Arago vs Vogel

I have found the two old measurements:
"In 1818 Arago found that the refraction of a prism for star light was the
same for light incident in the direction of the earth's orbital velocity vs.
as for that coming in the opposite direction. This unexpected null result
was explained that same year by Fresnel's ether-dray theory, which assumed
partial ether entrainment in transparent media by an amount depending upon
the first power of v." From: http://www.3rd1000.com/chronoatoms.htm

And:

2. Vogel, H. C., "On the spectrographic method of determining the velocity
of
stars in the line of sight", Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, Vol. 52, p.87, 1891
"The first result of any importance which the spectrographic method
furnished was the proof of the influence of the Earth's motion on the
displacement, which the earlier direct observations had failed to show
with certainity. [...]" From:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1891MNRAS..52...87V

Who was right: Arago or Vogel?
S*

On 22/10/2011 07:50, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
I have found the two old measurements:
"In 1818 Arago found that the refraction of a prism for star light was the
same for light incident in the direction of the earth's orbital velocity vs.
as for that coming in the opposite direction. This unexpected null result
was explained that same year by Fresnel's ether-dray theory, which assumed
partial ether entrainment in transparent media by an amount depending upon
the first power of v." From: http://www.3rd1000.com/chronoatoms.htm

And:

2. Vogel, H. C., "On the spectrographic method of determining the velocity
of
stars in the line of sight", Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, Vol. 52, p.87, 1891
"The first result of any importance which the spectrographic method
furnished was the proof of the influence of the Earth's motion on the
displacement, which the earlier direct observations had failed to show
with certainity. [...]" From:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1891MNRAS..52...87V

Who was right: Arago or Vogel?
S*

I would suggest they both were. Since starlight comprises a continuum
crossed by spectral lines, it's possible for the refraction of light
through the prism to be unchanged whilst the position of the spectral
lines varies against the continuum.

Uzytkownik "OG" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 22/10/2011 07:50, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
I have found the two old measurements:
"In 1818 Arago found that the refraction of a prism for star light was
the
same for light incident in the direction of the earth's orbital velocity
vs.
as for that coming in the opposite direction. This unexpected null result
was explained that same year by Fresnel's ether-dray theory, which
assumed
partial ether entrainment in transparent media by an amount depending
upon
the first power of v." From: http://www.3rd1000.com/chronoatoms.htm

And:

2. Vogel, H. C., "On the spectrographic method of determining the
velocity
of
stars in the line of sight", Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, Vol. 52, p.87, 1891
"The first result of any importance which the spectrographic method
furnished was the proof of the influence of the Earth's motion on the
displacement, which the earlier direct observations had failed to show
with certainity. [...]" From:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1891MNRAS..52...87V

Who was right: Arago or Vogel?
S*

I would suggest they both were. Since starlight comprises a continuum
crossed by spectral lines, it's possible for the refraction of light
through the prism to be unchanged whilst the position of the spectral
lines varies against the continuum.

It is known that the spectroscopic methods and the spectrographic methods
are not accurate.

But now are the spacecrafts like Voyager and Pionier. They transmit the
single frequency. So it is easy to detect any changes in frequency (The
diurinal and annual).
Are the result known?
S*

On 25/10/2011 08:32, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uzytkownik napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 22/10/2011 07:50, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
I have found the two old measurements:
"In 1818 Arago found that the refraction of a prism for star light was
the
same for light incident in the direction of the earth's orbital velocity
vs.
as for that coming in the opposite direction. This unexpected null result
was explained that same year by Fresnel's ether-dray theory, which
assumed
partial ether entrainment in transparent media by an amount depending
upon
the first power of v." From: http://www.3rd1000.com/chronoatoms.htm

And:

2. Vogel, H. C., "On the spectrographic method of determining the
velocity
of
stars in the line of sight", Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, Vol. 52, p.87, 1891
"The first result of any importance which the spectrographic method
furnished was the proof of the influence of the Earth's motion on the
displacement, which the earlier direct observations had failed to show
with certainity. [...]" From:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1891MNRAS..52...87V

Who was right: Arago or Vogel?
S*

I would suggest they both were. Since starlight comprises a continuum
crossed by spectral lines, it's possible for the refraction of light
through the prism to be unchanged whilst the position of the spectral
lines varies against the continuum.

