Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Arago vs Vogel
21 views
Skip to first unread message
Szczepan Bialek
Oct 22, 2011, 2:50:36 AM10/22/11
to
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*
"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*
OG
Oct 24, 2011, 6:45:15 PM10/24/11
to
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.
Szczepan Bialek
Oct 25, 2011, 3:32:45 AM10/25/11
to
Uzytkownik "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
news:9gm83g...@mid.individual.net...
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*
>
OG
Oct 25, 2011, 2:00:56 PM10/25/11
to
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?
Szczepan Bialek
Oct 26, 2011, 4:15:51 AM10/26/11
to
news:9gobro...@mid.individual.net...
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
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*
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?
>> 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?
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*
OG
Oct 26, 2011, 2:32:27 PM10/26/11
to
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
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".
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.
Szczepan Bialek
Oct 27, 2011, 4:07:58 AM10/27/11
to
news:9gr21e...@mid.individual.net...
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
S*
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?
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*
OG
Oct 27, 2011, 6:17:43 AM10/27/11
to
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.
oriel36
Oct 27, 2011, 11:11:33 AM10/27/11
to
On Oct 27, 10:07 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomoscinews:9gr21e...@mid.individual.net...
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" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomoscinews:9gr21e...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 26/10/2011 09:15, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
> >> "OG"<o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 26/10/2011 09:15, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
> >>news:9gobro...@mid.individual.net...
> >>> On 25/10/2011 08:32, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
> >>>> Uzytkownik "OG"<o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
> >>> On 25/10/2011 08:32, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
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.
Szczepan Bialek
Oct 27, 2011, 12:30:26 PM10/27/11
to
news:9gspdt...@mid.individual.net...
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.
Michelson-Gale.
The Vogel's result do not fit to them.
S*
> but you can detect a diurnal/annual effect by using spectroscopy.
>
> The two experiments are doing different things and the results are
> completely compatible.
The Arago result of spectroscopy is compatible with Michelson-Morley and
> The two experiments are doing different things and the results are
> completely compatible.
Michelson-Gale.
The Vogel's result do not fit to them.
S*
OG
Oct 27, 2011, 5:46:04 PM10/27/11
to
On 27/10/2011 17:30, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
> "OG"<ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:9gspdt...@mid.individual.net...
>> 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
> "OG"<ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:9gspdt...@mid.individual.net...
>> 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.
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.
> The Vogel's result do not fit to them.
Szczepan Bialek
Oct 28, 2011, 3:29:41 AM10/28/11
to
news:9gu1oh...@mid.individual.net...
>>> 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*
> On 27/10/2011 17:30, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>> "OG"<ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
>> news:9gspdt...@mid.individual.net...
>>> 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
>> "OG"<ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
>> news:9gspdt...@mid.individual.net...
>>> 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,
>>
>> GPS.
>
> The diurnal what? Clearly not a diurnal change in the speed of light, so
> what?
He detected the rotational movement of the Earth.
>
> 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.
spectrography.
>> The Vogel's result do not fit to them.
>
> Why not?
together.
S*
OG
Oct 28, 2011, 5:14:04 PM10/28/11
to
>>> 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.
Szczepan Bialek
Oct 29, 2011, 4:00:34 AM10/29/11
to
news:9h0ka0...@mid.individual.net...
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_Ether_and_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*
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_Ether_and_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?
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*
OG
Oct 29, 2011, 5:38:01 AM10/29/11
to
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.
> 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. "
I still don't know why you think there's a problem with Vogel's result.
oriel36
Oct 30, 2011, 6:14:36 AM10/30/11
to
On Oct 29, 10:38 am, OG <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
> is of great historical interest. "
>
> Arago's result yes.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Arago_medallion_Paris.jpg
> is of great historical interest. "
>
> Arago's result yes.
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.
Szczepan Bialek
Oct 30, 2011, 11:37:34 AM10/30/11
to
news:9h1vrc...@mid.individual.net...
>> The Brace's descripion from 1904: " "Arago, in the second instance,
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//full/1932PASP...44..243A/0000243.000.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*
>> 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_Ether_and_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
>> 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_Ether_and_moving_Matter
>
> But that's not spectroscopy. It just looked at the angle of refraction
> through a prism, nothing about looking at spectra.
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//full/1932PASP...44..243A/0000243.000.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.
