When we introduced the Airy’s Failure FECORE Success project I stated that Airy didn’t fail to prove something, his experiment merely failed to support a theory. While that is true there remains a perhaps more important reason why Airy’s experiment was a failure. That is because whereas he gathered excellent data from high quality observations he failed to determine any meaning or cause of his observations. That is a failure as a scientist to find facts and simply discard them because you didn’t like the facts.
James Bradley in 1727 had discovered that over the course of six months stars move from their normal location about 20 arcseconds in one direction and then during the next six months they move in the opposite direction. The movement was not a parallax because the movement was in a different direction than it would be if it were parallax. Bradley called the phenomenon aberration. He theorized that the phenomenon was caused by the speed of the earth orbiting around the sun added and then six months later subtracted from the speed of light. This was hailed by the heliocentric believers as proof that the earth did indeed move around the sun. They had been waiting 180 years for some evidence that Copernicus was right and this was the first possible evidence.
When Airy’s observations with a water filled telescope did not support the Bradley’s theory Airy failed to pursue any possible meaning of the data he had obtained.
The FECORE project is not seeking to explain James Bradley’s aberration movement of the stars. What FECORE aims to prove is the cause of the star’s daily rotation in the heavens. Bradley, Airy and every heliocentric model believer since Copernicus have all assumed that the Earth was moving without any direct proof. It is a belief which is contrary to well documented daily observations.
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity states that the speed of light is constant regardless of any motion of the light source. The believers in the heliocentric theory welcomed Einstein because it created an explanation why other experiments showed no movement of the earth especially Michelson Morley. However if Einstein was right then Bradley’s explanation of stars shifting was wrong. Funny how after Einstein’s theories were embraced none of the believers in the heliocentric model announced their first “proof” of earth orbiting the sun was now nonsense.
Unfortunately for the adherents of Einstein the time light takes to propagate from point A to B does change with the relative motion of the source and the target. This has been proved in multiple experiments. The 1913 Georges Sagnac experiment and the 2003 Yi Zheng at St. Cloud University experiment are examples. The fact that fiber optic gyros can detect motion by the change in light speed is a glaring repudiation of Special Relativity’s claim that light speed is unaffected by any motion between source and target.
Does that mean that Bradley’s explanation was right and therefore the earth is moving around the sun? Not in the slightest. Bradley’s theory was an explanation without any proof or even evidence that the theory was correct because there was no control. There was no test of how light changes with a moving source compared to a moving target. It is self evident that the stars move relative to an observer on earth. Bradley said stars shifting position was because the earth was moving but he did not eliminate the possibility of the movement being in the star field.
What Airy observed is shown in this diagram depicting an analogy of rain fall as how light travels. Note how if the observer is moving then then starlight merely appears to be at an angle to the observer. If the stars are motionless then their light is falling vertically. If the telescope is stationary then starlight is moving at an angle to the earth.
If the stars are moving and the Earth is motionless then the light from a star directly overhead will actually be entering the tube of any telescope at an angle and the tube must be tilted at that same angle to have the star image be centered in the eyepiece. If the stars are moving then the light enters the telescope perpendicular to the optics. If there is water in the tube and the light is entering straight down the tube then the image will not be refracted because it enters the medium of water perpendicular to the water’s surface. In that case the image through an air filled tube and a water filled tube will arrive at the same location.
However, if the Earth is moving and the stars are motionless then the light is falling vertically. The same tilt must be present in order to have the image fall exactly in the center of the eyepiece but the light is not entering the tube perpendicular to the optics or the surface of water in a water filled tube. Therefore the images from the two tubes will not be in the same location.
What will be tested is if the light from the stars is arriving at an angle which indicates the stars are moving or is starlight arriving vertically and therefore the angle is required to capture the vertical light in the center because the telescope is moving.
FECORE has chosen to construct a much improved water filled telescope and use it to test the two possible explanations of the movement of the stars across the night sky. Instead of one telescope which is used with air then during a second observation filled with water we propose a device with two tubes one with air and one with water but the image of each will be combined to one photographic observation point.
This is a schematic diagram of the proposed measurement device:
The device could be referred to as a Motion And Movement Binocular Apparatus.