So one of the biggest attacks from the likes of Stanley and Marion against my advocation of flat earth (and geocentrism) is my lack of scientific education.  Let's take one topic at a time.  On this thread, we can discuss Airy's Failure.  Otherwise, the threads could go all over the map.

Now, Airy's Failure per se does not speak to Flat Earth, just to Geocentrism.  But here's a professional Astronomer who was a Geocentrist, and here's his take on the famous Airy's Failure experiment, which basically proved that the earth is stationary and that the stars move around it.

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html

Why mix all topics up? To keep avoiding being debunked!
What does Airy have to do with flath-earth?

Because ... geocentrism also belongs in this forum and it came up in the other thread.  It's all realted in terms of how modern science views the world and the universe.

Since you have nothing to contribute beside inane facepalms and insults, please stay off this thread.

Marion and Stanley literally act like every single other person hostile to FE theory. With mockery and straw men.

Here's the central strawman. It's of Ladislaus: "Now, Airy's Failure per se does not speak to Flat Earth, just to Geocentrism."

Ladislaus undertakes to defend flat-earthism by using globe-geocentrism (Walter von der Kamp). That's one more dishonesty of Ladislaus and a lame try to escape from having been debunked.

Ladislaus, in his general ignorance about geometry, suggest that geocentrism is half-way to flat earth.

Quote from Ladislaus: Airy's Failure experiment, which basically proved that the earth is stationary and that the stars move around it.

No, it didn't. In isolation that is perhaps one possible interpretation.
In relation to other experiments, it helped to reject the hypothesis that light travelled in luminiferous ether.

Classical explanations for Airy tend to be incorrect on certain details.
That's because a complete explanation for aberration (and therefore Airy) involves relativity.

In 1818 the physicist and astronomer Dominique Arago (1786-1853) tried another way to try to prove the Earth moves. He reasoned that as one has to adjust a telescope to focus on objects at different distances to the observer, so too should one have to adjust the focus of a telescope if it moved different distances relative to a star in the Earth’s supposed annual orbit. Alas, try as he did, no such refocusing was needed dashing another ‘proof’ for an orbiting Earth. There was however yet another experiment Arago had thought up to show the Earth orbits the sun. As we noted earlier, it was believed by all that there exists in space a substance called ether. It was also accepted since the 13th century at least that the speed of light slows down when passing through a dense transparent medium. Arago reasoned that if a beam of light was shone in the direction that the Earth supposedly moved, and a beam of light were shone in the opposite direction there would be found a difference in light speeds. This he tried but again they were exactly the same suggesting no such Earth motion. A similar experiment (M&M) would be repeated many times to find the Earth’s orbital motion from 1881 with more accurate instruments, but these tests also failed to find a 67,000 mph orbiting of the Earth..
   
Let us now revisit Bradley’s finding of stellar aberration wherein looking through a telescope from Earth we find all the stars making small same sized circular movements in line with the ecliptic every year. Bradley and the Earthmovers, said it was caused by the Earth’s orbiting of the sun and that the starry circles found were illusionary. In 1730 the eventual turncoat Fr Roger Boscovich suggested a simple, logical and conclusive trial that would, he expected, confirm it was the Earth moving that caused stellar aberration, one that would put the heliocentric theory on a more certain footing. The experiment was very easy to conduct, needing only two similar telescopes on Earth to perform.
   
To understand Boscovich’s idea of a test let us consider an analogy of a man with an umbrella in the rain. The man represents the Earth and the rain-cloud represents the stars. A tilted umbrella can be explained by a moving man (Earth) or by the moving rain cloud (Stars). But now let us take this reasoning one step further. If two men, each with an umbrella, run in the rain, both have to tilt their umbrellas, yes? But, as in right box below, if one runs faster than the other, the faster man (V) will have to tilt his umbrella more than the slower running man (v) to stay dry.

UNFORTUNALELY I CANNOT PASTE THE ILLUSTRATION.

Now unlike the one man (one tilted telescope/Earth) one cloud (stars), analogy that can be caused by a moving Earth or the movement of the stars, the two different speed running men scenario is different. You see, whereas we know that two men moving at two different speeds need two different umbrella angles to keep dry, you cannot have the cloud (the stars) moving at two different speeds.
   
Fr Boscovich reasoned correctly that if one could conduct an experiment that gets two telescopes working at two different speeds (like the two-speed men with two umbrellas), and one of them had to be tilted more than the other, this would prove it is the Earth that moves and not the stars. So, how does one conduct an experiment that has two similar telescopes, one going faster than the other relative to the stars? Well, easy, if you follow the logic. You can do it, Boscovich reasoned, by filling one of the telescopes with water. This water slows down the starlight passing through it (13% slower). The other air-filled telescope will allow the same starlight to pass through at normal light-speed. By slowing the light passing through one of two similar telescopes pointed at the same star and leaving the other as normal, you in effect set up the running two-man, two-speed umbrella/telescope test that should show the Earth is doing the orbiting, if the Earth is orbiting, that is.

Believe it or not, there is not one such attempt recorded until 150 years after Bradley’s 1726 discovery of aberration, when the Astronomer Royal, Sir George Airy (1802-1892), in 1871 decided science had now to confirm Bradley’s find. Why do you think it took that long? We hear so much about this great ‘scientific revolution of Copernicus’ yet we are supposed to believe not one astronomer or scientist in the whole world engaged himself in what would have verified the ‘fact’ that the Earth moved, a verification that would have assured any man, or woman, a place in the history books. When Airy published his ‘tie-breaker’ test it showed the opposite result sought by the Earthmovers. Both telescopes allowed the light to pass through without needing alteration. ( G. B. Airy: Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 1870, pp.35, 39.) The evidence showed that it had to be the stars that were moving to cause stellar aberration.

Such a logical interpretation of the Airy test was of course unacceptable to the ideological Earthmovers. Objective scientific interpretation had ceased with the Copernican revolution. No matter what, geocentrism is now an ideological no-no. Accordingly, every excuse was offered by way of ad hoc theories, as to why the Arago and Airy tests gave a ‘negative’ result to their heliocentrism. One of these excuses was that of ‘ether-drag,’ a not impossible theory that moving bodies in space, in this case the Earth, drag with them some invisible and static ether – if ether exists, that is. Experiments done in 1818 by the French physicist Augustin Fresnel (1788-1827) suggest¬ed this might be so, but as often happens in this field of science, in 1887 the M&M experiment cast more doubt on this possibility.

The non-moving Earth results probably showed the reason why all these ‘great’ pioneers in astronomy kept silent about the experiment for over 100 years, for, we wager, it was conducted many times in private and the results ignored by the Earthmovers and the Royal Society to allow heliocentrism another hundred years to become entrenched in the psyche of mankind. Van der Kamp refers to the ‘aborted trials’ by astronomers and physicists Martin Hoek (1834-1873) and Ernst Wilhelm Klinkerfues (1827-1884) before Airy’s test. They were ‘aborted,’ we suspect, because the ‘direction’ they were going in was not ‘the right one,’ the one the Royal Society wanted. Here then was George Airy, in 1871, after a simple, logical and physically valid and decisive test that nobody can dispute, demonstrating that stellar aberration, rather than providing ‘proof’ for an orbiting moving Earth, actually provided evidence for the Earth’s immobility and that it is the stars that are moving around the Earth.