[geocentrism] Fw: Airy and the telescope...
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:30:45 +1000
Subject: Airy and the telescope...
> Ok....Airy....
>
> SIR George Airy performed Fresnel's proposed experiment in 1871 or so I
> believe with Bradley's proposed change...using a telescope filled with
> water. By the ballistic theory, this would result in replacing "c" with
> "c/n" correct? and "B" with "B/n" (B representing beta); when the effect
of
> refraction is considered together with that of aberration, the aberration
> angle is found proportional to "n>2", which for water would increase the
> aberration angel to 7.6 degrees...correct? Fresnel didn't think that the
> angle would change, because the velocity of light would slow in water, But
> the coefficient of drag in the water moving through a stationary aether
> would increase the velocity, and in calculating the aberration angle, the
> two effects would exactly cancel, so that the angle would be independent
of
> the index of refraction. Airy's experiment found no change in aberration
and
> thus confirmed Fresnel's concept of an elastic, partially entrained,
> compressible aether. Airy's experiment though does NOT contradict the
> gravitational-field assumption. Consider this analogy:
> A water-filled submarine moving through stationary water, representing the
> earth's gravitational field moving through the sun's. Substitute a sharp
> boundary (walls of the sub) for a gradual transition. Let the aberration
be
> of sound ok? The calculations will show that there is indeed an aberration
> if the submarine is adopted as a rest frame, since the walls of the sub
> reradiate the sound wave in the direction of arrival from the outside
water.
> IF the sound is slowed down with an air bubble representing the telescope
> (remembering that unlike light, sound travels faster in the denser
medium),
> what will happen to the direction of the sound ray in the bubble inside
the
> sub? NOTHING...the aberration has already changed the direction at the
> interface of moving and stationary medium, and there can be no additional
> aberrational change inside the sub? Correct? That's the scope on Airy's
> experiment....touche...
> Steve
>
>
Other related posts:
