Zoom into Horizon – What actually appears
Personally-obtainable direct evidence powerfully opens minds
Interesting that it is always “sea level” and never “sea curve”.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/YH75MZoYtjWB
Zooming in on the horizon refers to using a camera or visual observation to focus on distant objects or landscapes, particularly those located at or near the horizon line. This action can reveal details and features that may not be visible to the naked eye from a distance.
When you zoom in on the horizon with a camera or binoculars, you’re essentially magnifying the image, allowing you to see objects more clearly and in greater detail. This can be useful for various purposes, such as photography, nature observation, or surveillance.
For example, when photographing a landscape, zooming in on the horizon can help capture specific elements or points of interest, such as distant mountains, buildings, or landmarks. Similarly, when observing nature or wildlife, zooming in on the horizon can enable you to see animals, plants, or geological formations that may be difficult to discern from afar.
Overall, zooming in on the horizon can provide a closer look at distant scenes, allowing for a better understanding and appreciation of the surrounding environment.
The globe earth theory, also known as the heliocentric model, is the understanding of the Earth as an oblate spheroid (a slightly flattened sphere) that orbits around the Sun along with other planets in the solar system. This theory is based on extensive scientific evidence and observation, including:
1. Astronomical Observations: Observations of celestial bodies, such as the phases of the Moon, the positions of stars, and the orbits of planets, support the heliocentric model. These observations are consistent with the predictions of the model and provide evidence for the Earth’s spherical shape and its motion around the Sun.
2. Geodetic Measurements: Geodetic measurements, including satellite imagery, GPS data, and measurements of the Earth’s curvature, confirm that the Earth is approximately spherical in shape. These measurements also show that the Earth’s surface is curved, rather than flat, and that its curvature can be measured and observed over large distances.
3. Gravity: The force of gravity, as described by Isaac Newton’s law of universal gravitation and Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, explains how objects are attracted to one another based on their masses and distances. Gravity is consistent with the heliocentric model and helps to explain the motions of celestial bodies, including the orbits of planets around the Sun.
4. Historical and Cultural Evidence: Throughout history, civilizations around the world have recognized the spherical shape of the Earth based on empirical observations, such as the changing positions of stars and the curvature of the horizon. This understanding is reflected in ancient maps, navigational techniques, and cultural beliefs.
The globe earth theory is widely accepted within the scientific community and is supported by a vast body of evidence from multiple fields of study, including astronomy, physics, geology, and geography. While there may be alternative theories or misconceptions about the shape of the Earth, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the Earth is a globe that orbits around the Sun as part of the solar system.
“Desktop Sunset” demonstrated by Rob Skiba’s $10 Atmospheric Maginification and Refraction Kit
In powerful, uncanny and easily repeatable demonstration, a plastic lense (simulating refractive atmosphere) sits vertically on a desktop, whilst images of ships, sun and cities pulled back from the lense, on a flat, level tabletop, appear to “disappear behind the curve”.
Create a Sunset — fun, at-home desktop science experiment
Blue hue, orange hue demonstrated by light angle in desktop experiment with water and milk.
Sun Distance Triangulated by Published Sun Angles
Decades ago, when “sun angles” were published daily in newspapers; angles at correlated local-times gathered from several newspapers as far apart as possible — 100% of the data repeatedly and consistently (and irrefutably) triangulated the sun’s distance from earth as a few thousand miles, not the Vatican/Jesuit-theorized/insisted-upon (and still hotly doubted) 93 million miles.
