and still no one had questioned theaccuracy of that statement, nor made any attemptwhatever to measure their distance.
It is interesting to mention here an event which— atfirst sight— might seem imimportant, but which—
now reviewed in its proper place in history— can beseen to have had a marked effect on the progress ofastronomy as well as navigation. This was the
publication of a little book called " The Seaman’s
Practice,” by Richard Norwood, in the year 1637.
At that time books of any kind were rare, and thiswas the first book ever written on the subject ofmeasuring by triangulation. It was intended for theuse of mariners, but there is no doubt that ‘ ‘ The
Seaman’s Practice ” helped King Charles II. to reahse
how the science of astronomy could be made to rendervaluable service to British seamen in their voyagesof discovery, with the result that in 1675 he appointed
John Flamsteed to make a special study of the stars,
and to chart them after the manner of Tycho Braheand Galileo, in order that navigators might guidetheir ships by the constellations over the tracklessoceans.
That was how the British School of Astronomy cameinto existence, with John Flamsteed as the first
Astronomer Royal, employing only one assistant, withwhom he shared a magnificent salary of £70 a year ;and navigation owes much to the excellent work he
did with an old-fashioned telescope, mounted in alittle wooden shed on Greenwich Hill.
A t about the same time the French School of
Astronomy came into being, and the end of theseventeenth century began the most glorious period
in the history of the science, when astronomers in
England, France and Germany all contested strenu­
ously for supremacy, and worshipped at the shrineof Copernicus.

While the life work of Johann Kepler was drawing
to a close, that of Galileo was just beginning, and Ms
name is more widely known in connection with modern
astronomy than is that of its real inventor, Nicholas
Copernicus. Galileo adopted the Copernican theory
with enthusiasm, and propagated it so vigorouslythat at one time he was in great danger of being burnt
at the stake for heresy. In the year 1642 he invented
the telescope, and so m ay be said to have founded
the modern method of observing the heavens.
Zealous follower of Copernicus as he was, Galileo
did much to make his theory widely known andcommonly believed, and we may be sure that it was
because he saw no error in it that other giants of

OLE RO E M E R ’S B LU N D ER

Chapter Three
OLE RO EM ER’S B L U N D E R
A m o n g the many ambitious spirits of that time, was

one whose name is known only to a comparative few,
nevertheless he has had a considerable influence bothon astronomy and physics— Ole Roemer, best remem­
bered for his observations of the Eclipses of Jupiter’sSatellites.
A study of the records which have been made during
more than 3,000 years shows that eclipses repeat
themselves with clock-work regularity, so that a given
number of years, months, days and minutes elapse
between every two eclipses of a given kind ; but Ole
Roemer observed that in the case of the eclipses ofthe satellites, or moons, of Jupiter, the period of time
between them was not always the saine, for theyoccurred 16J minutes later on some occasions thaii onothers. He therefore tried to account for this slightdifference in time, and was led to some strange con­clusions.
D'lagram 3 .

These eclipses occur at different seasons of the year,
so that sometimes they can be seen when the earth
is at A (see dia. 3), and at other times when the earth
is at B, on the opposite side of the sun and the orbit,(according to Copernican Astronomy).

II

So Ole Roemer reflected that when the observer is
at B, he is fiirther from Jupiter than he is when theearth is at A , by a distance as great as the diameterof the o r b it; and that gave him a new idea, and apossible explanation.
He thought that although light appeared to be— forall ordinary pi^poses— instantaneous, it really musttake an appreciable time to travel over the immense
distance from Jupiter to the earth, just as a ship takes
so long to travel a given distance at so many miles
per hour. In that case the light from Jupiter’ssatellites would take less time to reach the observerwhen the earth is at A than it would require to reachhim at B, on the further side of the orbit; and as aresult of these reflections he reached the conclusionthat the 16J minutes difference in time was to beaccounted for in that way.
Following up this idea, he decided that if it took
i6 | minutes longer for light to travel the increased
distance from one side of the orbit to the other, it
would require only half the time to travel half that
distance, so that it would travel as far as from thesun to the earth inminutes.
Therefore he gave it
as his opinion that the distance to the sun was sotremendous that “ Light” — traveUingwith almost light­ning rapidity— took
minutes to cover the distance.
This iiigenious hypothesis appealed strongly to theimagination of contemporary astronomers, so that they
allowed it to pass without a sufficient examination,with the result that eventually it took its place among
the many strange and ill-considered theories ofastronomy. . . However, we ourselves will now dowhat should have been done in the days of Ole Roemer.
We will stand beside him, as it were, and study theseeclipses of Jupiter’s satellites, just as he did, fromthe same viewpoint of Copernican astronomy ; andthen we shall find whether his deductions were justified
or not.
The eclipses are to be seen on one occasion when theobserver (or earth) is at A, and on another occasion

IP

12

KINGS DETHRONEDOLE RO EM ER’S B LU N D ER

when the observer (or earth) is at B, while the hght of
Jupiter’s satelHtes (or the image of the eclipse) is
supposed to cross the orbit at one observation but not
at the other. It is important to note that the observerat B will have to look in a direction toward the sun,and across the o rb it; while the observer at A will
see the eclipse outward from the o r b it; in a direction
opposite to the sun. . . Ole Roemer found that theobserver at B saw the eclipse i6 | minutes later than
he would have seen it from A, and he believed that
this was because the image of the eclipse had a greater
distance to come to meet his eye.
Let us now consider diagram 4, which show's two
observers in the positions Ole Roemer supposed

OF T^Ethe earth to occupy at the respective observations.
We find that A would see the satellite in a stateof eclipse while it would be hidden from B by
the planet Jupiter; (triangle A, i, B). The planet andits satellite are both moving round the sun toward13

the east, as shown by the arrows, but the satellite is
like a moon, travelling round Jupiter ; so that it
moves faster than the planet. The satellite is eclipsed
by Jupiter only when the two are together on the sameline with the sun, (dotted lines), but, as time passes,
the satellite moves to the eastward of that line ; itpasses Jupiter ; and then it can be seen by theobserver at B. (triangle B, 2, A).
Thus it is that B sees the eclipse a few mimxtes later
than A, and that is the very simple explanation
which Ole Roemer overlooked. It would be possible
to write a volume on this subject, and there are some
who would want to debate it at interminable length,
but in the end the explanation would prove to be justthis ; which I prefer to leave in all its simplicity.
The i6 | minutes difference in time is due to a differencein the angles from which the eclipses are seen, and is
not in any w ay connected with distance ; and so
the speculations of Ole Roemer concerning the
Velocity of Light and the probable distance to thesun amount to nothing.

G IAN TS OF MODERN ASTRONOM Y

Chapter Four
GIAN TS OF MODERN ASTRONOM Y
B e f o r e passing on to the more important part of thiswork, it is only just to record the fact that the firstpractical work in triangulation since the time of
Hipparchus was performed b y Jean Picard andJ. and D. Cassini, between Paris and Dunkirk toward
the end of the 17th century ; when Newton wasworking out his theories.
A t this time the Copernican theory of astronomy
was well established, and was accepted b y all thescientific world, though it is probable that the publicin general found it difficult to reconcile the idea of anearth careering through space at prodigious speed with
common sense and reason. Even the most ardent
followers of Copernicus and Galileo recognised thisdifficulty, and some strove to find a satisfactory
explanation.
Nearly a hundred years ago Kepler had suggested
that some kind of unknown force must hold the earth
and the heavenly bodies in their places, and now Sir
Isaac Newton, the greatest mathematician of his age,took up the idea and built the Law of Gravitation.
The name is derived from the Latin word “ gravis,”which means “ heavy,” “ having weight,” while theLaw of Gravitation is defined as “ That mutual action
between masses of matter by virtue of which every
such mass tends toward every other with a force
varying directly as the product of the masses, andinversely as the square of their distances apart.”
Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be “ That
which attracts every thing toward every other thing.”
That does not tell us much ; and yet the little itdoes tell us is not true ; for a thoughtful observer
1415

knows very well that every thing is not attracted
towards every other thing. . . The definition implies
that it is a force ; but it does not say so, for thatphrase “ mutual action ” is ambiguous, and not at
all convincing.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that “ The
Law of Gravitation is unique among the laws of nature,
not only for its wide generality, taking the whole
universe into its scope, but in the fact that, so far as
is yet known, it is absolutely xmmodified by any
condition or cause whatever.”
Here again we observe that the nature of gravitation
is not really defined at a l l ; w’e are told that massesof matter tend toward each other, but no reason is
given why they do so, or should do so ; while tosay that “ it is absolutely unmodified by any con­dition or cause whatever ” is one of the most un­scientific statements it is possible to make. Thereis not any thing or force in the universe that is
absolute ! no thing that goes its own way and does
what it will without regard to other forces or things.
The thing is impossible; and it is not tru e; wherefore
it has fallen to me to show where the inconsistency in
it lies.
The name given to this mutual action means“ weight,” and weight is one of the attributes of all
matter. Merely to say that anything is matter ormaterial implies that it has weight, while to speakof weight implies matter. Matter and weight are
inseparable, they are not laws, but elemental facts.
They exist.
B ut it has been suggested that gravitation is a force,indeed we often hear it referred to as the force ofgravitation ; but force is quite a different thing thanweight, it is active energy expressed b y certain con­ditions and combinations of matter. It acts.
All experience and observation goes to prove thatmaterial things fall to earth because they possess theattribute of weight, and that an object remains sus­pended in air or space only so long as its weight isKINGS DETHRONEDGIANTS OF MODERN ASTRONOMY

overcome by a force, which is contrary. And when
we realize these simple facts we see that gravitation isin reality conditioned and modified by every otheractive force, both great and small.
Again, gravitation is spoken of as a pull, an agentof attraction that robs weight of its meaning, some­thing that brings all terrestrial things down to earth
while at the same time it keeps the heavenly bodies
in their places and prevents them falling toward eachother or apart. The thing is altogether too wonderful,
it is not n a tu ral; and the theory is scientificallyunsound. . .
Every man, however great his genius, must be
hmited by the conditions that surround him ; andscience in general was not sufficiently advanced two
hundred years ago to be much help to Newton, so
that— for lack of information which is ordinary
knowledge to us hving in the 20th century— he fell
into the error of attributing the effects of “ weight ”
and “ force ” to a common cause, which— for wantof a better term— he called gravitation ; but I havenot the slightest doubt that if he were living now hewould have arrived at the following more reasonableconclusions:— That terrestrial things fall to earth by“ gravis,” w eig h t; because they are matter ; while
the heavenly bodies (which also are matter) do not
fall because they are maintained in their courses bymagnetic or electric force.

Dr. Hailey that it might be possible at least to find the
distance from the earth to the sun, or to the nearest
planet.
Remembering the time-honoured dogma that thestars are infinitely distant, inspired by the magnifi­
cence of the Copernican conception of the universe,
and influenced— no doubt— by the colossal suggestionsof Ole Roemer, he tried to invent some means ofmaking a triangulation on a gigantic scale, with abase-line of hitherto unknown dimensions.
Long years ago Kepler had worked out a theory ofthe distances of the planets with relation to eachother, the principle of which— when expressed in simple
language and in round figures— is as follows :— “ Ifwe knew the distance to any one of the planets wecould use that measurement as a basis from which toestimate the others. Thus Venus is apparently about
twice as far from the sun as Mercury, while the earth
is about three times and Mars four times as far fromthe sun as Mercury, so that should the distance of thesmallest planet be— let us say— 50 million miles, then
Venus would be 100, the Earth 150, and Mars 200
millions of miles.”This seems to be the simplest kind of arithmetic,
but the whole of the theory of relative distance goesto pieces because Kepler had not the slightest ideaof the linear distance from the earth to anything in
the fii'mament, and based all his calculations on time,and on the apparent movements of the planets inazimuth, that is— to right or left of the observer, andto the right or left of the sun.
Necessity compels me to state these facts in thisplain and almost brutal fashion, but it is m y sincere
hope that no reader wiU suppose that I under-estimate
the genius or the worth of such men as Newton and
Kepler ; for it is probable that I appreciate andhonour them more than do most of those who blindly
worship them with less understanding. I only regretthat they were too ready to accept Copernican
astronomy as though it were an axiom, and did noti6

Another figure of great prominence in the earlypart of the eighteenth century was Dr. Hailey, who
survived Sir Isaac Newton by some fifteen years, and
it is to him that we owe nearly all the methods ofmeasuring distance which are used in astronomy atthe present day. So far no one had seriously considered
the possibility of measuring the distance to the sunplanets or stars since Hipparchus had failed— awayback in the second century B.C. — but now, since thescience had made great strides, it occurred to

17

i8

KINGS DETHRONED

put it to the proof ; and that, as a consequence, theirfine intelligence and industry should have been de­voted to the glorification of a blunder.
Kepler’s work was of that high order which only
one man in a million could do, but nevertheless, his
calculations of the relative distances of the planets
depends entirely upon the question whether they
revolve round the sun or n o t ; and that we shalldiscover in due course.
However, Dr. Hailey had these theories in mind
when he proposed to measure the distance to Mars
at a time when the planet reached its nearest point
to earth (in opposition to the sun), and then to multiplythat distance by three (approximate), and in thatmanner estimate the distance of the sun. He pro­ceeded then to invent what is now known as the“ Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax,” which
he described in detail in the form of a lecture tocontemporary astronomers, introducing it by remark­ing that he would probably not be living when nextMars came into the required position, but others
might at that time put the method into practice.
WEST. »OR<ION

eAsr HOR'zoi*.

