| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Stephen Speicher" |
| Date: |
03 Sep 2003 04:28:19 PM |
| Object: |
Whos said this (32) ... |
Here is a 30 point one:
10 points to the first person who identifies the author of this
letter, 8 points for the name of the person to whom the letter
was sent, 6 points for name of the person [XXXXXXXXX] referred to
who proposed the experiment, 4 points for identifying the name of
the "phenomena" referred to [YYYYYYYYYY], and 2 points for the
date of the letter.
"I shall conclude this letter with an application of
the same theory to the experiment proposed by
XXXXXXXXX, which consists in observing the phenomena of
YYYYYYYYYY through instruments filled with water, or
with some other fluid much more refractive than air, in
order to ascertain whether the direction where a star
is seen to lie varies as a result of the alteration in
the course of the light introduced by the liquid."
The Current Standings on "Who said this ..."
-------------------------------------------
Dirk Van de moortel 112
John Zinni 78
Michael Varney 40
Nicholas Steele 30
Jim Graber 30
Tom Bedford 27
Tim Shuba 23
Matthew Nobes 22
Ilja Schmelzer 22
Gene Nygaard 18
Jeff Krimmel 15
Jem 14
Russell Blackadar 12
Daryl McCullough 10
David Evens 10
Mel Lep 10
Shaun Webb 10
Domino Plural 10
Greg Neill 10
Bruce Pew 10
Bruce Scott 10
Tom Snyder 8
David A. Smith 7.5
Arfur Dogfrey 7
Michel Mouly 5
Double-A 4
David McAnally 3
Courtney Mewton 2
Aardvark 2
Tom Clarke 2
Colin Wetherbee 2
Jamieson Christie 2
Eli Botkin 1
Bob Kolker 1
man_mars 1
--
Stephen
sjs@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
| User: "\formerly" |
|
| Title: Re: Whos said this (32) ... |
03 Sep 2003 06:50:36 PM |
|
|
Dear Stephen Speicher:
"Stephen Speicher" <sjs@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.0309031417080.1607-100000@localhost.localdomain...
Here is a 30 point one:
10 points to the first person who identifies the author of this
letter, 8 points for the name of the person to whom the letter
was sent, 6 points for name of the person [XXXXXXXXX] referred to
who proposed the experiment, 4 points for identifying the name of
the "phenomena" referred to [YYYYYYYYYY], and 2 points for the
date of the letter.
"I shall conclude this letter with an application of
the same theory to the experiment proposed by
XXXXXXXXX, which consists in observing the phenomena of
YYYYYYYYYY through instruments filled with water, or
with some other fluid much more refractive than air, in
order to ascertain whether the direction where a star
is seen to lie varies as a result of the alteration in
the course of the light introduced by the liquid."
XXXXXXXXX = Bayswater
YYYY = 1907
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Speicher" |
|
| Title: Re: Whos said this (32) ... |
03 Sep 2003 07:48:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, (formerly) wrote:
Dear Stephen Speicher:
"Stephen Speicher" <sjs@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.0309031417080.1607-100000@localhost.localdomain...
Here is a 30 point one:
10 points to the first person who identifies the author of this
letter, 8 points for the name of the person to whom the letter
was sent, 6 points for name of the person [XXXXXXXXX] referred to
who proposed the experiment, 4 points for identifying the name of
the "phenomena" referred to [YYYYYYYYYY], and 2 points for the
date of the letter.
"I shall conclude this letter with an application of
the same theory to the experiment proposed by
XXXXXXXXX, which consists in observing the phenomena of
YYYYYYYYYY through instruments filled with water, or
with some other fluid much more refractive than air, in
order to ascertain whether the direction where a star
is seen to lie varies as a result of the alteration in
the course of the light introduced by the liquid."
XXXXXXXXX = Bayswater
YYYY = 1907
Nice try, but no.
(Russell has identified "aberration" as the phenomena
"YYYYYYYYYY." Points for author, letter recipient, proposer of
experiment [XXXXXXXXX], and year of letter still available.)
