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.”

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Where am I in error?

Deep in your brain.

[LeGrande]

Where am I in error?

Deep in your brain.

Resorting to a personal attack so soon? Another one bites the dust. I wonder how many creationist's, deist's and telological's that makes?

[LeGrande]

And so I think LeGrande is suggesting that, just like a mirror, you get an optical illusion (so to speak). the human eye traces light back to its *apparent* source.

True. Add in the fact that you are seeing back in time (8.3 minutes in the case of the Sun) and you have got it.

Two possibly complicating factors here: one is the problem at sunrise and and sunset, when the motion of the earth is parallel or antiparallel to the direction of the light, this divergence is minimized. Also, the earth is not a sphere, it is an oblate ellipsoid (i.e. a beachball with an elephant sitting on it, not a football).

Correct again.

Also, you have the issue of what the ancients called "lack of stellar parallax" -- the distance between the stars and the earth is so great, one can travel anywhere one likes on Earth without affecting the apparent relative positions of the stars. I'm just a little too tired to decide if something analagous would kick in here.

Correct again. The distances are so far that Triangulation doesn't work. Remember that we are also looking into the past and that in some instances (Hubble) we are looking billions and billions of years into the past, at objects that no longer exist.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

[mrjesse to tacticalogic] So, please explain, in your own words, how come you won't take a stand against LeGrande's false claim? Why?

Probably because he doesn't understand the science behind it. In any case, it is clear that many of the evolution-loudmouths couldn't give a damn about science unless it's the sort of "science" that gives them the opportunity for some jolly good anti-God and anti-Bible ravings. They couldn't be arsed with an issue like this one. So don't expect anything from them.

Here's some tripe monist science, a melange of physics and biology, by a very famous evolutionist:

Tetrakinetic Theory

The Origin of Life

Now, you'd imagine that evolutionists, having as they do very acute consciences regarding scientific verity and rigor, would not encourage such rubbish. But they do, and it should not come as a surprise. That stuff by Osborn made it into Newman's Evolution textbook. And it appears, a decade later, as recommended reading in Creation by Evolution, which is a remarkable book by the way, endorsed and written by the highest exponents of evolution "science" of the era. Top-knotch guys with top-knotch credentials writing top-knotch rubber science.

[LeGrande]

Look: You and I disagree about whether a there is a difference between spinning and being orbited in a two_body+light model. You say that there is no difference between being orbited and spinning, and I say there is a difference between being orbited in such a model.

There is no difference. Are you familiar with the equivalence principle? I explained it to you. Did you understand my explanation? Also did you look at this Merry go round example Merry go Round

The only difference between the two examples is which perspective it is viewed at.

If I tilted my merry go around so the top pointed to the north star and I set my merry go around with me on it rotating 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, would the sun appear in the east at the point in time that its gravity pulled to the west?

Which frame of reference are you using when you say East and West? If the Earth is your frame of reference the answer is no, it will still be the old 2.1 degrees.

When, for an observer on earth, at an instant in time, Pluto was 6.8 light hours away, when we look up and see it, will it really be about 102 degrees off from where it appears? (that's 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes)

Again lets stop the light from Pluto at the same instant that you initially observe it. You will then observe Pluto traveling across the sky for 102 degrees at which point it will disappear. That point where it disappeared 6.8 hours later was the actual position of Pluto when you initially looked at it 6.8 hours previously. From your perspective, the apparent and actual position is off up to 102 degrees. (This is the simplified version)

The light you see from Pluto left it 6.8 hours ago. You are literally seeing into the past, 6.8 hours into the past to be reasonably imprecise. The observation is exactly the same from the point of view of the observer on the earth if the earth is rotating and Pluto is Stationary, or if the Earth is stationary and Pluto is orbiting the earth.

How many times do you want me to try and explain this answer to you? You keep claiming that I haven't answered this question but by my recollection this is about the 6th or seventh time.

[LeGrande]

mrjesse - I think the start of the issue at hand is that LeGrande believes that there is no difference between being orbited and spinning in a two_body+light model.

That is correct. They are equivalent.

mrjesse - I say that there is a difference - in a two_body+light model, if the sun moves after emitting light, it's obvious because the light's path will maintain a record for 8.3 minutes of where the sun was even though it's moved. But if the sun doesn't move and instead the earth rotates 2.1 degrees, the sun's light will still be on a path originating from the sun's position.

You are contradicting yourself mrjesse. You have already said that if the light from the sun stops, that you will continue to see the sun move across the sky for 8.3 minutes and 2.1 degrees (in an Earth spinning model). mrjesse - Of course the sun will still appear to move at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes after it is shut off. (LG I added the last part 'after it is shut off' for clarification.

The problem is that LeGrande's view just doesn't line up with science or reality and when applied to things that are a little farther away then the sun, his view is obviously wrong - which is why he keeps refusing to answer simple questions like this:

For an observer on earth at an instant in time who looks east and sees a stationary and bright planet above the equator, a planet that is 12 light hours away, how far displaced from it's actual position will be the apparent position? Will the planet really appear in the east when it is really in the west?

I am confused. I have answered the question many times. You even refer to my answer in your next paragraph.

You see, since he's said that the sun will (per the above scenario) appear 2.1 degrees behind its actual position since the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes sunlight to reach the earth, and since he's said that if it was farther the angle would be greater, the only answer he can say to my question is that "Yes, the 12-light hour away planet would appear in the east at the moment it was really in the west." But you see if such was the case, astronomers all over would have to know about it and there would be some scientific documents describing it. But neither him nor I have been able to find any such documents. And he keeps refusing to apply his own reasoning to simple thought experiments that I or others have provided - and there seems no logical reason that he would refuse such - unless he knows that he's wrong and refuses to admit it.

First, as you clearly state, I put it in bold, I have answered your 12 light hours away planet question and yet you insist that I haven't. I don't believe that you are intentionally lying, what are you thinking mrjesse?

As for your astronomy question, the simple answer is that Astronomers don't generally use the Earth as a frame of reference, they use the Stars. Have you ever used a Star Chart? Can you guess why they use the Stars (especially after our discussion)?

[grey_whiskers]

Correct again. The distances are so far that Triangulation doesn't work.

Define this term, please, or provide a link.

For the record, I seem to recall that we have the earth orbiting the Sun (close enough for govt. work, anyway, given the ratio of the two masses; and we can consider the effects of the moon and other planets as mere perturbations), in addtion to rotation of the earth about its own axis -- which is not perpendicular to the plane of its orbit about the sun.

To say that "the sun is also orbiting the earth" is misleading: this is not a two-body system of equivalent masses, the error introduced by treating the Sun as the center of mass is very small.

I think LG is confusion the aberration of light issue with the (approximate) two-body problem.

Cheers!

[tacticalogic]

The only reason I brought up religious beliefs is because for some strange and magical reason you won't call to task LeGrande on his false scientific claims -- and I can't figure out any reason that you won't take a stand against LeGrande's obvious lie -- except that maybe it's because you and he belong to the same religion and therefore won't call to task a "Brother in the faith" or whatever you want to call it. But if I'm wrong, by all means tell me why you won't take a stand against a lie!

I won't join you because I simply don't think it's worth the animosity.