5.
He began by saying that “ If it were possible toplace two observers at points diametrically opposite
to each other on the surface of the earth (as A and B
in dia^am 5), both observers— looking along theirrespective horizons— would see Mars at the same time,
the planet being between them, to the east of one
observer and to the westward of the other. In
these circumstances the diameter of the earth might

GIANTS OF MODERN ASTRONOM Y

19

be used as a base-line, the observers at A and B mighttake simultaneous observations, and the two angles
obtained, on being referred to the base-line, would givethe distance of the planet.”
B ut this was in the reign of George II. long before
the invention of steamships, cables or telegraphs, andDr. Hailey knew that it was practically impossible tohave B taking observations in the middle of the
Pacific Ocean, so he proposed to overcome the diffi­
culty by the following expedient:— He suggested
that both the observations could be taken b y a single
observer, using the same observatory, thus— “ Letan observer at A take the first observation in theevening, when Mars will be to his e a s t : let him thenwait twelve hours, during which time the rotationof the earth will have carried him round to B. Hem ay then take his second observation. Mars beingat this time to his west, and the two angles thus
obtained— on being referred to the base-line— will
give the distance of the planet.”
This proposition is so plausible that it has apparently
deceived every astronomer from that day to this, andit might even now deceive the reader himself were it
not that he knows I have some good reason for describ­
ing it here. It is marvellously specious ; it does notseem to call for our examination ; and yet it is all
w rong! and Dr. Hailey has a world of facts against him.
He is at fault in his premises, for if the planet was
visible to one of the observers it must be above his
horizon, and, therefore, could not be seen at the sametime by the other ; since it could not be above his
horizon also. (See diagram 5.)
Again, his premises are in conflict with Euclid,
because he supposes Mars to be midway between A
and B, that is between their two horizons, which areparallel lines 8,000 miles apart throughout their entire
length, and so it is obvious that if the planet— muchsmaller than the earth— was really in that position it
could not be seen by either of the observers.
The alternative which Dr. Hailey proposes is as

GIAN TS OF MODERN ASTRONOM Y

KINGS DETHRONED

20

fallacious as his premises, for he overlooks the fact
that— according to Copernican astronomy— during thetwelve hours while the earth has been rotating on its
axis it has also travelled an immense distance in its
orbit round the sun. The results are :—D ia g ’ram 6 ,I.

That an observer starting from A can neverarrive at B, but must arrive in twelve hours’
time at a point somewhere about three-quarters ofa million miles beyond it, as shown in diagram 6.

21

2. The observer loses his original base-line, which
was the diameter of the earth, and does notknow the length of his new one, A , G, because
the distance of the sun and the dimensions of theorbit had never previously been measured.
3. The angle of view from G is entirely different
from the one intended from B.
4. Mars itself has moved along its orbit during thetwelve hours, to a new position which is very
uncertain.
5. The triangulation which was intended is utterly
lost, and the combined movements of the earthand Mars, plus the two lines of sight, make up
a quadrilateral figure, which of course contains
angles of 360 degrees, and by means of which
no measurement whatever is possible.
In conclusion. Dr. Hailey was mistaken when hesupposed that two observations made from a single
station with an interval of twelve hours between them,were equivalent to two observations taken simul­
taneously b y A and B. . .
The actual attempt to measure the distance to Marsby the use of this Diurnal Method will be dealt with in
the proper order of events, but for the present— whatmore need I say concerning such ingenious expedients?
A curious example of theorising to no useful purposeis the “ Theory of the Aberration of Light,” which isregarded b y some as one of the pillars of astronomy.
It aims to show that if the velocity of the earth were
known the velocity of hght could be found, while atthe same time it implies the reversethat if thevelocity of light were known we could find at what
speed the earth is travelling round the sun.
If
Bradley intended to prove anything by this theory
it was that the apparent movement of the stars
proves that the earth is in motion ; which surely is^egging the question.
The fact that the theory of the Aberration of Light
has no scientific value whatever is very well shown by

22

KINGS DETHRONED

the following quotation from its author :— “ If theobserver be stationary at B (see dia. 7) the star willg appear to be in the direction B, S ; if,
however, he traverses the line B A in thesame time as light passes from the starto his eye the star will appear in the
direction A. S .”That is true, but it would be no lesstrue if the star itself had moved to theright while the observer remained at B,
but why did he say “ if he moves from B
to A in the same time as it takes light topass from the star to his eye ” ? It is aneedless qualification, for if the observer
moves to A he will see the star at thesame angle whether he walks there at7.
three miles an hour or goes there by
aeroplane at a mtle a minute. It has nothing
to do with the speed of light, and the velocity
of light has nothing to do with the directionof the star, it is merely posing, using words to no
purpose.

Chapter Five
TH E D ISTAN CE TO TH E MOON
L e t u s pass on to something more important, themeasurement of the distance to the moon, the firstof the heavenly bodies to be measured. This was
performed by Lalande and Lacaille in the year 1752,
using the method of direct triangulation. Lalande
took one of the observations at Berlin, while Lacailletook the other at the same time at the Cape of Good
Hope ; a straight line (or chord) joining these twoplaces giving them a base-line more than 5,000 miles
in length.
The moon was at a low altitude away in the west,
the two observers took the angles with extreme care,
and at a later date they met, compared notes, andmade the necessary calculations. As a result themoon was said to be 238,830 miles from the earth,and to be 2,159.8 miles in diameter, the size being
estimated from its distance ; and these are the figures
accepted in astronomy the world over at the present
day.
N.

'I
11

I have occasion to caU the reader’s attention to thefact that some books— Proctor’s “ Old and New
Astronomy ” for example— in describing the principleof how to measure to the moon, illustrate it by adiagram which differs from our diagram 8. Though
the principle as it is explained in those books seems
23

KINGS DETHRONEDTHE DISTANCE TO THE MOON

plausible enough, it would be impossible in practice,for the diagram they use clearly shows the moon to
be near the zenith. Further, it is often said that the
distance to the moon has been several times measured,
but the fact is that it is of no consequence whether it
has or not, for it is the result obtained by Lalandeand Lacaille which is accepted by astronomy, andtheir observations were taken as I have stated, andillustrated in diagram 8. Moreover, one of thegreatest living authorities on astronomy tells us that
their work was done with such precision that “ thedistance of the moon is positively settled, and is
known with greater accuracy than is the length ofany street in Paris.” Nevertheless we will submit itto the test.
There is every reason to beUeve that the practicalwork of these two Frenchmen was most admirably
done, and yet their labours were reduced to naught,
and the whole object of the triangulation was defeated,because, in making the final computations they made" allowances ” in order to conform to certain of theestablished false theories of astronomy.
One of these is the Theory of Atmospheric Refrac­tion, which would have us believe that when we see
the sun (or moon) low down on the horizon, at sunrise
or sunset, it is not really the sun itself that we see,but only an image or mirage of the sun reflected up
to the horizon b y atmospheric refraction, the real
sun being at the time at the extremity of a line drawn
through the centre of the earth, 4,000 miles below
our horizon. (That is according to the astronomy
taught in all schools.)
According to this theory there is at nearly all times
some degree of refraction, which varies with thealtitude of the body under observation, so that (insimple) the theory declares that the real moon wasconsiderably lower than the moon which Lalande andLacaille actually saw, for that was only a refracted
image.
They had, therefore, to make an allowance foratmospheric refraction. They had to find (by theory)
where the real moon would be, and then they had tomodify the angles they had obtained in practicaltriangulation, by making an allowance for what is
known as “ Equatorial Parallax.”Iwill explain i t :— Equatorial Parallax is defined as“ the apparent change in the direction of a body when
seen from the surface of the earth as compared withthe direction it would appear to be in if seen fromthe centre of the earth.”
It is difficult not to laugh at theories such as these,but I can assure the reader that astronomers takethem quite seriously. If we interpret this rightly,
it is suggested that if Lalande and Lacaille will imagine
themselves to be located in the centre of the earth
they will perceive the moon to be at a lower altitude
than it appeared to them when they saw it from theoutside of the e a rth ; and modern Copernican
astronomy required that on their return to Paris
they should make allowance for this.
Now observe the result. It has been shown that“ Equatorial Parallax ” is only concerned withaltitude ; it is a question of higher
or low er; it has to do with obser­
vations taken from the top of theearth compared with others taken
theoretically from the centre.
Really it is an imaginary tri­
angulation, where the line E P
in diagram 9 becomes a base-hne.
The line E P is v e rtica l; there­
fore it follows that the theoreticaltriangulation by which Equatorial
Parallax is found is in the vertical plane. . . We
remember, however, that the moon w'as away in thew'est when seen by Lalande and Lacaille, while theirbase-line was the chord (a straight line running northand south) connecting Berlin with the Cape of Good
Hope. These facts prove their triangulation to havebeen in azimuth ; that is, in the horizontal— or nearly

24

25

26

KINGS DETHRONED

horizontal— p lan e; indicated by the base-line B C indiagram 9.
Now the three lines of any and every triangle areof necessity in the same plane, and so it follows thatevery calculation or allowance must also be in thatplane ; but we find that while Lalande and Lacaille’s
triangulation to the moon was in the horizontal plane
B C, the allowance they made for Atmospheric Refrac­tion and Equatorial Parallax was in the contrary
vertical plane E P ! . . .
B y that almost inconceivable blunder real andimaginary angles came into conflict on two different
planes, so the triangulation was entirely lo s t ; and asa consequence the distance of the moon is no more
known to-day than it was at the time of the flood.
N .B.— All other attempts to measure the distanceto the moon since that time have been
defeated in a similar manner.

Chapter Six
ROMANTIC TH EO R IES
T h is history of the evolution of astronomy would not
be complete if we omitted to mention here the fact
that, though the French school of astronomers had
been foremost in adopting practical triangulation, it
was not until the British took up the work in 1783
that the triangulation of the earth was seriously begun.

A t about this time Immanuel Kant was laying thefoundation of the Nebular Hypothesis— the theory
that the earth and the planets were created by thesun.
Sir William Herschell became interested, and carried
the thought further, but the Nebular Hypothesis may
be said to have been still only in a nebulous state untU
it was taken up and developed b y the brilliant Frenchmathematician and astronomer the Marquis de
Laplace.
A ccording to this hypothesis there was a time, ages
ago, when there w as neither earth, nor moon, norplanets, bu t only an immense mass of incandescentnebulous m atter (where the sun is now), spinning andflaming like a gigantic Catherine w h eel. . . alone amid
the stars.

In other words there was only the sun, much larger
than it is at the present time. This mass cooled andcontracted, leaving a ring of tenuous blazing matterlike a ring of smoke around it. In the course of time
this ring formed itself into a solid ball, cooled, andbecame the planet Neptune.
The sun contracted again, leaving another ring,which formed itself into a ball and became the planet27

28

KINGS DETHRONED

Uranus, and so it went on until Saturn, Jupiter,Mars, and then the Earth itself were created in asimilar way ; to be followed later by Venus and
Mercury.
In this way Laplace explained how the earth andthe planets came to be racing round the sun in themanner described by Copernicus; and, strange tosay, this Nebular Hypothesis is now taught in theschools of the twentieth century with all the assurance
that belongs to a scientific fact.
Y et the whole thing contradicts itself, for the lawsof dynamics show that if the sun contracted it would
rotate more rapidly, and if it rotated more rapidlythat would increase the heat, and so cause the mass
to expand.
It appears then, that as every attempt to coolincreases the rotation, and heat, and so causes further
expansion, the sun must always remain as it is. It
cannot get cooler or hotter ! and it cannot growbigger or less ! and so it is evident that it never could
leave the smoke-like rings which Laplace imagined.
Therefore we know that the earth could never havebeen formed in that w a y ; and never was part of the sun.
This Nebular Hypothesis is pure imagination, and
it is probable that it was only allowed to survive
because it made an attempt to justify the impossible
solar system of modern astronomy. It ends in smoke.
Just like a weed— which is always prolific— theNebular Hypothesis soon produced another equallyunscientific concept, known as the Atomic Theory.
The idea that everything that exists consists of—or can be reduced to— atoms, was discussed by
Anaxagoras and Democritus, away back in the daysof Ancient Greece, but it was not until the beginningof the 19th century that it was made to account forthe creation of the entire luiiverse. Let us dissect it.
An atom is “ the smallest conceivable particle ofmatter,” that is— smaller than the eye can see, even

ROMANTIC TH EO R IES

29

with the aid of a microscope ; it is the smallest thing
the mind of man can imagine. And the Atomic
Theory suggests that once upon a time (a long way
further back than Laplace thought of) there wasnothing to be seen anywhere, in fact there seemed to
be nothing at all but everlasting empty space ; andyet that space was full of atoms smaller than the eye
could see, and in some manner, which no one has beenable to explain, these invisible atoms whirled them­selves into the wonderful universe we now seearound us.
But if there had ever been a time when the wholeof space was filled with atoms, and nothing else but
atoms in a state of unity, they must have been without
motion ; and being without motion, so they would
have remained for ever ! . . . Of course the ideathat all the elements could have existed in that uniform
atomic state is preposterous, and shows the whole
theory to be fundamentally unsound, but if— for thesake of argument— we allow the assumption to stand,the atomic condition goes crash against Newton’s" Laws of Motion,” which show that “ every thing
persists in a state of rest until it is affected b y someother thing outside itself.”
The tide of events now carries us along to the year
1824, when Encke made the first serious attempt tofind the distance to the sun ; using as the means—
the Transit of Venus.
He did not take the required observations himself,
but made a careful examination of the records which
had been made at the transits of 1761 and 1769, andestimated the sun’s distance from these ; employing
the method advocated b y Dr. Hailey.
What is meant b y the ” Transit of Venus ” is thefact of the planet passing between the observer andthe sun (in daylight) when, b y using coloured or
smoked glasses to protect the eyes, it may be seen asa small spot moving across the face of the solar disk.
The method of finding the distance to the sun, at sucha time, is as follows:— Two observers are to be placed

30

KINGS DETHRONED

as far apart as possible on the earth, as B and S in
diagram lo. From these positions B will see Venms
cross the face of the sun along the dotted line 2, while
S will see theplanet projected
nearer to the topedge of the sun,moving along thelin e I .
The
d istan ce w h ic hseparates the two
projections of Ven­usagain st the
20 .
solar disk, indi­cated b y the short vertical line i — 2 will bear acertain proportionate relation to the base-line— ordiameter of the earth— which separates the observers
B and S.
On referring to the Third Law of Kepler, laid downin the 17th century— it is calculated that the ratioof the line i — 2 as compared with the line B— S will
be as 100 is to 37. Consequently, if we know thedimensions of the triangle from B and S to Venus it
is a simple matter to find the dimensions of the triangle
from Venus to the points i — 2 b y the formvila— “ as100 is to 37.” Further, when we have found thenumber of miles that are represented by the space
w'hich separates the two dotted lines on the face ofthe sun, we can use the line i — 2 as though it were ayard-stick or a rule, and so measure the size of the sun
from top to bottom.
Such is the method which Encke used in his studyof the records of transits of Venus which had been
made fifty years before, and it is stated on the mostreliable authority that the results he obtained were
accepted without question.
In round figures he made the sun to be about
97,000,000 miles from the earth and 880,000 miles
from top to bottom. A ll this seems reasonable
enough, and it certainly is ingenious ; and yet—