It is known that the spectroscopic methods and the spectrographic methods
are not accurate.

What level of accuracy are you looking for? for bright stars it's
possible to measure speeds to several 10s of m/s

But now are the spacecrafts like Voyager and Pionier. They transmit the
single frequency. So it is easy to detect any changes in frequency (The
diurinal and annual).

Are the result known?

I'm sure you could find something if you searched. What are you expecting?

"OG" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 25/10/2011 08:32, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uzytkownik napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 22/10/2011 07:50, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
I have found the two old measurements:
"In 1818 Arago found that the refraction of a prism for star light was
the
same for light incident in the direction of the earth's orbital
velocity
vs.
as for that coming in the opposite direction. This unexpected null
result
was explained that same year by Fresnel's ether-dray theory, which
assumed
partial ether entrainment in transparent media by an amount depending
upon
the first power of v." From: http://www.3rd1000.com/chronoatoms.htm

And:

2. Vogel, H. C., "On the spectrographic method of determining the
velocity
of
stars in the line of sight", Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical
Society, Vol. 52, p.87, 1891
"The first result of any importance which the spectrographic method
furnished was the proof of the influence of the Earth's motion on
the
displacement, which the earlier direct observations had failed to
show
with certainity. [...]" From:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1891MNRAS..52...87V

Who was right: Arago or Vogel?
S*

I would suggest they both were. Since starlight comprises a continuum
crossed by spectral lines, it's possible for the refraction of light
through the prism to be unchanged whilst the position of the spectral
lines varies against the continuum.

It is known that the spectroscopic methods and the spectrographic methods
are not accurate.

What level of accuracy are you looking for? for bright stars it's possible
to measure speeds to several 10s of m/s

Yes. But I know that there are the diurinal effects and do not know about
the annual.
"As a result of the Earth's orbital motion about the Sun and the rotation of
the observer about the Earth's axis the solar spectral lines are Doppler
shifted relative to terrestrial standards. Both effects give rise to Doppler
amplitudes of the order of 0.5km/s.

This effect has, in the past been overlooked, with one Eastern-block group
"discovering" a diurnal shift in the Telluric O2 lines by comparing them
with nearby photospheric lines (which were taken as wavelength standards) !
See I.Vince, Publ. Astron. Obs. Belgrade 26, p.167 (1978) for the expose. "
From: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qabsorption.html

But now are the spacecrafts like Voyager and Pionier. They transmit the
single frequency. So it is easy to detect any changes in frequency (The
diurinal and annual).

Are the result known?

I'm sure you could find something if you searched. What are you expecting?

An answer for the question: " Who was right: Arago or Vogel?

Your answer: "I would suggest they both were" is like the next duality.

The Arago null result is the base for the physics: "This unexpected null
result
was explained that same year by Fresnel's ether-dray theory".

It seems to me that Vogel was wrong. Searching failed. Today's astronomers
know the exact result and do not write about this because it is obvious for
them.
I am not an astronomer so I am asking.
S*

On 26/10/2011 09:15, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 25/10/2011 08:32, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uzytkownik napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 22/10/2011 07:50, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
I have found the two old measurements:
"In 1818 Arago found that the refraction of a prism for star light was
the
same for light incident in the direction of the earth's orbital
velocity
vs.
as for that coming in the opposite direction. This unexpected null
result
was explained that same year by Fresnel's ether-dray theory, which
assumed
partial ether entrainment in transparent media by an amount depending
upon
the first power of v." From: http://www.3rd1000.com/chronoatoms.htm

And:

2. Vogel, H. C., "On the spectrographic method of determining the
velocity
of
stars in the line of sight", Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical
Society, Vol. 52, p.87, 1891
"The first result of any importance which the spectrographic method
furnished was the proof of the influence of the Earth's motion on
the
displacement, which the earlier direct observations had failed to
show
with certainity. [...]" From:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1891MNRAS..52...87V

Who was right: Arago or Vogel?
S*

I would suggest they both were. Since starlight comprises a continuum
crossed by spectral lines, it's possible for the refraction of light
through the prism to be unchanged whilst the position of the spectral
lines varies against the continuum.