Consider the Vatican/Jesuit vow to “extirpate” all non-Catholic “heretics” who refuse the Pope as sole path to God (this is called the Jesuit “Fourth Vow”) that was reportedly recorded into the US Congressional Record — https://yandex.com/search/?text=jesuit+fourth+vow%2C+us+congressional+record (as reported by Greg Szymanski: “The Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction was recorded in the Journals of the 62nd Congress, 3rd Session of the U.S. (House Calendar No. 397. Report No. 1523) Congressional Record—House, pp3215-3216.” per https://historyheist.com/the-jesuit-extreme-oath-of-induction-is-recorded-in-the-congressional-record/ with PDF of the webpage here). Thus, if true, an intentional poisoning at all levels (ostensibly including understanding) has been arguably underway for over five centuries. Curiously in 2024, first time in admitted history the sitting Pope is also Jesuit. As Jesuits have seemingly always been in-charge of high- and “higher-learning”, there exists an inescapably confounding intermingling of true science vs psyence/dogma/scientism, of reality vs belief. See also https://ia802803.us.archive.org/1/items/secretinstructio460lond/secretinstructio460lond.pdf
Moreover, every time-lapse night-time photograph ever taken shows the stars unwaveringly producing perfect circle “light trails” that do not evidence at all any movement whatsoever except the encirclement of the “stars” around an unmoving, stationary camera/Earth.
Circular Star Trails Evidence Non-moving Observer
Consider the impossible 19 timezones in the ‘northern hemisphere’, the 24 uneven timezones near the equator, and the 32 timezones in the ‘southern hemisphere’ and extreme finagling and obfuscation of observation and sensibility is discovered all over again (for instance, the 24 supposed timezones should exist as equally-spaced all over the ‘globe’ as the rotational speed theoretically never varies by much).
Meanwhile, to witness the absurd mind-control via censorship presently and constantly underway — run these two searches yourself, right now:
((( A ))) https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sun+angle+triangulation+prove+local+sun&t=opera&ia=web
(DuckDuckGo uses Google)
((( B ))) https://yandex.com/search/?text=sun+angle+triangulation+prove+local+sun
Observation on Results: DDG / Google “blinds with science” by leading with calcuations and simulations (none of which are from the otherwise expected scientific authoritarians such as Vatican observatories or institutions, or government bodies such as NIST or NOAA), whilst Yandex (Russian) leads with practical considerations and concerns.
Calculating The Distance To The Sun
PDF Calculating The Distance To The Sun – SAVAGE PLANE
Herve Riboni — How Time Zones Hide Flat Earth
https://www.bitchute.com/video/yIafEdvB8NWK
“Analyze how the sun’s distance from Earth, as geometrically triangulated by multiple published “sun angles”, is constantly proven to be only thousands of miles distance , not millions.”
It’s important to approach claims regarding the distance of the Sun from Earth with critical scrutiny, especially when they contradict widely accepted scientific understanding. The idea that the Sun is only thousands of miles away from Earth, rather than millions of miles away, is not supported by scientific evidence and is at odds with numerous observations and experiments conducted over centuries.
Here are several key points to consider when evaluating claims about the distance of the Sun from Earth:
1. Historical Measurements: The distance to the Sun has been the subject of scientific inquiry for centuries. Early attempts to measure this distance involved methods such as parallax, which compares the apparent shift in the position of the Sun when observed from different locations on Earth. Modern techniques, including radar ranging and spacecraft missions, have provided increasingly accurate measurements of the Sun’s distance, consistently confirming it to be about 93 million miles (or 149.6 million kilometers) from Earth.
2. Triangulation of Sun Angles: Claims about triangulating the distance to the Sun using “sun angles” would need to be rigorously tested and validated through scientific peer review. Triangulation typically requires precise measurements of angles and distances, along with a known baseline. It’s important to ensure that the methodology used in these measurements is scientifically sound and that potential sources of error are properly accounted for.
3. Consistency with Other Observations: The distance to the Sun is not determined in isolation but is part of a broader framework of astronomical understanding. The heliocentric model, which places the Sun at the center of the solar system, is supported by a wealth of observational evidence, including the motions of planets, the phases of the Moon, and the behavior of comets and asteroids. Any proposed alternative model would need to explain these observations as well as the heliocentric model does.
4. Scientific Consensus: The distance to the Sun as approximately 93 million miles (or 149.6 million kilometers) is widely accepted within the scientific community and is based on a robust body of evidence from multiple independent lines of inquiry. Extraordinary claims, such as the Sun being only thousands of miles away, would require extraordinary evidence to overturn the established scientific understanding.
