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

Skip to comments.

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

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

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

snip...

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

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


TOPICS: Education; Science
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; intelligentdesign; notasciencetopic; oldearthspeculation; piltdownman; propellerbeanie; spammer; toe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,151-1,2001,201-1,2501,251-1,3001,301-1,329 next last
To: GourmetDan

Hmm, it looks like he isn’t distinguishing between the Sun orbiting the Earth, and the Earth being at or very near the center of the Universe.


1,201 posted on 02/04/2009 5:37:53 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1191 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
Did I overlook some formalities?

Not that I know of, but we're at 1200 posts and several days. I might well have lost track of some stuff.

1,202 posted on 02/04/2009 5:41:25 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1200 | View Replies]

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

There would still be a lag with the stationary system, but the apparent and actual position would be identical.

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

As before, the apparent position and actual position would be identical.

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

Same as before, the only thing that changes is the direction that the observer is facing.

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

The lag is due to the time it takes for light to travel from the Sun to the Earth combined with the Earth's angular rotation.

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

Just the surface speed of the observer combined with the velocity of the Earths orbital speed gives you that tiny ~.006º difference, that is not what I am trying to explain.

1,203 posted on 02/04/2009 5:54:49 PM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1186 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
“The lag is due to the time it takes for light to travel from the Sun to the Earth combined with the Earth's angular rotation.” [excerpt]
Is the lag present when observed from the North or South poles?
1,204 posted on 02/04/2009 6:06:40 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1203 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
Is the lag present when observed from the North or South poles?

It always takes apx. 8.3 minutes for the light to get to the Earth from the Sun. An observer on a pole sees the Sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago.

Let's make the question more interesting : ) 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?

Here is another question for you. A sextant is pointed at the Sun from our spinning Earth, then the Earths rotation is stopped (we have an inertia less system). Will the Suns apparent motion immediately stop or will it stop in 8.3 minutes?

Or the question in reverse. You are looking at the Sun in the sky. The Sun is turned off. Will you see the Sun traveling across the sky for another 8.3 minutes or will the Sun appear to stop in the sky for 8.3 minutes until it goes dark?

I am also curious about your answer to my question about your lazer ring gyro?

1,205 posted on 02/04/2009 7:37:01 PM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1204 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Ethan Clive Osgoode

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


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

Sirius is receding from the sun about 150,000,000 miles per year so a first order answer would be about about 1.3 billion miles further away than it looks... plus or minus the 186 million miles that earths position from the sun varies.

Then you’d consider that Sirius only looks like a single star - its actually two stars orbiting each other...

At least that’s my guess... I have a physics degree but stayed the heck away from astronomy.


1,206 posted on 02/04/2009 10:28:26 PM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1174 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; Fichori
Said LeGrande:It always takes apx. 8.3 minutes for the light to get to the Earth from the Sun. An observer on a pole sees the Sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago.

The observer sure will see the sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago -- but the problem with your reasoning is that since the sun still is (relative to the earth) where it was 8.3 minutes ago, where it is is where it was, and so the light will still appear to come from where the sun is (not considering, of course, the 20 arcseconds from the observer's transverse velocity.)

Let's make the question more interesting : ) 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?

If the sun were orbiting the earth, then the pointer would point 2.1 degrees ahead of the apparent position of the sun because the sun would have actually moved 2.1 degrees since the light left it. But since the sun is still where it was 8.3 minutes ago, the light will still be coming from the same place that the sun is - so the arrow will really point at the sun as far as Light-time correction goes (but will appear 20 arcseconds displaced due to the observer's transverse velocity - but 20 arcseconds is nothing compared to 2.1 degrees!)

Is it not true that you believe that the answer to your above question would be "The arrow will point 2.1 degrees ahead of the apparent position of the sun?"

Here is another question for you. A sextant is pointed at the Sun from our spinning Earth, then the Earths rotation is stopped (we have an inertia less system). Will the Suns apparent motion immediately stop or will it stop in 8.3 minutes?

Since the sun neither knows nor cares that the earth is turning, and since it's light radiates in an approximately straight line from sun to earth, and since the sun's apparent position is within 20 arc seconds of its actual position, the moment the earth stopped rotating the sun's apparent motion would also stop.

Is it not true that you believe that the answer to your question would be "The sun would continue to move across the sky for another 8.3 minutes?"

