A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » UK Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Arago vs Vogel



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 27th 11, 10:46 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 780
Default Arago vs Vogel

On 27/10/2011 17:30, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
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.


The diurnal what? Clearly not a diurnal change in the speed of light, so
what?

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.


I'm not sure the Arago result was spectroscopic in nature.

The Vogel's result do not fit to them.


Why not?
  #12  
Old October 28th 11, 08:29 AM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
Szczepan Bialek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Arago vs Vogel


"OG" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 27/10/2011 17:30, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
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 practised in
GPS.


The diurnal what? Clearly not a diurnal change in the speed of light, so
what?


He detected the rotational movement of the Earth.

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.


I'm not sure the Arago result was spectroscopic in nature.


Arago and Vogel used the same in nature. Arago used spectroscopy and Vogel
spectrography.

The Vogel's result do not fit to them.


Why not?


In all textbooks is wrote that Arago, Mchelson-Morley and Truton-Noble fit
together.
S*



  #13  
Old October 28th 11, 10:14 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 780
Default Arago vs Vogel

On 28/10/2011 08:29, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 27/10/2011 17:30, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
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 practised in
GPS.


The diurnal what? Clearly not a diurnal change in the speed of light, so
what?


He detected the rotational movement of the Earth.

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.


I'm not sure the Arago result was spectroscopic in nature.


Arago and Vogel used the same in nature. Arago used spectroscopy and Vogel
spectrography.


Do you have a description of Arago's experiment? I suspect not.

The Vogel's result do not fit to them.


Why not?


In all textbooks is wrote that Arago, Mchelson-Morley and Truton-Noble fit
together.


So what (in your own words) is the problem with Vogel's result?
  #14  
Old October 29th 11, 09:00 AM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
Szczepan Bialek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Arago vs Vogel


"OG" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 28/10/2011 08:29, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 27/10/2011 17:30, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
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 practised in
GPS.

The diurnal what? Clearly not a diurnal change in the speed of light, so
what?


He detected the rotational movement of the Earth.

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.

I'm not sure the Arago result was spectroscopic in nature.


Arago and Vogel used the same in nature. Arago used spectroscopy and
Vogel
spectrography.


Do you have a description of Arago's experiment? I suspect not.


The Brace's descripion from 2004: " "Arago, in the second instance,
reasoning on the same theory, concluded that the deviation produced by a
prism would vary with the direction of the earth's motion; but he was unable
to detect any such change, a result verified later by more delicate means in
the hands of Maxwell, Mascart, and others. This experiment, which
demonstrated the absence of any effect of the earth's movement on refraction
is of great historical interest. "
"...and the negative results of the many and various experimental
investigations which have thus far been made and whose validity is
unquestioned, whether in refraction, interference, diffraction, rotary
polarization, double refraction, induction, electric convection, etc.".
From: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Et..._moving_Matter


The Vogel's result do not fit to them.

Why not?


In all textbooks is wrote that Arago, Mchelson-Morley and Truton-Noble
fit
together.


So what (in your own words) is the problem with Vogel's result?


The problem will appear if it is confirmed.
Now it is mentioned only in Wiki. Without any comments.
If it is right than: "This experiment, which
demonstrated the effect of the earth's orbital movement on refraction
is of great historical interest. "

So I am asking. Today's astronomers know the answer.
S*



  #15  
Old October 29th 11, 10:38 AM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 780
Default Arago vs Vogel

On 29/10/2011 09:00, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 28/10/2011 08:29, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 27/10/2011 17:30, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
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 practised in
GPS.

The diurnal what? Clearly not a diurnal change in the speed of light, so
what?

He detected the rotational movement of the Earth.

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.

I'm not sure the Arago result was spectroscopic in nature.

Arago and Vogel used the same in nature. Arago used spectroscopy and
Vogel
spectrography.


Do you have a description of Arago's experiment? I suspect not.


The Brace's descripion from 2004: " "Arago, in the second instance,
reasoning on the same theory, concluded that the deviation produced by a
prism would vary with the direction of the earth's motion; but he was unable
to detect any such change, a result verified later by more delicate means in
the hands of Maxwell, Mascart, and others. This experiment, which
demonstrated the absence of any effect of the earth's movement on refraction
is of great historical interest. "
"...and the negative results of the many and various experimental
investigations which have thus far been made and whose validity is
unquestioned, whether in refraction, interference, diffraction, rotary
polarization, double refraction, induction, electric convection, etc.".
From: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Et..._moving_Matter


But that's not spectroscopy. It just looked at the angle of refraction
through a prism, nothing about looking at spectra.