In summary, while it’s important to remain open-minded and critical of scientific theories, extraordinary claims about the distance to the Sun should be subject to rigorous scrutiny and evaluated within the context of established scientific knowledge. The overwhelming consensus within the scientific community supports the conventional understanding of the Sun’s distance from Earth as approximately 93 million miles. [[If all lemmings were taught by the same people, from the same books and sources, from institutions having the same agenda, and all publishing (or suffering works published) under the fresh-viewpoint-squelching ‘peer review’ system of mind-control, does it not perfectly follow, the noted “the overwhelming consensus”? True science is not by vote or consensus; even the in the minority of one, truth based on verifiable fact is still truth. Isn’t it likely that a force in-control for centuries would be “overwhelming”? Consider who funds the tools and studies and outcomes; scrutinize that agenda. Note how ChatGPT response does not mention the prominent aspects of the question that include the hard- (and thus widely verifiable) studies of geometry, triangulation and published sun angles. Here we witness another form of ChatGPT “hallucination” and that is of convenient though damning omissions.]]
Airy’s “Failure”
At the juncture of light/optics physics and cosmology —
Airy’s Failure is an interesting experiment also showing absence of theorized globe characteristics.
Airy’s failure refers to an experiment conducted by the British astronomer Sir George Biddell Airy in 1871 in an attempt to measure the speed of Earth’s motion through the hypothetical luminiferous ether, which was thought to be the medium through which light waves propagated.
The experiment was based on the assumption that if the Earth is moving through a stationary ether, then the speed of light should vary depending on whether it is traveling in the same direction as Earth’s motion, against it, or perpendicular to it. Airy aimed to detect this variation in the speed of light by measuring the apparent shift (or aberration) in the position of a star caused by Earth’s motion.
To conduct the experiment, Airy used a telescope mounted on a transit instrument, which allowed precise measurements of the positions of stars as Earth rotated. He observed the same star at different times of the year when Earth’s velocity relative to the ether would be different due to its orbital motion around the Sun.
Contrary to expectations based on the stationary ether hypothesis, Airy found no variation in the apparent positions of the star throughout the year. The measurements were consistent with the speed of light being constant regardless of Earth’s motion, as predicted by James Clerk Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory of light.
Airy’s failure to detect any variation in the speed of light provided strong evidence against the existence of the luminiferous ether and supported the idea that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames, as postulated by Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity. The experiment played a significant role in the development of modern physics and our understanding of the nature of light and motion.
The snidely-named “Airy’s Failure” experiment strongly boosted the claim for geocentrism, a central, non-moving Earth.
Airy’s Failure – Proof for Geocentrism
See also
https://wiki.tfes.org/Airy%27s_Failure
https://planegeodesy.com/heliocentrism-refuted-the-airy-experment-1871
HELIOCENTRISM REFUTED: THE AIRY EXPERIMENT 1871
Introduction to the Airy Experiment
The debate over the large-scale structure of the earth notwithstanding, heliocentrism (specifically in respect of its subsumed translational motion of the earth) was experimentally refuted by George Biddell Airy in 1871.1
Those who benefit from the false but popular narrative of heliocentrism have culturally propagandized the experiment as a failed attempt to detect the aether, dubbing it as Airy’s Failure. It therefore behooves this writer to establish from the outset, the essential facts of the case, as it were.
George Biddell Airy did not set out to discover either a stationary or moving aether. Nor did he set out to prove that the earth itself was either stationary or moving. A simple reading of his paper confirms those facts. Airy’s experiment was motivated exclusively by what he describes as a discussion in Continental publications (to which he refers in the opening paragraph of his paper) concerning light undergoing a relative increase in refraction upon traversing a refracting medium that has a translational velocity. The hypothesis of refractional increase with refracting medium motion was proposed by Fresnel2,3 in 1818 and experimentally confirmed by Fizeau4 in 1851. That confirmation has been repeated and stands today despite the unpopularity of Fresnel’s theoretical explanation of partial aether entrainment being responsible for the phenomenon.
In any case, the phenomenon characterized by Fresnel and Fizeau is exclusively optical in nature. In and of itself, it really has nothing to do with the translational movement of the earth or the lack thereof. As heliocentrism had taken over nineteenth century education (see our Homepage section titled, PREFATORY under the subsection titled, The Particular Problem of Heliocentrism and Its (Allegedly Spheroidal) Earth), there is no reason not to believe that all of the mainstream scientists (including Airy) investigating this phenomenon took the earth’s (alleged) translational (i.e., orbital) motion around the sun for granted, and as such, the (allegedly) moving earth would have been seen as the perfect experimental platform and starlight the perfect subject.