ROM ANTIC TH EO RIES

31

The observers were not— as a matter of fact—
placed at the poles, nor were they diametrically
opposite to each other as in the diagram, but theyobserved the Transit of Venus from two other points
not so favourably placed, and so “ allowances ” hadto be made in order to find what the dimensions of
the triangle B S Venus would have been if the observers
had been there to see the transit. . . And in making
these allowances our astronomers were all unconsciousof the fact that if the observers really had been there(as in the diagram, and as illustrated in all books andlectures on the subject) they could not both haveseen Venus at the same time, because A and B are
upside down with respect to each other— their two
horizons are opposite and parallel to each other—and the planet could not be above the two horizons
at the same time. But the allowances were made,nevertheless, and the triangle, which, as we see, wasmore metaphysical than real, was referred to theThird Law of Kepler ; which had been designed tofit a theory of the solar system which, so far, has notbeen supported by a single fact. The result of theentire proceeding was “ nil.”A G A L A X Y OF B LU N D ER S

Chapter Seven
A G A L A X Y OF BLU N D ER S
T h e world of astronomy being satisfied that Encke
had really found the distance of the sun, the time
had come when a triangulation to the stars might be
attempted ; and this was done b y F. W. Bessel in theyear 1838. He is said to have been the first man tomake a successful measurement of stellar distancewhen he estimated the star known as “ 61 Cygni ” tobe io | light-years, or 63,000,000,000,000 miles fromthe earth ; its angle of parallax being 0.31 “ ; and forthis work Bessel is regarded as virtually the creator ofModern Astronomy of Precision.
The reader who has followed me thus far will supposethat I intend to examine this measurement of “ 61Cygni.” That is so ; but as it will be necessary to
introduce astronomical terms and theories which will
be unfamiliar to the layman, I must explain these atsome length in order that he, as one of the jury, may beable to arrive at a just verdict. In the meantime I
respectfully call the attention of the responsible
authorities of astronomy to this chapter, for it isprobable that I shall here shatter some of their mostcherished theories, and complete the overthrow of
the Copernican astronomy they represent.
Light is said to travel at a speed of 186,414 miles
a second ; that is 671,090,400 miles in an hour, or
six billion (six million millions) miles in a year.
So
when " 61 Cygni " is said to be io | light-years distantit means that it is so far away that it takes its lightten and a half years to travel from the star to the eyeof the observer, though it is coming at the rate of
671,090,400 miles an hour. One light-year equals
6,000,000,000,000 miles.
32

33

An " angle of parallax ” is the angle at the star, orat the apex of an astronomer’s triangulation.
The
angle of parallax 0.31" (thirty-one hundredths of asecond of arc) is so extremely small that it represents
only one 11,613th part of a degree. There is inGreenwich Observatorj^ an instrument which lias avernier six feet in diameter, one of the largest in theworld. A degree on this vernier measures about threequarters of an inch, so that if we tried to measure•“he parallax 0.31" on that vernier we should fmd it
to be one 15,484th part of an inch. When angles are
as line as this we are inclined to agree with Tycho
Brahe when he said that “ Angles of Parallax exist
only in the minds of the observers ; they are due to
instrumental and personal errors.”
The Bi-annual (or semi-annual) method of stellar
measurement which Bessel used for his triangulationis very interesting, and, curiously enough, it is anotherof those singularly plausible inventions advocated by
Dr. Hailey.
It will be remembered how Hipparchus failed to getan angle to the stars 2,000 years ago, and arrived at
the conclusion that they must be infinitely distant ;and we have seen how that hj^pothesis has been
handed down to us through all the centuries without
question, so we can understand how Dr. Hailey was
led to design his method of finding stellar distance ona corresponding, in­finitely distant scale.
It appeared to himthat no base-line onearth (not even its dia­meter) would be of
any use for such animmense triangulation
EARTVi--'as the stars required,but he thought it mightJl.
be possible to obtain abase-line long enough if we knew the distance of thesu n ; and his reasoning ran as follows;— As we have

DKINGS DETHRONEDA G ALAX Y OF BLUNDERS

learned from Copernicus that the earth travels com­pletely roimd the sun once in a year, it must be on
opposite sides of the orbit every six months, therefore,
if we make an observation to a star— let us say— to­night, and another observation to the same star when
we are on the other side of the orbit in six months’
time, we can use the entire diameter of the orbit as abase-line.
Of course this suggestion could not be put mto
practice until the distance to the sun was found, but
now that Encke had done that, and found it to be about
97,000,000 miles, Bessel had only to multiply that by
two to find the diameter of the orbit, so that the lengthof his base-line would be, roughly, 194,000,000 miles.
It seemed a simple matter, then, to make two observa^
tions to find the angle at the star “ 61 Cygni,” and tomultiply it into the length of the base-line just as asurveyor might do.
A critical reader might observe that as there is inreality only one earth, and not two, as it appears indiagram 11, the base-line is a very intangible thing
to refer any angles t o ; and he might think it
impossible to know what angles the lines of sight reallydo subtend to this imaginary base-line ; but thesequestions do not seriously concern the astronomer
because the “ Theory of Perpendicularity ” assures
him that the star is at all times perpendicular to thecentre of the earth, while the “ Theory of Parallax ”
enables him to ignore the direction of his base-line
altogether, and to find his angle— not at the base !
but at the apex of the triangle— at the star.
These theories, how'ever, deserve our attention;
Parallax is “ the apparent change in the direction of abody when viewed I'lOm two different points.”
For
example, an observer at A in diagram 12, would see
the tree to the left of the house, but if he crosses overto B, the tree will appear to have moved to the rightof the house. Now in modern astronomy the stars
are supposed to be fixed, just as we know the tree
and the house to be, and an astronomer's angle ofparallax is " the apparent change in the direction of astar as compared with another star, when both areviewed from two
different points, suchas the opposite sidesof the orbit.” The“ Theory of Paral­lax ” as stated in
astronomy, is “ thatthe nearer the star
the greater the parall a x ; h e n ce th egreater the apparent^ ^ 1 2 .
displacem en t t h e^nearer the body or star must be.” In other words,
it is supposed that because the tree in the diagram
is nearer to the observer than the house, it willappear to move further from the house than thehouse will appear to move away from the tree, if theobserver views them alternately from A and B. Thatis the principle which Bessel relied upon to find theparallax of “ 61 Cygni.” (I will leave the reader tomake his own comments upon it.)
The " Theory of Perpen­
dicularity” tells us that allstars are perpendicular tothe centre of the earth, nomatter what direction they
may appear to be in as
we see them from different
points on the su rface;and proves it b y “ Geocen­
tric Parallax.” . . If thatis so, then every two obser­
vations to a star must beparallel to each other, thetwo angles at the base must
inevitably equal 180 degrees, and consequently there
can be no angle whatever at the star ! But the word
perpendicular is a relative term. It has no meaning

34

35

KINGS DETHRONEDA G ALAX Y OF BLUNDERS

unless it is referred to a line at right angles. More­over, no thing can be said to be perpendicular to ap o in t; and the centre of the earth is a point as definedb y Euclid, without length, breadth or thickness;
yet this theory supposes a myriad stars all to beperpendicular to the same pomt. The thing is false.
The fact is that the stars diverge in all directions
from the centre of the earth, and from every pointof observation on the surface. (See diagram 13.) It
would be as reasonable to say that all the spokes of awheel are perpendicular to the hub.

Hipparchus had observed that whereas the suncrossed the meridian every 24 hours, the stars cameround in turn and crossed in a little less, so that, forexample, Orion would cross the meridian every 23
hours 56 minutes 4.09 seconds. This is called a
Stellar or Sidereal day. It is divided into 24 equalparts, or hours, each a few seconds less than theordinary hour of 60 minutes which is taken b y thesun, and it is this Sidereal Time which is used by all
modern astronomers, their clocks being regulated togo faster than the ordinary clock, so as to keep pacewith the stars as they pass. As Sidereal time isdesigned to bring every star back exactly on themeridian every 24 hours by the sidereal clock, itfollows of necessity that the stars re-appear on themeridian with perfect regularity ; (if they do not theclock is altered slightly to make them do so.)The
agreement between the star and the sidereal clock
becomes a truism, and a law invincible. It is certain,
therefore, that if “ 61 Cygni ” did not appear to be
exactly in its appointed place by the astronomer’s time,
the clock was wrong.
We have now twotheories and thesidereal clock toj ( CYfiH)
prove that every
line of sight to“ 61 Cygni ”
isparallel to everyo th er; that they
can n o t
p o ssib ly
converge, and con­sequently that notriangulation was
obtained.
Let usillustrate it in a
diagram : 14. An
observer at A sees the star 61 C y ^ i, and also R, tlw
star of reference ; both on his meridian. The earth is
supposed to be moving round the sun in the directioH

36

So much for the theories ; but Bessel beheved inthem, because they are among the tenets of astrono­
mical faith ; and he discovered that " 61 Cygni ”
appeared to move by an 11,613th part of a degree,
as compared with another star adjacent to it. So
he deduced the parallax 0.31" as the angle of “ 61Cygni,” the other star (the star of reference) being
presumed to be so much further aw'ay as to have noangle whatever.
It appears that— in spite of the fact that the theoryof Perpendicularity makes it impossible to obtain any
angle to a star— Bessel is supposed to have found anangle by means of parallax ; for although the twolines of sight are as nearly parallel as possible, theparallax 0.31' indicates that they are really believed
to converge by that hair’s-breadth. Unfortunately
for this idea, however, the theory of Perpendicularity
is supported by another theory— that of Geocentric
Parallax, w’hich makes every line of sight taken at
the surface of the earth absolutely parallel to a linefrom the centre of the earth to the star, wherefore
astronomy has the choice of two alternatives, viz. :if these two theories are right, neither Bessel nor any­
one else could ever get an angle at the star ; while,on the other hand, if he did obtain an angle,— then the
two theories are wrong.
Still we have not done withthis matter, for the triangulation was made still
further impossible by the use of Sidereal Time.

37

KINGS DETHRONEDA G ALAX Y OF BLUNDERS

of the arrow, until in 182 or 183 sidereal days theobserver is at B, and then sees both the stars on his
meridian exactly as he saw them before. The two
meridians and Unes of sight are parallel, so that ifcontinued for ever they can never meet at a point,
and the two angles at the base equal 180 degrees, yet
the stars are on both lines.
It is obvious, therefore, that the stars have moved
to the left (east), precisely as much as the earth has
moved to the left in its orbit. If the earth has moved,
so have the sta rs; that is clear. We have provedthat Bessel did not get a triangulation to " 61 Cygni,”because it is impossible to do so b y the semi-annualm ethod; and that the apparent displacement, orparallax 0.31" was due to error. No such displace­ment could be discovered unless the clock was wrong,or unless Cygni itself had moved in reality, more orless than the star of reference ; wherefore, as every
astronomer since 1838 has used the same method, it
follows that no triangulation to a star has ever beensuccessfully made ; and that every stellar distancegiven in the modern text-books on astronomy ishopelessly wrong.
Though m y case is now really won, and students
of astronomy will see the justice of m y conclusions, thischapter may not be quite complete without thefollowing comments with reference to diagram 14 :—Reasoning entirely from the standpoint of theCopernican Theories, we have seen that if the earth
has moved from one side of the sun to the other(from A to B), so also have the stars ; but astronomers
know as well as I do that the stars do not move east­
ward, neither do they— in nature— even appear to
do s o ; their movement (real or apparent) being
beyond all doubt— to the westward. So it isestablished that the stars have not moved eastward
from A to B, and this— added to the fact that they
really would be in the same positions with respect tothe meridian as shown in the diagram, proves thatthe earth has not moved eastward either. And as

the earth has not moved from A to B, as Dr. Hailey
and Bessel behaved, the base-line disappears, the orbit
no longer exists ; and with the orbit falls the wholesolar system of Nicholas Copernicus.
N .B.— If the earth remained at A rotating on its
axis once in every sidereal day, the stars
would appear always as shown at A — on themeridian at the end of every revolution ;but then we could not account for the factthat the sun is on that meridian at the endof every solar day— which is nearly fom‘minutes longer than the stellar day. On theother hand, if we assume the earth to berotating on its axis once in every 24 solar
hours, we could not then account for thestars being on the meridian every 23 hours
56 minutes 4.09 seconds, as we have proventhem to be ; and so we arrive at the only
possible explanation, which is— that the earth
remains always at A and does not rotate at
a l l ; but the sun passes completely round it
once in 24 hours, while the stars pass roundit (from east to west) once in every sidereal
day ; thus they re-appear on the meridian
at every revolution, including the 183rd;
and so we find that the star “ Number 61 in
the Swan ” (Cygni) was observed twice fromthe surface of an earth which has never
moved since the creation.
Thus we knowthat the stars are not fixed, as Copernicus
believed;
and the edifice of modern
astronomy— which Sir Robert Ball describedas “ the most perfect of the sciences ” might
be more truly described as the most amazingof all blunders.