Why is it the only reason you think two people can simply agree to disagree, and part company amicably on an issue can only mean there is some tacit religiously motivated conspiracy against you involved?

[GourmetDan]

"Once again you cannot understand that while either is equally valid as a coordinate system, heliocentricity is a superior model because it is easily explained by a known and measurable FORCE, known as gravity. Do you understand that a coordinate system explains only motion, and doesn't explain the forces involved in the motion?"

Why did you remove the statements by astronomers showing that there is no physical or observable difference between a geokinetic and geocentric model?

Don't you understand that this goes way beyond coordinate mathematical systems and that they are making statements about physical reality?

"...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

[GourmetDan]

"Depends a little on what we're trying to predict, eh?"

No it doesn't.

": Retrograde motion, epicycles, and all that."

Don't you have to assume that Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis didn't know about retrograde motion in order to make that statement? Is that a reasonable assumption?

"Some coordinate systems are chosen to simply the calculations *greatly*."

So, you are saying that we should take our definition of reality from ease of calculation? But that would mean that we should define reality as geocentric within the earth-moon system and geokinetic within the solar-system. You then end up with two versions of reality depending on your choice for ease of calculation. Does that make sense to you?

"And, if we are talking the orbit of Mercury, classical mechanics won't cut it to more than an approximation."

Actually, we are talking about models within GR. Please try to be informed before you post.

"Cheers!"

Have a wonderful day!

[LeGrande]

Triangulation is the use of two angles to determine distance. Most stars are too far away for that technique to work.

For the record, I seem to recall that we have the earth orbiting the Sun (close enough for govt. work, anyway,

Yes indeed. We have Copernicus to thank for that : )

To say that "the sun is also orbiting the earth" is misleading: this is not a two-body system of equivalent masses, the error introduced by treating the Sun as the center of mass is very small.

You misunderstood me. Let me make it clearer, the two models are equivalent, as illustrated by the merry go round animation, or the two people floating in space. It is understood that models are a gross simplification. The point that I am trying to make with mrjesse is that for a person standing on the equator of a large ball, there is no difference to him when he observes another ball, whether his ball is spinning or the other ball is orbiting his, or combination of spinning and orbiting. His observations will be the same.

It is essentially the same as two people floating in space with radar guns approaching each other. It is impossible for them to determine absolutely who is approaching whom. Either persons frame of reference is equivalent. It is only when you add something else for reference (like a space ship) that you can arbitrarily determine who is approaching whom.

I think LG is confusion the aberration of light issue with the (approximate) two-body problem.

I regret ever pointing out the aberration of light to mrjesse : (

It is also a two-body problem in an Einstein universe not a Galilean universe, because we are dealing with the speed of light, where time is also a variable.

[GourmetDan]

"[ECO] Indeed, every astronomy book is, as you say, careful to point out that 'the earth goes around the sun' can never be proven."

"[allmendream] it is still called the Heliocentric Theory, not the Heliocentric Truth"

Hypocrisy is one of allmendream's best qualities.

Without it, he wouldn't have anything to say...

[allmendream]

That you think such a stance is hypocritical shows that you have no real understanding of science.

And once again in all your blather you cannot name a force sufficient to accomplish the motion described by the coordinate system you prefer.

Meanwhile the Heliocentric model is ‘equally valid as a coordinate system’ while being superior in that it is easily explainable by the known and measurable force of gravity.

[GourmetDan]

"That you think such a stance is hypocritical shows that you have no real understanding of science."

Not at all. Real science and real scientists have been quoted with statements that show that geocentrism and geokineticism are physically indistinguishable. Only people who have a philosophical problem rant and rave about things they know can't be proven. That doesn't stop you, however.

"And once again in all your blather you cannot name a force sufficient to accomplish the motion described by the coordinate system you prefer."

Now you know that geocentrism within GR doesn't use any force that you don't use in your own preferred coordinate system. You also know that you can't prove your preferred coordinate system, yet you rant and rave as though I am the only one who can't prove their position. That's where the hypocrisy comes in.

"Meanwhile the Heliocentric model is ‘equally valid as a coordinate system’ while being superior in that it is easily explainable by the known and measurable force of gravity."

Then you don't understand what Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis have said and are just blabbering.

[grey_whiskers]

I'll reply tomorrow, but it looks like you misunderstood the thrust of my statements...maybe I should have been more explicit.

Have a wonderful day!

And this is *why* I'll reply tomorrow...

It's my wife's birthday, and the kids are out on sleepovers and school dances until much later.

So a good day is pretty likely, despite my insomnia.

Cheers!

[GourmetDan]

"I'll reply tomorrow, but it looks like you misunderstood the thrust of my statements...maybe I should have been more explicit."

I would suggest that you do a bit more study of the geocentric position within GR before replying.

Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis have all said (and I have posted those statements) that the two models (geokinetic and geocentric) are mathematically, observationally and physically indistinguishable.

Now, I assume that you know what 'indistinguishable' means and I don't see a way for you to be 'more explicit' under those circumstances.

[muawiyah]

When I was in college decades back we had these Saudi Arabian students who'd grown up out near the Rub'al'Khalid chasing sheep and goats around.

Real basic sort of lifestyle.

The King set up a fund to send them to a prepschool, and then on to Indiana University.

Occasionally they'd get into tiffs about what a word in the English language actually meant in a given context, and next thing you know they'd have their footlong daggers out taking pokes at each other.

At the time I thought that was such a barbaric thing to do. Over the years I've softened my judgment ~ how refreshing, direct and honest of them!

Time for you guys to get civilized regarding the meanings commonly accepted for words ~ first rule, if it's not a commonly accepted meaning and you aren't a made member of the nomenklatura (such as I am), give it up!

You can "give it up" for the sake of comity, or you can "give it up" for Jesus, or maybe even "give it up" for Buddha's sake ~ I don't particularly care, but eternal debates over definitions without the use of knives is so ignorant and primitive ~ tiresome even.

[mrjesse]

Said tacticalogic:I won't join you because I simply don't think it's worth the animosity.

Huh? In other words you wouldn't confront somebody for lying and teaching untruth because they might have animosity against you for it? Like I said, it is no wonder science education is in such shambles - everybody knows the students are being lied to and nobody says a thing because they don't want to cause discord.

Why is it the only reason you think two people can simply agree to disagree, and part company amicably on an issue can only mean there is some tacit religiously motivated conspiracy against you involved?

Agree to disagree on a scientific fact? Very sad that truth means so little. Like I said, this is the problem.

-Jesse

[tacticalogic]

Like I said, this is the problem.

Yes, you did. And I don't believe you.

[mrjesse]

Said MrJesse:If I tilted my merry go around so the top pointed to the north star and I set my merry go around with me on it rotating 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, would the sun appear in the east at the point in time that its gravity pulled to the west?

Replied LeGrande: Which frame of reference are you using when you say East and West? If the Earth is your frame of reference the answer is no, it will still be the old 2.1 degrees.

Alright, maybe I didn't state my question clearly enough. By "East and West" I really meant "Opposite directions." And I am not talking about any frame of reference involving the earth, and since your only answer addressed the case of the earth being my frame of reference, you did not answer the question I meant to ask because you were confused by my wording, so here is what I meant to ask:

The Lavender question: (I'm color coding them now.)