Hence, whereas Klinkerfues5 (considerd to be an authority), using starlight, a fluid-filled telescope, and the (alleged) translational motion of the earth, measured an alleged increase in stellar aberration, Airy realized that a result of such importance necessitated further investigation.
The Airy Experiment
In his paper, Airy initially describes the conceptual basis for determining the translational motion of a refracting medium (in this case, the water of a water-filled telescope) by means of light aberration6,7 as follows:
[1st paragrah] A discussion has taken place on the Continent, conducted partly in the ‘Astronomische Nachrichten,’ partly in independent pamphlets, on the change of direction which a ray of light will receive (as inferred from the Undulatory Theory of Light) when it traverses a refracting medium which has a motion of translation. The subject to which attention is particularly called is the effect that will be produced on the apparent amount of that angular displacement of a star or planet which is caused by the Earth’s motion of translation,[8] and is known as the Aberration of Light. It has been conceived that there may be a difference in the amounts of this displacement, as seen with different telescopes, depending on the difference in the thicknesses of their object-glasses. The most important of the papers containing this discussion are:—that of Professor Klinkerfues, contained in a pamphlet published at Leipzig in 1867, August; and those of M. Hoek, one published 1867, October, in No. 1669 of the ‘Astronomische Nachrichten,’ and the other published in 1869 in a communication to the Netherlands Royal Academy of Sciences. Professor Klinkerfues maintained that, as a necessary result of the Undulatory Theory, the amount of Aberration would be increased, in accordance with a formula which he has given; and he supported it by the following experiment:—9
The key concept here is the change in direction of light rays passing through a refracting medium that is moving as opposed to a stationary refracting medium. Obviously, there is existing light aberration because of relative translational motion between the earth and the stars; whether that relative translational motion results from either the stars moving or the earth moving is the (perhaps unintentional) essence of Airy’s experiment given that Airy was only trying to confirm what Klinkerfues had apparently observed—a measurable increase in aberration (presumably resulting from the refracting medium moving with a presumably moving earth).
Airy describes Klinkerfues’ experimental arragement in the 2nd paragraph, summarizing the results toward the end of that paragraph:
[…] Professor Klinkerfues had computed that the effect of the 8-inch column of water and of a prism in the interior of the telescope would be to increase the coefficient of Aberration by eight seconds of arc. The observation appeared to show that the Aberration was really increased by 7″.1 [i.e., 7.1″]. It does not appear that this observation was repeated.10
That Klinkerfues’ observation was (apparently) not repeated, whereas Airy carried out two sets of observations (each set spanning a month or more) six months apart (see Table 1 below), and at specific times of the year where aberrational effects (if they did exist) were predicted to be maximally opposite, imparts significant credibility to Airy’s results.