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*
OG
Oct 30, 2011, 12:02:05 PM10/30/11
to
refraction.
> Below is the problem of the radial speeds of planets. Also the result is
> null:
> http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1932PASP...44..243A/0000243.000.html
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.
> The reason is the Vogel's result.
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.
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.
Szczepan Bialek
Oct 30, 2011, 4:31:32 PM10/30/11
to
news:9h5anf...@mid.individual.net...
"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//full/1932PASP...44..243A/0000243.000.html
>
> You are mistaken. That experiment was to detect oxygen lines in the
> atmosphere of Venus.
You are right.
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*
> 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:
>>
>> 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.
"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//full/1932PASP...44..243A/0000243.000.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.
Arago's result is "yes" and Vogel's result is "yes". Is it possible?
>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
For me refraction = line position ("the dark lines crossing the spectra of
>> 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.
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*
OG
Oct 30, 2011, 5:22:33 PM10/30/11
to
On 30/10/2011 20:31, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
> "OG"<ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:9h5anf...@mid.individual.net...
>> 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
> "OG"<ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:9h5anf...@mid.individual.net...
>> 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. "
of the lines is displaced because of the relative movements. So, the
line position was NOT the same. The following text makes this clear.
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").
> The only detail which can be measured are the position of that dark lines.
> Arago used the achromatic prism.
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.
> Why than the Vogel's result is totally unknown?
Szczepan Bialek
Oct 31, 2011, 5:20:06 AM10/31/11
to
news:9h5ti2...@mid.individual.net...
The spectra methods are a little mystery. And what with the radioscopy:
"In 1931, a Bell Telephone engineer, Karl Jansky (1905-1950), was trying to
find where the interference disrupting transatlantic radiophone circuits
came from. He discovered that some of the radio noise was not from the
Earth--it was extraterrestrial. The primary source was the center of the
Milky Way, in the constellation of Sagittarius. In 1936, an Illinois radio
engineer, Grote Reber (b. 1911), pursued the phenomenon farther." From:
http://physics.gmu.edu/~jevans/astr103/CourseNotes/ECText/ch05_txt.htm#5.2.1.
The radio frequences are easy to measure.
Are there the diurinal and annual effests?
S*
>
"In 1931, a Bell Telephone engineer, Karl Jansky (1905-1950), was trying to
find where the interference disrupting transatlantic radiophone circuits
came from. He discovered that some of the radio noise was not from the
Earth--it was extraterrestrial. The primary source was the center of the
Milky Way, in the constellation of Sagittarius. In 1936, an Illinois radio
engineer, Grote Reber (b. 1911), pursued the phenomenon farther." From:
http://physics.gmu.edu/~jevans/astr103/CourseNotes/ECText/ch05_txt.htm#5.2.1.
The radio frequences are easy to measure.
Are there the diurinal and annual effests?
S*
>
OG
Oct 31, 2011, 3:28:19 PM10/31/11
to
receiver with good spectral resolution and a sources with narrow
frequency spectral features.
A bit of googling (using the words astronomical radio doppler effect
diurnal) has brought up the user guide for the Miriad software package
used by the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ACTA).
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/computing/software/miriad/
The section related to Spectral Line Data Reduction makes it clear that
the diurnal effect needs to be taken into account for fine velocity
resolution observations
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/computing/software/miriad/userguide/node134.html
oriel36
Oct 31, 2011, 3:56:45 PM10/31/11
to
On Oct 31, 10:20 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> The radio frequences are easy to measure.
> Are there the diurinal and annual effests?
> S*
The both of you are childish but are no better or worse than the rest.
> The radio frequences are easy to measure.
> Are there the diurinal and annual effests?
> S*
It would take 3 satellites referenced off each other and each of those
to a planetary trait to work out the change in the orbital speed of
the Earth from day to day,that hasn't been done and it cannot be done
until an astronomer arrives on the scene with a healthy respect for
planetary dynamics and less for stellar circumpolar motion.
Let me guess,none of you have the faintest idea how the referencing
works and even if I did explain how the equation of time works to
extract the daily rotational component from the variations in orbital
speed,you still wouldn't get it right as additional information is
required and adjustments made.