--
Stephen
sjs@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Speicher" |
|
| Title: Re: Whos said this (32) ... |
04 Sep 2003 12:01:03 AM |
|
|
On 3 Sep 2003, Double-A wrote:
Stephen Speicher <sjs@speicher.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.33.0309031417080.1607-100000@localhost.localdomain>...
Here is a 30 point one:
10 points to the first person who identifies the author of this
letter, 8 points for the name of the person to whom the letter
was sent, 6 points for name of the person [XXXXXXXXX] referred to
who proposed the experiment, 4 points for identifying the name of
the "phenomena" referred to [YYYYYYYYYY], and 2 points for the
date of the letter.
"I shall conclude this letter with an application of
the same theory to the experiment proposed by
XXXXXXXXX, which consists in observing the phenomena of
YYYYYYYYYY through instruments filled with water, or
with some other fluid much more refractive than air, in
order to ascertain whether the direction where a star
is seen to lie varies as a result of the alteration in
the course of the light introduced by the liquid."
XXXXXXXXX: Eddington
Sorry, but you already used up your guess on Bradley.
(It's not Eddington, anyway. :) )
If no one guesses it soon, I'll allow additional guesses.
--
Stephen
sjs@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: Whos said this (32) ... |
04 Sep 2003 10:11:08 AM |
|
|
"Stephen Speicher" <sjs@speicher.com> wrote in message
XXXXXXXXX: de Lalande
Tom Clarke
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Speicher" |
|
| Title: Re: Whos said this (32) ... |
04 Sep 2003 10:22:28 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Thomas Clarke wrote:
"Stephen Speicher" <sjs@speicher.com> wrote in message
XXXXXXXXX: de Lalande
You've got the right general period, but the wrong name.
For a hint (and more tries) see the thread where I corrected the
name of this thread:
Who said this (33) ... [was mis-written as Whos said this (32) ...]
--
Stephen
sjs@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Speicher" |
|
| Title: Re: Whos said this (32) ... |
04 Sep 2003 09:54:31 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Perion wrote:
This is a semi-educated guess:
xxxxxxxxx = Wollaston (William Hyde)
Reasonable try, but no.
--
Stephen
sjs@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Speicher" |
|
| Title: Re: Whos said this (32) ... |
03 Sep 2003 10:13:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Shaun Webb wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:28:19 -0700, Stephen Speicher wrote:
Here is a 30 point one:
10 points to the first person who identifies the author of this letter,
8 points for the name of the person to whom the letter was sent, 6
points for name of the person [XXXXXXXXX] referred to who proposed the
experiment, 4 points for identifying the name of the "phenomena"
referred to [YYYYYYYYYY], and 2 points for the date of the letter.
"I shall conclude this letter with an application of
the same theory to the experiment proposed by XXXXXXXXX, which
consists in observing the phenomena of YYYYYYYYYY through
instruments filled with water, or with some other fluid much more
refractive than air, in order to ascertain whether the direction
where a star is seen to lie varies as a result of the alteration in
the course of the light introduced by the liquid."
XXX = Sir George Airy
Very nice try, but no.
--
Stephen
sjs@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Speicher" |
|
| Title: Re: Who said this (33) ... [was mis-written as Whos said this (32)...] |
04 Sep 2003 10:02:47 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Stephen Speicher wrote:
Here is a 30 point one:
10 points to the first person who identifies the author of this
letter, 8 points for the name of the person to whom the letter
was sent, 6 points for name of the person [XXXXXXXXX] referred to
who proposed the experiment, 4 points for identifying the name of
the "phenomena" referred to [YYYYYYYYYY], and 2 points for the
date of the letter.
"I shall conclude this letter with an application of
the same theory to the experiment proposed by
XXXXXXXXX, which consists in observing the phenomena of
YYYYYYYYYY through instruments filled with water, or
with some other fluid much more refractive than air, in
order to ascertain whether the direction where a star
is seen to lie varies as a result of the alteration in
the course of the light introduced by the liquid."