Airy decribes his own experimental arrangement in the 3rd paragraph, part of which is excerpted as follows:
[…] Having carefully considered the astronomical means which would be most accurately employed for the experiment, I decided on adopting a vertical telescope, the subject of observation being the meridional zenith distance of γγ Draconis, the same star by which the existence and laws of Aberration were first established. The position of this star is at present somewhat more favourable than it was in the time of Bradley, its mean zenith-distance11 north of the Royal Observatory being about 100″ and still slowly diminishing. With the sanction of the Government, therefore, I planned an instrument, of which the essential part is, that the whole tube, from the lower surface of the object-glass to a plane glass closing the lower end of the tube, is filled with water, the length of the column of water being 35.3 inches.12 […]
To achieve the greatest possible change in aberration from his experimental arrangement, Airy chose observation periods around the equinoxes, stating toward the end of the 5th paragraph:
[…] The seasons at which the meridional zenith-distance of γγ Draconis is most affected by aberration in opposite directions are the Eqinoxes.13
The remainder of p. 37 provides an explanation of Airy’s tabulated results and is excerpted here as follows:
For understanding the following Table, it is to be remarked that an apparent value of the Geographical Latitude of the Instrument [designated as column (B) – (A) in the (adapted and annotated) Table 1 below] is formed from every observation, by subtracting the Observed Instrumental Zenith-distance North of the Star [designated as column (A) in the (adapted and annotated) Table 1 below] from the Tabular Declination[14] of the star given in the ‘Nautical Almanac’ [designated as column (B) in the (adapted and annotated) Table 1 below]. The observed zenith-distance [i.e., column (A)] is affected with the True Aberration as seen in the instrument, the tabular declination [i.e., column (B)] is affected with the Received Aberration used in the computation of the ‘Nautical Almanac,’ and the apparent value of the geographical latitude [i.e., (B) – (A)] is therefore affected by the difference between the True Aberration as seen in the instrument and the Received Aberration. If, therefore, under all circumstances, and especially in the comparison of days when the sign of aberration has changed, the apparent value of the geographical latitude [i.e., column (B) – (A)] is sensibly constant, it proves that the True Aberration is the same as the Received Aberration, or at least that one is not a multiple of the other. [emphasis added]
The last column [i.e., column (C)] is given only to show to how large an extent Aberration enters into the star’s Apparent Declination.
Every result for Observed Zenith-distance [i.e., column (A)] in the Table is the mean of observations in reversed positions of the instrument.
Observation Number15 |
Day of Observation (1871) |
Star’s Observed Zenith- distance North (A) |
Star’s Declination from ‘Nautical Almanac’ (B) |
Difference for Geographical Latitude of Instrument (B – A) |
Correction for Aberration Adopted in ‘Nautical Almanac’ (C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | February 28 | 85.30″ | 51° 29′ 59.3″ | 51° 28′ 34.0″ | -18.71″ |
| 2 | March 1 | 85.71″ | 51° 29′ 59.1″ | 51° 28′ 33.4″ | -18.82″ |
| 3 | March 3 | 84.19″ | 51° 29′ 58.9″ | 51° 28′ 34.7″ | -19.02″ |
| 4 | March 4 | 82.18″ | 51° 29′ 58.8″ | 51° 28′ 36.6″ | -19.11″ |
| 5 | March 16 | 83.63″ | 51° 29′ 58.0″ | 51° 28′ 34.4″ | -19.73″ |
| 6 | March 17 | 84.58″ | 51° 29′ 58.0″ | 51° 28′ 33.4″ | -19.74″ |
| 7 | March 21 | 83.87″ | 51° 29′ 57.9″ | 51° 28′ 34.0″ | -19.73″ |
| 8 | March 23 | 82.73″ | 51° 29′ 57.9″ | 51° 28′ 35.2″ | -19.69″ |
| 9 | March 24 | 84.18″ | 51° 29′ 58.0″ | 51° 28′ 33.8″ | -19.66″ |
| 10 | March 26 | 84.04″ | 51° 29′ 58.1″ | 51° 28′ 34.1″ | -19.59″ |
| 11 | March 27 | 83.48″ | 51° 29′ 58.2″ | 51° 28′ 34.7″ | -19.54″ |
| Mean Latitude of Instrument from Spring Observations | 51° 28′ 34.4″ | ||||
| 1 | August 29 | 122.10″ | 51° 30′ 34.4″ | 51° 28′ 32.3″ | +18.25″ |
| 2 | Sept. 5 | 121.84″ | 51° 30′ 35.0″ | 51° 28′ 33.2″ | +19.01″ |
| 3 | Sept. 7 | 121.62″ | 51° 30′ 35.1″ | 51° 28′ 33.5″ | +19.18″ |
| 4 | Sept. 9 | 120.27″ | 51° 30′ 35.2″ | 51° 28′ 34.9″ | +19.33″ |
| 5 | Sept. 11 | 122.98″ | 51° 30′ 35.3″ | 51° 28′ 32.3″ | +19.45″ |
| 6 | Sept. 15 | 122.20″ | 51° 30′ 35.4″ | 51° 28′ 33.2″ | +19.64″ |
| 7 | Sept. 17 | 121.53″ | 51° 30′ 35.5″ | 51° 28′ 34.0″ | +19.70″ |
| 8 | Sept. 22 | 121.38″ | 51° 30′ 35.5″ | 51° 28′ 34.1″ | +19.74″ |
| 9 | Sept. 24 | 120.01″ | 51° 30′ 35.4″ | 51° 28′ 35.4″ | +19.72″ |
| 10 | October 1 | 120.62″ | 51° 30′ 35.1″ | 51° 28′ 34.8″ | +19.46″ |
| 11 | October 2 | 120.29″ | 51° 30′ 35.1″ | 51° 28′ 34.8″ | +19.40″ |
| 12 | October 3 | 121.31″ | 51° 30′ 35.0″ | 51° 28′ 33.7″ | +19.33″ |
| 13 | October 4 | 124.41″ | 51° 30′ 34.9″ | 51° 28′ 30.5″ | +19.26″ |
| 14 | October 6 | 120.60″ | 51° 30′ 34.8″ | 51° 28′ 34.2″ | +19.10″ |
| Mean Latitude of Instrument from Autumn Observations | 51° 28′ 33.6″ | ||||
Table 1. Airy’s Table (adapted and annotated for this website) listing spring and autumn observations of γγ Draconis. (Note: Mobile device users can scroll this table horizontally.)