Continue on trying to impress yourselves,the great English innovator
John Harrison had you lot pegged centuries ago when engineering
innovation is required -
"Now, in the former part of this book, I have treated about matters
pertaining to the strictness of measuring time; and have shewn the
deficiencies of such means as Mr. Graham had taken or made use of for
that purpose; and I have also treated of the improper, troublesome,
erroneous - tedious method, which the professors at Cambridge and
Oxford would have to be for the longitude at sea:"
" But indeed, had I continued under the hands of the rude
commissioners, this completion, or great accomplishment, neither
would, nor could, ever have been obtained; but however, providence
otherwise ordered the matter, and I can now boldly say, that if the
provision for the heat and cold could properly be in the balance
itself, as it is in the pendulum, the watch [or my longitude
time-keeper] would then perform to a few seconds in a year, yea, to
such perfection now are imaginary impossibilities conquered; so the
priests at Cambridge and Oxford, &c. may cease their pursuit in the
longitude affair, and as otherwise then to occupy their time."
John Harrison
Dullards now as they were back then in Harrison's time,they are lost
in the timekeeping system and their celestial sphere carousel and
waste theirs and everyone else's time as Harrison rightly pointed out.
Szczepan Bialek
Nov 1, 2011, 1:11:24 PM11/1/11
to
"oriel36" <kellehe...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:259ba896-a3af-491e...@er6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 10:20 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>> The radio frequences are easy to measure.
>> Are there the diurinal and annual effects?
>> The radio frequences are easy to measure.
> S*
>The both of you are childish but are no better or worse than the rest.
>It would take 3 satellites referenced off each other and each of those
to a planetary trait to work out the change in the orbital speed of
the Earth from day to day,
I am not asking about changes in the orbital speed or the rotational speed.
>The both of you are childish but are no better or worse than the rest.
>It would take 3 satellites referenced off each other and each of those
to a planetary trait to work out the change in the orbital speed of
the Earth from day to day,
I am asking who was right: Arago or Vogel.
For Brace (100 years ago) Arago and many others were right.
Now (200 years later) the specra methods are so accurate that they detect
the diurinal effect.
Does they detect the annual efect?
from the radio communications with spacecrafts?
S*
Szczepan Bialek
Nov 1, 2011, 2:16:16 PM11/1/11
to
news:9h8b63...@mid.individual.net...
The diurinal effect is confirmed by everybody.
Using words astronomical radio annual doppler effect we have:
"It is also possible to infer the position in the sky of a
spacecraft from the Doppler data. This is accomplished by
examining the diurnal variation imparted to the Doppler shift
by the Earth's rotation. As the ground station rotates underneath
a spacecraft, the Doppler shift is modulated by a sinusoid.
The sinusoid's amplitude depends on the declination
angle of the spacecraft and its phase depends upon the right
ascension. These angles can therefore be estimated from a
record of the Doppler shift that is ~at least! of several days
duration. This allows for a determination of the distance to
the spacecraft through the dynamics of spacecraft motion
using standard orbit theory contained in the orbit determination
programs."
On the page 37 is wrote: "At early times the
annual term is largest. During Interval II, the interval of the
large spin-rate change anomaly, coherent oscillation is lost.
During Interval III the oscillation is smaller and begins to die
out."
Using words astronomical radio annual doppler effect we have:
"It is also possible to infer the position in the sky of a
spacecraft from the Doppler data. This is accomplished by
examining the diurnal variation imparted to the Doppler shift
by the Earth's rotation. As the ground station rotates underneath
a spacecraft, the Doppler shift is modulated by a sinusoid.
The sinusoid's amplitude depends on the declination
angle of the spacecraft and its phase depends upon the right
ascension. These angles can therefore be estimated from a
record of the Doppler shift that is ~at least! of several days
duration. This allows for a determination of the distance to
the spacecraft through the dynamics of spacecraft motion
using standard orbit theory contained in the orbit determination
programs."
On the page 37 is wrote: "At early times the
annual term is largest. During Interval II, the interval of the
large spin-rate change anomaly, coherent oscillation is lost.
During Interval III the oscillation is smaller and begins to die
out."
Szczepan Bialek
Nov 1, 2011, 2:18:55 PM11/1/11
to
"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> napisał w wiadomości
news:4eb03771$0$2180$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>
> >
> Using words astronomical radio annual doppler effect we have:
The link:
> >
> Using words astronomical radio annual doppler effect we have:
http://chaos.swarthmore.edu/courses/Physics130_2008/Pioneer_Anomaly.pdf
oriel36
Nov 1, 2011, 2:38:06 PM11/1/11
to
On Nov 1, 6:11 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:259ba896-a3af-491e...@er6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
gauge planetary dynamics or what amounts to the same thing - that
daily rotation/orbital motion and stellar circumpolar motion are
equivalent.