Let us say that I tilted up my merry go around so that it's top pointed directly at the north star (Polaris to be specific) and furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from almost the exact opposite direction where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?

So please answer that! It is a simple "Yes" or "No" or "I don't know"

(Of course you can also say "Yes but... or No but..." but hopefully I've specified enough variables that it's a simple yes or no.)

Thanks and sorry for the confusion,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

How many times do you want me to try and explain this answer to you? You keep claiming that I haven't answered this question but by my recollection this is about the 6th or seventh time.

It is possible that you tried to answer my question about the merry go around pointing at the north star - I'm waiting to see on that one. But you still haven't answered the 12 hour planet, or pluto, or lots of others. Please answer the following:

The Purple question: 17 minute merry go around on north pole

Let us say that I had a merry go around on the North Pole furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande: You are contradicting yourself mrjesse. You have already said that if the light from the sun stops, that you will continue to see the sun move across the sky for 8.3 minutes and 2.1 degrees (in an Earth spinning model). mrjesse - Of course the sun will still appear to move at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes after it is shut off. (LG I added the last part 'after it is shut off' for clarification.

No, I'm not contradicting myself I'm contradiction your misquote of me - I did NOT say that you will continue to SEE the sun move - but that the sun will appear to move (And I went on to explain that it was simply because the earth was rotating.)

I am confused. I have answered the question many times. You even refer to my answer in your next paragraph.

You have answered many questions that I did not ask, but you have not actually answered the question as I asked:

For an observer on earth who is looking at a bright and stationary planet that is 12 light hours away and is above the earth's equator, at the instant that said planet appears in the east will it really be in the west? Will its gravity be pulling in the opposite direction of where the light appears to come from at that instant?

You haven't answered that question that I have asked even though you answer tons of others that I never asked.

It's actually pretty funny, you say that you have answered my question and that I refer to your answer in the next paragraph, which reads: (and this is a quote of me writing)

You see, since he's said that the sun will (per the above scenario) appear 2.1 degrees behind its actual position since the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes sunlight to reach the earth, and since he's said that if it was farther the angle would be greater, the only answer he can say to my question is that "Yes, the 12-light hour away planet would appear in the east at the moment it was really in the west."

Continues LeGrande:First, as you clearly state, I put it in bold, I have answered your 12 light hours away planet question and yet you insist that I haven't.

That part you put in bold was me talking! You didn't say it! It wasn't even you talking! You never actually said that! I was just applying your own (faulty) reasoning to a 12-light hour planet.

You never actually said "Yes, the 12-light hour away planet would appear in the east at the moment it was really in the west." ! That was me explaining that if you were to honestly apply your logic to a 12-light hour planet, that you'd have to respond as by saying "Yes, the 12-light hour away planet would appear in the east at the moment it was really in the west." - but you never actually said that! (But if you'd like to say it then please be my guest! I've been asking for you to say that if you believe it is true -- for months now!)

As for your astronomy question, the simple answer is that Astronomers don't generally use the Earth as a frame of reference, they use the Stars.

Again, all besides the point. The fact is that there is scientific reason for the sun to appear 20 arcseconds displaced from its actual position due to Stellar Aberration - and regardless of what frame of reference anyone uses, the internet is full of articles about stellar aberration which describe the 20 arcseconds of apparent displacement for observers on earth. But such is not the case for your alleged 2.1 degrees! Do you really think there would be so much todo about 20 arcseconds when it was also displaced by 2.1 degrees at any point in time for an observer on earth?

I have now started a file on my computer and even color coded some of my outstanding (as in unanswered) questions. When you actually answer them as I asked them (rather then giving an answer to a similar sounding but different question that I didn't ask) then I will also write in my file what your answer was and a link to where you answered it. That way you can be assured that if you actually do answer the question that I ask as I asked it, then I won't forget. And if you think I'll forget too, you can do the same - just run notepad and record the URLs of where you answered my questions, and then if I ever forget you can just refer me to your previous answer!

Below are my newly color coded questions which you still have not answered.

-Jesse

The Red question - 12 light hour away planet:

For an observer on earth who is looking at a bright and stationary planet that is 12 light hours away and is above the earth's equator, at the instant that said planet appears in the east will it really be in the west? Will its gravity be pulling in the opposite direction of where the light appears to come from at that instant?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Green question: Pluto

For an observer on earth who looks up and sees Pluto when it is overhead and when it is 6.8 light hours away, at that instant in time, will Pluto really be about 102 degrees away from where it appears? Will it really appear directly overhead at the moment it is really below the horizon?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Blue question: What if the sun were 10 light days away and the earth was stopped

If the sun were 10 light days away, and the earth was suddenly stopped, do you believe that the sun would continue to appear to rise and set for another 10 days?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Yellow question: What if there was a turntable on the north pole that was tracking the suns actual position:

Let's say that you are standing on a turntable at the North Pole. Lets also say that the turntable is tracking the Suns gravity field (its actual position). Will the pointer on the turntable be pointing at* the light that you see or will it be leading or lagging that light by 2.1 degrees? (*Note: by "at" I mean "within about 20 arcseconds")
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

[grey_whiskers]

I'm back.

Courtesy mention and ping to allmendream, Fichori, LeGrane, mrjesse, as you are mentioned below.

I would suggest that you do a bit more study of the geocentric position within GR before replying.

I did better than that. I studied the thread.

Your quotes from Boyle, Einstein, Born, and Ellis appear in post 1187, while you were disputing with allmendream, who was responding to Fichori in 1155.

LeGrande and others (Fichori, LeGrande, mrjesse) were talking about the aberration of light, and you and allmendream were duking it out about GR and geocentrism.

I had not read your post 1187 when I wrote, and was not attempting to refute GR. My post actually said:

Depends a little on what we're trying to predict, eh? : Retrograde motion, epicycles, and all that. Some coordinate systems are chosen to simply the calculations *greatly*.

--This part of the post explicitly said, that the coordinate system was chosen for ease of use, not because one was "true" and the other "false".

Then I wrote:

And, if we are talking the orbit of Mercury, classical mechanics won't cut it to more than an approximation. This was an explicit statement that GR could account for things which classical physics could not.

So my beef wasn't with GR.

That being said --

regarding your quotes in post 1187...

I downloaded Einstein and Infeld from gigapedia, and searched for your quote. For some reason, I could not find the quote. I couldn't even find the names 'Ptolemy', or 'Copernicus', which should have survived translation. Do you have a link to another online source which contains this quote?

The reason I am asking, is that the closest parts of the discussion I could find in that text, were to the description of fixed vs. moving or accelerating systems, and the requirement that all laws of motion be invariant. It did not seem to be a discussion of which coordinate system would be the cleanest or easiest to manipulate in any given situation.

I have been unable to find a copy of Hoyle's work online for verification of context.

I have spent an hour trying to download Born's work, as I could not find it online for browsing, and I didn't want to wait for Amazon to deliver it :-)

And I could not find online a copy of the article by Ellis, only references to it: and most of those seemed to say that he was not talking about Ptolemaic or Copernican models, but about the expansion of the Universe. If you could point me to a copy of the complete text, I'd be grateful.