Furthermore, to make the question more interesting, let me slightly modify your above question: what if the sun were 10 light days away, and the earth was suddenly stopped? Is it not true that you believe that the sun would continue to appear to rise and set for another 10 days? What do you think? Does the sun's light wind up around the earth like a tape measure spring just because the earth is rotating in place? Do you believe that at any instant, the path that the sun's light takes to reach the earth spirals around? I mean, if the sun was orbiting the earth, yeah! but the earth pretty much orbits the sun.

Or the question in reverse. You are looking at the Sun in the sky. The Sun is turned off. Will you see the Sun traveling across the sky for another 8.3 minutes or will the Sun appear to stop in the sky for 8.3 minutes until it goes dark?

That's a silly statement - but you asked it. Of course the sun will still appear to move at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes because that's the rate the earth is rotating at. But every last lightwave will strike the earth within about 20 arcseconds of the direction of the sun.

I am also curious about your answer to my question about your lazer ring gyro?


What you're saying basically is "If you operate that laser ring gyro in a way which cannot measure the rotation it will not be able to measure the rotation." But it's not a particularly sound method of making a point to say that a certain tool can never work just because if used incorrectly it won't work.

So - how about answering your own above (and my) questions, just for fun?

Thanks

-Jesse
1,207 posted on 02/04/2009 10:40:32 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1205 | View Replies]

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

In other words, if set up at the wrong angle to measure the rotation in question? Who in their right mind would do that?

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

But this is a 3 body system we're talking about - the sun's light is the third body and it is not true to say that for a 3 body system there is no difference between rotating and being orbited. (I'm not even sure its true in a two body system if one takes into account mass.)

So when the light takes on its own path after leaving the sun, now it does matter whether the sun moves from its place after emitting the light.

What has mrjesse been saying then?

Easy. I've been saying that for an observer on earth, at any instant in time, the sun's apparent position will be different then its actual position by only about 20 arc seconds, and almost entirely due to the observer's transverse velocity as the earth flies through space on the path of its yearly journey around the sun.

Furthermore, I have been asking you, this:

For an observer on earth at an instant in time, for a stationary (relative to earth) planet that was bright and 12 light hours away and above earth's equator, where would it appear to be as compared to where it really was? Would its gravity pull to the east while its light came from the west?

Such a simple question and you have heretofore refused to answer it! I mean, it's so simple!

As a matter of fact, you keep trying to shift this over to a simple rate issue and try to prove your point by demonstrating that the sun appears to move across the sky at the rate of 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes - but I have been explicitly clear that I'm talking about an instantanious angular displacement between actual and apparent position for an observer on earth.

So how about it? Why not answer the question and get it over with? What could be so hard about it?

Thanks,

-Jesse
1,208 posted on 02/04/2009 10:57:18 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1196 | View Replies]

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

Welcome back! how was the flight?

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 : )

The reason a spinning earth and orbiting sun aren't equivalent is because the light emitted from the sun, once set on its course, stays on course even if the sun moves. So if the earth is rotating, the sunlight which hits the earth will be between the sun and the earth on its 8.3 minute journey. But if the sun is orbiting the earth once every 24 hours instead of the earth rotating, then by the time the sunlight reaches the earth, the sun will have moved 2.1 degrees and the light won't be coming from the direction of the sun anymore - and will no longer be exactly between the sun and the earth at all times of its travel. (This would be easier to see if the earth were 12 light hours away from the sun.)

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.

Yeah, unless there's a third body in the works that marks where the sun used to be (like the light that it emitted) -- then all of the sudden it makes a difference whether the sun moved or not :-)

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.

This indicates only the rate - and has nothing whatsoever to do with the instantanious angular displacement between actual and apparent position. This same experiment would give the exact same results regardless of how much lagged the sun was or how many light minutes it was away -- as long as the rate was 2.1deg/8.3minutes.

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.

Again, this only demonstrates rate - not instantanious angular displacement.

MrJesse apparently believes that both stakes are pointing at the suns actual instantaneous position.

I believe no such thing! I have always "admitted" (more like freely and cheerfully stated) that the earth rotates at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes.

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.

If the ball is in my court then how come you won't answer my question? specifically this one?:

For an observer on earth at an instant in time who was looking at a relatively (to earth) stationary and bright planet which was above the equator (of earth) and was 12 light hours away -- where would it appear as compared to where it was? Would it's gravity really pull east while it's light came from the west? Simple question.

The ball is not in my court. I answer your questions and you just ask more, often not even answering your own (but I do hope you will answer your own in that other post in which I asked you to answer your own!)