Okay. We know this was a letter from Fresnel to Arago in 1818,
and the phenomena mentioned is aberration. We still need the name
of the person, XXXXXXXXX, who proposed the experiment Fresnel
mentions. 6 points awaits.
Hint: XXXXXXXXX was the subject of a previous Who said this ( ) ....
Let's open this up for second and third tries.
--
Stephen
sjs@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Speicher" |
|
| Title: Re: Who said this (33) ... [was mis-written as Whos said this (32)...] |
04 Sep 2003 11:05:11 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Thomas Clarke wrote:
"Stephen Speicher" <sjs@speicher.com> wrote in message
"I shall conclude this letter with an application of
the same theory to the experiment proposed by
XXXXXXXXX, which consists in observing the phenomena of
YYYYYYYYYY through instruments filled with water, or
with some other fluid much more refractive than air, in
order to ascertain whether the direction where a star
is seen to lie varies as a result of the alteration in
the course of the light introduced by the liquid."
Hint: XXXXXXXXX was the subject of a previous Who said this ( ) ....
Let's open this up for second and third tries.
Boscovich
Yes, that's right. Roger Joseph Boscovich.
6 points to Tom for that.
The Current Standings on "Who said this ..."
-------------------------------------------
Dirk Van de moortel 112
John Zinni 78
Michael Varney 40
Russell Blackadar 36
Nicholas Steele 30
Jim Graber 30
Tom Bedford 27
Tim Shuba 23
Matthew Nobes 22
Ilja Schmelzer 22
Gene Nygaard 18
Jeff Krimmel 15
Jem 14
Daryl McCullough 10
David Evens 10
Mel Lep 10
Shaun Webb 10
Domino Plural 10
Greg Neill 10
Bruce Pew 10
Bruce Scott 10
Tom Snyder 8
Tom Clarke 8
David A. Smith 7.5
Arfur Dogfrey 7
Michel Mouly 5
Double-A 4
David McAnally 3
Courtney Mewton 2
Aardvark 2
Colin Wetherbee 2
Jamieson Christie 2
Eli Botkin 1
Bob Kolker 1
man_mars 1
--
Stephen
sjs@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Speicher" |
|
| Title: Re: Who said this (33) ... [was mis-written as Whos said this (32)...] |
06 Sep 2003 07:14:50 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Stephen Speicher wrote:
"I shall conclude this letter with an application of
the same theory to the experiment proposed by
XXXXXXXXX, which consists in observing the phenomena of
YYYYYYYYYY through instruments filled with water, or
with some other fluid much more refractive than air, in
order to ascertain whether the direction where a star
is seen to lie varies as a result of the alteration in
the course of the light introduced by the liquid."
As Russell Blackadar correctly identified, these words were
written by Augustin Fresnel in an 1818 letter to Francois Arago,
and the phenomena mentioned was aberration. The full reference is
"Lettre d'Augustin Fresnel a Francois Arago, sur l'influence du
mouvement terrestre dans quelques phenomenes d'optique" (Letter
from Augustin Fresnel to Francois Arago, on the influence of the
movement of the Earth on some phenomena of optics), _Ann. Chim.
Phys_, IX, 57, 1818. As Tom Clarke also noted, the experiment
referred to was proposed by Roger Joseph Boscovich.