Sorry for the delay, but it was my wife's birthday. Lunch at The Good Earth was *very* nice and what followed was even better :-)

Cheers!

[LeGrande]

mrjesse - No, I'm not contradicting myself I'm contradiction your misquote of me - I did NOT say that you will continue to SEE the sun move - but that the sun will APPEAR to move (And I went on to explain that it was simply because the earth was rotating.)

I think I 'SEE' the problem. How can the sun 'appear' to be moving without you 'seeing' it move? You do know that apparent position is where you 'see' it don't you?

Previously you stated that you would only go on 'seeing' the sun moving, only if the Sun was orbiting the earth. Now do you agree that both situations (Sun orbiting vs Earth spinning) are equivalent?

My work is done : ) You have admitted that you were wrong and I am not going to argue over the definition of 'SEE' versus 'appear', they are the same. You can pretend to be Clinton and parse the definition of what is is, but I weary of that game.

[LeGrande]

--This part of the post explicitly said, that the coordinate system was chosen for ease of use, not because one was "true" and the other "false".

That is correct. They are equivalent. There is no absolute frame of reference. The only thing that is fixed is the speed of light. Time and distance are variables.

[grey_whiskers]

That is correct. They are equivalent. There is no absolute frame of reference. The only thing that is fixed is the speed of light. Time and distance are variables.

Yes: but some reference frames make setting up and solving the equations of motion *much* simpler than others.

Cheers!

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande: I think I 'SEE' the problem. How can the sun 'appear' to be moving without you 'seeing' it move? You do know that apparent position is where you 'see' it don't you?

The same way I can look out the car window and observer that the light pole appears to move. I know I'm not seeing the light pole itself move but rather the affects of my car moving. The reason I clarified that was because you were building your case on a misquote of me, and there is a slightly different meaning between "see" and "appear" because "see" has a stronger implication that something actually did happen ("I saw it with my own eyes!") whereas "appear" implies that the thing only appears so but it is known that it well may not be so. If you can't pick apart my agruments without changing the words in them then there's a problem with your defense :-)

Previously you stated that you would only go on 'seeing' the sun moving, only if the Sun was orbiting the earth.

I still maintain that I have not contradicted myself. If you're going to convince any thinking person that I have, you're going to have to do more then some vague references and grumble about "see" vs "appear" -- Provide links to the two contradicting things I said and quote them in context -- in other words, actually demonstrate that I contradicted myself. The fact is that you have told me many times that I was a lier and never once provided a single point in case where I said anything untrue - so a claim that I contradicted myself is certainly going to require some careful and ample evidence if it is to carry any weight.

Now do you agree that both situations (Sun orbiting vs Earth spinning) are equivalent?

Not when there is a third body (light) in motion.

My work is done : )

How can your work be done when you still haven't answered some simple questions? How can your work be done with you refuse to apply your reasoning to Pluto, for example?

You have admitted that you were wrong

I have not admitted that I was wrong. If so show us where! I still maintain that the sun is actually within about 20 arc seconds of where appears for an observer on earth at any point in time.

and I am not going to argue over the definition of 'SEE' versus 'appear', they are the same.

"See" and "appear" are not the same thing! I checked the dictionary. They are different! Of course you're the one who claimed that "mating and breeding are the same thing" - but again check the dictionary and they are not the same thing.



You can pretend to be Clinton and parse the definition of what is is, but I weary of that game.

If it was that game that you weary of, then how come you refuse to answer simple scientific questions for months, and then grumble about "see" vs "appear" ? The fact is that you'd rather fuss about any little thing you might contrive rather then answer the simple questions below! (And by the way, one of them is one you asked me but it's such a good one now I want you to answer it if your claims are true!)

So, please, just answer the following questions to show us that your work is indeed done!

Thanks,

-Jesse

The Red question - 12 light hour away planet:

For an observer on earth who is looking at a bright and stationary planet that is 12 light hours away and is above the earth's equator, at the instant that said planet appears in the east will it really be in the west? Will its gravity be pulling in the opposite direction of where the light appears to come from at that instant?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Green question: Pluto

For an observer on earth who looks up and sees Pluto when it is overhead and when it is 6.8 light hours away, at that instant in time, will Pluto really be about 102 degrees away from where it appears? Will it really appear directly overhead at the moment it is really below the horizon?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Blue question: if the sun were 10 light days away

If the sun were 10 light days away, and the earth was suddenly stopped, do you believe that the sun would continue to appear to rise and set for another 10 days?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Yellow question: Turntable at north pole tracking the sun

Let's say that you are standing on a turntable at the North Pole. Lets also say that the turntable (and its pointer) is tracking and pointing at the Suns gravity field (its actual position). Will the pointer on the turntable be pointing at* the light that you see or will it be leading or lagging that light by 2.1 degrees? (*Note: by "at" I mean "within about 20 arcseconds")
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Lavender question: 17 minute merry go around tilted toward Polaris

Let us say that I tilted up my merry go around so that it's top pointed directly at the north star (Polaris to be specific) and furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?
LeGrande's Answer: Just asked, Awaiting answer....

The Purple question: 17 minute merry go around on north pole

Let us say that I had a merry go around on the North Pole furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?
LeGrande's Answer: No answer yet.

The Aqua question: 17 minute day vs 17 minute merry go around revolution.

You said that If the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, the sun's optical image would be lagged 180 degrees from its real position.

But then you say that if I was on a merry go around that was turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, and the sun appeared on the horizon, the sun's apparent position would not be 180 degrees displaced from its actual position.

So how come, by your theory, would the earth's hypothetical rotational rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, for an observer on earth at an instant in time, cause the sun's gravitational pull and light to come from opposite directions from eachother, when for an observer on a merry go around turning at the same rate, it would not?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet.

[mrjesse]

Said grey_whiskers:--This part of the post explicitly said, that the coordinate system was chosen for ease of use, not because one was "true" and the other "false".

Replied LeGrande:That is correct. They are equivalent. There is no absolute frame of reference. The only thing that is fixed is the speed of light. Time and distance are variables.

But when there is a third body in motion (for example, light) then we can measure and calculate angles and distances between all three -- and now being orbited and spinning are no longer indistinguishable.

-Jesse

[GourmetDan]

"I downloaded Einstein and Infeld from gigapedia, and searched for your quote. For some reason, I could not find the quote. I couldn't even find the names 'Ptolemy', or 'Copernicus', which should have survived translation. Do you have a link to another online source which contains this quote?"

I used Google Books and searched for 'Ptolemy'. Google books finds that word on page 211 & 212 just as my quote says but says it's restricted.

Max Born's book is also available on google books and finds the word 'Thirring' on pg 344 just as the quote says. Also restricted.

Hoyle's book is available, don't know if you can still get a reprint of Ellis' SciAm article.

I guess you'll have to wait on Amazon.

Sorry for the delay, but it was my wife's birthday. Lunch at The Good Earth was *very* nice and what followed was even better :-)"

I can't imagine why you would think I would be interested in this info. I am not waiting expectantly for your return nor do I care what you and your wife do.

Please spare me.