The polar coordinates turn in a 10366 mile annual circle about a
traveling axis that is separate to daily rotation,that is the location
where one satellite is fixed to a planetary trait,the rest is far too
sophisticated for you and your approach and you would continuously
miss the point,and 'missing the point' is an interjection I am seeing
more and more lately as more of a symptom than a inquisitive position
of readers.
In normal times the issue of how the orbital speed of the Earth varies
from day to day and especially right as this moment as empiricists
once recognized at allhallontide -
http://books.google.com/books?id=RyBOsLIi2SMC&pg=PA219&dq=aequation+dayes#v=onepage&q&f=false
I could answer those men why natural noon cycles vary as a reflection
of two separate types of rotation to the Sun with the above value for
the polar coordinates representing that orbital behavior of the Earth
and right now is a significant orbital event as those men noticed in
the behavior of the tides.There is no excitement in teasing out a new
orbital component and a major one and that but such is this extremely
dull situation which shows no signs of abating,not even with all out
technological wonders.
What empiricists are prepared to believe today is either crude or
subhuman,it could be different but that is not my problem.
> "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:259ba896-a3af-491e...@er6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 31, 10:20 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> >> The radio frequences are easy to measure.
> >> Are there the diurinal and annual effects?
> > S*
> >The both of you are childish but are no better or worse than the rest.
> >It would take 3 satellites referenced off each other and each of those
>
> to a planetary trait to work out the change in the orbital speed of
> the Earth from day to day,
>
> I am not asking about changes in the orbital speed or the rotational speed.
> I am asking who was right: Arago or Vogel.
You poor thing,you still believe that right ascension is a way to
>
> >> The radio frequences are easy to measure.
> >> Are there the diurinal and annual effects?
> > S*
> >The both of you are childish but are no better or worse than the rest.
> >It would take 3 satellites referenced off each other and each of those
>
> to a planetary trait to work out the change in the orbital speed of
> the Earth from day to day,
>
> I am not asking about changes in the orbital speed or the rotational speed.
> I am asking who was right: Arago or Vogel.
gauge planetary dynamics or what amounts to the same thing - that
daily rotation/orbital motion and stellar circumpolar motion are
equivalent.
The polar coordinates turn in a 10366 mile annual circle about a
traveling axis that is separate to daily rotation,that is the location
where one satellite is fixed to a planetary trait,the rest is far too
sophisticated for you and your approach and you would continuously
miss the point,and 'missing the point' is an interjection I am seeing
more and more lately as more of a symptom than a inquisitive position
of readers.
In normal times the issue of how the orbital speed of the Earth varies
from day to day and especially right as this moment as empiricists
once recognized at allhallontide -
http://books.google.com/books?id=RyBOsLIi2SMC&pg=PA219&dq=aequation+dayes#v=onepage&q&f=false
I could answer those men why natural noon cycles vary as a reflection
of two separate types of rotation to the Sun with the above value for
the polar coordinates representing that orbital behavior of the Earth
and right now is a significant orbital event as those men noticed in
the behavior of the tides.There is no excitement in teasing out a new
orbital component and a major one and that but such is this extremely
dull situation which shows no signs of abating,not even with all out
technological wonders.
What empiricists are prepared to believe today is either crude or
subhuman,it could be different but that is not my problem.
OG
Nov 1, 2011, 3:36:37 PM11/1/11
to
Arago attempted to measure a predicted* diurnal variation in the SPEED
of incoming light by measuring a difference in the angle of refraction
for white light. Arago did not measure any difference. He was right.
Vogel measured a diurnal variation in the frequency/wavelength of
spectral features as a result of the movement of the Earth. He was right.
Arago was NOT looking at anything specifically related to spectral
features.
* 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.
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, when there is a
relative movement away from the source, the angle of refraction would be
reduced.
oriel36
Nov 1, 2011, 3:50:14 PM11/1/11
to
On Nov 1, 7:18 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> napisa³ w wiadomo¶cinews:4eb03771$0$2180$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
I actually don't mind working through these things,despite my poor
descriptive skills I have this God given talent for the type of
spacial awareness and physical considerations that comes with being an
astronomer.