In 1728 James Bradley, an astronomy Professor who worked with
great care and concern for precision, discovered the phenomena of
stellar aberration. Stellar aberration is the apparent
displacement of stars due to the finite velocity of light and the
orbital velocity of the Earth around the Sun. In 1728 [actually,
the paper was read to the Royal Society in January 1729, though
it was published in the 1728 issue, so the proper date should be
1729], Bradley wrote:
"If light be propagated in time (which I presume will be
readily allowed by most of the philosophers of this age)
then it is evident from the foregoing considerations,
that there will be always a difference between the real
and the visible place of an object, unless the eye is
moving either directly towards or from the object. And
in all cases, the sine of the difference between the
real and visible place of the object, will be to the
sine of the visible inclination of the object to the
line in which the eye is moving, as the velocity of the
eye to the velocity of light." [1]
(Interestingly, I find no mention of the word 'aberration' in
Bradley's 1728 paper. In fact, it appears that it isn't until two
decades later, in 1748, that Bradley denotes his discovery as
aberration in a published paper: "The subject of my present
letter to your Lordship, is a proof of the truth of this remark:
for, as soon as I had discovered the cause, and settled the laws
of aberration of the fixed stars ..." [2])
In his 1728 paper Bradley determined "... from whence it would
follow, that light moves, or is propagated as far as from the Sun
to the Earth in 8' 12''." Upon comparing observations of several
other stars, Bradley concluded "that the maximum (as I have here
fixed it) cannot differ so much as a second from the truth," and
gave a figure of 8' 13''. At the current value of average
Earth-Sun distance, this would put Bradley's estimate of light
speed at 304,000 km/s, amazingly close to the currently defined
value of 299,792.458 km/s. Bradley notes in his paper that "Mr.
Roemer ... by the hypothesis of the progressive motion of light,
supposed that it spent about 11' minutes of time in its passage
from the Sun to us."
In "Who said this (4) ...," wherein the main subject was Roger
Joseph Boscovich [3], I mentioned that "I was recently reading
about Arago's 1810 experimental work, and I was surprised to
learn that the idea of looking for deviations from stellar
aberration in air through use of a water-filled telescope was
itself first advanced by Boscovich some 50 years earlier."
Indeed, it was in a 1766 letter that Boscovich was the first to
advanced that idea, the very experiment referred to by Fresnel in
our contest quote above. However, Boscovich did not publish his
idea until 1785, and in 1782 it was Patrick Wilson who first
presented in print a detailed notion of measuring stellar
aberration with a water-filled telescope, in a paper with a
rather amazingly long-worded subject title. [4]
Wilson, like many others who followed after Bradley, had an
interest in the behavior of light as it passed from one medium to
another, and he and others continued to pursue Newtonian-like
corpuscular theories. In his 1782 paper, Wilson states:
"At present it is proposed to point out a method of
determining experimentally the law of the variation of
the velocity of light, according to the change of the
medium. If observations shall show this law to be
agreeable to Sir Isaac Newton's conclusions, we shall
then have a very strong additional evidence in favour
of his principles. If, contrary to the most probable
issue of the experiment, some unexpected law should be
discovered, we must, according to the rules of
induction laid down by that great matter in philosophy,
so far restrict our general conclusions, and
accommodate our ideas to the real condition of things.
"The method of experiment at present alluded to is,
that of observing the aberration of the fixed stars
with a telescope filled with a dense fluid, such as
water, or any other equally limpid and of greater
refraction, fitted to bring the rays to a focus by the
surface of the medium opposed to the object having a
proper degree of convexity. It is enough at this time
to suggest a general notion of the instrument, and we
now proceed to explain in what manner it can assist us
in the present inquiry."
(A somewhat bizarre aside: In an excellent historical review
paper on Fresnel and water-filled telescopes, [5], Kurt Pedersen
documents an earlier (1770) lecture by Patrick Wilson in which
Wilson asserts that he found a "material error" in Bradley's
calculation of the velocity of light, an error when corrected
that light speed "comes out so wonderfully near to that of the
celebrated Mr. Roemer ..." Wilson had cut away Bradley's
amazingly close estimate of 8' 13'' for light to travel from the
Sun to the Earth, and replaced it instead with Roemer's old value
of about 11'. On what did Wilson's argument depend? That the
actual angle of aberration Bradley's work should have been based
on, was the "velocity in the vitreous humour of the observer's
eye, that is in water!" Needless to say, Wilson changed his mind
between this 1770 lecture and his 1782 paper.)