The Vogel's result do not fit to them.

Why not?

In all textbooks is wrote that Arago, Mchelson-Morley and Truton-Noble
fit
together.


So what (in your own words) is the problem with Vogel's result?


The problem will appear if it is confirmed.


What problem?

Now it is mentioned only in Wiki. Without any comments.
If it is right than: "This experiment, which
demonstrated the effect of the earth's orbital movement on refraction
is of great historical interest. "


Arago's result yes.

I still don't know why you think there's a problem with Vogel's result.
  #16  
Old October 30th 11, 11:14 AM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Arago vs Vogel

On Oct 29, 10:38*am, OG wrote:
is of great historical interest. "

Arago's result yes.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lion_Paris.jpg

How much that little square will tell you.

When Flamsteed attempted to shift the rotational signatures from AM/PM
to RA (right ascension) he also unwittingly set the ground for
creating an imbalance between 1461 days and 1461 rotations that are
reflected in the original signatures whether expressed as the 1461
rotations to 4 orbital circuits or the raw proportion of 365 1/4
rotations in 365 1/4 days/1 orbital circuit.

When you base the connection between planetary dynamics and
experimental sciences (empirical method) using Ra/Dec be sure not to
turn the system to the Earth's motions,so as not to turn a useful tool
into a blunt weapon.

I would love say to say it is a fundamental human right to teach
students that the Earth turns once in a day and 1461 times in 1461
days but even the UN charter on human rights is been driven by a
community which believes 1465 rotations in 1461 days.



  #17  
Old October 30th 11, 04:37 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
Szczepan Bialek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Arago vs Vogel


"OG" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 29/10/2011 09:00, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 28/10/2011 08:29, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 27/10/2011 17:30, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
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 practised
in
GPS.

The diurnal what? Clearly not a diurnal change in the speed of light,
so
what?

He detected the rotational movement of the Earth.

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.

I'm not sure the Arago result was spectroscopic in nature.

Arago and Vogel used the same in nature. Arago used spectroscopy and
Vogel
spectrography.

Do you have a description of Arago's experiment? I suspect not.


The Brace's descripion from 1904: " "Arago, in the second instance,
reasoning on the same theory, concluded that the deviation produced by a
prism would vary with the direction of the earth's motion; but he was
unable
to detect any such change, a result verified later by more delicate means
in
the hands of Maxwell, Mascart, and others. This experiment, which
demonstrated the absence of any effect of the earth's movement on
refraction
is of great historical interest. "
"...and the negative results of the many and various experimental
investigations which have thus far been made and whose validity is
unquestioned, whether in refraction, interference, diffraction, rotary
polarization, double refraction, induction, electric convection, etc.".
From: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Et..._moving_Matter


But that's not spectroscopy. It just looked at the angle of refraction
through a prism, nothing about looking at spectra.


It seems to me that the only way to measure the angle of refraction is to
measure the absorption line position.

Below is the problem of the radial speeds of planets. Also the result is
null:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00243.000.html


The Vogel's result do not fit to them.

Why not?

In all textbooks is wrote that Arago, Mchelson-Morley and Truton-Noble
fit
together.

So what (in your own words) is the problem with Vogel's result?


The problem will appear if it is confirmed.


What problem?

Now it is mentioned only in Wiki. Without any comments.
If it is right than: "This experiment, which
demonstrated the effect of the earth's orbital movement on refraction
is of great historical interest. "


Arago's result yes.

I still don't know why you think there's a problem with Vogel's result.


I know that in the whole World students are told that at measuring of the
radial speed of stars they should take into account the orbital speed of the
Earth.
The reason is the Vogel's result.

It is some problem because in 1905 Einstein wrote that it is impossible to
detect the orbital speed. So are the two possibilities:
1. Brace and Einstein did not know about Vogel's result.
2. Vogel's result become wrong.
S*


  #18  
Old October 30th 11, 05:02 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 780
Default Arago vs Vogel

On 30/10/2011 15:37, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 29/10/2011 09:00, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 28/10/2011 08:29, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 27/10/2011 17:30, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
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 practised
in
GPS.

