Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don’t Call it “Darwinism” [religiously defended as "science" by Godless Darwinists]
springerlink ^ | 16 January 2009 | Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch

Posted on 01/28/2009 11:36:17 AM PST by Coyoteman

We will see and hear the term “Darwinism” a lot during 2009, a year during which scientists, teachers, and others who delight in the accomplishments of modern biology will commemorate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. But what does “Darwinism” mean? And how is it used? At best, the phrase is ambiguous and misleading about science. At worst, its use echoes a creationist strategy to demonize evolution.

snip...

In summary, then, “Darwinism” is an ambiguous term that impairs communication even about Darwin’s own ideas. It fails to convey the full panoply of modern evolutionary biology accurately, and it fosters the inaccurate perception that the field stagnated for 150 years after Darwin’s day. Moreover, creationists use “Darwinism” to frame evolutionary biology as an ism or ideology, and the public understanding of evolution and science suffers as a result. True, in science, we do not shape our research because of what creationists claim about our subject matter. But when we are in the classroom or otherwise dealing with the public understanding of science, it is entirely appropriate to consider whether what we say may be misunderstood. We cannot expect to change preconceptions if we are not willing to avoid exacerbating them. A first step is eschewing the careless use of “Darwinism.”

(Excerpt) Read more at springerlink.com ...


TOPICS: Education; Science
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; intelligentdesign; notasciencetopic; oldearthspeculation; piltdownman; propellerbeanie; spammer; toe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,101-1,1501,151-1,2001,201-1,250 ... 1,301-1,329 next last
To: tacticalogic

But that would entail use of self restraint, logical deduction, and common courtesy.


1,151 posted on 02/03/2009 6:02:34 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1150 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
If you suppose that there are not Geocentric FReepers, your supposition is incorrect.
1,152 posted on 02/03/2009 6:04:56 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1127 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
But that would entail use of self restraint, logical deduction, and common courtesy.

Yes, it would.

1,153 posted on 02/03/2009 6:11:19 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1151 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
“Okay, I'm confused. In a geocentric model I wouldn't think there would be any Earth rotation speed.”
Hmm, my bad.
Should be:

transit time in seconds = distance in meters ÷ speed of light in meters per second
displacement in degrees = Sun angular orbit speed in degrees per second × transit time in seconds

Angular orbit speed would be 360°/24 hours, or 0.00416°/second.

The math is the same, just a different name.

“I'm still not getting that to fit the model conceptually. This isn't a matter of orbiting the sun, but rotating in place at more or less a fixed distance from the sun.” [#1143]
I gave the heliocentric and geocentric models side by side.

If you're only interested in the geocentric model, you can ignore the stuff referencing the heliocentric model.
1,154 posted on 02/03/2009 6:42:57 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1141 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
“If you suppose that there are not Geocentric FReepers, your supposition is incorrect.”
I have yet to meet a FReeper who has said to me The Sun goes around the Earth.

Now, I've heard lots of Evolutionists say in a pejorative way, that Creationists think the Sun orbits the Earth.

However, the only person I've met who seems to hold a view that is even remotely similar, is an Atheistic Evolutionist.


I suppose its possible that when an Evolutionist accuses a Creationist of thinking that the Sun goes around the Hollow Flat Earth, they are projecting...

Oh well.

Let me know when you find a FReeper who says the Sun orbits the Hollow Flat Earth.
1,155 posted on 02/03/2009 6:53:02 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1152 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
If you're only interested in the geocentric model, you can ignore the stuff referencing the heliocentric model.

Comparing either one to an object rotating in place relative to the other seems an apples-to-oranges arrangement.

1,156 posted on 02/03/2009 6:53:15 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1154 | View Replies]

To: Fichori; GourmetDan

Play nice and have fun.


1,157 posted on 02/03/2009 7:02:27 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1155 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
“Comparing either one to an object rotating in place relative to the other seems an apples-to-oranges arrangement.”
By reducing an equation to the bare minimum of parameters greatly simplifies it.

Here is where that highly simplified model came from:
post 1362
[Fichori] If the Sun and Earth were perfectly motionless in space, except the Earth was rotating 360° every 24 hours, would (at high noon, sans the atmosphere) the optical image of the Sun be lagged 2.1° behind its gravitational pull?
post 1415
[LeGrande] Yes, up to 2.1 degrees.
Its neither the geocentric model nor the heliocentric model.