38

39

MARS

Chapter EightMARS
I d e a s that have been famiUar to us from our verj^
earliest childhood, which we have heard echoed on
every hand, and seen reflected in a thousand ways,
are tremendously hard to shake. We seem to love
them as part of ourselves, and cling to them in theface of the most overwhelming evidence to thecontrary.
So it often happens that men and women whose
common sense and reason tells them that many of thestatements of astronomy are as incredible as thestory of Jack and the Beanstalk, are still loth to partwith their life-long beliefs, and suggest that, after
all, the modern theory must be true because astronomers
are able to predict eclipses.
But the Chaldeans used to predict the eclipses
three thousand years ago ; with a degree of accuracy
that is only surpassed b y seconds in these days
because we have wonderful clocks which they had
not. Y et they had an entirely different theory of
the universe than we have. The fact is that eclipses
occur with a certain exact regularity just as Christmas
and birthdays do, every so many years, days andminutes, so "that anyone who has the records of theeclipses of thousands of years can predict them aswell as the best astronomers, without any knowledgeof their cause.
The shadow on the moon at the lunar eclipse is said
to be the shadow of the earth, but this theory received
a rude shock on February 27th, 1877, for it is recorded
in M. Camille Flammarion’s “ Popular Astronomy ”
that an eclipse of the moon was observed at Paris on
40

41that date in these circumstances : ” the moon rose
at 5.29, the sun set at 5.39, and the total eclipse of
the moon began before the sun had set.”
The reader will perceive that as the sun and moon
were both visible above the horizon at the same time
for ten minutes_
befca-e su n set,
the shadow on
WEST
the moon c o u l d _____
not be cast by
the earth. (Seed ia g r a m 3 1 .) 31.
Cam ille Flam- Themarion, however, E clip se.
offers the follow­
ing explanation : He says, “ This is an appearance
merely due to refraction. The sun, already below
the horizon, is raised b y refraction, and remains
visible to us. It is the same with the moon, which
has not yet really risen when it seems to have alreadydone so.”"Here is a case where modern astronomy expects
us to discredit the evidence of our own senses, but tobelieve instead their impossible theories. . . This
Atmospheric Refraction is supposed to work bothways, and defy all laws. It is supposed to throw up
an image of the sun in the west— where the atmosphereis warm, and at the same time to throw up an imageof the moon in the east— where it is c o o l! It isabsurd.
When speaking of the measurement of the distanceto Mars b y Sir David Gill, in the same year, 1877,
Sir Norman Lockyer described it as “ One of thenoblest achievements in Astronomy, upon which
depends the distance to and the dimensions of everythmg in the firmament except the moon.” Evidently
a very big thing, worthy of our best attention.
The
method which Sir David Gill used was the “ Diurnal

KINGS DETHRONEDMARS

Method of Measurement b y Parallax," which we havedealt with in an earlier chapter. He adopted thesuggestion made by Dr. Hailey, and took the two
observations to Mars himself, at Ascension Island, in.
the Gulf of Guinea.
The prime object of the expedition was really tofind the distance to the sun (though we remember "thatthat had been done by Encke fifty years before by
the Transit of Venus), which was to be done b y firstmeasuring the distance to Mars, and, having foundthat, by mviltiplpng the result by 2.6571 (roughly 3),
as suggested by Kepler’s Theory of the relative dista,nces of the sim, earth and planets, in this manner :Distance to Mars, 35,000,000X2.6571 = 93,000,000
miles.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that “ Thesun’s distance is the indispensable link which connects
terrestrial measures with all celestial ones, those of
the moon alone excepted, hence the exceptional pains
taken to determine it,” and assures us later that
" The first really adequate determinations of solar
parallax were those of Sir David Gill— result 8.80",’'and that his measures " have never been super­
seded."
He found the Angle of parallax of Mars to be about
23*, which made its distance to be 35 million miles,
and this, multiplied b y 2.6571, showed the sun to be
93 million miles in the opposite direction. We realizethat although the sun’s distance is said to be theindispensable link, it depends upon the measurement
to Mars, so that this is more indispensable still.
It is the key to all the marvellous figures ofastronomy, and for that reason we will give it special
treatment.
The figure 35,000,000 miles depends upon the angle
at the planet, which is an angle of parallax. That is—
the apparent change in the direction of Mars to theright or left of the star x (star of reference) when bothare viewed from the opposite ends of a base-line,
which, in this case, is the diameter of the earth ; seediagram 15. Theory ; If Mars is much nearer than x,
and both are on a line perpendicular to the centre of
the earth, an observer at A will see
the planet to the left or east of the^star, while B will see it to the rightor west of that star. (East and west
are local terms, and change with theposition of the observer.)The star of reference is presumed tobe billions of miles away, so far away,
indeed, that it is supposed to have noangle at all, so that the lines A x
and B x are really parallel to eachother, and at right angles to the base­line, as shown in diagram 16. Even
Mars is at a tremendous distance, sothat the angle of parallax is thevery small fraction of a degree by
which the planet is less perpendicularthan the star.
N evertheless,however slightthe apparent nj
displacem entof Mars may
D ilai^ram 15.
be, if it is be­
tween the two perpendiculars
A X , and B x, the lines of sightA M and B M would meetsomewhere at a point.
So far we have supposed A
and B to be making observa^
M
tions at the same time, butb o a
Sir David Gill believed withDr.
Hailey that he might17,
take the two observations
himself, the first from A in the evening, and thesecond from B the next morning, allowing therotation of the earth to carry him roimd from A to B
during the night, and that these two observations

42

L

43

KINGS DETHRONED

MARS

would give the same result as two observations taken
b y A and B at the same Greenwich time. Accordingly
he took two observations at Ascension Island, one tohis east and the other to the west, and, rel5^ g upon all
the theories of his predecessors, failed to perceive thath^ second line of sight to the planet was on the wrong
side of the perpendicular, and diverged from the first.
The fundamental principle of parallactic angles isunsound, while it is at the same time in conflict withquite a host of other astronomical theories, because
the theories of Atmospheric Refraction, Perpen­
dicularity, Geocentric Parallax, and the Aberration ofLight, combined with the use of Sidereal Time, all go
to prove that every observation taken from thesurface of the earth to a star is exactly parallel with aline from the centre of the earth to the same star,and that B ’s line to x is parallel to that of A.
Consequently if Mars were on the line O X (indiagram 15), as Dr. Hailey presumed when he invented
this method, it would be perpendicular to both A andB, therefore neither one observer or the other would
see it at any angle at a l l ; as shown in diagram 17.
It is not possible for any observer on earth to see Mars
to the right or left of a star that is perpendicularunless the planet is in reality to the right or left ofthat perpendicular. No apparent displacement could
occur, but the displacement must be p h ysical; and so
the theory of parallactic angles is exploded.
Of course there will be some ready to contend thatSir David Gill really did measure an angle. That istrue ; but it will prove to be an actual (physical)
deviation of the planet from the perpendicular, which
is a very different thing than an angle of parallax.
But it was believed to be a parallactic angle, that is tosay— it was supposed to be only an optical or apparent
displacement due to the change in the position of theobserver from A to B, hence a world of romance isbuilt upon that httle angle in this fashion : Angle ofMars 23" = 35,000,000 miles, .-.35,000,000x2.6571=93,000,000= solar parallax 8.80’ = distance of thesun .-.the sun’s diameter is 875,000 m iles; weightX Y Z lbs., age 17,000,000 years, and will probably beburnt out in another 17 million years. 93,000,000 x
2 = 186,000,000 miles diameter of earth’s orbit, thedistance to the stars must be billions of miles or evenmore, they must be a terrific size, and the earth is only
like a speck of dust in the Brobdinagian Universe,&c., &c., &c.
But we have not yet donewith that angle. Regarded
as an angle of paraUax,
and considered to beequivalent to just such anangle as a surveyor would
use in measuring a plot ofland, it was of course pre­sumed that the two linesof sight converged so as tomeet at a point thirty-five
miUion miles away. (Seediagram 18.) This, however,is a mistake, for the twolines of observation, whenplaced in their proper re­lations to each other, and in the order as they weretaken, should be as in diagram 19, which shows thatthey diverge.
We will prove this in diagram 20. A study of ourearlier diagram 6— which gives a suggestion of asmall section mapped out with dotted lines to indicate
latitude and longitude in imiversal space— reveals
the fact that twelve hours’ rotation of the earth does
not transfer the observer from A to the point B inspace, because— according to Copernican astronomy—
the earth is not only rotating on its axis during thosetwelve hours, but also rushing through space in agigantic orbit round the sun at the rate of sixty-six
thousand miles an hour, or thereabouts, and so when
the observer takes his second observation he is some­thing like three-quarters of a million miles away

44

jf

45

KINGS DETHRONED

MARSfrom where he started.
He is at latitude G in
diagram 6.
Now let us study diagram 20, which has been madeas simple as possible in order to illustrate the prin ciple
involved the more clearly. The letter C is used inthis diagram to take the place of G in the earlier
diagram 6, because it is simpler to describe the move­ments of the observer b y A, B, C than it is by A , B, G ;easier to convey m y meaning.

I foresee a very pretty debate, wherefore I advise
them that I know that Sir David did not really takehis observations with a twelve hours’ interval as
proposed by Dr. Hailey— because it was impossible—)ut that he actually waited only seven and a half
hours (hence m y use of C in place of G in diagram 20),
but that only elevates the discussion to a higher
plane, while the principle and the net results remain
the same. In the appointed time and place I will
discuss the actual practice if desired, but here I am
dealing with the principle ; and talking to the layman
and the judge.
Now let us get on with this diagram 20. The firstobservation is taken at A and the second at C. It
was evening when the observer was at A, but it ismorning when he arrives at C, so that his east andwest are reversed, the sun remaining fixed far below
the bottom of this page. (The sun is at the observer’s
west in the evening, and to his east in the morn­ing, while Mars is in the opposite direction to thesun.)
In this example I have placed the planet exactly on
the perpendiciiar from A to the star of reference,thus “ A MARS X .” That is the starting point, or
first observation ; taken in the evening to the observer’s
eastward. Twelve hours later the observer is at C,
and sees the same star and the planet both to his w e s t;
but Mars is at this time not exactly on the perpen­
dicular, but a little, a very Httle, to the left of the star.
The planet is not quite as much west as the star, thatis to say— being to the left— it is to the eastward inuniversal geography ; and to the eastward of theperpendicular line C X.
Now if we were not particularly careful, and had notthis diagram to guide us, it would be quite natural tothink that the first observation (to the east) should beon the left hand, and the other (west) on the right,
so as to face each other, so that any angle that might
appear, such as an angle of parallax, would be between
the two perpendiculars to the star. In that case

46

,E .

OR0«T*

OFI

EARTH

2 0 m
All the principles and theories of modern astronomy
have been carefully observed, and the parallelism of
the lines is strictly in accordance with the theories
of Greenwich. As I anticipate that in the course oftime a battle-royal will wage around this question of
the measurement to Mars, I wish to make it quite clearthat diagram 20 is designed only to illustrate theprinciples ; it is to clarify the whole proceeding sothat the layman can follow the argument. If theRoyal Astronomical Society have any objection to
make, I will be happy to discuss these questions withthem in a manner worthy of the subject. The dis­cussion m ay then, perhaps, be more refined, indeed.

47

T
KINGS DETHRONED

MARS

they would seem to be as shown in diagram i8 ; butthat is wrong !
Referring again to diagram 20, where the obser­
vations are illustrated in the proper order as they
were actually taken, and all in accordance with thetheories of Copernican astronomy, we find that theangle of Mars is to the EASTW A R D ! outside of thetwo perpendiculars. This is more simply shown indiagram 19. A being the first observation, on theright, and C, the second observation, on the left ;that is correct.
Starting, as we did, with Mars on the perpendicularat A, we know that whenever we shall see it again it
must be to the eastward of the star which marks thatperpendicular, because, while the star remains fixedin space the planet is moving every hour along its
orbit to the eastward round the sun, and so, when
we see it from C the next morning, it is as we haveshown in diagrams 19 and 20. It has moved fromthe line A X to a position a little further east in
universal space than the line C X.
Whatever displacement there is, is outside the two
perpendiculars ; so that the second line of sight toMars diverges from the fir s t; consequently no triangu­
lation occurs, and nothing of any material value isaccomplished.
The so-called
angle of parallax was a displace­ment due to a real movementof the planet during the night.
In conclusion, as A X andC X are one and the same per­pendicular, and no angle, either
real or apparent, occurs between
them, the first observation A X
and the base-line are entirely
Diagram 21.
without value, and may bediscarded as useless. (Diagram 21.) This leaves us
with only the perpendicular C X and the second
observation, which proves to be a narrow inverted
triangle “ C X Mars,” where the displacement of theplanet X M— (hitherto known as the parallax of Mars)— indicates how much the planet has moved to theleft of the star during the n ig h t; while the observerat C is at the apex. Just that, and no more.