It is known that the spectroscopic methods and the spectrographic methods
are not accurate.

What level of accuracy are you looking for? for bright stars it's possible
to measure speeds to several 10s of m/s

Yes. But I know that there are the diurinal effects and do not know about
the annual.
"As a result of the Earth's orbital motion about the Sun and the rotation of
the observer about the Earth's axis the solar spectral lines are Doppler
shifted relative to terrestrial standards. Both effects give rise to Doppler
amplitudes of the order of 0.5km/s.

Yes, the rotation of the Earth means that at the equator at Sunrise the
observer is hurtling towards the sun at about 1600km/h, and at sunset
the observer is speeding away at about 1600km/h. At other latitudes th
this is less. In addition, the shape of the earth's elliptical orbit
means that between January (perihelion) and July (aphelion) the Earth
gets about 5 million km further away from the Sun, with the separation
reducing in the following 6 months


This effect has, in the past been overlooked, with one Eastern-block group
"discovering" a diurnal shift in the Telluric O2 lines by comparing them
with nearby photospheric lines (which were taken as wavelength standards) !
See I.Vince, Publ. Astron. Obs. Belgrade 26, p.167 (1978) for the expose. "
From: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qabsorption.html

The Telluric O2 lines are those that are produced by O2 in the Earth's
atmosphere. It seems likely that that 'Eastern block group' had measured
their frequency using solar lines as reference wavelengths. Being
unaware that there was *a diurnal variation in the solar lines*, they
interpreted their results as showing that the *Earth's atmospheric
lines* were changing through the day.


But now are the spacecrafts like Voyager and Pionier. They transmit the
single frequency. So it is easy to detect any changes in frequency (The
diurinal and annual).

Are the result known?

I'm sure you could find something if you searched. What are you expecting?

An answer for the question: " Who was right: Arago or Vogel?

Your answer: "I would suggest they both were" is like the next duality.

The Arago null result is the base for the physics: "This unexpected null
result
was explained that same year by Fresnel's ether-dray theory".

It was previously thought that the angle of displacement of light
through a prism would be dependent on the speed with which light
impacted on the prism. The constancy of the displacement angle pointed
to a constancy of the speed of light; and in the era before special
relativity, it was suggested that the aether was 'dragged' along with
the Earth.


It seems to me that Vogel was wrong.

In what way do you think he was wrong?

"OG" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 26/10/2011 09:15, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 25/10/2011 08:32, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uzytkownik napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 22/10/2011 07:50, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
I have found the two old measurements:
"In 1818 Arago found that the refraction of a prism for star light
was
the
same for light incident in the direction of the earth's orbital
velocity
vs.
as for that coming in the opposite direction. This unexpected null
result
was explained that same year by Fresnel's ether-dray theory, which
assumed
partial ether entrainment in transparent media by an amount depending
upon
the first power of v." From: http://www.3rd1000.com/chronoatoms.htm

And:

2. Vogel, H. C., "On the spectrographic method of determining the
velocity
of
stars in the line of sight", Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical
Society, Vol. 52, p.87, 1891
"The first result of any importance which the spectrographic
method
furnished was the proof of the influence of the Earth's motion on
the
displacement, which the earlier direct observations had failed to
show
with certainity. [...]" From:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1891MNRAS..52...87V

Who was right: Arago or Vogel?
S*

I would suggest they both were. Since starlight comprises a continuum
crossed by spectral lines, it's possible for the refraction of light
through the prism to be unchanged whilst the position of the spectral
lines varies against the continuum.