Kepler's flawed insight between orbital periods and distance from the
Sun is not an accurate description of orbital geometries but rather an
equalization of orbital geometries,he even states it himself in a
matter of fact way -
"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
"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter." Kepler
This is a long way from the ideology that planetary orbital
trajectories are explained by way of Kepler so that of you are looking
at any individual trajectory,such as that of a spacecraft,an
acceleration is going to happen anyway against a mean orbital speed
and you must understand that I really couldn't care less about this
apparent anomalous 'acceleration' when there is a major modification
to orbital geometries being held up by this irritating addiction to
right ascension ideologies.
> "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> napisa³ w wiadomo¶cinews:4eb03771$0$2180$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
descriptive skills I have this God given talent for the type of
spacial awareness and physical considerations that comes with being an
astronomer.
Kepler's flawed insight between orbital periods and distance from the
Sun is not an accurate description of orbital geometries but rather an
equalization of orbital geometries,he even states it himself in a
matter of fact way -
"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
"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter." Kepler
This is a long way from the ideology that planetary orbital
trajectories are explained by way of Kepler so that of you are looking
at any individual trajectory,such as that of a spacecraft,an
acceleration is going to happen anyway against a mean orbital speed
and you must understand that I really couldn't care less about this
apparent anomalous 'acceleration' when there is a major modification
to orbital geometries being held up by this irritating addiction to
right ascension ideologies.
Szczepan Bialek
Nov 2, 2011, 4:37:12 AM11/2/11
to
Uzytkownik "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
news:9hb01m...@mid.individual.net...
> On 01/11/2011 18:16, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>
>> The diurinal effect is confirmed by everybody.
>>
>> Using words astronomical radio annual doppler effect we have: The link:
>>
>> The diurinal effect is confirmed by everybody.
>>
http://chaos.swarthmore.edu/courses/Physics130_2008/Pioneer_Anomaly.pdf
>>
>> "It is also possible to infer the position in the sky of a
>> spacecraft from the Doppler data. This is accomplished by
>>
>> examining the diurnal variation imparted to the Doppler shift
>>
>> by the Earth's rotation. As the ground station rotates underneath
>>
>> a spacecraft, the Doppler shift is modulated by a sinusoid.
>>
>> The sinusoid's amplitude depends on the declination
>>
>> angle of the spacecraft and its phase depends upon the right
>>
>> ascension. These angles can therefore be estimated from a
>>
>> record of the Doppler shift that is ~at least! of several days
>>
>> duration. This allows for a determination of the distance to
>>
>> the spacecraft through the dynamics of spacecraft motion
>>
>> using standard orbit theory contained in the orbit determination
>>
>> programs."
>>
>> On the page 37 is wrote: "At early times the
>>
>> annual term is largest. During Interval II, the interval of the
>>
>> large spin-rate change anomaly, coherent oscillation is lost.
>>
>> During Interval III the oscillation is smaller and begins to die
>>
>> out."
>>
>> Who was right: Arago or Vogel?
>
> Once again - they were both right.
>
> Arago attempted to measure a predicted* diurnal variation
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"
same for light incident in the direction of the earth's orbital velocity vs.
as for that coming in the opposite direction"
> in the SPEED of incoming light by measuring a difference in the angle of
> refraction for white light. Arago did not measure any difference. He was
> right.
>
> Vogel measured a diurnal variation
It was also the annual variation.
> refraction for white light. Arago did not measure any difference. He was
> right.
>
> Vogel measured a diurnal variation
>in the frequency/wavelength of spectral features as a result of the
>movement of the Earth. He was right.
>
> Arago was NOT looking at anything specifically related to spectral
> features.
>
>
>
> * 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.
>
> * 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.
> 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,
> when there is a relative movement away from the source, the angle of
> refraction would be reduced.
During Interval III the oscillation is smaller and begins to die out."
Stars are at a little long distances than Pionier. And no the annual
oscillations.
Do you agree?
S*
>
OG
Nov 2, 2011, 3:10:28 PM11/2/11
to
On 02/11/2011 08:37, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
> Uzytkownik "OG"<ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
> Uzytkownik "OG"<ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> 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,
>> features.
>>
> But Brace in 1904 did.
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. "
light (or movement relative to the aether) give null results.
> During Interval III the oscillation is smaller and begins to die out."
>
> Stars are at a little long distances than Pionier. And no the annual
> oscillations.
> Do you agree?
"annual oscillation"?
Szczepan Bialek
Nov 3, 2011, 4:22:31 AM11/3/11
to
news:9hdisk...@mid.individual.net...
by Michelson-Gale.
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 02/11/2011 08:37, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>> Uzytkownik "OG"<ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> 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.
>> Uzytkownik "OG"<ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> 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.
The movement of the Earth surface relative to the ether was detected in 1925
>>>
>>>
>>> * 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.
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
>> 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"?
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*
>
>
OG
Nov 3, 2011, 3:04:56 PM11/3/11
to
>>
>>> 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.
There is no aether. There is no movement relative to the aether.
oriel36
Nov 3, 2011, 3:35:00 PM11/3/11
to
On Nov 3, 8:04 pm, OG <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
> On 03/11/2011 08:22, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "OG"<o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
> On 03/11/2011 08:22, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:9hdisk...@mid.individual.net...
> >> On 02/11/2011 08:37, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
> >>> Uzytkownik "OG"<o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
> >> On 02/11/2011 08:37, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
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.
Szczepan Bialek
Nov 4, 2011, 5:33:05 AM11/4/11
to
news:9hg6u6...@mid.individual.net...
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 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
>>>>>>
>>>> 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.
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.
such movements (diurnal and annual). Which of them are detected?
S*
OG
Nov 4, 2011, 2:20:16 PM11/4/11
to
On 04/11/2011 09:33, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
> "OG"<ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:9hg6u6...@mid.individual.net...
>> 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
> "OG"<ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:9hg6u6...@mid.individual.net...
>> 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.
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?
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.
oriel36
Nov 5, 2011, 2:53:21 AM11/5/11
to
On Nov 4, 7:20 pm, OG <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
> On 04/11/2011 09:33, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "OG"<o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
> On 04/11/2011 09:33, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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
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=RyBOsLIi2SMC&pg=PA206&dq=aequation+dayes#v=onepage&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=RyBOsLIi2SMC&pg=PA219&dq=aequation+dayes#v=onepage&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.
Szczepan Bialek
Nov 5, 2011, 4:22:43 AM11/5/11
to
news:9hiomd...@mid.individual.net...
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.
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*
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.
>
> 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.
> 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.
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*
Message has been deleted
Moi
Dec 5, 2011, 11:00:39 AM12/5/11
to
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.
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.
oriel36
Dec 5, 2011, 12:58:15 PM12/5/11
to
On Dec 5, 5:00 pm, Moi <m...@here.now> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 07:06:18 -0800, oriel36 wrote:
>
> It's a Hollywood movie, FFS.
>
It was the Arago meridian markers in the movie that I was looking
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 07:06:18 -0800, oriel36 wrote:
>
> It's a Hollywood movie, FFS.
>
at,the AM/PM markers which dictate 1461 rotations in 1461 days/4 years
until the English version of Hollywood,otherwise known as Royal
Society empiricism,created a fictional 1465 rotations in 1461 days out
of linking timekeeping averages directly to stellar circumpolar
motion.The movie scene with its gorgeous score resonates with far more
accuracy and dignity that your brute FFS mind could muster.
An English carpenter called John Harrison is your only saving
grace,his exquisite watches mark well the rotation of the Earth in
proportion to the orbital circuits and whatever resonates in a person
in bringing up humanity's magnificent heritage in
timekeeping,astronomy ,adventure,innovation and art,it can only serve
those ends to which you dullards cannot and do not aspire to.
You poor people couldn't mesh astronomy with art,innovation with
adventure as the older civilizations once did and if you wish to know
why there are 1461 rotations in 1461 days maybe something more
straightforward would suit you,it is still Hollywood but better that
than a dumb blank mind -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROz0-4ymuXQ
I wish I could present a more colorful rendition using the Greenwich
meridian but it is my understanding that English involvement is now at
such an all-time low that none of you could be bothered saving the AM/
PM designations that begin and end at Greenwich.
> 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.
boring to appreciate the stakes,the invention,the astronomical
principles and the sheer style attached to timekeeping,astronomy and
the planet's dynamics.
0 new messages