[GourmetDan]

"That is correct. They are equivalent. There is no absolute frame of reference. The only thing that is fixed is the speed of light. Time and distance are variables."

No one ever said that the CS of geocentrism and geokineticism were shown to be either true or false. What is being said is that they are equivalent and there is no observational or physical way of distinguishing between them. The fact is that it could equally mean that the earth is not moving.

Also, saying there is 'no absolute frame of reference' is an assumption of GR not a demonstrated fact. And, GR does not require that the speed of light be fixed across time, only that it be the same throughout the entire universe at any point in time. That is a huge difference in meaning. If the speed of light is not fixed across time, then time and distance are not variables.

If you performed an experiment to detect the assumed motion of the earth about the sun, found no sign of said motion and then developed a theory that assumed that motion but had to be consistent with no evidence for it, you would have GR.

And again, let's not assume that ease of use represents reality because then you would have one reality within the earth-moon system and an opposite reality within the solar-system. That you choose to believe the solar-system CS is a philosophical choice, nothing more. That's what Ellis was saying.

What you guys fail to understand is that a huge number of things you accept as fact, are not.

[grey_whiskers]

I can't imagine why you would think I would be interested in this info. I am not waiting expectantly for your return nor do I care what you and your wife do.

You seemed to indicate that the timing of another poster's response was important (post 423)...

The last FReeper who was this irascible on a regular basis was RightWingProfessor (banned or opused, I'm not sure; he's now on Darwin Central).

Many posters exchange light pleasantries of this type over the course of a thread; maybe you're not used to it.

Cheers!

[LeGrande]

No one ever said that the CS of geocentrism and geokineticism were shown to be either true or false. What is being said is that they are equivalent and there is no observational or physical way of distinguishing between them. The fact is that it could equally mean that the earth is not moving.

Correct. It is called the equivalence principle. You can arbitrarily pick any point and call it fixed.

Also, saying there is 'no absolute frame of reference' is an assumption of GR not a demonstrated fact

Correct, science has no facts, just evidence.

And, GR does not require that the speed of light be fixed across time, only that it be the same throughout the entire universe at any point in time. That is a huge difference in meaning. If the speed of light is not fixed across time, then time and distance are not variables.

No, even if the speed of light isn't the same at all times, time and distance are still variables. You have just added a third variable.

If you performed an experiment to detect the assumed motion of the earth about the sun, found no sign of said motion and then developed a theory that assumed that motion but had to be consistent with no evidence for it, you would have GR.

You will have to explain yourself a little more. I have no idea about what you are trying to say.

And again, let's not assume that ease of use represents reality because then you would have one reality within the earth-moon system and an opposite reality within the solar-system. That you choose to believe the solar-system CS is a philosophical choice, nothing more.

A philosophical Choice? It depends on what you are studying or attempting to do. If you are planning a trip to the moon, you can use the Earth as a fixed reference point. If you are studying the planets it makes sense to use the Sun as a reference point. If you are studying the stars it makes sense to use the stars as a reference point. It is all relative.

That's what Ellis was saying.

I don't know who Ellis is.

What you guys fail to understand is that a huge number of things you accept as fact, are not.

There are no facts, just theory and evidence. Find some evidence to contradict the theories and you will invalidate them. That is science in a nut shell.

[LeGrande]

But when there is a third body in motion (for example, light) then we can measure and calculate angles and distances between all three -- and now being orbited and spinning are no longer indistinguishable.

Light is not a third body, that was Einsteins point. You can't use light to determine your absolute velocity, there is no aether (or fixed velocity for that matter). Did you miss my example of the people floating in space with radar guns?

The use of a third body for reference only changes the point of reference, which can be very helpful and it can simply be an arbitrary point, it doesn't have to be a 'body'. Did you not look at the Merry go Round animation that I linked to?

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:Light is not a third body,...

Now wait a second! You previously said "Light, is the moving part in the LRG" ! Early on in the discussion when you said that there was no difference between spinning and being orbited in a two body model I said "But if you bury a Laser Ring Gyro 10 feet deep on earth it'll tell you whether you're spinning or being orbited" and you said "The Gyro, LRG and pendulum are essentially the same thing and if you add them in you are adding in a third body and unnecessarily complicating the model."

And now you say that light is not a third body? Did you change your mind? or what? You, my friend, have contradicted yourself most brilliantly this time, have you not?!

I did see your example the people floating in space with radar guns but that's not an angular equation, which the lag of the sun is. I also saw your example of the merry go around and the football players (or whatever those creatures were.) They demonstrated 3 bodies in motion - the ground, the go around, and the ball. And it was obviously absurd to say that the merry go around was being orbited because look at the spiral the ball took! I mean maybe it was a foot ball, and I know they don't bounce nicely and they may not fly straight, but they don't fly that badly in a spiral!

The question at hand is not about frames of reference but whether, for an observer on earth, at a point in time, the sun appears 2.1 degrees behind its actual position or Pluto 102 degrees or a 12-light-hour planet, 180 degrees, or if an observer on the north pole on a merry go around turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes would see the sun appear in one direction while its actual and gravitational position were the exact opposite direction -- all, of course, at an instant in time.

And since we're discussing the earth, the sun, and the light that travels from the latter to the former on a course reasonably uninfluenced but either the sun or the earth, we must consider there to be 3 bodies in motion if we are to be able to discuss how far lagged the sun might or might not appear to be.

By the way, if you still think that "appear" and "see" are the same thing, here's an illustration that shows the difference:

Let's say I reported to you that "I saw a man coming out of a bank with a mask on and his pockets full of money. It appeared that he had robbed the bank."

See difference? What I saw was certain fact - I did see the man and so on and so forth in this example. Now whether he actually had indeed robbed the bank or not I do not know, only that in my judgment it appears that he had robbed the bank. But it could be that he just likes masks and had withdrawn money from his account.

To take it further, if I had then called the police and said "I saw a man rob a bank" or "I see a man who robbed a bank" I'd be lying since I didn't see it, and didn't even know for certain that he did rob the bank. The only honest thing I can say is that I saw him, and it appeared to me that he had robbed the bank.

Does that help?

-Jesse

The Red question - 12 light hour away planet:

For an observer on earth who is looking at a bright and stationary planet that is 12 light hours away and is above the earth's equator, at the instant that said planet appears in the east will it really be in the west? Will its gravity be pulling in the opposite direction of where the light appears to come from at that instant?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Green question: Pluto

For an observer on earth who looks up and sees Pluto when it is overhead and when it is 6.8 light hours away, at that instant in time, will Pluto really be about 102 degrees away from where it appears? Will it really appear directly overhead at the moment it is really below the horizon?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Blue question: if the sun were 10 light days away

If the sun were 10 light days away, and the earth was suddenly stopped, do you believe that the sun would continue to appear to rise and set for another 10 days?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Yellow question: Turntable at north pole tracking the sun

Let's say that you are standing on a turntable at the North Pole. Lets also say that the turntable (and its pointer) is tracking and pointing at the Suns gravity field (its actual position). Will the pointer on the turntable be pointing at* the light that you see or will it be leading or lagging that light by 2.1 degrees? (*Note: by "at" I mean "within about 20 arcseconds")
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Lavender question: 17 minute merry go around tilted toward Polaris

Let us say that I tilted up my merry go around so that it's top pointed directly at the north star (Polaris to be specific) and furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?
LeGrande's Answer: Just asked, Awaiting answer....