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.

Like I already said - if the sun is not moving, then the light will appear to come (within 20 arc seconds) from where the sun is because the sun is still where it was 8.3 minutes ago. But if sun has moved 2.1 degrees since emitting said light, then it won't be where it was by the time its light hits the earth, so the light will come from where the sun was (but no longer is) because that's where the sun was when it emitted it.

You've got to understand that the path of light from the sun does not contort itself just because the earth is rotating!

And by the way, if you think I'm making this up just search google (or your favorite library) for the term "Stellar Aberration" and "Light-time Correction" and you will see that it most certainly does matter whether the motion is on the part of the observer or the emitter. Light-time-correction is the apparent angular displacement caused by a distant and moving light emitter (and is a function of distance and emitter transverse velocity), and Stellar Aberration is the apparent angular displacement due to the transverse velocity of the observer - and is not affected by distance to the light source.

So how about answering my question? Thanks!

-Jesse

(Repeated here for clarity - my question:)

For an observer on earth at an instant in time who was looking at a relatively (to earth) stationary and bright planet which was above the equator (of earth) and was 12 light hours away -- where would it appear as compared to where it was? Would it's gravity really pull east while it's light came from the west? Simple question.
1,209 posted on 02/04/2009 11:49:17 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1178 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Fichori; LeGrande
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
1,210 posted on 02/05/2009 12:43:59 AM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1193 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; Fichori; Ethan Clive Osgoode; LeGrande
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.

LeGrande and I have already discussed this. We seem to be in general agreement on some points, and we may still disagree on others.

I have no inclination see no good reason to join what appears to be a personal vendetta over whatever remaining difference of opinion we may have on the subject, so NO.

1,211 posted on 02/05/2009 3:32:38 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1210 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Got it. If it’s stationary to you, time-light isn’t a factor.

Otherwise incredibly bizarre things happen. Consider it. Pluto, though apparently in Sagittarius, would "actually" be far off in a different constellation altogether. Any star that is near an integer multiple of 1 light day distant would actually be near its apparent position. Any star near (n + 1/2) light day away would be 180 degrees away on the diurnal circle. So if you are looking at a galaxy near the celestial equator, half those stars would be "actually" in front of you, and the other half behind you somewhere, if this notion were true.

If you’re rotating relative to it, aberration is but I’m still not convinced that’s a fixed value.

Diurnal aberration (aberration due to the rotation of the earth) is an incredibly small effect (0.3 arcsec) that varies with latitude. The only way for the sun's real position to be 2.1 degrees in advance of its apparent position is if the sun is orbiting the earth at 11,000 km/s.

1,212 posted on 02/05/2009 6:05:05 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1179 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; GourmetDan; Fichori
WHAT FORCE COULD MOVE THE SUN AROUND THE EARTH WHILE LEAVING THE EARTH MOTIONLESS?

Your all-caps spectacle is all very amusing of course, because while you revile the other poster, you yourself have said that science cannot prove that the earth goes around the sun. And, on top of that, according to you it cannot even be said that 'the earth goes around the sun' is true:

[allmendream] nothing in science is ever “proven”.

[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


1,213 posted on 02/05/2009 6:26:02 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1192 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse
Or the question in reverse. You are looking at the Sun in the sky. The Sun is turned off. Will you see the Sun traveling across the sky for another 8.3 minutes or will the Sun appear to stop in the sky for 8.3 minutes until it goes dark?

That's a silly statement - but you asked it. Of course the sun will still appear to move at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes because that's the rate the earth is rotating at. But every last lightwave will strike the earth within about 20 arcseconds of the direction of the sun.

Where exactly was the Sun when it was shut off? Where you where looking when it was shut off or where it was 8.3 minutes and 2.1 degrees later when it went dark?

1,214 posted on 02/05/2009 6:27:50 AM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1207 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Prove? Of course not. But the model of Heliocentricity explains observations more elegantly and by a known mechanism...gravity. That is a scientific model, not “TRUTH”, nor “proven”.

And of course nowhere in your post did you supply any hypothetical force that could move the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless.

Do you think the Sun circles the Earth? Or do you suppose that anybody who takes such a position just displays their intransigence in the face of overwhelming data?

1,215 posted on 02/05/2009 8:05:03 AM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1213 | View Replies]

To: ToGodBeTheGlory
Well it certainly isn't Gravity. Nice of you to admit that ONLY the power of God applied directly every moment of every day could explain such a preposterous model that has a massive object in orbit to a much less massive object.