Now, in the early nineteenth century the French mathematician and
physicist, Francois Arago, developed an interest in the velocity
of light, studying the work of Boscovich and Wilson. Though
Arago lacked the skill and precision which Bradley exhibited in
his experimental work, in 1808-1809 Arago performed an experiment
which tested if the Newtonian addition law of velocities was
correct. Arago discovered that Bradley's aberration angle was
independent of whether light passed directly through the
telescope, or also passed through an achromatic prism. [6] Arago
attempted to explain this phenomena via the corpusular theory, by
supposing that the light particles emitted from stars took on an
infinite number of velocities, but we were only capable of
perceiving light in a very narrow range of velocities. It was
left to Augustin Fresnel to explain aberration with reference to
the wave theory of light.
Several years after his experiment, Arago became more interested
in a wave theory of light. He wrote to Fresnel, asking if the
lack of any additional aberration from the prism could be better
explained by the wave theory (Fresnel: "You have enjoined me to
examine whether the result of these observations could be
reconciled more easily with the theory in which light is
considered as being vibrations of a universal fluid.").
Fresnel knew that complete ether drag was not consistent with
Bradley's stellar aberration. With the provocative "However
extraordinary this hypothesis may appear at first sight ..."
Fresnel proceeded to develop a theory, based on a suggestion from
Thomas Young, that the refraction of a body depended upon how
much ether was in it. He assumed that the ether density was
proportional to the refractive index. This led Fresnel to develop
a partial ether dragging theory, where the ether in the general
space around a body was stationary, but the "excess" ether over
the vacuum was dragged by the moving body.
Fresnel's approach explained both Bradley's and Arago's
experimental results, predicting that the velocity of light does
not follow the usual Newtonian addition rule for velocities, and
that the velocity of light, c', through a moving transparent body
is given by:
c' = c/n + (1 - 1/n^2)v,
where c is the velocity of light in the free ether,
n is the refractive index of the body,
v is the velocity of the body relative to the ether.
It is this (1 - 1/n^2) which is known as the Fresnel dragging
coefficient. More than thirty years after Fresnel's formulation,
in 1851 Hippolyte Fizeau experimentally confirmed Fresnel's
dragging coefficient. But, that takes us into another "Who said
this () ..."
[1] "A Letter from the Reverend Mr. James Bradley Savilian
Professor of Astronomy at Oxford, and F.R.S. to Dr.Edmond Halley
Astronom. Reg. &c. Giving an Account of a New Discovered Motion
of the Fix'd Stars," James Bradley, Philosophical Transactions
(1683-1775), Vol. 35. (1727 - 1728), pp. 637-661.
[2] "A Letter to the Right Honourable George Earl of Macclesfield
concerning an Apparent Motion Observed in Some of the Fixed
Stars; By James Bradley D. D. Astronomer Royal, and F. R. S.,"
James Bradley, Philosophical Transactions (1683-1775), Vol. 45.
(1748), pp. 1-43.
[3] URL:
<http://www.google.ca/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=Pine.LNX.4.33.0210222118360.22461-100000%40localhost.localdomain&lr=&hl=en>
[4] "An Experiment Proposed for Determining, by the Aberration of
the Fixed Stars, Whether the Rays of Light, in Pervading
Different Media, Change Their Velocity according to the Law Which
Results from Sir Isaac Newton's Ideas concerning the Cause of
Refraction; And for Ascertaining Their Velocity in Every Medium
Whose Refractive Density is Known. By Patrick Wilson, A. M.
Assistant to Alexander Wilson, M. D. Professor of Practical
Astronomy in the University of Glasgow; Communicated by the Rev.
Nevil Maskelyne, D. D. F. R. S. Astronomer Royal," Isaac Newton;
Patrick Wilson; Nevil Maskelyne, Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society of London, Vol. 72. (1782), pp. 58-70.
[5] "Water-Filled Telescopes and the Pre-History of Fresnel's
Ether Dragging," Kurt Moller Pedersen, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci.,
54, pp. 499-564, 2000.
[6] "Memoire sur la vitesse de la lumiere," Francois Arago, C.R.