The Purple question: 17 minute merry go around on north pole

Let us say that I had a merry go around on the North Pole furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?
LeGrande's Answer: No answer yet.

The Aqua question: 17 minute day vs 17 minute merry go around revolution.

You said that If the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, the sun's optical image would be lagged 180 degrees from its real position.

But then you say that if I was on a merry go around that was turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, and the sun appeared on the horizon, the sun's apparent position would not be 180 degrees displaced from its actual position.

So how come, by your theory, would the earth's hypothetical rotational rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, for an observer on earth at an instant in time, cause the sun's gravitational pull and light to come from opposite directions from eachother, when for an observer on a merry go around turning at the same rate, it would not?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet.

[mrjesse]

PS. Sorry.

Said LeGrande:You can't use light to determine your absolute velocity,...

But you can use light to determine your absolute angular velocity! That's why the Laser Ring Gyro works. And that's why Foucault and Michelson were able to use the spinning mirror method.

So can you at least give me one good reason why you won't answer any of my color-coded questions?

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Resorting to a personal attack so soon?

Come now, you said that you are in the habit of thanking people when they show you were your errors reside, didn't you? You should thank me for showing you where your error really is. It's in your brain. Lodged like a maggot. Mrjesse has been trying to remove it, but you are an uncooperative patient.

[LeGrande]

But you can use light to determine your absolute angular velocity!

No you can't. There are no absolute velocities. All velocities are a relation to something else and light can't be that something else.

But you can use light to determine your absolute angular velocity! That's why the Laser Ring Gyro works. And that's why Foucault and Michelson were able to use the spinning mirror method.

What result do you get with your laser ring gyro on the equator? It tells you nothing, the point you seem to miss is that the laser ring gyro is a third body that you are referencing from, just like my example of the two men floating in space with a spaceship. If you assume that the spaceship is stationary, then you can determine the velocities and directions of the men with respect to the spaceship. The laser ring gyro is no more fixed than the spaceship.

So can you at least give me one good reason why you won't answer any of my color-coded questions?

I have answered those questions. You can answer those questions yourself if you can figure out what your reference frame is and what you mean by an 'instant' in time? When the light leaves the object or when the light is seen by the observer. You don't seem to understand that when you are looking at something you are seeing into the past.

There is no universal 'now'. Time and distance are variables. You should read up on the Michelson-Morley experiment, they tried to use light to determine the Earths velocity and failed. If you were correct that light can determine absolute angular velocity, Michelson and Morley would have succeeded : )

[LeGrande]

Come now, you said that you are in the habit of thanking people when they show you were your errors reside, didn't you? You should thank me for showing you where your error really is. It's in your brain. Lodged like a maggot. Mrjesse has been trying to remove it, but you are an uncooperative patient.

Ethan, thank you for the laugh : ) My wife is slow with the coffee this morning and I needed something to pick me up.

May you never change. I like you just the way you are.

[mrjesse]

Said MrJesse:But you can use light to determine your absolute angular velocity!

Replied LeGrande: No you can't. There are no absolute velocities. All velocities are a relation to something else and light can't be that something else.

Are you quibbling over the fact that I said "absolute angular velocity" rather then "absolute angular rate?" If there is no such thing as an absolute angular rate then how do you explain a gyro? Even a simple spinning weight works as a gyro. You know that! You're a pilot after all! Does your artificial horizon or your turn rate coordinator or your Gyro compass/heading indicator not work on the basis of absolute angular rate? Ever heard of Foucault's pendulum experiment?

What result do you get with your laser ring gyro on the equator? It tells you nothing,

Huh? A laser ring gyro works just fine to measure earth's rotation on the equator just like any other absolute reading gryo -- assuming of course you have the gyro oriented in the correct way to measure the rotation of the earth...! Do you really think that a top like this wouldn't work on the equator? Are you smoking varius weeds? [grin]

the point you seem to miss is that the laser ring gyro is a third body that you are referencing from, ..... The laser ring gyro is no more fixed than the spaceship.

Then how does the ring laser gyro know that the earth is rotating at about 360 degrees per 24 hours even when buried 10 feet deep? Don't you mean that the light inside the LRG is a third body, not the hardware part of the unit?

And you just got done saying that "Light is not a third body"!

I don't know if you knew this or not, but if you bury a ring laser gyro (or any good gyro for that matter) in the correct orientation, it will measure the earth's rotation. Now it has no idea where the sun is, or anything else - all it knows is that it's rotating -- and what, I ask you, is it basing its measurement off if not absolute angular velocity of zero?

I have answered those questions.

Yeah, yeah, you keep saying that. And I'm well aware that you've answered many questions that I didn't ask, even if they sounded similar. But if you answered the questions I asked, I sure don't remember it! And I also don't remember you ever providing links and saying to me "Here is where I answered that one."

But in any case, if you have already answered them, then would you please be so kind to answer them now as well? They are simple easy questions with short answers; it won't require a lot of thought or typing on your part. If you already answered them then you have nothing to fear from answering them again! (except of course, if you haven't answered them already, then I can see why you won't answer them now.)

You can answer those questions yourself if you can figure out what your reference frame is and what you mean by an 'instant' in time?

Oh I already answered them for myself -- but I came to the opposite conclusion that I expect you will. And I don't know if you know this, but in science, there are times when a measure can be taken of the angle between two things at an instant in time. For example, 2 cars are traveling the same speed down the road. How far apart are they? 20 feet. That 20 feet measurement is a valid measurement and is still valid even though now "frame of reference" was defined - well, actually, the frame of reference was defined - it was the distance of one car in a frame of reference of the other car - in other words, the distance between them, referenced to each other. And this is the same thing with my question, and this is why it is valid of me to ask you about the apparent displacement of the sun from its actual position - at an instant in time because the question is not one of rate but one of angular difference. And I don't know if you knew this, but it is possible for two things to have an angular difference at an instant in time.

When the light leaves the object or when the light is seen by the observer. You don't seem to understand that when you are looking at something you are seeing into the past.

Of course I understand that -- but you seem to not understand that the light's record of the sun is still true even though the record is 8.3 minutes old, because the sun hasn't moved since the record was made.

There is no universal 'now'. Time and distance are variables.

You're totally missing it! Back to my example of two cars which are both moving at the same rate: If they are moving at the same rate (and direction), then the distance between them will remain constant! so once we know them to be moving at the same rate, it is then valid to ask "What is the difference between them at any instant in time." -- Just like it is valid to ask regarding the 2.1 degrees or the 102 degrees for Pluto or the 180 degrees for the 17 minute day or whatever -- because since the sun moves at the same rate as it appears to move, it is therefore valid to ask about the angular difference at any point in time.

You should read up on the Michelson-Morley experiment, they tried to use light to determine the Earths velocity and failed. If you were correct that light can determine absolute angular velocity, Michelson and Morley would have succeeded : )

But Michelson did succeed in measuring absolute angular velocity! It was called the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment!