Its the LeGrandeic model.

It isn't comparing apples and oranges, it is merely about getting to the source of the 2.1° (which is apparently a byproduct of thinking that there is no difference between rotating and being orbited)
1,158 posted on 02/03/2009 7:05:58 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1156 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
It isn't comparing apples and oranges, it is merely about getting to the source of the 2.1° (which is apparently a byproduct of thinking that there is no difference between rotating and being orbited)

It terms of the angular velocity between you and the reference point, there doesn't seem to be.

1,159 posted on 02/03/2009 7:10:21 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1158 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
“It terms of the angular velocity between you and the reference point, there doesn't seem to be.”
Thats why you use an absolute reference point to measure angular velocity against ;-)

1,160 posted on 02/03/2009 7:30:22 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1159 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
Thats why you use an absolute reference point to measure angular velocity against ;-)

What absolute reference point do you use? Either way you get a angular velocity of 0.00416°/second between you and the sun.

1,161 posted on 02/03/2009 7:35:40 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1160 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
“What absolute reference point do you use? Either way you get a angular velocity of 0.00416°/second between you and the sun.”
If the angular velocity between you and the sun is 0.00416°/second and your absolute angular velocity as measured with an accurate LRG is zero, then you are being orbited by the sun.

However, if your LRG also shows an angular velocity of 0.00416°/second, then you are rotating.
1,162 posted on 02/03/2009 7:48:45 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1161 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

Either way, the angular velocity between you and the sun is still the same.


1,163 posted on 02/03/2009 7:50:54 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1162 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
“Either way, the angular velocity between you and the sun is still the same.”
I never said it wasn't ;-)
1,164 posted on 02/03/2009 7:57:56 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1163 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

How do you calculate it if you get an LRG of .00213 on both?


1,165 posted on 02/03/2009 8:05:55 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1164 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
“How do you calculate it if you get an LRG of .00213 on both?”
The LRG just tells you how fast you are rotating.

If you were rotating at 0.00213°/second and an object was orbiting you at twice that rate, it would be orbiting at the approximate altitude that geosynchronous satellites orbit at.

Don't they teach this kind of thing in school?
1,166 posted on 02/03/2009 9:09:42 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1165 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
If the turntable rotates once per second, the spot on the wall travels 186,000 miles each second. Now, double the speed of the turntable and the dot on the wall travels 372,000 miles each second or double the speed of light. This is called the phase velocity.

Thanks for the nice reply, gondramB. I guess with a little stretch of the imagination the difference in time of arrival is a "thing" :-)

I'd actually already read about that one and concluded that it wasn't really faster then the speed of light. Indeed the same experiment could be done with two glass marbles shot at two points which were 1 light second away from each other. The first marble might hit 1mS ahead of the other in which case the point of contact would have moved at a thousand times the speed of light. Or if they had hit at the same time, it would have "moved" at an infinite speed. The problem I have is that "it" doesn't exist as a thing, and it didn't move - because it was really two incidences - or as you put it, phase speed or whatever.

Thanks anyway, though!

-Jesse
1,167 posted on 02/03/2009 9:34:12 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1114 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
But, also for the record, I really miss 95% of the DCers both here and there. Lots of bright educated good people with excellent humor. I left there, only with the greatest reluctance.

GondramB, that's wonderful to hear. You know, I'm looking for a certain new experience today: Could someone please find me a post (Here or on DC, pref. here)(not a paste and not an article - just a post with at least about 30 words) that was written by one of these 95% good bright educated DCer's who have excellent humor?

I would be most grateful. Thanks!

-Jesse
1,168 posted on 02/03/2009 10:15:44 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1116 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; LeGrande; Ethan Clive Osgoode; Fichori
Said tacticalogicWhat absolute reference point do you use? Either way you get a angular velocity of 0.00416°/second between you and the sun.

