Replies

Okay, I’m convinced. Now what?

“Okay, I’m convinced. Now what?”

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

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

But it depends on what causes the displacement in the first place.

Said tacticalogic:Okay, I’m convinced. Now what?

I guess that depends on what you're convinced of..!

Considering that LeGrande's original statement was:

when you look at the Sun, you are seeing it about 7 minutes behind where it actually is, but if you had a sensitive gravity sensor where would it point? At the sun you see or 7 minutes ahead of the sun you see?

(For the sake of our discussion, we were assuming that the gravitational pull of the sun pointed towards its actual current position, and his claim was that because the earth rotates in the 8.3 minutes, that the light would arrive at a different angle then the gravity.)

And later he said:

The suns actual position and gravitational position do line up. The apparent position doesn't though, it is off by 2.1 degrees like you indicated.

And he also said:

LOL The 2.1 degrees is is exactly related to the light-time correction and the distance of the earth from the the sun. If the Sun was closer the angle would be smaller, and if the sun was further away the angle would be larger.

See? he says that if the sun was farther, the angle would be greater. So why won't he answer the question "What if the sun were 12 light hours away?"

And he said:

When you see the light from the Sun, is the Sun exactly where you see the light coming from it or is the Suns position off by the amount of time it took for the light to get to the Earth from the Sun (8.3 minutes) and the angular rotation of the earth, 2.1 degrees (your frame of reference) that occurs in 8.3 minutes?

Now maybe he's just a little confused and really doesn't understand it but is trying to be honest. So far with the information I've provided above, such could be the case. But now I ask (and have been asking for months) for him to apply his exact reasoning to an imaginary sun that was 12 light hours away - and all the sudden he refuses and refuses and refuses to answer that one..!

Now he's not being honest. If he really believed that he was correct in his understanding, he would be willing to apply his same math and method to a hypothetical sun that was 12 light hours away. But he knows that we'll all know he's wrong if he were to claim that the sun would show up in the east while its gravitational (and actual position) were in the west, or that Pluto (at up to 6.8 light hours away (which equates to 102 degrees) wouldn't even really be in the night sky when we looked up and saw it at night. He has got to know he's wrong, and yet he continues to proclaim it as truth.

So in answer to your question "Now what?" I will ask you - will you join Fichori, Ethan Clive Osgoode, and me in saying that LeGrande must know he's wrong and yet refuses to admit it and continues to argue for what he has got to know is a lie?

Does that help any? I'm hoping your the honest type to not go along with a lie.

-Jesse