That's what I've been telling you all along! While light may not work to measure absolute linear velocity, it can be used to measure absolute angular velocity - and as a matter of fact is used for just that in laser ring gyros today!

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

Huh? A laser ring gyro works just fine to measure earth's rotation on the equator just like any other absolute reading gryo -- assuming of course you have the gyro oriented in the correct way to measure the rotation of the earth...! Do you really think that a top like this wouldn't work on the equator? Are you smoking varius weeds? [grin]

What can I say? Your ignorance is virtually limitless. Quote "When a Foucault pendulum is suspended on the equator, the plane of oscillation remains fixed relative to Earth... the angular speed, α (measured in clockwise degrees per sidereal day), is proportional to the sine of the latitude." Wiki Foucault pendulum.

Notice that they say that the plane of oscillation is the reference point, not that the plane of reference is fixed.

I don't know if you knew this or not, but if you bury a ring laser gyro (or any good gyro for that matter) in the correct orientation, it will measure the earth's rotation. Now it has no idea where the sun is, or anything else - all it knows is that it's rotating -- and what, I ask you, is it basing its measurement off if not absolute angular velocity of zero?

LOL No I didn't know it because it isn't true : ) It is just as valid to say that Foucault's pendulum is rotating and the Earth is fixed. It is only when you add a third point of reference (like the stars, or sun) that you can say that the an object is moving (rotating or otherwise) with respect to that reference.

Oh I already answered them for myself -- but I came to the opposite conclusion that I expect you will. And I don't know if you know this, but in science, there are times when a measure can be taken of the angle between two things at an instant in time. For example, 2 cars are traveling the same speed down the road. How far apart are they? 20 feet. That 20 feet measurement is a valid measurement and is still valid even though now "frame of reference" was defined - well, actually, the frame of reference was defined - it was the distance of one car in a frame of reference of the other car - in other words, the distance between them, referenced to each other. And this is the same thing with my question, and this is why it is valid of me to ask you about the apparent displacement of the sun from its actual position - at an instant in time because the question is not one of rate but one of angular difference. And I don't know if you knew this, but it is possible for two things to have an angular difference at an instant in time.

Take another look at the Merry Go Round, and visualize the ball as a photon. Notice that both observers are facing each other when the photon is emitted and when the photon is received, the person on the Merry go Round has his back to the receiver.

Which 'point in time' is the correct reference? When the photon is emitted (the observers are facing each other) or when the photon is seen (both observers are facing the same direction,180 degrees difference)? This is exactly the answer to your 12 light hour question.

You're totally missing it! Back to my example of two cars which are both moving at the same rate: If they are moving at the same rate (and direction), then the distance between them will remain constant! so once we know them to be moving at the same rate, it is then valid to ask "What is the difference between them at any instant in time."

No, I understand exactly what you are trying to say. Your problem is that you are implicitly using the Earth as your frame of reference for the two vehicles. If you eliminate the earth as your frame of reference then the vehicles are not moving at all.

[mrjesse]

Oh, this is starting to get fun!

Said LeGrande:What can I say? Your ignorance is virtually limitless.

You think I could sell some one Ebay and have plenty left over, huh? [grin]

Said MrJesse:Huh? A laser ring gyro works just fine to measure earth's rotation on the equator just like any other absolute reading gryo -- assuming of course you have the gyro oriented in the correct way to measure the rotation of the earth...! Do you really think that a top like this wouldn't work on the equator? Are you smoking varius weeds? [grin]

Replied LeGrande: Quote "When a Foucault pendulum is suspended on the equator, the plane of oscillation remains fixed relative to Earth... the angular speed, α (measured in clockwise degrees per sidereal day), is proportional to the sine of the latitude." Wiki Foucault pendulum.

Like I pointed out (See bold above) if you are going to try to measure the absolute rotation of the earth, and you have only a 1 axis gyro, you have to align that axis with the earth's rotation - just like using a tape measure - you can't measure the length of something by having the tape measure crosswise.

I guess you didn't know this, but the Foucault pendulum is a single axis gyro, and due to the construction thereof, its axis of measurement works best on the poles and not at all on the equator. But there are lots of other gyros which can be operated in any orientation (like those in airplanes, flywheel gyros and laser ring gyros) which can detect and measure the earth's rotation even on the equator, simply by starting out the gyro with it's axle pointing either up or down or east or west. (or any direction not north and south.)

So it is most absurd for you to say that since the Foucault pendulum doesn't work on the equator that therefore no type of gyro works on the equator -- because not all gyros are constructed in such a way that their operation is limited to a certain orientation.

So on the poles, you could measure the absolute angular rate/velocity of the earth with a Foucault pendulum. Using a correctly oriented gyro of other types (like spinning flywheel, laser ring gyro) you can measure absolute angular rate of the earth at any point in or on the earth.

And do you notice that they mention "sidereal day?" Do you know what that means? Even the Foucault pendulum measures the absolute angular rate of the earth's rotation - regardless of the sun's position! In other words, the star-referenced direction of the sun changes throughout the year, and yet a good gyro can not only track and measure the earth's rotation each day, but it can also track and measure the earth's rotation of 1 turn per year! And you think there's no such thing as absolute angular rate?

Said MrJesse: I don't know if you knew this or not, but if you bury a ring laser gyro (or any good gyro for that matter) in the correct orientation, it will measure the earth's rotation. Now it has no idea where the sun is, or anything else - all it knows is that it's rotating -- and what, I ask you, is it basing its measurement off if not absolute angular velocity of zero?

Responded LeGrande: LOL No I didn't know it because it isn't true : )

You don't think that a gyro can track the earth's rotation? How about that. Anyway, if you really believe that a correctly oriented gyro of good enough quality cannot track the earth's rotation when placed anywhere on or in the earth, then you should read this or go search google or go to the library yourself. Trust me - absolute reading gyros can be used to measure the absolute angular rate of the earth!(I mean if you are certain that there is no gyro that can be used to measure the absolute rotational rate of the earth by placing it anywhere on the earth, then you go ahead and provide some evidence or articles to that affect - but I'm telling you, you're wrong. I've provided a link that demonstrates that you are wrong.)

And if you did have a Foucault pendulum on the north pole, just why do you suppose it's turning strangely at the rate of the earth? What gets it spinning, anyway? If the Foucault pendulum is not tracking absolute zero angular rate, then what is it doing and why does it pick that speed?

And if it's not tracking absolute zero angular rate, then what is it tracking? It's obviously tracking something -- and it's not the sun!.

It is just as valid to say that Foucault's pendulum is rotating and the Earth is fixed. It is only when you add a third point of reference (like the stars, or sun) that you can say that the an object is moving (rotating or otherwise) with respect to that reference.

Sorry dude, I'm not buying your claim when the evidence is to the contrary. The earth could spin at any speed, but it would take force to change its rotational velocity. The gyro goes at zero angular rate as compared to the stars. If you're going to say that that's not absolute zero angular rate then you'd better provide some nice evidence.

Take another look at the Merry Go Round, ...

Sorry, not now. You refuse to answer my color coded questions. And you have contradicted yourself on whether light is or is not a third body. You contradict science when you say that it's not true that a gyro cannot measure the absolute rotational rate of the earth. I've already seen the merry go around and given you my response.

