Don’t Call it “Darwinism” [religiously defended as "science" by Godless Darwinists]

springerlink ^ | 16 January 2009 | Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch

[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.”

[tacticalogic]

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.

[Fichori]

“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.

[tacticalogic]

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

[Fichori]

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

I never said it wasn't ;-)

[tacticalogic]

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

[Fichori]

“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?

[mrjesse]

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

[mrjesse]

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

[mrjesse]

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

[tacticalogic]

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.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

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.

[grey_whiskers]

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!

[grey_whiskers]

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!

[tacticalogic]

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.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

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?

[tacticalogic]

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.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

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?

[LeGrande]

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.

[tacticalogic]

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.

[tacticalogic]

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.