The important thing to remember is that once the light waves leave the sun, they travel on their path (pretty much a straight line) regardless of whether the sun stays where it is or whether it moves. So if the sun did move across the sky 2.1 degrees in 8.3 minutes, then yes, by the time the sun's light reached the earth, the sun would be 2.1 degrees ahead of where it appeared to be. But as it is, the 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes is the rotational rate of the earth - not the orbital rate of the sun. Thus the light will still be traveling in a ~straight line from the sun to the earth, and as a result, the direction from which the light hits the earth will be that of the direction of the sun - in other words, it will appear to be where it is as far as Light-Time correction is concerned. (It will appear about 20 arcseconds advanced due to the transverse velocity of the observer on earth due to the earth's orbital velocity in meters per second around the sun -- but this has nothing to do with the distance to the sun.)

Does that help? If not, here's something that would explain it even better:

According to LeGrande's statements of how things work, if there was a stationary planet 12 light hours away and above the equator of the earth, for an observer on the earth at any instant in time, the said planet would appear in the east when it was really in the west, because of the fact that the earth rotated 180 degrees in the 12 hours it took the light to reach it. Now have you ever heard of anybody claiming such a thing?

While no planet comes to mind which is exactly 12 light hours away, Pluto is at the farthest parts of its orbit about 6.8 light hours away - enough time for the earth to rotate 102 degrees! So according to LeGrande's theory, Pluto, when we look up with a powerful telescope and see it, will actually really be below the horizon -- and not even in the night sky!

Have you ever heard of any such claims? So far LeGrande has not presented to me (or anywhere that I know of) a single scientific source making the same claim as him. And yet he stands behind it. (That is to say that he stands behind his claim of 2.1 degrees. But so far he's refused to answer me my question about if Pluto is really not even in the night sky when we look up and see it because he knows that his claim would then be obviously wrong.)

So this leaves me in the awkward position of realizing that if LeGrande will unwaveringly hold to a wrong idea and refuse to admit he's wrong even when it's obvious, then how much more will he hold onto a wrong idea and pretend it's true when noone's got evidence against it? So I know that I cannot put much weight on what LeGrande says - unless he can find valid sources to support it (in which case the weight is on them, not him.)

But this brings up yet another question in my mind - is this an Atheist thing? Are lots of Atheists like this - knowingly holding onto and stating as true, ideas that they know are wrong? Well, the proof is in the pudding - all I have to do is look around and see how other Atheists respond to LeGrande's claims. Do they say out right "LeGrande, that's absurd. you're outright wrong?" I haven't seen it yet. Show me if you find it. As far as I can tell, any Atheist who's nibbled into the discussion of LeGrandean Physics realize that LeGrande's not being honest, but rather then saying "Wait a second, LeGrande, this isn't right you should stop" they just sort of politely wonder off maybe with a small indication of concession, not wanting to counter a fellow Atheist. And why is this important? This point is important because now I know that if there was Atheists who were knowingly telling lies, all the other Atheists would just let them do it. And so this is why Science Education is in such shambles today.

Does that help?

So will you join ECO, Fichori, and me in publicly stating that LeGrande's 2.1 degrees is false and that he is being dishonest for maintaining his claim and yet refusing to answer whether the same theory also goes for Pluto and an imaginary planet that is 12 light hours away? Any other takers? See, that's what happens: An Atheist or Evolutionist (or more specifically an All Species By Evolution-ist) makes an untrue claim, all the other Atheists or ASBE'ers just sit quiet, so the only people which complain are non-Atheist or non-ASBE'ers -- then the Atheists & ASBE'ers say "See? we all agree. It's just them complaining!".

Thanks,

-Jesse
1,169 posted on 02/03/2009 11:01:08 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1161 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse
I'm going to think about this a little more before I start taking sides.

I'm not convinced yet that the difference in observed and actual position is due to aberration, and that light-time doesn't enter into it.

Aberration is the result of moving perpendicular to the light source. That should mean that at sunrise and sunset aberration is effectively zero. At sunset, when the center of the sun is exactly on the horizon, there should be no difference in observed position due to aberration, but that light left the sun 8.3 minutes ago. The rotational velocity is constant, so when you're seeing that, the actual physical center of the sun should be about 2 degrees below the horizon from where you are.

1,170 posted on 02/04/2009 3:54:23 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1169 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Fichori; mrjesse
At sunset, when the center of the sun is exactly on the horizon... that light left the sun 8.3 minutes ago. The rotational velocity is constant, so when you're seeing that, the actual physical center of the sun should be about 2 degrees below the horizon from where you are.

So where would the actual physical Sirius be, when its observed position is likewise on the horizon? That light left Sirius 8.6 years ago.