I also know that you keep trying to move this to a discussion of "frame of reference" when the questions I'm asking don't require any such discussion - but that's just another outworking of your desire to change the subject.

Which 'point in time' is the correct reference? When the photon is emitted (the observers are facing each other) or when the photon is seen (both observers are facing the same direction,180 degrees difference)?

You're not getting it, are you. Remember, we are talking about the constant angular displacement between the suns actual and apparent position. Since the distance to the sun is more or less unchanging (close enough for our discussion) and since the apparent rotational rate of the sun (in other words, the rotational rate of the earth) is also reasonably constant, any apparent displacement of the sun will also be constant. Thus, it doesn't matter which point in time - it doesn't matter whether it's yesterday, or tomorrow, the day you were born, or in 50 years - since all the parameters are the same, the apparent angular displacement will be the same - it doesn't matter which point in time. Your football merry go around demo may only send out one photon, but the sun really sends out a constant flood of light.

This is exactly the answer to your 12 light hour question.

Hey, speaking of your merry go around demo, doesn't that prove that if I was on a merry go around turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes - that the sun would appear in the exact opposite direction of it's gravitational pull?

Said MrJesse:You're totally missing it! Back to my example of two cars which are both moving at the same rate: If they are moving at the same rate (and direction), then the distance between them will remain constant! so once we know them to be moving at the same rate, it is then valid to ask "What is the difference between them at any instant in time."

Replied LeGrande:
No, I understand exactly what you are trying to say. Your problem is that you are implicitly using the Earth as your frame of reference for the two vehicles. If you eliminate the earth as your frame of reference then the vehicles are not moving at all.

How am I implicitly using the earth as a frame of reference? I never said with reference to what they were going x miles per hour. The only frame of reference I gave in an absolute way was that they were both going the same speed and in the same direction one ahead of the other, and that they were a certain distance apart. In other words, my frame of reference was the other car. Same thing goes for the sun and its apparent position: Since the lag (if any) and rates are all constant, the only question left is "How far apart are they."

By the way, you said "When someone shows me an error that I have been making, I thank them.". And then you said "If you were correct that light can determine absolute angular velocity, Michelson and Morley would have succeeded : )".

Then I pointed out to you that "Michelson did succeed in measuring absolute angular velocity! It was called the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment!"

As a matter of fact, I've pointed out quite a few points where you've been in error - and I've used sources so you can go read it for yourself! And yet you provide no supporting sources for your claims. In your opinion, have I ever told you something that you didn't already know? Or do you really see yourself as 100% correct in this discussion and me as 100% wrong?

I simply cannot fathom how you can make such claims, and stick behind them for so long (seven months!) even though we've provided so much scientific material that counters your claims and even though you haven't provided a single scientific material that supports your claims. What's going on? I mean, are you like the brightest person since good old Albert E. ? Are your ideas just such new and amazing that nobody else has ever had them? Unless you are the inventor and pioneer in the field, there has got to be some other scientific writings that support your views. But there sure don't seem to be any!

Is this just a matter of faith for you? You know it must be true so therefore it is? Amazing. How could somebody go on for so long believing something that is scientifically unsupported -- and as a matter of fact, scientifically refuted, unless it is by pure faith? Please help me understand! I mean, just imagine what it'd be like to believe with all your heart in something that you claimed was purely scientific and yet for which you could not present a shred of scientific support or evidence!

Please explain!

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

Take another look at the Merry Go Round, ...

Sorry, not now. You refuse to answer my color coded questions.

The Merry Go Round example answers the color coded questions.

Enjoy : )

[GourmetDan]

"You seemed to indicate that the timing of another poster's response was important (post 423)..."

Or maybe you just misunderstood what I was saying. Trust me, I'm not interested in what you and your wife do, how much you enjoy it, where you went to dinner or when you'll reply.

"Many posters exchange light pleasantries of this type over the course of a thread; maybe you're not used to it."

If you think that's 'light pleasantries', I'd hate to see what you consider graphic.

[GourmetDan]

"I don't know who Ellis is."

"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

[mrjesse]

The Merry Go Round example answers the color coded questions.

Enjoy : )

Ahah! All along you've been saying that you have answered my questions. Now you say that the merry go around example answers them. But the merry go around example doesn't answer my questions! My questions are specific and have answers like "Yes, No," or perhaps some numbers like "180 degrees." So when you say that you answered my questions you really mean just like the merry go around example did -- which is not really! So you haven't answered my questions all this time and you've been saying that you have! But in order for me to know that you really believe your theory, I need you to personally answer my color coded questions specifically.

Look... You've asked me lots of specific questions with numbers or "yes/no" for answer, and I've answered many of them. You well know that science won't get anywhere without answering specific questions.

So when you refuse to actually personally answer my color coded questions, the only conclusion that I can logically come to is that you are outright lying in your claim of 2.1 degrees for an observer on earth at an instant in time, and that you are outright lying in saying that you have answered my questions -- and that you know full well that you're lying.

How can I (or anyone else) logically come to any other conclusion when you refuse to apply your claims to some simple questions?

-Jesse

PS: You still haven't answered my comment about Foucault's pendulum tracking absolute angular rate of zero, or about Michelson detecting the rotational rate of the earth with light. Or for that matter any of the other numerous cases where you've made a scientifically incorrect statement and I've provided evidence to the contrary. Everything together convinces me that you must be knowingly lying. How can I come to any other conclusion? Am I just immeasurably stupid? Sometimes it feels like it. If I was just ignorant, you could just show me the scientific reports which support your claim and then I wouldn't be ignorant about that anymore. But as it is no matter how hard I try, things you say still don't make sense or seem honest.

[LeGrande]

Am I just immeasurably stupid? Sometimes it feels like it. If I was just ignorant, you could just show me the scientific reports which support your claim and then I wouldn't be ignorant about that anymore. But as it is no matter how hard I try, things you say still don't make sense or seem honest.

I don't think you are stupid. You simply don't have a good grasp of basic concepts. You are correct that many basic concepts don't initially make sense. Anyone dropping a bowling ball and a feather can clearly see that the bowling ball drops faster than the feather, and except for exceptional circumstances, that observation is correct. You seem to be stuck at that point.

It is hard to explain why everything falls at the same rate. We know the answer, but if I tell you the answer, you will think that I am lying : ) because the answer won't make intuitive sense to you.

If you really want to understand reality, it requires that you take a viewpoint different from yourself and your preconceptions. Everyone's preconceptions are wrong, it is impossible to completely understand reality, but the journey is fun : )

[grey_whiskers]

Or maybe you just misunderstood what I was saying. Trust me, I'm not interested in what you and your wife do, how much you enjoy it, where you went to dinner or when you'll reply.

Yes, but *I* am. It's common courtesy when delaying a reply to mention why; and most people can relate to talk birthday dinners with a spouse.

If you think that's 'light pleasantries', I'd hate to see what you consider graphic.

Maybe you should read some of Laz's posts...

Cheers!

(Laz, sorry to drag you into this, just a courtesy ping since your name was mentioned.)

[Lazamataz]

This is a tree house.

[gondramB]

That’s a helluva tree house.

[Hoplite]

Prime!

<sigh>