It is known that the spectroscopic methods and the spectrographic
methods
are not accurate.

What level of accuracy are you looking for? for bright stars it's
possible
to measure speeds to several 10s of m/s

Yes. But I know that there are the diurinal effects and do not know about
the annual.
"As a result of the Earth's orbital motion about the Sun and the rotation
of
the observer about the Earth's axis the solar spectral lines are Doppler
shifted relative to terrestrial standards. Both effects give rise to
Doppler
amplitudes of the order of 0.5km/s.

Yes, the rotation of the Earth means that at the equator at Sunrise the
observer is hurtling towards the sun at about 1600km/h, and at sunset the
observer is speeding away at about 1600km/h. At other latitudes th this is
less. In addition, the shape of the earth's elliptical orbit means that
between January (perihelion) and July (aphelion) the Earth gets about 5
million km further away from the Sun, with the separation reducing in the
following 6 months


This effect has, in the past been overlooked, with one Eastern-block
group
"discovering" a diurnal shift in the Telluric O2 lines by comparing them
with nearby photospheric lines (which were taken as wavelength standards)
!
See I.Vince, Publ. Astron. Obs. Belgrade 26, p.167 (1978) for the expose.
"
From: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qabsorption.html

The Telluric O2 lines are those that are produced by O2 in the Earth's
atmosphere. It seems likely that that 'Eastern block group' had measured
their frequency using solar lines as reference wavelengths. Being unaware
that there was *a diurnal variation in the solar lines*, they interpreted
their results as showing that the *Earth's atmospheric lines* were
changing through the day.


But now are the spacecrafts like Voyager and Pionier. They transmit the
single frequency. So it is easy to detect any changes in frequency (The
diurinal and annual).

Are the result known?

I'm sure you could find something if you searched. What are you
expecting?

An answer for the question: " Who was right: Arago or Vogel?

Your answer: "I would suggest they both were" is like the next duality.

The Arago null result is the base for the physics: "This unexpected null
result
was explained that same year by Fresnel's ether-dray theory".

It was previously thought that the angle of displacement of light through
a prism would be dependent on the speed with which light impacted on the
prism. The constancy of the displacement angle pointed to a constancy of
the speed of light; and in the era before special relativity, it was
suggested that the aether was 'dragged' along with the Earth.

In that time were many the null result. Arago, Michelson-Morley,
Trouton-Noble and the others.
I have never seen in textbooks the Vogel result. But it is in Wiki without
any comments:"
"The first Doppler redshift was described in 1848 by French physicist
Hippolyte Fizeau, who pointed to the shift in spectral lines seen in stars
as being due to the Doppler effect. The effect is sometimes called the
"Doppler-Fizeau effect". In 1868, British astronomer William Huggins was the
first to determine the velocity of a star moving away from the Earth by this
method.[7] In 1871, optical redshift was confirmed when the phenomenon was
observed in Fraunhofer lines using solar rotation, about 0.1 Å in the
red.[8] In 1887, Vogel and Scheiner discovered the annual Doppler effect,
the yearly change in the Doppler shift of stars located near the ecliptic
due to the orbital velocity of the Earth.[9] In 1901, Aristarkh Belopolsky
verified optical redshift in the laboratory using a system of rotating
mirrors.[10]" From: ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshifts


It seems to me that Vogel was wrong.

In what way do you think he was wrong?

The Arago result is in agreement with the , Michelson-Morley, Trouton-Noble
and the others.

The "diurinal effect" is in agreement with the , Michelson-Gale experiment.

So the: " "The first result of any importance which the spectrographic
method furnished was the proof of the influence of the Earth's annual motion
on the displacement, which the earlier direct observations had failed to
show." was probably verified by many others. Also with the radio waves.