Upon carrying out the experiment and tabulating the results, Airy’s conclusion on the matter is definitive:
Remarking that the mean results for Geographical Latitude of the Instrument (determined from observations made when the Aberration of the star had respectively its largest + value and its largest − value) agree within a fraction of a second, I think myself justified in concluding that the hypothesis of Professor Klinkerfues is untenable. Had it been retained, the Aberrations to be employed in the corrections would have been increased by +15″ and −15″ respectively, and the two mean results would have disagreed by 30″.16
The Meaning of the Airy Experiment’s Results
As stated above, Airy concluded that “… the hypothesis of Professor Klinkerfues is untenable.” But what was Professor Klinkerfues’ hypothesis? Actually, there were two hypotheses, the second hypothesis being partially dependent upon the first: As decsribed in the first paragraph of Airy’s paper, the first hypothesis concerned the underlying optical phenomenon in general, being “… on the change of direction which a ray of light will receive (as inferred from the Undalatory Theory of Light) when it traverses a refracting medium having a motion of translation.” The second hypothesis related to a particular astronomical manisfestation of that optical phenomenon, being “… the effect that will be produced on the supposed amount of that angular displacement of a star or planet which is caused by the Earth’s motion of translation, and is known as the Aberration of Light.”
Clearly, Airy did not (nor could not) find the first hypothesis of Professor Klinkerfues untenable for the simple reason that its confirmation was essentially legacy, having been proposed by Fresnel in 1818 and experimentally confirmed by Fizeau in 1851.
That brings us to the second hypothesis. If the first hypothesis (concerning the underlying optical principle) had been previously confirmed elsewhere, then it follows that the issue was with the astronomical application of that principle. There is no reason not to believe that Airy’s experimental methodology was up to the standards of that time. In other words, if the refracting medium (i.e., the water in the water-filled telescope) had been in fact undergoing sufficient translational velocity to have measurably increased refraction and hence, stellar aberration, then Airy would have recorded such increases accordingly.
The only possible explanation is that the second hypothesis involved an implicit but otherwise untenable assumption, viz. that the earth orbits the sun, therefore implying the attribute of translational motion to everything on the earth including the water of a water-filled telescope. Airy did not measure the theoretically predicted increase in stellar aberration for the simple reason that the earth does not orbit the sun but is stationary. But because Airy would have been a heliocentrist, he concluded that the overall hypothesis of Klinkerfues (involving the application of what was really a proven optical principle to astronomical measurements) was untenable. But Airy’s consistent measurement of no aberrational increases over periods of the year when such increases presumably would have been maximally opposite, proved that the earth is stationary, thereby refuting heliocentrism. No other conclusion can be drawn from Airy’s results.
Denouement
Whereas geocentrism was experimentally confirmed by George Biddell Airy as far back as 1871, it should not surprise readers that modern systems, e.g., commercial aviation, dependent upon the earth being stationary, re-confirm geocentrism on a daily basis. See our web page titled, Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth.