1,171 posted on 02/04/2009 4:44:27 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1170 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; tacticalogic
But this brings up yet another question in my mind - is this an Atheist thing? Are lots of Atheists like this - knowingly holding onto and stating as true, ideas that they know are wrong? Well, the proof is in the pudding - all I have to do is look around and see how other Atheists respond to LeGrande's claims. Do they say out right "LeGrande, that's absurd. you're outright wrong?" I haven't seen it yet. Show me if you find it. As far as I can tell, any Atheist who's nibbled into the discussion of LeGrandean Physics realize that LeGrande's not being honest, but rather then saying "Wait a second, LeGrande, this isn't right you should stop" they just sort of politely wonder off maybe with a small indication of concession, not wanting to counter a fellow Atheist. And why is this important? This point is important because now I know that if there was Atheists who were knowingly telling lies, all the other Atheists would just let them do it. And so this is why Science Education is in such shambles today.

Many DC'ers would level a similar accusation against FReepers who ignore the most bull-headed creationists and the most strident of their postings.

The problem is, in a highly partisan debate, most people tend to overlook the flaws in members of "their side" -- until the person's embarrassment becomes too much to ignore, and they are quietly shunted aside. He's not *really* representative, and besides, "his heart is in the right place"TM (or "he's fighting the forces of ignorance"TM, for you militant scientists and/or atheists out there.).

You know the drill.

The main difference seems to be whenever people post on "the other site" with the tenor and flavor of posts on their home site, they get into trouble.

DC publicly prides itself on its strong intellectualism, but it seems to me to be shaded more by atheism and by libertarianism as much as intellect.

FR is not quite an echo chamber once you leave the crevo threads: regardless of (say) the bug-zapper (Giuliani) thread, there are Bushbots, Sarah-bots, economic conspiracy nuts and day traders here, all jostling along.

And I don't see any threads here more or less exclusively devoted to either spying on, gossiping about, or reporting on troll incursions onto DC.

Cheers!

1,172 posted on 02/04/2009 4:51:00 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1169 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Even the greatest get puzzled over simple things which are easily misunderstood until you understand them.

Go read the episode in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, about his attempt while a young prof at Cornell to set up an experiment on what would happen if you put a rotating sprinkler underwater and then turned it on.

Full Disclosure: It may have been in What Do You Care What Other People Think. I'm not sure ;-)

Cheers!

1,173 posted on 02/04/2009 4:53:28 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1170 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
So where would the actual physical Sirius be, when its observed position is likewise on the horizon? That light left Sirius 8.6 years ago.

I'd think you'd need better measurements to determine that. If you're looking at an object that's exactly one light-day away, and stationary relative to the Earth, it's apparent position should be accurate, but the light you're using to locate the object actually left there at the same time yesterday.

1,174 posted on 02/04/2009 5:31:09 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1171 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
If you're looking at an object that's exactly one light-day away, and stationary relative to the Earth, it's apparent position should be accurate

And if the object is 1/2 light day away, where would it's real position be?

1,175 posted on 02/04/2009 5:44:51 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1174 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
And if the object is 1/2 light day away, where would it's real position be?

Need more information. It's "real" position relative to you is going to depend on where you're standing, and what direction that 1/2 a light day is, relative to the Earth's rotation.

1,176 posted on 02/04/2009 6:23:59 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1175 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Need more information.

Figure it out the same way you did in post 1170. Move the Sun to 1/2 light day away. Where is its observed position and where is its real position?

1,177 posted on 02/04/2009 6:31:48 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1176 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; tacticalogic; Ethan Clive Osgoode; Fichori; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; gondramB
I am back. I had to make a quick flight down to LA while the weather window was open.

But as it is, the 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes is the rotational rate of the earth - not the orbital rate of the sun. Thus the light will still be traveling in a ~straight line from the sun to the earth, and as a result, the direction from which the light hits the earth will be that of the direction of the sun - in other words, it will appear to be where it is as far as Light-Time correction is concerned.

This is the crux of the whole matter. Mrjesse claims that the suns actual position is where it appears to be from the perspective of a person on the earth. He agrees that if the Sun orbited a stationary Earth, its actual vs apparent position would be off by 2.1 degrees, but he objects to the idea that a spinning earth vs a stationary Sun is equivalent. They are : )

Let me provide another thought experiment : ) Lets say that mrjesse and I are floating around in empty space with radar guns. mrjesses looks at his radar gun and sees that I am approaching him at 10 mph. I look at my radar gun and see that mrjesse is approaching me at 10 mph. What is the reality? Who is really moving? At what speed?