S*

On 27/10/2011 09:07, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 26/10/2011 09:15, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 25/10/2011 08:32, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uzytkownik napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 22/10/2011 07:50, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
I have found the two old measurements:
"In 1818 Arago found that the refraction of a prism for star light
was
the
same for light incident in the direction of the earth's orbital
velocity
vs.
as for that coming in the opposite direction. This unexpected null
result
was explained that same year by Fresnel's ether-dray theory, which
assumed
partial ether entrainment in transparent media by an amount depending
upon
the first power of v." From: http://www.3rd1000.com/chronoatoms.htm

And:

2. Vogel, H. C., "On the spectrographic method of determining the
velocity
of
stars in the line of sight", Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical
Society, Vol. 52, p.87, 1891
"The first result of any importance which the spectrographic
method
furnished was the proof of the influence of the Earth's motion on
the
displacement, which the earlier direct observations had failed to
show
with certainity. [...]" From:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1891MNRAS..52...87V

Who was right: Arago or Vogel?
S*

I would suggest they both were. Since starlight comprises a continuum
crossed by spectral lines, it's possible for the refraction of light
through the prism to be unchanged whilst the position of the spectral
lines varies against the continuum.

It is known that the spectroscopic methods and the spectrographic
methods
are not accurate.

What level of accuracy are you looking for? for bright stars it's
possible
to measure speeds to several 10s of m/s

Yes. But I know that there are the diurinal effects and do not know about
the annual.
"As a result of the Earth's orbital motion about the Sun and the rotation
of
the observer about the Earth's axis the solar spectral lines are Doppler
shifted relative to terrestrial standards. Both effects give rise to
Doppler
amplitudes of the order of 0.5km/s.

Yes, the rotation of the Earth means that at the equator at Sunrise the
observer is hurtling towards the sun at about 1600km/h, and at sunset the
observer is speeding away at about 1600km/h. At other latitudes th this is
less. In addition, the shape of the earth's elliptical orbit means that
between January (perihelion) and July (aphelion) the Earth gets about 5
million km further away from the Sun, with the separation reducing in the
following 6 months


This effect has, in the past been overlooked, with one Eastern-block
group
"discovering" a diurnal shift in the Telluric O2 lines by comparing them
with nearby photospheric lines (which were taken as wavelength standards)
!
See I.Vince, Publ. Astron. Obs. Belgrade 26, p.167 (1978) for the expose.
"
From: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qabsorption.html

The Telluric O2 lines are those that are produced by O2 in the Earth's
atmosphere. It seems likely that that 'Eastern block group' had measured
their frequency using solar lines as reference wavelengths. Being unaware
that there was *a diurnal variation in the solar lines*, they interpreted
their results as showing that the *Earth's atmospheric lines* were
changing through the day.


But now are the spacecrafts like Voyager and Pionier. They transmit the
single frequency. So it is easy to detect any changes in frequency (The
diurinal and annual).

Are the result known?

I'm sure you could find something if you searched. What are you
expecting?

An answer for the question: " Who was right: Arago or Vogel?

Your answer: "I would suggest they both were" is like the next duality.

The Arago null result is the base for the physics: "This unexpected null
result
was explained that same year by Fresnel's ether-dray theory".

It was previously thought that the angle of displacement of light through
a prism would be dependent on the speed with which light impacted on the
prism. The constancy of the displacement angle pointed to a constancy of
the speed of light; and in the era before special relativity, it was
suggested that the aether was 'dragged' along with the Earth.

In that time were many the null result. Arago, Michelson-Morley,
Trouton-Noble and the others.
I have never seen in textbooks the Vogel result. But it is in Wiki without
any comments:"
"The first Doppler redshift was described in 1848 by French physicist
Hippolyte Fizeau, who pointed to the shift in spectral lines seen in stars
as being due to the Doppler effect. The effect is sometimes called the
"Doppler-Fizeau effect". In 1868, British astronomer William Huggins was the
first to determine the velocity of a star moving away from the Earth by this
method.[7] In 1871, optical redshift was confirmed when the phenomenon was
observed in Fraunhofer lines using solar rotation, about 0.1 Å in the
red.[8] In 1887, Vogel and Scheiner discovered the annual Doppler effect,
the yearly change in the Doppler shift of stars located near the ecliptic
due to the orbital velocity of the Earth.[9] In 1901, Aristarkh Belopolsky
verified optical redshift in the laboratory using a system of rotating
mirrors.[10]" From: ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshifts


It seems to me that Vogel was wrong.

