Ignoring some of the religious references at the end, the following video is a good overview of Airy's Failure experiment and how it suggests that the stars are moving, not the earth.
<<< skip the video >>>
Airy's paper on his experiment:
http://rspl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/20/130-138/35.full.pdf+html
Specifications for the equipment he was using:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1873GOAMM..33C..17A/0000132.000.html
Yes, I'll accept that Airy did his work meticulously, and got the correct result, but I must answer the same as in the other thread.
Airy's Failure suggests nothing of the sort. Remember that Airy and Bradley were both before "Relativity" Special or General. If we accept Relativity, it makes no difference which is the "moving frame" and which is the "reference frame", which simply means that Airy's
failed to measure something that wasn't there in the first place. In other words failure is exactly what one would have expected.
Now as you well know I am no fan of Miles Mathis
[1], but even he wrote that
in
The Aberration of Starlight, including analysis of Airy's water-filled telescope, by Miles Mathis Airy's failure was simply what one would expect - earth or stars moving would make no difference!
In fact "Airy's Failure" had a hand in the formulation of Einstein's own theories.
"Prof. Einstein volunteered a rather strong statement that he had been more influenced by the Fizeau experiment on the effect of moving water on the speed of light, and by astronomical aberration, especially Airy's observation with a water filled telescope, than by the Michelson-Morley experiment."
Einstein reported by Shankland, 1950-54. in
Discovering the Relativity of Simultaneity, How did Einstein take "The Step"?