The reality is that all that can be determined, is that the two floaters are coming together at 10 mph. Each floater might be moving to the other at anywhere from 0 to 10 mph. All that can be determined is that the sum of the speed adds up to 10 mph. I might be stationary or mrjesse might be stationary or we might both be moving.

The important point is that it is entirely valid for me to assume that I am stationary and that mrjesse is coming at me and mrjesses can also correctly infer that he is stationary and I am going to him. Trivially, this is the equivalence principle.

Now back to our observer on the earths equator. As far as the observer is concerned, whether the earth is spinning or the Sun is orbiting the earth (or some combination) is equivalent. The observations for the observer will be identical.

The fact is that it takes light apx. 8.3 minutes to get from itself to the observer. If the observer pounds a stake into the ground pointing at the sun, then waits 8.3 minutes and points another stake into the ground pointing directly at the sun, the measured angular difference will be apx. 2 degrees.

What does this little experiment show the observer? A lot of things actually, but for our purposes the second stake is pointing at the suns actual position when the first stake was pounded in the ground pointing at the sun.

MrJesse apparently believes that both stakes are pointing at the suns actual instantaneous position. The only way that could be true is if the speed of light is instantaneous, which of course it isn't.

The ball is in your court mrjesse. Given that we know that it takes light 8.3 minutes to get to our observer on the equator from the Sun, how do you explain that the Sun is exactly where it appears to be if the earth is spinning, but 2.1 degrees off if the Sun is rotating the earth.

1,178 posted on 02/04/2009 8:44:40 AM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1169 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Got it. If it’s stationary to you, time-light isn’t a factor. If you’re rotating relative to it, aberration is but I’m still not convinced that’s a fixed value. It seems like it would have to go from zero at sunrise to some maximum value at noon, and then back to zero by sunset.


1,179 posted on 02/04/2009 8:51:06 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1177 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
The ball is in your court mrjesse. Given that we know that it takes light 8.3 minutes to get to our observer on the equator from the Sun, how do you explain that the Sun is exactly where it appears to be if the earth is spinning, but 2.1 degrees off if the Sun is rotating the earth.

I believe that's because the light you are seeing left the sun 8.3 minutes ago, on a vector 2.1 degrees ahead of you, and you rotated into it.

1,180 posted on 02/04/2009 9:20:59 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1178 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I believe that's because the light you are seeing left the sun 8.3 minutes ago, on a vector 2.1 degrees ahead of you, and you rotated into it.

For a few minutes at dawn you would be correct, then you would be wrong for the rest of the day. At dusk the reverse would happen and you would still see the light after the sun had actually settled beyond the horizon .

1,181 posted on 02/04/2009 10:28:52 AM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1180 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
At dusk the reverse would happen and you would still see the light after the sun had actually settled beyond the horizon .

At dusk you see light refracted in the atmosphere above you after the sun sets below the horizon. The last direct rays of the sun you see left the sun 8.3 minutes before you saw them, at an angle of 2.1 degees above your line of sight. By the time they got here, you had rotated into their path.

1,182 posted on 02/04/2009 11:02:57 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1181 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

>>The ball is in your court mrjesse. Given that we know that it takes light 8.3 minutes to get to our observer on the equator from the Sun, how do you explain that the Sun is exactly where it appears to be if the earth is spinning, but 2.1 degrees off if the Sun is rotating the earth.<<

Just for the record...

Its traditional to think of the sun as fixed with the earth orbiting the sun in a circle while spinning on its axis.

The actually situation is more complicated.

The sun is not fixed; the sun and earth actually orbit each other in an ellipse.The reason we speak only of the earth orbiting the sun is that greater mass of the sun means it doesn’t move nearly as much.

And for the nerds among us:

The sun also rotates on its axis but the tops and middle of the sun rotate at different speed. Every 27 days at the equator but only every 31 days at the poles.