In what way do you think he was wrong?

The Arago result is in agreement with the , Michelson-Morley, Trouton-Noble
and the others.

The "diurinal effect" is in agreement with the , Michelson-Gale experiment.

So the: " "The first result of any importance which the spectrographic
method furnished was the proof of the influence of the Earth's annual motion
on the displacement, which the earlier direct observations had failed to
show." was probably verified by many others. Also with the radio waves.

S*

I'm sorry, but I still don't see what point you're making. You can't
detect any diurnal/annual change to the speed of light by the Earth's
motion, but you can detect a diurnal/annual effect by using spectroscopy.

The two experiments are doing different things and the results are
completely compatible.

On Oct 27, 10:07*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"OG" napisal w ...









On 26/10/2011 09:15, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
* *napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 25/10/2011 08:32, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uzytkownik * napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 22/10/2011 07:50, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
I have found the two old measurements:
"In 1818 Arago found that the refraction of a prism for star light
was
the
same for light incident in the direction of the earth's orbital
velocity
vs.
as for that coming in the opposite direction. This unexpected null
result
was explained that same year by Fresnel's ether-dray theory, which
assumed
partial ether entrainment in transparent media by an amount depending
upon
the first power of v." From: *http://www.3rd1000.com/chronoatoms..htm

And:

2. Vogel, H. C., "On the spectrographic method of determining the
velocity
of
* * stars in the line of sight", Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical
* * Society, Vol. 52, p.87, 1891
* * "The first result of any importance which the spectrographic
method
* * furnished was the proof of the influence of the Earth's motion on
the
* * displacement, which the earlier direct observations had failed to
show
* * with certainity. [...]" From:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1891MNRAS..52...87V

Who was right: Arago or Vogel?
S*

I would suggest they both were. Since starlight comprises a continuum
crossed by spectral lines, it's possible for the refraction of light
through the prism to be unchanged whilst the position of the spectral
lines varies against the continuum.

It is known that the spectroscopic methods and the spectrographic
methods
are not accurate.

What level of accuracy are you looking for? for bright stars it's
possible
to measure speeds to several 10s of m/s

Yes. But I know that there are the diurinal effects and do not know about
the annual.
"As a result of the Earth's orbital motion about the Sun and the rotation
of
the observer about the Earth's axis the solar spectral lines are Doppler
shifted relative to terrestrial standards. Both effects give rise to
Doppler
amplitudes of the order of 0.5km/s.

Yes, the rotation of the Earth means that at the equator at Sunrise the
observer is hurtling towards the sun at about 1600km/h, and at sunset the
observer is speeding away at about 1600km/h. At other latitudes th this is
less. In addition, the shape of the earth's elliptical orbit means that
between January (perihelion) and July (aphelion) the Earth gets about 5
million km further away from the Sun, with the separation reducing in the
following 6 months

This effect has, in the past been overlooked, with one Eastern-block
group
"discovering" a diurnal shift in the Telluric O2 lines by comparing them
with nearby photospheric lines (which were taken as wavelength standards)
!
See I.Vince, Publ. Astron. Obs. Belgrade 26, p.167 (1978) for the expose.
"
From: *http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qabsorption.html

The Telluric O2 lines are those that are produced by O2 in the Earth's
atmosphere. It seems likely that that 'Eastern block group' had measured
their frequency using solar lines as reference wavelengths. Being unaware
that there was *a diurnal variation in the solar lines*, they interpreted
their results as showing that the *Earth's atmospheric lines* were
changing through the day.