Acad. Sci., 36, pp. 38-49, 1853. (Note that Arago had
communicated the results of his experiment in 1810, but the work
was not actually published until much later.)
The Current Standings on "Who said this ..."
-------------------------------------------
Dirk Van de moortel 112
John Zinni 78
Michael Varney 40
Russell Blackadar 36
Nicholas Steele 30
Jim Graber 30
Tom Bedford 27
Tim Shuba 23
Matthew Nobes 22
Ilja Schmelzer 22
Gene Nygaard 18
Jeff Krimmel 15
Jem 14
Daryl McCullough 10
David Evens 10
Mel Lep 10
Shaun Webb 10
Domino Plural 10
Greg Neill 10
Bruce Pew 10
Bruce Scott 10
Tom Snyder 8
Tom Clarke 8
David A. Smith 7.5
Arfur Dogfrey 7
Michel Mouly 5
Double-A 4
David McAnally 3
Courtney Mewton 2
Aardvark 2
Colin Wetherbee 2
Jamieson Christie 2
Eli Botkin 1
Bob Kolker 1
man_mars 1
--
Stephen
sjs@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Titan Point" |
|
| Title: Re: Who said this (33) ... [was mis-written as Whos said this (32) ...] |
06 Sep 2003 11:49:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 17:14:50 -0700, Stephen Speicher wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Stephen Speicher wrote:
"I shall conclude this letter with an application of
the same theory to the experiment proposed by
XXXXXXXXX, which consists in observing the phenomena of
YYYYYYYYYY through instruments filled with water, or
with some other fluid much more refractive than air, in
order to ascertain whether the direction where a star
is seen to lie varies as a result of the alteration in
the course of the light introduced by the liquid."
As Russell Blackadar correctly identified, these words were
written by Augustin Fresnel in an 1818 letter to Francois Arago,
and the phenomena mentioned was aberration. The full reference is
"Lettre d'Augustin Fresnel a Francois Arago, sur l'influence du
mouvement terrestre dans quelques phenomenes d'optique" (Letter
from Augustin Fresnel to Francois Arago, on the influence of the
movement of the Earth on some phenomena of optics), _Ann. Chim.
Phys_, IX, 57, 1818. As Tom Clarke also noted, the experiment
referred to was proposed by Roger Joseph Boscovich.
[big nnip]
Stephen,
Who the hell told you you could write literate, fascinating stuff like
that to this newsgroup? I'm not sure that s.p.relativity can stand the
strain of so much non-crankiness.... ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Speicher" |
|
| Title: Re: Who said this (33) ... [was mis-written as Whos said this (32)...] |
07 Sep 2003 09:54:22 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Titan Point wrote:
Stephen,
Who the hell told you you could write literate, fascinating stuff like
that to this newsgroup? I'm not sure that s.p.relativity can stand the
strain of so much non-crankiness.... ;-)
Thanks for the (left-handed) appreciation.
There are a few knowledgeable and sensible people on this group,
but over time their voices are drowned out by the incessant
screeching of a wide assortment of crackpots and cuckoo birds,
each forever cackling in the tongue of their own unique insanity.
I'll just stick to "Who said this () ...."
--
Stephen
sjs@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Double-A" |
|
| Title: Re: Whos said this (32) ... |
03 Sep 2003 10:48:41 PM |
|
|
Stephen Speicher <sjs@speicher.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.33.0309031417080.1607-100000@localhost.localdomain>...
Here is a 30 point one:
10 points to the first person who identifies the author of this
letter, 8 points for the name of the person to whom the letter
was sent, 6 points for name of the person [XXXXXXXXX] referred to
who proposed the experiment, 4 points for identifying the name of
the "phenomena" referred to [YYYYYYYYYY], and 2 points for the
date of the letter.
"I shall conclude this letter with an application of
the same theory to the experiment proposed by
XXXXXXXXX, which consists in observing the phenomena of
YYYYYYYYYY through instruments filled with water, or
with some other fluid much more refractive than air, in
order to ascertain whether the direction where a star
is seen to lie varies as a result of the alteration in
the course of the light introduced by the liquid."
