Airy’s test 1871
Airy put water in the telescope to test Bradley's claim that the moving Earth caused aberration; he saw no change in aberration angle with the water added. This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion predicted a change with the index of refraction – n.
Bradley analysis – dashed lines above : The middle telescope is tilted to see the aberrated starlight. When light moves through the telescope from A to D the Earth – and telescope - move from B to D . This determines the aberration angle of tilt , arc tan( BD/AD).
Airy analysis – solid lines above: With water added (left telescope), the light travels the distance AD through the telescope slower, at ¾ of c.
So the telescope travels further at the Earth’s orbital speed, a distance BE, and the aberration is now greater, arc sin( AD/BE ). Nice theory, but fails to predict the actual result, shown in the right telescope – there’s NO CHANGE in the tilting required!
The Earth’s motion as cause of aberration is simply refuted by Airy’s test – the ‘failure’ to increase aberration with water as the telescope medium, instead of air.
Airy’s failure is in reality a ‘success’ for GC prediction and the ALFA model, where the flexible aether ‘s sidereal rotation explains the result. The deflection occurs in transit due to the sideways aether flow. The light path is bent in space, before entering the telescope, while the Earth is at rest.
GC ALFA analysis : There are no D and E distances, since the Earth is motionless. The light beam in water just travels slower, at ¾ of c, from A to B, but there’s no sideways motion. So no additional tilting is needed….. Airy’s test is a success – for GC and the ALFA model!
Conclusion: The deflection of starlight known as stellar aberration is NOT due to the Earth’s motion, but is an external bending of light before reaching the telescope.
..... What causes this bending of the stellar light path?
5 comments:
Doesn´t the failure due to the lack of sensitivity of the method?
Doesn´t the failure due to the lack of sensitivity of the method?
This question needs to be addressed. It has been ignored by every Geocentrist on the internet.
They used water... -.-
They used water... -.-
Can you explain Snell's law, and why you intentionally ignored it, despite requiring it to calculate the refraction of light in and out of the telescope?
This argument is on the same page Flat Earther's claiming photos of the Earth from NASA must be fake because scientists say the Earth is oblate, yet the photos show a sphere...Refusing to acknowledge that the 22km difference in circumference of the equator and meridians would equate to a difference of no more than a single pixel in even the highest quality HDR photo.
The deviation predicted by this test from the movement of Earth is less than the margin of error in his results. Hardly worth rejecting all confirmed science over. You're trying to measure an atom using a yard stick.
Post a Comment