1,183 posted on 02/04/2009 11:32:32 AM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1178 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
“Aberration is the result of moving perpendicular to the light source. That should mean that at sunrise and sunset aberration is effectively zero.” [excerpt]
Tip,

the Earth, in its yearlong orbit around the Sun, is constantly moving perpendicular to the incoming light from the Sun at ~30,000 meters/second, causing around 0.00573° of displacement due to Annular aberration.
This is nearly constant.

The transverse speed contributed by the rotation of the Earth has a maximum of ~463.8 meters/second at high noon on the equator.

So at sunrise, you get ~30,000m/s transverse velocity, and at high noon you get ~30,463m/s transverse velocity.

Or, ~0.00573° at sunrise and ~0.00582° at noon.

1,184 posted on 02/04/2009 12:19:31 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1170 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; mrjesse; tacticalogic; Ethan Clive Osgoode; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; gondramB
“Mrjesse claims that the suns actual position is within ~0.005833° of where it appears to be from the perspective of a person on the earth.” [excerpt, corrected]
I have corrected your statement to reflect what mrjesse has really said.
“but he objects to the idea that a spinning earth vs a stationary Sun is equivalent. They are : )” [excerpt]
A spinning Earth versus a stationary Sun?

I believe we all agree that the Sun is, relatively speaking, stationary, and that the Earth is spinning.

“Now back to our observer on the earths equator. As far as the observer is concerned, whether the earth is spinning or the Sun is orbiting the earth (or some combination) is equivalent. The observations for the observer will be identical.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]
Unless those observations include looking at a Laser Ring Gyro.

The instant you consult the LRG, you know if you are spinning, and how much.

“The fact is that it takes light apx. 8.3 minutes to get from itself to the observer. If the observer pounds a stake into the ground pointing at the sun, then waits 8.3 minutes and points another stake into the ground pointing directly at the sun, the measured angular difference will be apx. 2 degrees.” [excerpt]
That only demonstrates the angular speed at which the Sun goes across the sky.

“What does this little experiment show the observer? A lot of things actually, but for our purposes the second stake is pointing at the suns actual position when the first stake was pounded in the ground pointing at the sun.” [excerpt]
Only if the Sun orbits the Earth.

“MrJesse apparently believes that both stakes are pointing at the suns actual instantaneous position. The only way that could be true is if the speed of light is instantaneous, which of course it isn't.” [excerpt]
You have misconstrued mrjesse's position beyond correction.

“The ball is in your court mrjesse. Given that we know that it takes light 8.3 minutes to get to our observer on the equator from the Sun, how do you explain that the Sun is exactly where it appears to be if the earth is spinning, but 2.1 degrees off if the Sun is rotating the earth.” [excerpt]
Once again, this is an inaccurate representation of what mrjesse has been saying.


1,185 posted on 02/04/2009 12:47:30 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1178 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
Perhaps you could help me try to understand this 2.1° a bit better. (I might just not be understanding what you are trying to say)

Lets say the Sun and Earth were just like they are, except the were both completely stationary and not rotating.
(all observations are from the equator and atmospheric effects are not considered)

If you stood on one side so the Sun was on the horizon[sunrise position], what would the lag be? (if any)

What if you made the same observation but from the opposite side? [sunset position]

What if you stood on the side nearest the Sun so that the Sun was overhead [noon position], what about then?


If that is not the case, is the lag due to angular rotation speed?

Or is it due to the surface speed of the observer due to rotation?

Thanks.
1,186 posted on 02/04/2009 1:17:04 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1181 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"Play nice and have fun."

Have fun answering these:

“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system

“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”

Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."

Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

1,187 posted on 02/04/2009 3:19:14 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1157 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Have fun answering this.

What force is capable of moving the massive Sun around a much less massive Earth while leaving the Earth motionless?

What Biblical passages do you think support Geocentricism?

1,188 posted on 02/04/2009 3:21:48 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1187 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"Have fun answering this. What force is capable of moving the massive Sun around a much less massive Earth while leaving the Earth motionless?"

Once again, the fact that you think that question means anything shows that you can't understand the quotes posted previously. Just because you can ask a stupid question doesn't mean anyone has to take it seriously.

"What Biblical passages do you think support Geocentricism?"

You can't even get past the scientific answer, much less the Scriptural one.

1,189 posted on 02/04/2009 3:26:00 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1188 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

It is only a “stupid question” to someone without an answer.

I have an answer at the ready that explains the observation, all you have is trying to desperately hide behind “coordinate system”.