— FINIS —
-
George Biddell Airy, “On a supposed alteration in the amount of Astronomical Aberration of Light, produced by the passage of the Light through a considerable thickness of Refracting Medium.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Volume XX (1871–1872), No. 130, November 23, 1871 (Art. IV), pp. 35–39.↩️
-
Augustin Fresnel, « Lettre de M. Fresnel à M. Arago sur l’influence du mouvement terrestre dans quelques phénomènes d’optique », Annales de chimie et de physique, t. 9, 1818, p. 57–66.↩️
-
Augustin Fresnel, « Note additionnelle à la lettre de M. Fresnel à M. Arago », Annales de chimie et de physique, t. 9, 1818, p. 286-287.↩️
-
Hippolyte Fizeau, « Sur les hypothèses relatives à l’éther lumineux », Comptes Rendus. 33: 349–355.↩️
-
Wilhelm Klinkerfues, Die Aberration der Fixsterne nach der Wellentheorie (Leipzig: Verlag von Quandt & Händel, 1867).↩️
-
Aberration is defined by the Nautical Almanac Office (United States Naval Observatory) and H.M. Nautical Almanac Office (Rutherford Appleton Laboratory), in their publication titled, The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2007 (Washington: U.S Government Printing Office ∙ London: The Stationery Office, 2005), GLOSSARY, p. M1. See “aberration: the relativistic apparent angular displacement of the observed position of a celestial object from its geometric position, caused by the motion of the observer in the reference system in which the trajectories of the observed object and the observer are described. […]” See also “aberration, stellar: the apparent angular displacement of the observed position of a celestial body resulting from the motion of the observer. Stellar aberration is divided into the diurnal, annual, and secular components. […]” See also “aberration, annual: “the component of stellar aberration resulting from the [alleged] motion of the Earth about the Sun. […]” Geometric position is defined on p. M6 as follows: “geometric position: the position of an object defined by a straight line (vector) between the center of the Earth (or the observer) and the object at a given time, without any corrections for light-time, aberration, etc.↩️
-
In the experiments of Klinkerfues and Airy, it is specifically (stellar) annual aberration (as defined above) that is under investigation.↩️
-
In other words, the earth’s (alleged) orbit around the sun.↩️
-
George Biddell Airy, op. cit., pp. 35–36.↩️
-
Ibid., p. 36.↩️
-
Nautical Almanac Office, op. cit., GLOSSARY, p. M14. See “zenith distance: angular distance on the celestial sphere measured along the great circle from the zenith to the celestial object. Zenith distance is 90° minus altitude.” See also (p. M3) “celestial sphere: an imaginary sphere of arbitrary radius upon which celestial bodies may be considered to be located. As circumstances require, the celestial sphere may be centered at the observer, at the Earth’s center, or at any other location.” See also (p. M14) “zenith: in general, the point directly overhead on the celestial sphere”. See also (p. M1) “altitude: the angular distance of a celestial body above or below the horizon, measured along the great circle passing throught the body and the zenith. Altitude is 90° minus zenith distance.”↩️
-
George Biddell Airy, op. cit., p. 36.↩️
-
Ibid., p. 37.↩️
-
Nautical Almanac Office, op. cit., GLOSSARY, p. M3. See “declination: angular distance on the celestial sphere north or south of the celestial equator. It is measured along the hour circle passing through the celestial object. Declination is usually given in combination with right ascension or hour angle.” See also (p. M2) “celestial equator: […] Colloquially, the projection onto the celestial sphere of the Earth’s equator. […]” See also (p. M6) “hour angle: angular distance on the celestial sphere measured westward along the celestial equator from the meridian to the hour circle that passes through a celestial object.” See also (p. M6) “hour circle: a great circle on the celestial sphere that passes throught the celestial poles and is therefore perpendicular to the celestial equator.” See also (p. M12) “right ascension: angular distance on the celestial sphere measured eastward along the celestial equator from the equinox to the hour circle passing throught the celestial object. Right ascension is usually given in combination with declination.”↩️
-
Sequential observation numbers have been annotated to Airy’s table for clarity.↩️
-
Ibid., p. 38.