The diurnal what? Clearly not a diurnal change in the speed of light,
so
what?

He detected the rotational movement of the Earth.

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.

I'm not sure the Arago result was spectroscopic in nature.

Arago and Vogel used the same in nature. Arago used spectroscopy and
Vogel
spectrography.

Do you have a description of Arago's experiment? I suspect not.

The Brace's descripion from 1904: " "Arago, in the second instance,
reasoning on the same theory, concluded that the deviation produced by a
prism would vary with the direction of the earth's motion; but he was
unable
to detect any such change, a result verified later by more delicate means
in
the hands of Maxwell, Mascart, and others. This experiment, which
demonstrated the absence of any effect of the earth's movement on
refraction
is of great historical interest. "
"...and the negative results of the many and various experimental
investigations which have thus far been made and whose validity is
unquestioned, whether in refraction, interference, diffraction, rotary
polarization, double refraction, induction, electric convection, etc.".
From: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Et..._moving_Matter


But that's not spectroscopy. It just looked at the angle of refraction
through a prism, nothing about looking at spectra.


It seems to me that the only way to measure the angle of refraction is to
measure the absorption line position.


You are mistaken. Arago's experiment simply looked at the angle or
refraction.

Below is the problem of the radial speeds of planets. Also the result is
null:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00243.000.html


You are mistaken. That experiment was to detect oxygen lines in the
atmosphere of Venus.


The Vogel's result do not fit to them.

Why not?

In all textbooks is wrote that Arago, Mchelson-Morley and Truton-Noble
fit
together.

So what (in your own words) is the problem with Vogel's result?

The problem will appear if it is confirmed.


What problem?

Now it is mentioned only in Wiki. Without any comments.
If it is right than: "This experiment, which
demonstrated the effect of the earth's orbital movement on refraction
is of great historical interest. "


Arago's result yes.

I still don't know why you think there's a problem with Vogel's result.


I know that in the whole World students are told that at measuring of the
radial speed of stars they should take into account the orbital speed of the
Earth.


Yes.

The reason is the Vogel's result.


Sort of. More accurately, Vogel's result is a measurement of the earth's
orbital speed, hence, it needs to be taken into account.

It is some problem because in 1905 Einstein wrote that it is impossible to
detect the orbital speed. So are the two possibilities:
1. Brace and Einstein did not know about Vogel's result.
2. Vogel's result become wrong.


You are mistaken. Einstein wrote no such thing. What he wrote (in
effect) is that the earth's orbital speed has no effect on the measured
speed of light, which is the explanation behind Arago's null result.
  #19  
Old October 30th 11, 09:31 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
Szczepan Bialek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Arago vs Vogel


"OG" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 30/10/2011 15:37, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

It seems to me that the only way to measure the angle of refraction is to
measure the absorption line position.


You are mistaken. Arago's experiment simply looked at the angle or
refraction.


But the line position was the same for stars:
"http://www.archive.org/stream/spectrumanalysis00esterich/spectrumanalysis00esterich_djvu.txt
"Indeed, these observations would scarcely be
possible, were it not that in the dark lines crossing the spec-
tra of the sun and fixed stars, the places of some of which
may be accurately ascertained, we have fixed positions in
the spectrum, the degree of refrangibility or wave-length of
which may be determined beforehand, both for the sun and
terrestrial substances, and also for the stars or other sources
of light supposed to be at rest. "



Below is the problem of the radial speeds of planets. Also the result is
null:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00243.000.html


You are mistaken. That experiment was to detect oxygen lines in the
atmosphere of Venus.


You are right.


The Vogel's result do not fit to them.

Why not?

In all textbooks is wrote that Arago, Mchelson-Morley and
Truton-Noble
fit
together.

So what (in your own words) is the problem with Vogel's result?

The problem will appear if it is confirmed.

What problem?

Now it is mentioned only in Wiki. Without any comments.
If it is right than: "This experiment, which
demonstrated the effect of the earth's orbital movement on refraction
is of great historical interest. "

Arago's result yes.

I still don't know why you think there's a problem with Vogel's result.