The fact is that there are FORCES at work, not just motion, but FORCES that explain that motion.

No force except for magical forces can explain your model, that is why you seem so apoplectic that I would DARE to ask such a simple and basic question.

“What force is capable of moving the massive Sun around a much less massive Earth while leaving the Earth motionless?”


1,190 posted on 02/04/2009 3:29:56 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1189 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"It is only a “stupid question” to someone without an answer."

Nope, a stupid question is a stupid question. The reason you ask it is because you can't understand the quotes I posted.

"I have an answer at the ready that explains the observation, all you have is trying to desperately hide behind “coordinate system”."

I just posted the answers. Particularly this one. You do exactly what George Ellis warns about.

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

"The fact is that there are FORCES at work, not just motion, but FORCES that explain that motion."

Again, there is no physically-significant difference between a heliocentric solar-system and a geocentric universe according to Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis.

"No force except for magical forces can explain your model, that is why you seem so apoplectic that I would DARE to ask such a simple and basic question."

You just keep demonstrating that you simply can't understand what has been posted in the statements by Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis.

“What force is capable of moving the massive Sun around a much less massive Earth while leaving the Earth motionless?”

Keep going, no need to stop now...

1,191 posted on 02/04/2009 4:12:10 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1190 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
I understand your quotes quite fine. They explain that either is equally valid as a COORDINATE SYSTEM.

A truck is heading into New York City at 80 miles per hour, that is a coordinate system.

An equally valid coordinate system would have New York City moving towards the truck at 80 miles per hour.

Either is equally valid AS A COORDINATE SYSTEM.

But an internal combustion engine explains the FORCES necessary to propel the truck towards NYC at 80 mph.

There is no equivalent explanation that you have provided that would supply the FORCE necessary to move New York City at 80 mph.

WHAT FORCE COULD MOVE THE SUN AROUND THE EARTH WHILE LEAVING THE EARTH MOTIONLESS?

Your inability to answer amuses me to no end.

1,192 posted on 02/04/2009 4:28:53 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1191 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

Okay, I’m convinced. Now what?


1,193 posted on 02/04/2009 4:30:08 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1184 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
At dusk you see light refracted in the atmosphere above you after the sun sets below the horizon. The last direct rays of the sun you see left the sun 8.3 minutes before you saw them, at an angle of 2.1 degees above your line of sight. By the time they got here, you had rotated into their path.

Hmm, you might be right. I don't like the wording 2.1 degrees above the sight line though. I think we are in agreement.

1,194 posted on 02/04/2009 4:45:14 PM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1182 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
The sun also rotates on its axis but the tops and middle of the sun rotate at different speed. Every 27 days at the equator but only every 31 days at the poles.

I may be mistaken but my understanding is that is why the Suns magnetic poles flip. Which influences sun spots and possibly our weather.

1,195 posted on 02/04/2009 4:47:40 PM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1183 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
The instant you consult the LRG, you know if you are spinning, and how much.

What does a Laser Ring Gyro, aligned north to south at the equator, tell you? Inquiring minds want to know : )

That only demonstrates the angular speed at which the Sun goes across the sky.

True and the time lag for the speed of light.

Only if the Sun orbits the Earth.

The spinning earth or orbiting Sun are equivalent from the view point of the observer on the Earth. In other words it makes no difference to the observation.

Once again, this is an inaccurate representation of what mrjesse has been saying.

What has mrjesse been saying then?

1,196 posted on 02/04/2009 4:55:41 PM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1185 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

The answer is quite clear. The force in question is God.


1,197 posted on 02/04/2009 5:21:01 PM PST by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1192 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
“Okay, I’m convinced. Now what?”
Well, hopefully LeGrande will answer my questions in #1,186.

I just realized that if he is right, the displacement might be phenomenally greater than 2.1°

But it depends on what causes the displacement in the first place.
1,198 posted on 02/04/2009 5:23:11 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1193 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
Well, hopefully LeGrande will answer my questions in #1,186.

But we're done?

1,199 posted on 02/04/2009 5:27:11 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1198 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
“But we're done?”
I dunno...

Did I overlook some formalities?
1,200 posted on 02/04/2009 5:36:10 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,101-1,1501,151-1,2001,201-1,250 ... 1,301-1,329 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson