Arago vs Vogel

On 02/11/2011 08:37, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uzytkownik napisal w wiadomosci

Arago was NOT looking at anything specifically related to spectral
features.

But Brace in 1904 did.

I don't think so. From what I've read he was measuring birefringence,
which is a white-light phenomenon.



* I assume the prediction was based on a classical analysis of Snell's law
in which the ratio of light speeds in the air and in the block is the same
as the ratio of the (sine of) the angles.

Yes.

The hypothesis (I assume) was that incoming light would have greater speed
when the Earth's movement had his laboratory approaching the source; this
would increase the 'effective refractive index', thus increasing the angle
of refraction. 12 hours later,

The both checked after 6 months.

when there is a relative movement away from the source, the angle of
refraction would be reduced.

Everywhere are the same result: Diurinal effects exsists, annual is null. "

No, you are mistaken. Attempts to measure variation in the speed of
light (or movement relative to the aether) give null results.

During Interval III the oscillation is smaller and begins to die out."


What has that got to do with anything?

Stars are at a little long distances than Pionier. And no the annual
oscillations.
Do you agree?

I've now no idea what you're talking about. What exactly has not got an
"annual oscillation"?

"OG" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 02/11/2011 08:37, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uzytkownik napisal w wiadomosci

Arago was NOT looking at anything specifically related to spectral
features.

But Brace in 1904 did.

I don't think so. From what I've read he was measuring birefringence,
which is a white-light phenomenon.

Everybody try to detect movement relative to the aether.



* I assume the prediction was based on a classical analysis of Snell's
law
in which the ratio of light speeds in the air and in the block is the
same
as the ratio of the (sine of) the angles.

Yes.

The hypothesis (I assume) was that incoming light would have greater
speed
when the Earth's movement had his laboratory approaching the source;
this
would increase the 'effective refractive index', thus increasing the
angle
of refraction. 12 hours later,

The both checked after 6 months.

when there is a relative movement away from the source, the angle of
refraction would be reduced.

Everywhere are the same result: Diurinal effects exsists, annual is null.
"

No, you are mistaken. Attempts to measure variation in the speed of light
(or movement relative to the aether) give null results.

The movement of the Earth surface relative to the ether was detected in 1925
by Michelson-Gale.

During Interval III the oscillation is smaller and begins to die out."


What has that got to do with anything?

Stars are at a little long distances than Pionier. And no the annual
oscillations.
Do you agree?

I've now no idea what you're talking about. What exactly has not got an
"annual oscillation"?

If you measure the Doppler effect there are the diurinal and annual
oscillations.
If the antenna on the Earth travel in the direction of the transmitter the
Doppler effect is max. If the direction of the movement is at right angle
the effect is null.
So thera are (or can be expected) the oscillations. Annual and diurinal.

But the experimments show that the diurinal are but the annual not.
S*

On 03/11/2011 08:22, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 02/11/2011 08:37, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uzytkownik napisal w wiadomosci

Arago was NOT looking at anything specifically related to spectral
features.

But Brace in 1904 did.

I don't think so. From what I've read he was measuring birefringence,
which is a white-light phenomenon.

Everybody try to detect movement relative to the aether.



* I assume the prediction was based on a classical analysis of Snell's
law
in which the ratio of light speeds in the air and in the block is the
same
as the ratio of the (sine of) the angles.

Yes.

The hypothesis (I assume) was that incoming light would have greater
speed
when the Earth's movement had his laboratory approaching the source;
this
would increase the 'effective refractive index', thus increasing the
angle
of refraction. 12 hours later,

The both checked after 6 months.

when there is a relative movement away from the source, the angle of
refraction would be reduced.

Everywhere are the same result: Diurinal effects exsists, annual is null.
"

No, you are mistaken. Attempts to measure variation in the speed of light
(or movement relative to the aether) give null results.

The movement of the Earth surface relative to the ether was detected in 1925
by Michelson-Gale.

You have misunderstood the results of the Michelson-Gale experiement.


During Interval III the oscillation is smaller and begins to die out."


What has that got to do with anything?

Stars are at a little long distances than Pionier. And no the annual
oscillations.
Do you agree?

I've now no idea what you're talking about. What exactly has not got an
"annual oscillation"?

If you measure the Doppler effect there are the diurinal and annual
oscillations.
If the antenna on the Earth travel in the direction of the transmitter the
Doppler effect is max. If the direction of the movement is at right angle
the effect is null.
So thera are (or can be expected) the oscillations. Annual and diurinal.

But the experimments show that the diurinal are but the annual not.

You clearly need to research more.

There is no aether. There is no movement relative to the aether.

On Nov 3, 8:04*pm, OG wrote:
On 03/11/2011 08:22, Szczepan Bialek wrote:









*napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 02/11/2011 08:37, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Uzytkownik * napisal w wiadomosci

Arago was NOT looking at anything specifically related to spectral
features.

But Brace in 1904 did.

I don't think so. From what I've read he was measuring birefringence,
which is a white-light phenomenon.

Everybody try to detect *movement relative to the aether.

* I assume the prediction was based on a classical analysis of Snell's
law
in which the ratio of light speeds in the air and in the block is the
same
as the ratio of the (sine of) the angles.

Yes.

The hypothesis (I assume) was that incoming light would have greater
speed
when the Earth's movement had his laboratory approaching the source;
this
would increase the 'effective refractive index', thus increasing the
angle
of refraction. 12 hours later,

The both checked after 6 months.

when there is a relative movement away from the source, the angle of
refraction would be reduced.

Everywhere are the same result: Diurinal effects exsists, annual is null.
"

No, you are mistaken. Attempts to measure variation in the speed of light
(or movement relative to the aether) give null results.

The movement of the Earth surface relative to the ether was detected in 1925
by Michelson-Gale.

You have misunderstood the results of the Michelson-Gale experiement.











During Interval III the oscillation is smaller and begins to die out."

What has that got to do with anything?

Stars are at a little long distances than Pionier. And no the annual
oscillations.
Do you agree?

I've now no idea what you're talking about. What exactly has not got an
"annual oscillation"?

If you measure the Doppler effect there are the diurinal and annual
oscillations.
If the antenna on the Earth travel in the direction of the transmitter the
Doppler effect is max. If the direction of the movement is at right angle
the effect is null.
So thera are (or can be expected) the oscillations. Annual and diurinal..

But the experimments show that the diurinal are but the annual not.

You clearly need to research more.

There is no aether. There is no movement relative to the aether.

So desperate were empiricists to extract themselves from the clockwork
solar system of Newton that they dumped 'aether' on him as 'absolute
space and motion' to achieve that aim.Never have I seen one person so
adamantly opposed to an 'aether' as Newton so whatever it was the guys
in the early part of the 20th century imagined they were rejecting,it
was not absolute space and motion as Isaac had these things -

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken
them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such
matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." Newton
Optics 1704

Newton's absolute/relative space and motion is much more enjoyable,it
may be an artificially imposed framework with a definite end in mind
but it is nothing like present day empiricists have it.All those names
in physics through the last few centuries and they never had the
opportunity to understand the method and procedure Isaac used in tying
planetary dynamics to experimental sciences or 'celestial mechanics'
as it is called.I read Newton's statement on the matter as if it were
reading a newspaper and although it is wrong,it is perfectly
understandable -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Principia

All that nonsense of absolute space/ aether which has nothing
whatsoever to do with Isaac's thinking and nothing as dull as his
followers make it out to be.

"OG" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 03/11/2011 08:22, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Everywhere are the same result: Diurinal effects exsists, annual is
null.
"

No, you are mistaken. Attempts to measure variation in the speed of
light
(or movement relative to the aether) give null results.

The movement of the Earth surface relative to the ether was detected in
1925
by Michelson-Gale.

You have misunderstood the results of the Michelson-Gale experiement.

"The outcome of the experiment was that the angular velocity of the Earth as
measured by astronomy was confirmed to within measuring accuracy".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_experiment

We can wrote: M-G detected the angular velocity of the Earth. MM did not
detect the orbital velocity.


During Interval III the oscillation is smaller and begins to die out."


What has that got to do with anything?

Stars are at a little long distances than Pionier. And no the annual
oscillations.
Do you agree?

I've now no idea what you're talking about. What exactly has not got an
"annual oscillation"?

If you measure the Doppler effect there are the diurinal and annual
oscillations.
If the antenna on the Earth travel in the direction of the transmitter
the
Doppler effect is max. If the direction of the movement is at right angle
the effect is null.
So thera are (or can be expected) the oscillations. Annual and diurinal.

But the experimments show that the diurinal are but the annual not.

You clearly need to research more.

There is no aether. There is no movement relative to the aether.

But are the movements relative to the space. The antenna on the Earth do
such movements (diurnal and annual). Which of them are detected?
S*

On 04/11/2011 09:33, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 03/11/2011 08:22, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Everywhere are the same result: Diurinal effects exsists, annual is
null.
"

No, you are mistaken. Attempts to measure variation in the speed of
light
(or movement relative to the aether) give null results.

The movement of the Earth surface relative to the ether was detected in
1925
by Michelson-Gale.

You have misunderstood the results of the Michelson-Gale experiement.

"The outcome of the experiment was that the angular velocity of the Earth as
measured by astronomy was confirmed to within measuring accuracy".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_experiment

We can wrote: M-G detected the angular velocity of the Earth. MM did not
detect the orbital velocity.

You were using MG as 'evidence' of the Earth's surface relative to the
aether. MG showed no such thing.

Read further down the page:
MG is compatible with *either* a stationary aether *or* Special Relativity.

MM is compatible with *either* a dragged aether *or* Special Relativity.

The theory that is compatible with both MG and MM is Special Relativity.

There is no aether.


During Interval III the oscillation is smaller and begins to die out."


What has that got to do with anything?

Stars are at a little long distances than Pionier. And no the annual
oscillations.
Do you agree?

I've now no idea what you're talking about. What exactly has not got an
"annual oscillation"?

If you measure the Doppler effect there are the diurinal and annual
oscillations.
If the antenna on the Earth travel in the direction of the transmitter
the
Doppler effect is max. If the direction of the movement is at right angle
the effect is null.
So thera are (or can be expected) the oscillations. Annual and diurinal.

But the experimments show that the diurinal are but the annual not.

You clearly need to research more.

There is no aether. There is no movement relative to the aether.

But are the movements relative to the space. The antenna on the Earth do
such movements (diurnal and annual). Which of them are detected?

NO, there is no 'movement relative to space'. There is movement relative
to sources, but get the idea of movement relative to 'space' out of your
head.

Diurnal and annual motions relative to distance sources are
observational fact and adjustments are made to account for them when
reducing observations to a helocentric value.

On Nov 4, 7:20*pm, OG wrote:
On 04/11/2011 09:33, Szczepan Bialek wrote:









* *napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 03/11/2011 08:22, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Everywhere are the same result: Diurinal effects exsists, annual is
null.
"

No, you are mistaken. Attempts to measure variation in the speed of
light
(or movement relative to the aether) give null results.

The movement of the Earth surface relative to the ether was detected in
1925
by Michelson-Gale.

You have misunderstood the results of the Michelson-Gale experiement.

"The outcome of the experiment was that the angular velocity of the Earth as
measured by astronomy was confirmed to within measuring accuracy".
From: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_experiment

We can wrote: M-G detected the angular velocity of the Earth. MM did not
detect the orbital velocity.

You were using MG as 'evidence' of the Earth's surface relative to the
aether. MG showed no such thing.

Read further down the page:
MG is compatible with *either* a stationary aether *or* Special Relativity.

MM is compatible with *either* a dragged aether *or* Special Relativity.

The theory that is compatible with both MG and MM is Special Relativity.

There is no aether.











During Interval III the oscillation is smaller and begins to die out."

What has that got to do with anything?

Stars are at a little long distances than Pionier. And no the annual
oscillations.
Do you agree?

I've now no idea what you're talking about. What exactly has not got an
"annual oscillation"?

If you measure the Doppler effect there are the diurinal and annual
oscillations.
If the antenna on the Earth travel in the direction of the transmitter
the
Doppler effect is max. If the direction of the movement is at right angle
the effect is null.
So thera are (or can be expected) the oscillations. Annual and diurinal.

But the experimments show that the diurinal are but the annual not.

You clearly need to research more.

There is no aether. There is no movement relative to the aether.

But are the movements relative to the space. The antenna on the Earth do
such movements (diurnal and annual). Which of them are detected?

NO, there is no 'movement relative to space'. There is movement relative
to sources, but get the idea of movement relative to 'space' out of your
head.

Diurnal and annual motions relative to distance sources are
observational fact and adjustments are made to account for them when
reducing observations to a helocentric value.

The fact is that this does not happen,the daily and orbital motions
combined produce two observational facts in that no two natural noon
cycles are equal in length and one pf the oldest observations known to
all astronomers,that to keep the days and years on sync or what
amounts to the same thing,to keep daily rotations in sync with the
annual cycle,the count is 1461 days/rotations to 4 years/orbital
circuits.

In the late 17th century rush to use clocks to replace human
reasoning ,something akin what they try to do now y mechanical
modelling with computers,they attached significance to stellar
circumpolar motion and dumped everything into right ascension hence
all the traits which separate daily and annual motions became
lost.While I couldn't care less about convincing people how Newton got
it wrong in this respect,at least he was systematic about it -

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.
This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun" Newton

Sorry of you don't have the talent to work through the details as
Kepler most certainly did not state anything close to this nor would I
throw good information after bad and although Kepler's approach is
ultimately flawed,it is only possible to comprehend his perception in
terms of planetary orbital comparisons and nothing to do with the
'fixed stars' nor some mongrel idea ("whether of the sun about the
earth, or of the earth about the sun" Newton)

"The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler

The statement is so easy to understand that only dullards would make a
mess of it -

"And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which is 1
year, and the period of Saturn, which is 30 years, and extract the
cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio by squaring
the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the most just
ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun. 1 For the
cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube root of
30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is greater than
9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is slightly higher
than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from the sun." Kepler

One of the most amazing letters I I have read is one from an
Englishman to an Irishman in 1666 before the Royal Society got greedy
and this phenomena of the adoration of Newton arose,in page after page
there is this delightful vibrancy in linking analogies at a
terrestrial level with those which exist between planetary dynamics
and terrestrial effects -

http://books.google.com/books?id=RyB...page&q&f=false

With absolute confidence it is now possible to explain why natural
noon cycles vary whereas in the era of Wallis and Boyle,the issue was
an open question and it can only be answered by escaping right
ascension and looking at the orbital motion of the Earth separately

http://books.google.com/books?id=RyB...page&q&f=false

Maybe there is a type of human being who can act like a parasite and
live off a host but eventually destroys the host,in this respect
Newton was not a parasite in that he adjusted or rather distorted
things to suit himself and his agenda whereas his followers appear to
have a parasitical nature in neither understanding the original
astronomical methods and insights nor Newton's.

"OG" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 04/11/2011 09:33, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 03/11/2011 08:22, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Everywhere are the same result: Diurinal effects exsists, annual is
null.
"

No, you are mistaken. Attempts to measure variation in the speed of
light
(or movement relative to the aether) give null results.

The movement of the Earth surface relative to the ether was detected in
1925
by Michelson-Gale.

You have misunderstood the results of the Michelson-Gale experiement.

"The outcome of the experiment was that the angular velocity of the Earth
as
measured by astronomy was confirmed to within measuring accuracy".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_experiment

We can wrote: M-G detected the angular velocity of the Earth. MM did not
detect the orbital velocity.

You were using MG as 'evidence' of the Earth's surface relative to the
aether. MG showed no such thing.

Read further down the page:
MG is compatible with *either* a stationary aether *or* Special
Relativity.

MM is compatible with *either* a dragged aether *or* Special Relativity.

The theory that is compatible with both MG and MM is Special Relativity.

There is no aether.

There is also the theory of Cauchy and Stokes (aether rotate with the Sun
like the cyclone). It is also compatible with both MG and MM.


But are the movements relative to the space. The antenna on the Earth do
such movements (diurnal and annual). Which of them are detected?

NO, there is no 'movement relative to space'. There is movement relative
to sources, but get the idea of movement relative to 'space' out of your
head.

O.K.

Diurnal and annual motions relative to distance sources are observational
fact and adjustments are made to account for them when reducing
observations to a helocentric value.

The motions are the observational fact.
I am asking if the received frequency reacts on the "annual motions relative
to distance sources of radio frequency".
That the diurnal reacts we know.
S*

I must admit that even if unintentional,I felt that great pride for
all my astronomical ancestors after watching a scene from a movie and
that sometimes as an art form,it can help draw attention to those
things which are important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcfNpfaGejA

Now that engineering practicalities are trying to surpass astronomical
principles which maintain the correspondence between the day and the
year or daily rotation to the orbital circuit through the 1461 AM/PM
designations how small you must all feel before a heritage many times
older than the right ascension mistake you all follow.

On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 07:06:18 -0800, oriel36 wrote:

It's a Hollywood movie, FFS.

Meanwhile, I take great pride from the engineering feats apparent in Star
Wars - Attack of the Clones' which, IMHO is more valid.

BTW, welcome to my killfile - don't bother responding.

Bloody God-botherers give religion a bad name.