But now are the spacecrafts like Voyager and Pionier. They transmit the
single frequency. So it is easy to detect any changes in frequency (The
diurinal and annual).

Are the result known?

I'm sure you could find something if you searched. What are you
expecting?

An answer for the question: " Who was right: Arago or Vogel?

Your answer: *"I would suggest they both were" is like the next duality.

The Arago null result is the base for the physics: "This unexpected null
result
was explained that same year by Fresnel's ether-dray theory".

It was previously thought that the angle of displacement of light through
a prism would be dependent on the speed with which light impacted on the
prism. The constancy of the displacement angle pointed to a constancy of
the speed of light; and in the era before special relativity, it was
suggested that the aether was 'dragged' along with the Earth.

In that time were many the null result. Arago, Michelson-Morley,
Trouton-Noble and the others.
I have never seen in textbooks the Vogel result. But it is in Wiki without
any comments:"
"The first Doppler redshift was described in 1848 by French physicist
Hippolyte Fizeau, who pointed to the shift in spectral lines seen in stars
as being due to the Doppler effect. The effect is sometimes called the
"Doppler-Fizeau effect". In 1868, British astronomer William Huggins was the
first to determine the velocity of a star moving away from the Earth by this
method.[7] In 1871, optical redshift was confirmed when the phenomenon was
observed in Fraunhofer lines using solar rotation, about 0.1 Å in the
red.[8] In 1887, Vogel and Scheiner discovered the annual Doppler effect,
the yearly change in the Doppler shift of stars located near the ecliptic
due to the orbital velocity of the Earth.[9] In 1901, Aristarkh Belopolsky
verified optical redshift in the laboratory using a system of rotating
mirrors.[10]" From: ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshifts



It seems to me that Vogel was wrong.

In what way do you think he was wrong?

The Arago result is in agreement with the , Michelson-Morley, Trouton-Noble
and the others.

The "diurinal effect" is *in agreement with the , Michelson-Gale experiment.

So the: " "The first result of any importance which the spectrographic
method furnished was the proof of the influence of the Earth's annual motion
on *the *displacement, which the earlier direct observations had failed to
show." was probably verified by many others. Also with the radio waves.

S*

I have never encountered a people like the Polish,they have Copernicus
who argued for the daily and orbital motions of the Earth and
specifically showing that retrogrades motions are an illusion seen
from an orbital motion of the Earth -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

You are among people that follow Newton who decided all by himself to
arrive at an alternative solution to retrogrades by inventing a
hypothetical observer on the Sun -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

I truly enjoy what your countryman did back 500 years ago in 1512 ,he
had a commennt for people who couldn't handle observations properly
and empiricists fill that specific role today -

".. although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with
numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone
including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same
body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster
would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of
their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found
either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in
something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have
happened to them if they had followed proper principles." Copernicus

Your nation gets to partake in a second holocaust within the space of
a century and this one where the intellectual foundations for a
civilization no longer exist,at least where science is
concerned.Congratulations !,If I could feel more dismay for the way
the great astronomical insights were distorted and manipulated,and
especially that of Copernicus, I wouldn't know how.

"OG" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 27/10/2011 09:07, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

So the: " "The first result of any importance which the spectrographic
method furnished was the proof of the influence of the Earth's annual
motion
on the displacement, which the earlier direct observations had failed
to
show." was probably verified by many others. Also with the radio waves.

S*

I'm sorry, but I still don't see what point you're making. You can't
detect any diurnal/annual change to the speed of light by the Earth's
motion,

The diurinal was detected by Michelson-Gale in 1925 and is prectised in GPS.

but you can detect a diurnal/annual effect by using spectroscopy.

The annual was detected by Vogel and I do not know who use it.

The two experiments are doing different things and the results are
completely compatible.

The Arago result of spectroscopy is compatible with Michelson-Morley and
Michelson-Gale.
The Vogel's result do not fit to them.

S*