48

49

TH E T R A N SIT OF VEN US

Chapter Nine
TH E T R A N SIT OF VENUS, AND TH E D ISTANCE
TO TH E SUN.
N o t content with the work already done, all theworld of astronomy set out to try to measure thedistance to the sun again in the years 1874 and 1882,
by observations of the Transit of Venus.
It was a most elaborate affair, ’tis said to be b y far
the greatest and most costly business ever undertaken
for the purposes of astronomy. Men were trained
specially for the work, equipped with all the mostexpensive things in the w ay of telescopes and instru­
ments, and sent out by the British, French and German
governments, all aUied for the purpose, as expeditionsof astronomers to all parts of the world in order to see
Venus— like a small speck— pass across the face of thesun. We have it on the best authority that the 1874
transit was a failu re; but, nothing daunted, theexpeditions went out again in 1882, to the Indies,
the Antipodes and the polar regions, but again the
results are admitted to be unsatisfactory ; though we
may at least hope the astronomers found some enter­tainment by the way.
The Venus method has already been explained in an
earlier chapter, and illustrated in diagram 10. It
required that observations should be taken simul­
taneously by two observers placed as widely apart as
possible in order to have the longest base-line obtain­
able ; the ideal base-line being the entire diameterof the earth. From among a large number of obser­
vations taken in different parts of the world, twowere selected as being better than the r e s t ; they
were the observations taken at Bermuda— those lovely
little islands near the West Indies— and Sabrina

50

51

Land, on the edge of the icy Antarctic regions ; andfrom this pair the distance of the sun was computed,
but the result obtained has never been consideredgood enough to take the place of the earher figuresof Gill. We will give it the coup-de-grace in shortorder ;—
Bermuda is situated in 32° 15' north latitude, and64° 50' west longitude; while Sabrina Land is 67°
south, and 120° east of Greenwich. We must alsomention the fact that both the sim and Venus were
somewhere between these places, in the eastern
hemisphere.
These common-place facts alone prove that the two
observations were not taken at the same time, andconsequently were useless for the purpose. I will
explain how that is. In their endeavour to secure
the longest possible base-line our astronomers separated
themselves by 99 degrees in the north and south
direction, and b y 184° 50' east and west, so it isperfectly plain that the sim had already set to theobserver at Sabrina Land, before the observer at
Bermuda could see it rise above his horizon at dawn.
N .B.— The sun rises andsets at a distance of 90
degrees from the ob­server, so that the
T ran sit astronom ers
should not have been
more than 180 degrees
apart even if they had
wished to see the simon the horizon; but ourobservers had exceeded
the limit b y nearly fivedegrees. (See dia. 22.)
The two horizons diverge from each other, and forsome part of the time the sun is between them, andnot visible to either observer, while as it must be
above each of these observer’s horizons in tiim inr52

KINGS DETHRONED

order to be seen at all, it is ridiculous to imagine thatany observations taken by B and S in a direction
toward the top of this page and above their horizons
could ever meet anywhere in the universe. The wholebusiness was a fiasco.
Of all the various methods of estimating the distanceof the sun, that by means of the measurement to Marsis b y far the most important, while the second in orderof merit is the one we have just dealt with ; thecomputation by the transit of Venus, which, it will be
remembered, was first used by Encke in 1824. But
there are, no doubt, many adherents of astronomy
who will still hope to save the time-honoured dogma
which hangs upon the question of the distance to thesun ; too egotistical to admit that they could havebeen mistaken, or too old-fashioned to accept new
truths ; and so— while they cannot any longer defend
the Mars and Venus illusions— they will say that theyknow the sun is 93,000,000 miles away because it has
been estimated and verified by quite a number ofother methods, with always the same result, or there­
abouts.
In these circumstances it becomes necessary for us
to touch upon these also. The brief examination weshall give to them will be illuminating, and Astronomers
will probably be surprised in one way while the lajnnan
will be surprised in another. . . . There are somethings which every man or woman of ordinary intelli­gence knows are nonsensical; but when such things
have been permitted to pose for generations as
scientific knowledge it is not sufficient merely to saythat they are absurd ; they must— for the moment-—
be treated as seriously as though they really were thescientific concepts they are supposed to be, and it
must be shown just how, and why, and where, they
are absurd. Then, when that is done, they canmasquerade no more, and wiU no longer obstruct theroad to knowledge.
Any one of these means of estimating the svm's
distance might be made the subject of a lengthy

THE TRAN SIT OF VENUS

53

argument, for they are like " half-truths ” which, as
we all know, are harder to deal with than down-rightfalsehood ; but I do not wish to worry the reader
with any more words than I am compelled to use, andso will deal with them as briefly as possible.
E very one of these things which are beUeved to bemethods of computing the distance to the sun, or meansof verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the
distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every
case the method is the result of deductions from thefigure “ 93,000,000 miles.” I am not particularly
concerned as to how or why this was done, nor is it
m y affair whether it seems incredible or not : but I
do know that it is as I have stated, and that I amvery well able to prove it. I am only interested in
knowing the truth, and in proving it by reason andfact.
The verification of the sun’s distance b y the measure­ments to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho,
in 1888 and 1889, was done in the same manner as
the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely thesame way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s Diurnal
Method of Measurement b y Parallax.
There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the“ Nodes of the Moon,” which it is not necessary forme to dilate upon, because it has already been dis­credited, and is not considered of any value b y theauthorities on astronomy themselves.
The computation of the distance to the sun by the” Aberration of Light ” is based upon the theory
that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity
of 18.64 miles per second. This velocity of the earth
is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling
along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second,
66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five
hundred and eighty-four million miles in a year.

54

KINGS DETHRONED

The last of these figures is the circumference of theorbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course
the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon
the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calcu­
lated by Encke in 1824, and later by Gill in 1877, thatthe whole of the figures— including the alleged “ veloc­
ity of the earth 18.64 miles a second ” — were deduced.
The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is
wrong, because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any
measurement of the sun’s distance whatever ; andthe whole affair is nothing more than a playful pieceof arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is firstpresumed to be known; from that the Velocity ofthe earth per second is worked out b y simple division,and then the result is worked up again by multipli­
cation to the original figure, “ 93,000,000,” and theastronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.
That is why it is absurd.

I.'

The estimation of the distance of the sim by the“ Masses of the Planets ” depends upon the size,
weight, volume or masses of the planets, which depend
upon their distance ; and the distances of the planets
were calculated by Kepler’s, Newton’s and Bode’s
Laws from Sir David Gill’s attempt to measure thedistance of Mars ; wherefore, as we have discoveredthat he did not find the distance to Mars, all the
calculations which are founded upon his entirely
erroneous conception of the distance, size, and massof that planet, go by the board.
It will not do for anyone to say to us that the
distance to Mars is 35,000,000 miles (when in opposi­tion) and therefore it must be 4,200 miles in diameter,
therefore the distance of the sun must be 93,000,000
miles, therefore its diameter must be 875,000 miles
and its mass 1,300,000 times greater than the massof the earth, or three million times greater than Mars,&c., &c., &c., and therefore it must be 93,000,000
miles away. It is neither good logic, good mathematics,
nor good sense.
If anyone seeks to show that

THE TRANSIT OF VENUS

55

the distance from the earth to the sun can be measured
by weighing the sun and the planets let him do hisweighing first, and not assume an yth in g; and hewould do well to remember that “ The sun’s distanceis the indispensable link which connects terrestrial
measures with all celestial ones.”
Finally the sim’s distance as 93,000,000 miles is said
to be justified by the “ Velocity of Light.” The
Velocity of Light was measured by an arrangement ofwheels and revolving mirrors in the year 1882 at the
Washington Monument, U.S.A., and calculated to be
186,414 miles a second.
N .B.— Experiments had been made on several
previous occasions, with somewhat similar
results, but Professor Newcomb’s result
obtained in 1882, is the accepted figure.
Taking up this figure, astronomers recalled that in
the 17th century Ole Roemer had conceived the
hypothesis that light took nearly 8| minutes to travelfrom the sun to the earth, and so they multiplied his
8J minutes by Newcomb’s 186,414, and said, in effect— “ there you are again— the distance of the sun is
93,000,000 miles.” It is so simple ; but we are notso simple as to believe it, for we have shown in diagram
4 how Ole Roemer deduced that 8|- minute hypo­thesis from a mistaken idea of the cause of the differ­ence in the times of the Eclipses of Jupiter’s Satellites ;and we know that there is no evidence in the world
to show that light takes 8J minutes to come from thesun to the earth, so the altogether erroneous andmis-conceived hypothesis of Ole Roemer can not be
admitted as any kind of evidence and used in con­junction with the calculation of the Velocity of Light
as an argument in favour of the ridiculous idea thatthe sun is ninety-three— or any other number ofmillions of miles from this world of ours.
A ll the extraordinary means used by astronomers
have failed to discover the real distance of the sun,

56

KINGS DETHRONED

and the many attempts that have been made haveachieved no more result than if they had never been
done ; that is to say— that it is not to be supposedthat they may perhaps be somewhere near the mark ;but it is to be understood, in the most literal sense of
the word, that the astronomers of to-day have no
more knowledge of the sun’s real distance than Adam.
Indeed we have to forget all the romantic things thathave been said since the time of Copernicus, and lookat the universe, as frankly, and as fearlessly as he did :then we might acknowledge the debt we owe to suchas he, for even though he was so greatly in error his
originality stimulated the world of thought tremend­
ously ; and in that w ay furthered the world’s progress.
And then, tutored and encouraged by the shades of
Hipparchus, Ptolemy, and Copernicus; Kepler,
Newton and all their kind, we might, with the added
experience and advantage of our times, rebuild thescience of astronomy as they would do it now ; true
to the facts of nature.

Chapter Ten
T H E B IR T H OF A N EW ASTRONOM Y
I t is for me, now, to show how the distance to the sun
is really to be ascertained, and this m ay indicate thew ay to a new astronomy, and a saner conception of
the universe.
N

The Copernican astronomy has been so hedged about
with specious theories that it would seem to be im­possible to obtain any kind of triangulation to theleavenly bodies that cannot be negatived by Per­pendicularity, Geocentric Parallax or similar theories,
nevertheless it can be done— and that b y two simul­
taneous observations taken from a base-line which
is on solid earth ; thus :—Let two observers be placed on the same meridian ;A in the northern hemisphere at about Mansfield,
Nova Scotia, for example, 60° N, 74° W., and B in
57

T

TH E E A R TH STAN D S ST IL L

A very well illustrated account of that experimentwill be found in The Sphere, published in London,
June iit h , 1921, and it is from that article I quotethe following, verbatim :— “ But to the experimenters’surprise no difference was discernible. The experi­
ment was tried through numerous angles, but the
motion through the aether was N IL ! ”
Observe that the means employed represented thebest that modern physical science could do to provethe movement of the earth through ethereal space,
and the result showed that the earth did not move at
a l l ! “ The motion through the aether was N IL .” . . .
But the world of astronomy has not accepted that
result, for it continues to preach the old dogma ; itappears that they are willing to accept the decisionsof physicists when it suits their case, but reject themwhen otherwise. And so they still maintain the
fabulous theory that the earth is rushing throughspace at eleven hundred miles a minute ; which, as
they would say in America, " Surely is some traveling.”
It must be faster than a bullet from a Lewis gun.

Chapter ElevenTH E

E A R TH

STAN DS ST IL L

I t would seem that Copernican Astronomy hadreached its highest development about the year 1882,
and then began to decline, or rather, to fall to pieces.
The first evidence of this devolution is to be found in
the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, at Chicago ;the result of which might have undeceived even themost devoted believer in the theory of a spinning
earth.
Professor Michelson was one of the physicists fore­
most in determining the Velocity of Light, while hehas recently been described in the New York Times
as America’s greatest physicist ; and it was he who—
working in collaboration with Morley— in 1887 madethe most painstaking experiments by means of raysof light for the purpose of testing, verifying, or proving
b y physical science, what really was the velocity ofthe earth. To express this more clearly. Astronomers
have for a very long time stated that the earth travels
round the sun with a speed of more than eighteen
miles a second, or sixty-six thousand miles an hour.
Without in any way seeking to deny this statement,
but really believing it to be thereabouts correct,
Michelson and Morley imdertook their experiments inorder to put it to a practical t e s t ; just in the samew ay as we might say “ The greengrocer has sent us asack of potatoes which is said to contain 112 pounds
w e ig h t; we will weigh it ourselves to see if that iscorrect.”More technically, the experiment was to test what
was the velocity with which the earth moved in its
orbit round the sun relative to the aether.
60

61

t

What I have now to record, I do with regret, andonly because m y sense of duty in the pursuit of truth
compels me. It is the circumstance that Sir George
Airy, who retired from his position as Astronomer
Royal in 1881, related— some nine years later— how
he had for some time been harassed b y a suspicion
that certain errors had crept into some of the com­putations published in 1866, and that, though he had
set himself seriously to the work of revision, his powers
were no longer what they had been, and he was neverable to examine sufficiently into the work. Then hespoke of a “ grievous error that had been committed
in one of the first steps,” and pathetically added—“ My spirit in the work was broken, and I have neverheartily proceeded with it since.”
My sym pathy goes out to Sir George in his tribulationof the spirit due to advancing age, while I am notKINGS DETHRONEDTHE EARTH STANDS STILL

unmindful of myself, for I realize that in him I havelost one who would have been a friend, who would
have listened when I said that all was not as it should
be with the science of astronomy ; and stood by
my side, encouraging and helping, when I, younger
and stronger, strove to put it right. I do not knowwhether Sir George A iry was influenced or not by the
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, but it is
at least a noteworthy coincidence that he made thosecomments only three years later ; but in any casescience has need of him, and of such evident openmindedness and sincerity as his, now.

account for the failure of the experiments of 1887 and
1903. In other words it was suggested that wecannot see straight, or that the image of the star as
we see it twinkling there is coming to us in a curve—
following the earth hke a search-light, while it describes
the five terrestrial motions ascribed to it by Newton.
When stated even more plainly it means that when
we think we see a star overhead we are mistaken, forthat is merely the end of a ray of light coming to us
from a star which— in the material body— may bemillions of miles to the right of us, or it might even be
behind us ; as in diagram 26.

62

Not content to beUeve that the earth did not move,further experiments were carried out by Nordmeyerin the year 1903, to test the earth’s velocity in relation
to the Intensities of Light from the heavenly bodies,but he also failed to discover any movement.
Even then astronomers were determined to hold on
to their ancient theories, and deny the facts which had
been twice demonstrated by the best means known
to modern physical science. They preferred to believe
the theory that the earth was gyrating round the simwith the velocity of a Big Bertha shell, and tried toaccount for the physicists’ failure to discover its
movement b y finding fault with the aether (or ether).
It is not only difficult to understand why they should
prefer theory to fact in this manner, and so deceive
themselves ; but it is strange also that the world ingeneral could tolerate such nonsense.
However, the results of several years’ speculations
concerning ether and space were set forth in theyear 1911, in a series of lectures by Professor Ormoff,
Onspensky and Mingelsky, at Petrograd.
It was suggested that light was not permitted tocome from the stars to earth in a straight line, becausesome quality in ethereal space caused it to follow theearth as it moved roimd the o r b it; and that might

63

N.B.— A much greater curvaturethan we have illustrated
in the diagram has since
been suggested in allseriousness b y leading
astronomers from theplatform of the R.A.S.
at Burlington House,
Nov. 6th, 1919, in thesewords— “ . . . .
All lines were curved.
and if they travelled far enough they would
regain the starting point.”
Moreover, Ormoff, Onspensky and Mingelsky had
come to the conclusion that nothing was fixed in theuniverse ; so that while the moon goes round the earth
and the earth and the planets go round the sun, thesun itself is moving with probably a downward ten­dency, carr}dng the whole Copernican solar systemwith it. Further, even the stars themselves have left
their moorings, so that the entire visible universe isdrifting ; no one knows where.
In brief, these Petrograd lectures of 1911 introduced
many new ideas such as those which have become
familiar to the reader in Einstein’s Theory of Rela­tivity, since the year following the great World-War.