I know that in the whole World students are told that at measuring of the
radial speed of stars they should take into account the orbital speed of
the
Earth.


Yes.

The reason is the Vogel's result.


Sort of. More accurately, Vogel's result is a measurement of the earth's
orbital speed, hence, it needs to be taken into account.


Arago's result is "yes" and Vogel's result is "yes". Is it possible?

It is some problem because in 1905 Einstein wrote that it is impossible
to
detect the orbital speed. So are the two possibilities:
1. Brace and Einstein did not know about Vogel's result.
2. Vogel's result become wrong.


You are mistaken. Einstein wrote no such thing. What he wrote (in effect)
is that the earth's orbital speed has no effect on the measured speed of
light, which is the explanation behind Arago's null result.


For me refraction = line position ("the dark lines crossing the spectra of
the sun and fixed stars").
The only detail which can be measured are the position of that dark lines.
Arago used the achromatic prism. But the next used the dark lines.

But is possible that Arago's measurements and that to 1904 were not
accurate.
Why than the Vogel's result is totally unknown?
S*





  #20  
Old October 30th 11, 10:22 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 780
Default Arago vs Vogel

On 30/10/2011 20:31, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 30/10/2011 15:37, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

It seems to me that the only way to measure the angle of refraction is to
measure the absorption line position.


You are mistaken. Arago's experiment simply looked at the angle or
refraction.


But the line position was the same for stars:
"http://www.archive.org/stream/spectrumanalysis00esterich/spectrumanalysis00esterich_djvu.txt
"Indeed, these observations would scarcely be
possible, were it not that in the dark lines crossing the spec-
tra of the sun and fixed stars, the places of some of which
may be accurately ascertained, we have fixed positions in
the spectrum, the degree of refrangibility or wave-length of
which may be determined beforehand, both for the sun and
terrestrial substances, and also for the stars or other sources
of light supposed to be at rest. "


What you can't see, because Fig X is not included, is that the positions
of the lines is displaced because of the relative movements. So, the
line position was NOT the same. The following text makes this clear.



Below is the problem of the radial speeds of planets. Also the result is
null:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00243.000.html


You are mistaken. That experiment was to detect oxygen lines in the
atmosphere of Venus.


You are right.


The Vogel's result do not fit to them.

Why not?

In all textbooks is wrote that Arago, Mchelson-Morley and
Truton-Noble
fit
together.

So what (in your own words) is the problem with Vogel's result?

The problem will appear if it is confirmed.

What problem?

Now it is mentioned only in Wiki. Without any comments.
If it is right than: "This experiment, which
demonstrated the effect of the earth's orbital movement on refraction
is of great historical interest. "

Arago's result yes.

I still don't know why you think there's a problem with Vogel's result.

I know that in the whole World students are told that at measuring of the
radial speed of stars they should take into account the orbital speed of
the
Earth.


Yes.

The reason is the Vogel's result.


Sort of. More accurately, Vogel's result is a measurement of the earth's
orbital speed, hence, it needs to be taken into account.


Arago's result is "yes" and Vogel's result is "yes". Is it possible?


Of course it's possible. The speed of the incoming light is not changed
by the relative motion of the source and detector (Arago), but the
frequency of the spectral feature is changed (Vogel).


It is some problem because in 1905 Einstein wrote that it is impossible
to
detect the orbital speed. So are the two possibilities:
1. Brace and Einstein did not know about Vogel's result.
2. Vogel's result become wrong.


You are mistaken. Einstein wrote no such thing. What he wrote (in effect)
is that the earth's orbital speed has no effect on the measured speed of
light, which is the explanation behind Arago's null result.


For me refraction = line position ("the dark lines crossing the spectra of
the sun and fixed stars").


That's a mistake.

The only detail which can be measured are the position of that dark lines.
Arago used the achromatic prism.


So you agree he couldn't have been looking at spectral lines if he was
using an achromatic prism. What he measured was the simple angle of
refraction.
He tried to see if the different speed of the Earth relative to the
source star made a difference to the angle of refraction. It doesn't

But the next used the dark lines.

But is possible that Arago's measurements and that to 1904 were not
accurate.


No, they were accurate enough -

Why than the Vogel's result is totally unknown?


Because he measured something that was not unexpected.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.