Author of the letter: George Biddell Airy
XXXXXXXXX: James Bradley
Date of Letter: 1871
Double-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Speicher" |
|
| Title: Re: Whos said this (32) ... |
03 Sep 2003 11:12:06 PM |
|
|
On 3 Sep 2003, Double-A wrote:
Stephen Speicher <sjs@speicher.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.33.0309031417080.1607-100000@localhost.localdomain>...
Here is a 30 point one:
10 points to the first person who identifies the author of this
letter, 8 points for the name of the person to whom the letter
was sent, 6 points for name of the person [XXXXXXXXX] referred to
who proposed the experiment, 4 points for identifying the name of
the "phenomena" referred to [YYYYYYYYYY], and 2 points for the
date of the letter.
"I shall conclude this letter with an application of
the same theory to the experiment proposed by
XXXXXXXXX, which consists in observing the phenomena of
YYYYYYYYYY through instruments filled with water, or
with some other fluid much more refractive than air, in
order to ascertain whether the direction where a star
is seen to lie varies as a result of the alteration in
the course of the light introduced by the liquid."
Author of the letter: George Biddell Airy
XXXXXXXXX: James Bradley
Date of Letter: 1871
Nice try on all, but Russell just filled in everything except
"XXXXXXXXX."
(Fresnel to Arago in 1818, and phenomena was aberration.)
6 points remain for "XXXXXXXXX."
--
Stephen
sjs@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Russell Blackadar" |
|
| Title: Re: Whos said this (32) ... |
03 Sep 2003 04:28:48 PM |
|
|
Stephen Speicher wrote:
Here is a 30 point one:
10 points to the first person who identifies the author of this
letter, 8 points for the name of the person to whom the letter
was sent, 6 points for name of the person [XXXXXXXXX] referred to
who proposed the experiment, 4 points for identifying the name of
the "phenomena" referred to [YYYYYYYYYY], and 2 points for the
date of the letter.
Some quick guesses:
XXXXXXXXX = Michelson
YYYYYYYYYY = aberration
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Speicher" |
|
| Title: Re: Whos said this (32) ... |
03 Sep 2003 04:48:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Russell Blackadar wrote:
Stephen Speicher wrote:
Here is a 30 point one:
10 points to the first person who identifies the author of this
letter, 8 points for the name of the person to whom the letter
was sent, 6 points for name of the person [XXXXXXXXX] referred to
who proposed the experiment, 4 points for identifying the name of
the "phenomena" referred to [YYYYYYYYYY], and 2 points for the
date of the letter.
Some quick guesses:
XXXXXXXXX = Michelson
Sorry, no.
YYYYYYYYYY = aberration
Yes. 4 points to Russell for that.
--
Stephen
sjs@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Speicher" |
|
| Title: Re: Whos said this (32) ... |
03 Sep 2003 11:08:35 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Russell Blackadar wrote:
Stephen Speicher wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Russell Blackadar wrote:
Stephen Speicher wrote:
Here is a 30 point one:
10 points to the first person who identifies the author of this
letter, 8 points for the name of the person to whom the letter
was sent, 6 points for name of the person [XXXXXXXXX] referred to
who proposed the experiment, 4 points for identifying the name of
the "phenomena" referred to [YYYYYYYYYY], and 2 points for the
date of the letter.
Some quick guesses:
XXXXXXXXX = Michelson
Sorry, no.
Silly, but at least it fit the 9 characters.
YYYYYYYYYY = aberration
Yes. 4 points to Russell for that.
Practically a giveaway.
OK, now go for the gold:
Author = Fresnel
Recipient = Arago
Date = 1818
Excellent! All are correct. Well done!
Adds up to another 20 points!
However, in order to make a complete golden sweep, [XXXXXXXXX]
still needs to be identified.
--
Stephen
sjs@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