R E L A T IV IT Y
i

Chapter Twelve.
“ R E L A T IV IT Y ”
T h e Theory of R elativity is so complicated, that when

it first came to the public notice it was said that there
were probably not more than twelve people in theworld capable of understanding it. But pubUc interest
was aroused, partly by the novelty of Einstein’s
hypothesis, and partly by the spectacular manner inwhich it had been received b y the British R oyal
Astronomical Society on the night of November 6th,
1919, until Mr. Eugene Higgins, of U.S.A., offered a
prize of 5,000 dollars for the best explanation ofrelativity, in the form of an essay, describing it sothat the general public could understand what it was
all about.
The prize was won by Mr. L. Bolton, London ; andhis essay can be found in the Scientific American (NewYork and London), June 1921, and also in the West­
minster Gazette, London, June 14th, 1921.
The
editor of the Gazette found it necessary to remark,when publishing the essay, that “ Our readers willprobably agree that even when stated in its simplest
form it remains a tough proposition.”
That is just the trouble with it. It is about as far
removed from ordinary “ fact ” and “ plain English ”
as it is possible for anything to be ; indeed it is so
intangible that it may well be that Einstein can forma mental picture of it himself, while he is at the sametime unable to convey his meaning to others throughthe medium of ordinary language.
The thing is elu sive; abounding in inference,suggestion, half-truth and am biguity; wherefore it
follows that any discussion of it, such as we propose
to enter upon, must of necessity be almost equally64

65

refined. It might seem tortuous to some readers, andyet be like a very entertaining game of chess to others ;while it certainly will be useful to those who are
wiUing to traverse the long and difficult labyrinththat leads to truth.
R elativity is clever ; but it belongs to the same
category as Newton’s Law of Gravitation and theKant-Herschell-Laplace Nebular Hypothesis, in as far
as it is a superfine effort of the imagination seeking tomaintain an impossible theory of the universe in
defiance of every fact against it. . . . Let us see
what we can do with it.
First, we will let Professor Einstein himself tell us
what he means by Relativity, in the words he usedin the opening of his address at Princeton Universitv.
U.S.A. ; ~“ What we mean by relative motion in a general
sense is perfectly plain to everyone. If we think ofof a waggon moving along a street we know that it ispossible to speak of the waggon at rest, and the street
in motion, just as well as it is to speak of the waggon
in motion and the street at rest. That, however, is avery special part of the ideas involved in the principleof R elativity.”That would be amusing if we read it in a comic
paper, or if Mutt and Jeff had said i t ; but when
Professor Einstein says it in a lecture at the Prince­
ton University, we are expected not to laugh ; thatis the only difference. It is silly, but I may notdismiss the matter with that remark, and so I willanswer quite seriously that it is only possible for me tospeak of the street moving while the waggon remains
still— and to believe it— when I cast away all theexperience of a lifetime and am no longer able tounderstand the evidence of mj?^ senses; which isinsanity. . . . Such self-deception as this is notreasoning ; it is the negation of reason ; which is thefaculty of forming correct conclusions from things
observed, judged by the light of experience. It is
unworthy of our intelligence and a waste of ourKINGS DETHRONEDR E LA TIV ITY

greatest g i f t ; but that introduction serves very wellto illustrate the kind of illusion that lies at the rootof Relativity.
Throughout the whole of his theories there is evi­
dence that Einstein was thinking almost entirely of
their application to astronomy, but it was inevitablethat this should involve him with physics, so that hehad then to engage upon a series of arguments in­tended to show how his principles would work out on
the plane of general science. The first may be said
to be the motive that inspired him ; while the second
consists of complications and difficulties which hecould not avoid. . . . And when he suggested thatthe street might be moving while the waggon with
its wheels revolving was standing still, he was asking
us to imagine that in a similar manner the earth westand upon might be moving while the stars thatpass in the night stand still. It is a Case of Appeal,
where Einstein appeals in the name of a convicted
Copernican Astronomy against the judgment ofMichelson - Morley, Nordmeyer, physics, fact, ex­perience, observation and reason. We, on the other
hand, are counsel for the prosecution, judge and jury.
Under the general heading of R elativity, Einstein
includes an assortment of new ideas— each ofwhich depends upon another,— and each of which
contributes to support the whole.
He saysthat there is no ether, and that light is a material
thing which comes to us through empty space. Conse­
quently light has weight, and, therefore, is subject tothe law of gravitation, so that the light coming froma star may bend under its own weight, or deviate fromthe straight line b y the attraction of the sun, or of
any other celestial body it has to pass in its journeyto the observer on earth. . . .
In that case it follows
that no star is in reality where it appears to be, for itm ay be even as suggested in diagram 26. . . Conse­
quently the heavenly bodies may be much further
away than they have hitherto been supposed to be,
and every method which is based upon the geometryof Euclid and the triangulation of Hipparchus will
fail to discover the distance to a star ; because its realposition is no longer known. Wherefore Einstein
has invented a new kind of geometry, in order tocalculate the positions of the stars by what is nothing
more or less than metaphysics.
We have always been accustomed to measure things
by the three dimensions of Euclid— ^length, breadth andthickness, but Einstein (thinking of astronomy), saysthat “ Time ” is a Fourth Dimension ; and proposesthat henceforth things shoidd be measured on theunderstanding that they have four dimensions— length,
breadth, time, and thickness.
The introduction of “ time ” as a fourth proportionof things makes it necessary for him to invent a
number of new terms, and also to change the namesof some of those that we already know and commonlyuse, thus, for example— “ Space ” is changed to“ Continuimi,” while a “ point ” is called an “ event,”
time— as we have always understood it— no longer
exists, and is said to be a fourth dimension ; while
there are no such things as “ infinity ” or “ eternity ”
in relativity.
That is the case for Einstein. It is the essence of
his Relativity, clearly stated in plain English.
Thedetails of it represent an immense amount of labour ofa refined character, the whole thing is very imagina­
tive, and the work of an artist in fine-spun reflections ;indeed, it is of that double-distilled intricacy whichfinds favour with those who like mental gymnastics andhair-splitting argum ent; and are fond of marvellous
figures.
B ut I can conceive that in the course of time thisRelative Phantasmagoria might come to be regarded
as science, and be taught as such to the children of
the near future ; and that is to be prevented only bydealing with it now ! which I will do, though I grieve
to give so much space to a matter which only calls forit because it is pernicious.

66

67

E IN S T E IN ’S TH E O R IE S EXAM IN ED

Chapter Thirteen
E IN ST E IN ’S TH E O R IE S EX A M IN ED
W h a t e v e r it is that R elativity is supposed to establish
is to be disproved backwards, beginning with theexample which Einstein puts forward— where an
observer standing at the centre of a rotating disk iswatching some one else on. the same disk measuring
the circumference of a circle round the observer by
repeated applications of a small measuring rod ; andafterwards measuring the diameter of the circle in thesame wav.

3!Uc^^ka/rrt 27.
He says that because the disk is in motion, thesmall measuring rod will appear to the observer (atthe centre) to be contracted, so that the person who ismeasuring (whom I will call “ B ” ) will have to apply
the rod more often to go round that circle than hewould if the disk was at rest. That is not true ! . . .
If B actually lays the rod (or foot rule) down upon thedisk correctly, the number of applications to go roimd
the circle will be the same whether the disk is moving
or not, and the observer at the centre will see that it
is so, if he is not made too dizzy to count. On theother hand, if B does not lay the rod down and measure
the circle as one would expect, but only walks aroundthe disk with the rod in the air (as in diagram 27)
68

69

then the rotation of the disk will disturb him, so that
he has to make an effort to preserve his balance ;with the result that he can not place the rod as
accurately as he would if the disk were not in motion ;and in that case it may take either more or less appli­
cations of the rule to go completely round than it
would if the disk were s t ill; and that difference would
be seen by the observer at the centre— not as an
optical illusion ! (as Einstein implies) but in reality ;a result that is entirely physical, and due to physicalcauses. When walking across the disk and measuring
the diameter, B is not disturbed to an}d;hing like thesame degree as in walking round the circumference,and so he measures the diameter more accurately.
Most of us have at some time or other witnessed theantics of a clown trying to run or walk upon a spinningdisk in a circus, and this enables us to understandhow such a motion would affect our friends performingon Einstein’s revolving table.
His example is merely amusing, it serves no useful
purpose, and proves nothing ; unless, indeed, it proves
by analogy that the inhabitants on a spinning earth
would be rendered as incapable of acting and judging
things correctly as his examples.
W hat we have always known as a " point ” in theterms of EucUd, Einstein calls an “ event ! ” but ifwords have any meaning a point and an event are two
totally different things ; for a point is a mark, a spotor place, and is only concerned in the consideration ofmaterial things ; while an event is an occurrence, it issomething that happens. . . . There is as muchdifference between them as there is between thesentence “ This is a barrel of apples,” and “ These
apples came from New Zealand.”
While claiming “ time ” as a fourth dimension,
Einstein explains that " by dimension we must under­
stand merely one of four independent quantities which
locate an event in space.” . . . This is to imply
that the other three dimensions which are in common
use are independent quantities, which is not the case ;KINGS DETHRONEDEINSTEIN’S THEORIES EXAMINED

for length, breadth and thickness are essentially foundin com bination; they co-exist in each and every
physical thing, so that they are related— hence they
are not independent quantities. . . .
On the con­trary, time IS an independent quantity. It is inde­
pendent of any one, or all, the three proportions ofmaterial things, it is not in any w ay related ; andtherefore cannot be used as a fourth dimension.
We know that an event is an occurrence ; and wefind that what Einstein really means b y his fourth
dimension is " merely the time b y which we locate
something that happened in space ; ” and that isjust what time has always meant— the period between
one event and another. . . Length, breadth andthickness, are proportions of each and every finite
th in g ; while time is infinite. The dimensions are
finite ; while time is abstract.

bodies it encounters in its passage. But it always
travels at the same velocity, and so, if we can estimate— for example— how much the light of Canopus ismade to curve by the gravitation of other bodies
between it and the earth (which would be done by
Kepler’s and Newton’s laws), we can calculate howmuch longer its journey is made by those windings,
twists, and turns. Then we can time its arrival,
because— although it has to travel so much further
than its distance would be in a straight line— it always
travels at the same 671,090,400 miles an hour ; or
186,414 miles every second. It is true that Einsteinuses a number of signs and symbols which are supposed
to simplify the process ; though it is probable thatthey do no more than merely make it more mysterious,
but the plain English of it is as I have shown ; and so
we perceive that Einstein uses time pretty much inthe same way as we do, and not as a dimension at all.
Thus we have discovered that the things which here-christened an Event, a Fourth Dimension, and a
New Geometry, are false to the titles he has given
them ; the words as he uses them are misnomers,
therefore we dismiss them ; for they are no longer of
any use or interest to us.
Now we are free to deal with his Law of the Con­
stancy of the Velocity of Light.
We are told that Light is a material thing, and thata beam of light is deflected from a straight line by thegravitation of any and every thing that lies near its
course as it passes within their sphere of influence ;and we are further assured that light always maintains
a uniform speed of 186,414 miles a second. . . . We
have, however, to remind Professor Einstein that the“ Velocity of Light 186,414 miles a second ” wasdetermined as the result of experiments b y thephysicists— Fizeau, Foucault, Cornu, Michelson andNewcomb, all of which experiments were conductedwithin the earth’s atmosphere, on terra-firma ; thelast between Fort Myer and the Washington Monu­
ment.

70

Strangely enough, while Einstein claims that every­
thing is in motion and nothing is stable, he allows one
thing, and one thing only, to remain outside therealm of relativity, independent of everything else ;and that is what he calls his Second Law, theEinstein " Law of the Constancy of the Velocity ofLight.” He claims that the velocity of light is constantunder aU circumstances, and therefore is absolute.
This is a blunder of the first magnitude, but I do
not imagine that he fell into it through any oversight;
for it is quite evident that he was driven into thisfalse position. He was compelled to say that thevelocity of light is constant, because, if he did not
his new geometry would be useless ; for after all his
geometry amounts to this :—He begins by assuming that light is a material
thing, so that it is affected by the gravitational attrac­
tion of any celestial bodies it has to pass on its way toearth, which causes it to deviate from its appointed
course so that it comes to us with more or less curve,
according to its distance, and according to the

71

72

KINGS DETHRONEDEINSTEIN’S THEORIES EXAMINED73

In all these experiments a ray of light was reflected
between two mirrors several miles apart, so that it
had to pass to and fro always through the atmosphere,
and it is not to be supposed that Kght, or anythingelse, can travel at the same speed through the air as
it would through the vacuum Einstein supposes space
to be.
Let us reverse this in order to realize it better. It
is not to be supposed that any material thing travels
at no greater speed through a vacuum than it does
through air, which has a certain amount of density,or opacity.
If anything does not distinguish thedifference between air and a vacuum, then it is not amaterial thing ; it cannot be matter. On the other
hand, anything that is matter must of necessity
make such a distinction, and in that case its velocity
can not be constant.
Again, if a ray of light can deviate from its courseb y the gravitational pull of the sun, or of any othercelestial body it has to pass, it must accelerate its
speed while approaching that body ; and slacken it
again in reverse ratio after it has passed ; hence it
follows that its velocity is not constant.
Once more, if a ray of light can bend by its own
weight, or by the law of gravitation, it is subject toother conditions, and therefore is not absolute. . .
The length of the course used by Newcomb in the final
determination of the Velocity of Light was 7.44242
kilometres (return course). If the ray of light had
deviated by a hair’s-breadth from an absolutely
straight line, it never could have passed through theinterstices between the very fine teeth of his revolving
wheel, or return precisely to the appointed spot on
his sending and receiving mirrors,
which were3.72121 kilometres, or more than two and a quarter
miles apart in a bee-line.
The fact that the ray oflight did pass from mirror to mirror, and through thewheel, proves that it maintained a straight lin e;hence it is certain that it was not deflected from its
course by the gravitation of the earth between the twomirrors ; wherefore it is obvious that it was notaffected by gravitation.
So we find that the very experiments b y which theaccepted 186,414 miles per second as the Velocity ofLight was measured— experiments which were carriedout with the utmost painstaking and minute attention
to detail— prove that a ray of light is not influenced
by the gravitation of the earth in the slightest degree.
Therefore, if those experiments were good enough towarrant all the world in accepting the " Velocity ofLightthey may be equally well adduced as proof
that a ray of light does not bend by its own weight ;and that light is not affected by gra\dtation. . . .
And if it is not influenced b y gravitation a ray of lightcannot be deflected from its course by anything it
has to pass, so that its course remains true to thedirection in which it was discharged ; and that is astraight line in every direction from the source.
(Lord Kelvin tells us that “ Light diverges from aluminous centre in all directions.” )In brief— we find that Light is not a material thing,that it is not subject to gravitation, that it has noweight and does not bend, and that it does not describe
any kind of curve ; but that it is “ an expression,”in the same sense as sound is an expression, and that—as such— its velocity varies according to the densityof the mediimi through which it passes ; and that
therefore the Velocity of Light is not constant, andEinstein’s Second Law is entirely wrong ! . . . The
question of the “ ether versus empty space ” remains
unaffected by his theories, and the stars that glitterhke veritable diamonds in the sky are exactly where
they appear to be.
So much for Einstein’s Second Law. Now let us
examine the other, the first law, or as he calls it—“ The Principle of R e la tiv ity ” : which states “ Thatall inertial systems, that is, all sj^tems which movewith uniform and rectilinear velocity with respect toKINGS DETHRONEDEINSTEIN’S THEORIES EXAMINED

each other, are equivalent in expressing the laws ofnatural phenomena.”
That is what the law is stated to mean. It m ay notappear very inviting to the general reader, but he willfind it quite interesting as we proceed, though it is, ofcourse, of very great importance to every student ofgeneral science and mechanics. As a matter of fact
it is not a law at all, it is a statement. . . A t the sametime it is not a plain statement ; for it is equivocal,
and means something which it does not say ; it is astatement b y implication. . . .
It is as though wewere to say— " Hello, Jones, how long have you beenout of gaol ? ” That would make it necessary for
Jones to prove that he had not been in gaol, in order
to dispose of the implication ; and so it is with thisstatement of the Principles of R elativity ; it is an
implication.
Taken literally it is true ; for it states what isalready known ; but it implies the reverse of what it
states— " that all systems which do NOT move withuniform and rectilinear velocity with respect to eachother are NOT equivalent in expressing the laws ©fnattiral phenomena ! ” and that is very much more
important.
Now if we carry this innuendo to its logical con­clusion, and put it into simple language, it means—“ that no reliance can be placed upon any deductions
which are obtained b y means of observations to theheavenly bodies, because they are taken from thesurface of the earth, and the observer is moving at adifferent speed than the object under observation.”
There would be a certain amount of truth in that if
the earth was really moving ; though, even if thatwere so, the effects of relative movement could be"easily overcome by taking two observations simul­
taneously from opposite sides of the meridian to which
the object was vertical. The effects of time would
be eliminated in that way ; and a mean would be
foimd by comparing the two opposite observations.
And so we find that neither the statement (or law), or

its implication, have any value. The statement mightjust as well have never been made.

74

75

W ith mental agility worthy of a better cause,
Einstein leads from his Mechanical Principle ofR elativity up to the Special Principle of Relativity,
by means of one of the most extraordinary arguments
it is possible to imagine ; but, strange as it is, andinconsequential as it may seem, this argument reallyaffects everything that comes within the range coveredb y the word “ Relativity ” ; and for that reason wewill not allow it to pass unnoticed.
After admitting that Electro-magnetic laws do notalter according to the system in which they occur—that is to say— after admitting that Electro-magnetic
laws act the same all the world over, he proceeds toargue precisely the contrary, by saying, quite definitely,that in reality they do alter, and offers to prove itb y the following statement :— " The motion of each
locality on the earth is constantly changing from hour
to hour, but no corresponding changes occur in electro­
magnetic action.”
Of course this has all the appearance of a man
flatly contradicting himself, and it might even appear
to be nonsense, but in reality it is a very pretty argu­
ment of the most elusive kind which it is a pleasure
to meet. I will confess that I admire Einstein : heskims so close round the edge of the ice. . . .
What he suggests is this :—The observer is located on the surface of an earth
which is rotating on its axis, and at the same time
travelling through space at many thousands of miles
an hour, consequently his place, or locality, is con­tinually changing with respect to an imaginary point
fixed in space. Notwithstanding this change of place,electro-magnetic laws appear to act precisely as theywould if this place was not changing its position withrespect to that point. Therefore Einstein argues thatelectro-magnetic currents must, in reality, vary their

76

KINGS DETHRONED

speed, and so adapt themselves to the changing con­ditions in such a manner as to “ seem the same tothe observer as if he had not changed his position.”
Unfortunately he is unable to show any reason whyelectro-magnetic action should do this remarkable
thing ; for he treats it as a thing that had intelligence,
as if it wilfully acted in a manner calculated to deceive
the observer. When reduced to its essence, this argu­
ment proves to be no more logical than the idea thatthe street might be moving while the waggon was at
rest. Einstein has been betrayed into supposing athing that is altogether impossible , i.e. that a physicallaw can act in an unnatural manner, and yet produce aneffect which appears to be norm al; because he began
by assuming that the locality of the observer waschanging, and that assumption was untrue ! Now if
he can realize the fact that the earth is actually atrest, he will find that his difficulties all disappear ;and that Electro-magnetic laws do not alter, neither
does the locality of the observer change.
But as Einstein persisted in shutting his eyes to thefact that the earth is stationary he did not see theincongi'uity of his assumptions concerning electro­
magnetic action, so that— in order to support his
contention— he was led still further into error, andcompelled to repudiate two of the Laws of Dynamics,
viz. : 1. “ Lengths of rigid bodies are unaffected bymotion of the frame of reference; ” and 2, “ Measured
times are likewise unaffected.”
He says that these two laws of dynamics are untrue,
and thought to prove they were wrong by the fore­
going argument, so it becomes necessary for us toprove the fallacy of that argument in such a manneras to leave no doubt whatever as to what is true, andwhat is false ; the two " Laws of Dynam ics” i and 2,
being the stake at issue.
Einstein believes that the earth is rotating on its
axis in the direction of the arrow in diagram 28, at the

EINSTEIN’S THEORIES EXAMINED77

rate of 1,000 miles an hour ; and that at the same time
it is travelling, en masse, in the same general direction
along its orbit at 66,000 miles an hour ; therefore hethinks that an electro-magnetic current must travelfrom B to A in less time than it will take in travellingfrom A to B, because B is all the while running awayfrom A, while A is always going towards B. . . .
Therefore it appears that themeasured length of a current
passing from B to A (and also
the time it takes) will be shorter
than the measured length andtime of a current passing in the
opposite direction from A to
B ; (hence his contention that
lengths of bodies and measured
times must both be affected by
the motion of the observer.)
Of course we know that his premises were wrong,
and that A and B are both located on an earth which
is at r e s t; but, for the purpose of the argument, we
will waive that, and assume the Copernican astronomy
to be true. Then his argument is not so unreasonable
as it seemed ; indeed it almost has the appearance ofbeing tr u e ; but Einstein has forgotten that theobservers at A and B are both on the same earth—that they both use the same Greenwich Mean Time—and that the Electro-magnetic wave passes from one
place to the other by convexion— so that the earth’s
atmosphere offers the same facility to its passage
from A to B, as it does from B to A.
And that is the trifle that turns the scale against
him. The fact that the whole operation takes place
within the terrestrial atmosphere gives equal con­ditions to an electro-magnetic current passing in any
direction within that atmosphere ; the same being
unaffected b y anything that may, or may not, takeplace in ethereal space, which the earth and its
atmosphere in its entirety is unconscious of . . . .
Thus, an electro-magnetic wave passes from A to B

78

KINGS DETHRONEDin the same time as it passes from B to A , just as a
train travelling at a uniform speed of 60 miles anhour goes from Bristol to London in the same time
as it will go from London to B risto l; while the lengthof the railway track measures the same from Bristol
to London as it does from London to Bristol.
And so the Laws of Dynamics i and 2 remain true ;while Einstein’s contention has been proven false.
The whole hypothesis of R elativity has failed, bothin the mass and in detail, under our examination, so
that, unable to support itself, it can no longer aspireto support any theory of the universe. Therefore
ourjudgment
remains
unaltered. Copernican
Astronomy stands condemned, and has lost its last,and perhaps its ablest, living advocate.

Chapter Fourteen
E IN S T E IN ’S EVID EN CE
it will be remembered that he offered threecrucial tests as evidence in support of his theories,
and these we have still to examine. They are :—1. That certain irregularities in the movementsof the planet Mercury would be accounted
for by Einstein’s geometry.
2. That because light has weight it would bend
by gravitation as it passed near anotherbody on its way to the earth, and that this
could be verified b y observations taken at
the time of a solar eclipse.
3. That certain lines in the spectrum would befound to shift.
We have done with mental athletics, and here wehave something a little more tangible to deal with.
Of the Third it is said b y the Authorities ofAstronomy that the observations necessary to proveor disprove such a shifting of the lines in the spectrum
would be so extremely (fifiicult that it is practically
impossible ever to do it, and therefore it is set aside.
B ut

The First is very well handled in an article byT. F. Gaynor in the London Daily Express of Ttme
6th, 1921.
Mr. Gaynor meets Einstein on his own ground as agood astronomer should, and uses figures which takem y breath away ; but, nevertheless, I will leave him
to deal with crucial test number i.
He says that the discovery of Neptune, 75 years
ago, by means of Newton’s Law, utterly extingiushes
the Einstein theory so far as Mercury is concerned.
79

I I

80

KINGS DETHRONED

Irregularities similar to those of Mercury had been
observed in the movements of Uranus, and in 1841
it was thought that these unaccountable movements
must be due to the gravitation of some other planetat that time still undiscovered. But I will quote
Mr. Gaynor verbatim ;— “ Uranus is 1,800,000,000,000
miles from the sun. Adams and Leverrier, appljdng
Newton’s Law, which, according to Einstein is an
exploded theory, located the probable position of theundiscovered planet a thousand million miles still
further on in space— and there Dr. Galle, the Berlin
astronomer, found it, on September 23rd, 1846.
Thus, 75 years ago, the Newtonian law found apreviously unknown planet (Neptune) at a distanceof 2,800 millions of miles from the sun, yet Einsteinwould have us believe that the same law does not holdgood with regard to Mercury ; which is only 36,000,000
miles from the sun ! . . . The “ proof ” he adducesfrom the aberration of the orbit of Mercury can bedisposed of in a sentence. He has made the ele­mentary blunder of regarding Mercury as globular
instead of spheroidal.”
L ig h t a n d G r a v i t y .

There remains now but one last defence of the
Theory of Relativity, and that is the statement thatlight is really matter, and that it is subject to gravi­
tation. (Test No. 2.)
In order to put this to the test, expeditions ol
British Astronomers were sent to Sobral in North
Brazil, and to the island of Principe on the west coastof Africa, to observe the total eclipse of the sun on
May 29th, 1919, and the results they obtained seemedto justify Einstein’s main test, so that as a conse­
quence the Royal Astronomical Society held a remark­able meeting at Burlington House on November 6th,
1919 ; and on the next day all the world of astronomy
did homage to Einstein.

E IN ST E IN ’S EVID EN CE

81

The results of the eclipse appeared to satisfy thegathering at Burlington House. Sir Frank Dyson,
the Astronomer Royal, described the work of the
expeditions, and convinced the meeting that theresults were definite and conclusive. Dr. Crommelin
explained that the purpose of the expeditions was totest whether the light of the stars that are nearly ina line with the sun is bent b y its attraction, and if so,whether the amount of bending is that indicated by
the Newtonian law of gravitation, viz. : seven-eighthsof a second at the sun’s limb, or the amount indicatedb y the new Einstein T h e o ry ; which postulates abending just twice as great. . . . The results of theobservations were 2.08 and 1.94 seconds respectively.
The combined result was 1.98 seconds, with a probableerror of about 6 per cent. This was a strong con­firmation of Einstein’s Theory, which gave a shiftof 1.75 seconds.
The fourth dimension was discussed, and it appearedthat Euclidian straight hnes could not exist in
Einstein’s space. All lines were curved, and if they
travelled far enough they would regain the starting
point. Mr. de Sitter had attempted to find theradius of space. He gave reasons for putting it atabout a bilhon times the distance from the earth tothe sun, or about sixteen million light-years ! Thiswas eighty times the distance assigned by Dr. Shapley
to the most distant stellar cluster known. The
Fourth Dimension had been the subject of vague
speculation for a long time, but they seemed at last
to have been brought face to face with it.
Even the President of the Royal Society, in statingthat they had just listened to “ one of the most
momentous, if not the most momentous, pronounce­
ments of human thought,” confessed that no one had
yet succeeded in stating in clear language what thetheory of Einstein really was. . . . But he wasconfident that " the Einstein Theory must now be
reckoned with, and that our conceptions of the fabricof the universe must be fundamentally altered.”

82

KINGS DETHRONED

Subsequent speakers joined in congratvilating theobservers, and agreed in accepting their results.
More than one, however, inckiding Professor Newell,of Cambridge, hesitated as to the full extent of theinferences that had been drawn, and suggested thatthe phenomena might be due to an unknown solar
atmosphere further in its extent than had been
supposed, and with unknown properties.
W ith such a reception as this it is not surprisingthat the followers of Copernicus everywhere should bealmost willing to believe in R elativity whether they
understood it or not ; but the Royal Astronomical
Society might have been a great deal more careful
than they were, as we shall see :—That the Einstein Theories were automaticallycoming to be regarded as accepted science, is evidenced
by the fact that the Astronomer Royal himself intro­
duced them into a pubhc lecture on eclipses which hegave at the Old Vic. in the February of 1921.
Coming to the description of the eclipse of May
29th, a slide was thrown upon the screen to illustrate
the result of theobservations t h a t
were said to verify
E in stein 's Theory.
(See diagram 29.)
The lecturer des­cribed how certain
stars which were in thesame direction as the
sun could, of course,
not be seen in theordinary way in the
day time, but when the sun was obscured, as at the timeof a total eclipse, they could be seen through a smokedglass or telescope. The exact position of these stars
was known to astronomy, but if Einstein’s Theory wascorrect the light coming from them to the observer
would be bent as it passed near the sun, so that theywould not appear to be in their true positions. ThenE IN S T E IN ’S EVID EN CE

83

he showed how the Einstein Theory was verified ;for the stars were observed to be a little further fromthe sun than their theoretical or true positions.
But the Law of Gravitation is " That mutual action
between masses of matter by virtue of which every
such mass tends towaid every other, &c., & c.”
Observe that it tends to w ard ; it attracts ; itpulls ; therefore— if light was matter, and was affectedby the gravitation of the sun, the stars would be seen
nearer to the sun ; and not as stated by the lecturer
and illustrated on the slide.
In diagram 29 the crosses X X suggest the normal,
true, or theoretical positions of the stars with respect
to the sun. If Einstein’s theories had been right thestars would be seen nearer to the sun than the crosses,
but the Astronomer Royal demonstrated the factthat they were actually further away !
Such was the real result of the solar eclipse of May
29th, 1919. The circumstances had been laid before
the Royal Astronomical Society in Burlington Houseon November 6th, and yet, for some unaccountablereason they failed to perceive that the result wascontrary to the Law of Gravitation ; and clearly
demonstrated the fact that Einstein’s Theory is false.
N .B.— The real cause of the displacement of thesestars from their true positions is known tothe author, and will be explained in abook sequel to this work ; but he does notconsider that explanation necessary to thepresent discussion. Einstein’s Theory isdisproved ; alternative or no alternative.

M A RVELS OF ASTRONOM Y

Chapter Fifteen
M ARVELS OF ASTRONOM Y
now remains of that astronomy which wasonce said to be the most perfect of the sciences ; andimagination— stretched even to its uttermost— hasfailed to support it in the face of reason, and yet theselast two years since R elativity became the vogue
have produced the most remarkable figures astronomy
has ever known.
N o t h in g

" B e t e l g e u s e .”In December 1920, Professor Michelson related how
he had perfected an instrument known as an Interference-Refractometer, and how he had used it tomeasure the angular diameter of the star Betelgeuse,in the Belt of Orion ; and found it to be 0.046 seconds
of arc. That is to say that he found the measurementof this star as it appears to the eye (which is only likea glittering pin-point) to be 0.046" from one side to
the other, and that is one-twentieth part of a secondof arc, or 1-72,000th part of a degree ; very finemeasurement indeed.
Professor Michelson, however, is a physicist, speciallyinterested with theories of light, and so, having in­vented the instrument and measured the apparent
diameter of the star, his work was done.
Astronomers then took up the m atter, and onreferring to their records, found the distance of Betel­geuse to be 180 light-years; that is 180 times
6,000,000,000,000 miles, or one thousand and eighty
billions of miles from the earth ; and so they calculated
84

that if a thing so far away appeared to be i-72,ooothpart of a degree in diameter, its real diameter mustbe two hundred and sixty million miles !
Then the world of astronomy pointed with pride to
the m ighty star that was 260 million miles from one
side to the other, and told how the sun was a million
times bigger than the earth, while Betelgeuse was 27
million times bigger than the sun. . .
The actual size of Betelgeuse, however, depends
upon its distance, and as we have shown in the chapter
on “ 61 Cygni ” that the astronomers' method of
measuring stellar distance is absolutely useless, weknow that they are entirely wrong in supposing
Betelgeuse to be 1,080 billions— or any other numberof billions— of miles from the earth. Therefore it
follows that as they do not know its distance, they
m ay not use its apparent diameter and divide that
into unknown billions of miles. Being in reality quite
ignorant of the distance of Betelgeuse, they have nolegitimate means of forming any conception of its
dimensions at all. Those dimensions are to beascertained by first finding the star’s real distance,
which is something less than twenty thousand miles.
Then that may be divided by Professor Michelson’s
0.046", which will show the actual size of that twinkling
little point of light known as “ Betelgeuse ” to be
not much more than twenty-five f e e t !
It has since transpired that the distance to Betel­geuse had been measured on three different occasions,each time with a different result. One of theseshowed it to be 654 billions, another made it 900
billions, while the other gave it as 180 light-years,
or 1,080 billions of miles away ; and it is surprisingthat astronomers did not realise the fact which was
clearly demonstrated by these differences— that their
methods of measuring stellar distance are not to berelied upon.
In the meantime we can see no reason why they

KINGS DETHRONEDMARVELS OF ASTRONOMY

preferred to use the greatest of the three various
estimates of the star’s distance— in conjunction withMichelson's angular diameter— rather than the least,
for that only seems to have had the effect of magnify­
ing the dimensions of Betelgeuse to the uttermost.

shot in this well-ordered universe ; unless, perchance,
he had forgotten about the Law of Gravitation. And
how are we to understand how the earth could be
set on fire when he tells us that we may pass throughthe tail of a comet without harm because it is reallya far higher vacuum than anything that can be pro­
duced in our laboratories ? . . Then what are we tothink of it all when Professor Fowler tells us that we
don’t know how a comet is formed, we don’t know
where it comes from, and don’t seem really to know'what it is ? . . He thought they m ay come fromgases thrown off from the sun which are graduallycooled ; but that made it even more dif&cult to under­
stand how it could set the earth on fire, or what all
the bother was about.
Nevertheless the discussion continued, until at last
the leading authorities advanced the “ Fascinating
Theory that Pons-Winnecke may have come from a
distance in space so great that it is impossible to thinkor speak of that distance in terms of miles.” That
took our breath away, for it appeared that the cometmight come out of illimitable space, to wander amid
the stars at its own sweet will, regardless of the Laws
of Dynamics and Gravitation. . .
Even yet the romance is not complete— for after
waiting in great expectation for several months the
Secretary of the RoyaL Astronomical Society told usthat " Pons ” had been seen again ! this time with
only a stump of his original tail, though even thisstump was five hundred million miles long, and seemed
to be comprised mostly of gas and meteors. . . It is
not recorded how he knew the length of its tail, andnothing was said as to what had become of the re­mainder ; but to cut a long tale short— the summer
came and passed— but Pons-Winnecke never arrived !
. . . He was lost; and even now he may be wandering
on and on, somewhere in fathomless space, no one
knows whither ; and nobody cares.

86“ PONS-WlNNECKE.”

While the excitement over Betelgeuse was at its
height the universe loomed even larger than before,
for Canopus and Rigel were then said to be “ 460light-years away and they may be 1,000 or more.”
Meanwhile Dr. Crommelin gave us a scare with thestory of how a comet called Pons-Winnecke wasrushing toward the earth at a hundred thousand miles
an hour, while Dr. Slipher dicovered a nebulous massthat was gyrating round the firmament at eleven
hundred miles a second ! ! ! This, so far, has neverbeen surpassed, and “ SP IR A L N E B U LA NUM BER
584 ” still holds the record of being the fastest thingin creation ; its velocity being so great that it could
go from Liverpool to New York in two ticks of theclock.
Pons-Winnecke had been seen somewhere in Africa
in January 1921, and it was predicted that this cometwould be visible at London in June ; and this gave
rise to much speculation. It was said that PonsWinnecke might strike the earth with a fearful bumpabout the 26th of June, but Mr. E. W. Maunder said
that though there might be a bump it is only a fog ofgas after a l l ; while Dr. Crommelin thought the cometmight miss the earth this time, and so there appeared
to be no danger. . . Then Sir Richard Gregory said
that if the head of Pons-Winnecke did hit the earth
it might set the world on fire, but we were reassured
again when he told us that there is about as muchchance of the comet hittmg the earth as of a random
shot hitting a bird in full flig h t; yet it seemed strangethat he should imagine a comet to be like a random

Ml t

87'

88
1

KINGS DETHRONED“ T h e R u d d y P l a n e t .”A t about the same period there was much ado about
the planet MARS.
It had long been supposed that this planet was verymuch like the earth, but inhabited b y a race of giants,
probably about fifteen feet in height. Some straightlines which had been observed on the planet were thought
to be irrigation canals made b y men ; and one could
imagine fields of cabbages, cauliflowers, and spring
onions growing along the banks ; indeed one could
imagine anything. And so, when wireless operators
in various parts of the world began to hear strange
noises which they could not account for (about thetime of Pons-Winnecke) the rumour spread abroadthat they might be wireless signals from Mars.
It was not suggested that the Martians might besending these signals in reply to those we had thoughtof flashing to them in 1910, but it was supposed thatthe people on Mars might have been hearing things!;
and thought our wireless operators were tic-tacking
to them. So the possibility of sending messages tothe ruddy planet b y wireless telegraphy came to be
discussed almost as much as the comet.
Astronomers said that although the earth is about
seventeen million years old. Mars is very much older ;therefore it was presumed that the Martians would
probably be more advanced in knowledge than weare, and might have been using wireless for goodness
knows how long, and had now discovered that we had
a Marconi System.
The tappings and crackUngs that were heard some­times at night were rather uncanny, and could not be
understood, but this was not because the Martian’s
language was different than ours ; it was because
the vibrations that affected the wireless coherers werereally caused by the spUtting of the ice around thepole !
Spring was advancing in the northern hemisphere,
and the ice-fields were melting and breaking before

MARVELS OF ASTRONOMY

8g

the warmth of the advancing sun, so that the colliding
and shifting of huge bergs disturbed the normal
distribution of the magnetic currents from the northPole. . . .
Professor Pickering might have made this discovery
if he had had time to think of i t ; but at that period
he was busy studying the weather of Mars. I don’t
think he knows any more about the weather on earth
than the Meteorolo^cal Office, but I recollect that hetold us it was snowing on that little old p lan et; andthat was a very remarkable thing, if it was true—
indeed it was remarkable whether it was true or not.
Time was when it was said that water ran uphill
instead of down on Mars, and in the year a .d . 1910,
all sorts of schemes were proposed for signalling to
the planet b y means of bonfires and search-lights atnight, or b y using mirrors to reflect the sun’s rays byday. It was all very interesting in its way, but very
nonsensical— because the sun is always shining onthat side of Mars
which is presented tous, whether it is day
or night on our sideof the earth ; and so
it would be impos­
sible for the Martians— if there were any—
to see our bonfires or
our mirrors, becausewith them it must
always be daylight,
and they could noteven see the earth
its e lf! . . .
This is because Mars
goes round the sun on
a greater orbit thanthe earth, while we travel on the inner circle, accord­
ing to the Heliocentric Theory, (as shown in dia­gram 30),

90

KINGS DETHRONED

It is surprising that astronomers had not thoughtof this, but they will find that it is so, if they will only
study their own astronomy.
But the time has come when all the romantic things
that have been said about Mars must take theirproper place among fairy tales, for if the distance tothat planet is measured by two simultaneous obser­
vations, as I have advised for the measurement of thesun, it will be found to be never more than 15,000
miles from the observer, and too small altogether tobe inhabited ; too small even for Robinson Crusoe
and his man Friday. . . .
“ N.G.C. 7006.”
Before bringing this history of the evolution ofmodern astronomy to a close I have yet to mention
the constellation of Hercules, which Dr. Shapley atMount Vernon recently estimated to be about 36,000
light-years distant, or 200 times further off thanBetelgeuse ; while we are now told that a star known
as “ N.G.C. 7006 ” (which is one of those myriad
twinkling little things in the Milky Way) has beenfound to be about 200,000 light-years d ista n t; andthis surely is the limit of even an astronomer’s imagina­
tion ; for it means that it is so far off that it would
take an electric current— travelling at the rate of
186,000 miles every second— two hundred thousand
years to go from the earth to the M ilky W ay ! . . .
In conclusion I quote the following from an article
which was published in London as recently as April
15th, 1922
“ . . . . B y other methods most bodies in theheavens have been measured, and even weighed,and the results obtained stagger imagination. Oneof such methods consists in watching an object
through the spectroscope and making calculations
from the shifting of the lines in the spectrum. In
this w ay the m ighty flames which leap from the

MARVELS OF ASTRONOMY

91

surface of the sun have been measured. Some years
ago one flame was observed to shoot out with avelocity of at least 50 miles a second, and to attaina height of 350,000 miles ! . . . The stars in generalcannot be measured ; but the thing has been done insome cases, notably by Bessel, who, after three years’
observations of 61 Cygni, announced its approximate
distance from the earth as not more than sixty billion
miles ! Y e t this is one of our nearest neighbours
among the distant suns. It is so close to us— com­paratively— that we have learned a lot about it since
Bessel made his calculations.
Scientists have shown that a difference of a mere
twenty billion miles in distance from the earth isnegligible, and that, though it is tearing throughspace at thirty miles a second, it would require about
forty-thousand years to make a journey equal to its
distance from the sun.”
It is difficult to tell whether the journal was joking
or n o t; it appears to be so, but, nevertheless, the state­ments are those given out in all seriousness in thename of Astronomy. They are the things which arebeing taught in colleges and schools as scientificknowledge in this month of May, 1922 ; for which
astronomers, the Educational Authorities, and theindifference of parents are responsible.
However, it is to be observed that— with the single
exception of Alpha-Centauri— since Bessel estimatedthe distance of the first star to be sixty-three billion
miles away, stellar distances have grown greater andgreater, until at last we have this “ N.G.C. 7006,”
said to be twenty thousand times further than 61
C y g n i! or “ one million two hundred thousandbillions ” of miles from this earth of ours.
And this preposterous figure is the outward andvisible sign of the nature of the science that has been
evolved in twenty centuries through the failure ofastronomers to perceive the error of Hipparchus.
Adieu.

The blocks used to illustraie this work were madeby Messrs. W. E. Briggs & Co., Tudor House,
Chichester Rents, Chancery Lane, London, W.C. 2,
while the copy was most admirably typed from theoriginal M SS. by M iss E. Berry, at Messrs.
Puckey & Co., 153, Fleet Street, E .C. 4.
The author recognises the fact that their excellent
work has done credit to his own, and contributed tothe success of the whole production, wherefore hefinds pleasure in writing this appreciation.
G.H.

The author is now engaged upon another hook tofollow as a sequel to “ Kings Dethroned,"' entitled“ T H E U N IV E R S E A S IT IS ; ” which we hope to haveready for publication by the late Autumn.
The Hicksonia Publishing Co.

*

_ I

--s*
r ir
c >

»•

I

iy i

’^. ^ •*
-Ti r;‘‘^
r»

ci--

2

k l.
3K

■kk^