Do you suppose that the Sun really does circles the Earth?

1,216 posted on 02/05/2009 8:06:53 AM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1197 | View Replies]

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

Um, under GR coordinate systems are physically indistinguishable.

That's why Hoyle said:

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

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

"WHAT FORCE COULD MOVE THE SUN AROUND THE EARTH WHILE LEAVING THE EARTH MOTIONLESS? Your inability to answer amuses me to no end."

You insistence on asking a question that is not relevant to the issue amuses me to no end.

1,217 posted on 02/05/2009 4:02:42 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1192 | View Replies]

To: 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?

1,218 posted on 02/05/2009 5:51:44 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1217 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; tacticalogic; Ethan Clive Osgoode; Fichori
Said LeGrande:Where exactly was the Sun when it was shut off? Where you were looking when it was shut off or where it was 8.3 minutes and 2.1 degrees later when it went dark? (corrected)

I know this is a hard thing for you to grasp, but if the sun was shut off, the light that it had already emitted would continue on its path just as it otherwise would have. And since the sun is still where it was 8.3 minutes ago, where it is is still where it was - so the light that reaches the earth will still be coming from the exact direction of the sun's current position. Maybe this will help you:


So in answer to your question I'm telling you that the sun was within about 20 arc seconds of where it appeared to be when it was shut off, and the apparent position of the sun will still continue to be within about 20 arc seconds of its actual position for the remainder of the 8.3 minutes.

Let's not forget that you are still refusing to answer my questions and even your own questions. See the theme? I ask a question, and you counter with a question which I answer and I ask a question, and you counter with a question... and you will not answer mine even though you keep asking more and I keep answering more! Why? Give me one good reason why you won't answer my questions! (or even your own questions which I asked you to answer!)

It is most dishonest of you to claim that your statements are true when you refuse to apply your own math and method to a sun that was 12 light hours away or to Pluto which can be up to 6.8 light hours away.

How about this: You said that if the earth rotated 180 degrees in 8.3 minutes, the optical image of the sun would be lagged 180 degrees from the real position.

So I ask this - if I prop up my merry go around so that it's top points right towards the north star, and then I get it rotating (relative to the sun) at 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes and climb up on it, now tell me this - will the sun's light appear in the east at the point in time when the sun's gravity appears in the west?

I mean if you believe you're telling the truth then all you have to do to demonstrate it is apply your claims to a few other simple scenarios. What have you got to lose, really? Several honest people have already come to the conclusion that you are wrong. And even though folks who's religion is Atheism or Naturalism or AllFromNothing won't have the decency to tell you that you're wrong, they know it too. So there's only one thing worse then being wrong and that is being wrong and knowing it and everyone else knowing it and yet you refuse to admit it.

So why not answer my questions? Or even your own questions as I pointed out in my previous post to you?

Thanks,

-Jesse

If the sun were 12 light hours away, for an observer on earth at a point in time, how far displaced would the apparent position be from the actual position of the sun? Would the sun really appear in the east at the moment it was actually in the west?

And if your claims are true then how come you can't find a single scientific source that also says so? Are you like a great scientist and you're the first one that realized that Pluto would appear to be displaced from it's actual position by 102 degrees?
1,219 posted on 02/05/2009 8:52:00 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1214 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”

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*.

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

Cheers!

1,220 posted on 02/05/2009 8:54:00 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1217 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Fichori; Ethan Clive Osgoode; LeGrande
Said TacticalogicLeGrande and I have already discussed this. We seem to be in general agreement on some points, and we may still disagree on others.

But what about the point in question - as to whether, for an observer on earth, at an instant in time, the sun's apparent position will be 2.1 degrees behind its actual position? Do you agree with LeGrande on that one? Even though his same math and method would put Pluto out of the night sky when seen in the night sky? And even though there are no supporting scientific reports? And even though there are plenty of scientific reports which describe the sun having an apparent instantanious displacement of about 20 arcseconds -- not 2.1 degrees?

If you Believe in spite all of that, or if you believe that LeGrande sincerely believes, then the only conclusion I can come to is that you're of the same religion (Atheism, Naturalism, whatever it may be) of LeGrande and you'd take just about any absurd thing by faith if it was said by someone of your religion. I thought you might have practiced some logic at some point in your history, judging by the looks of your nickname.

I have no inclination see no good reason to join what appears to be a personal vendetta over whatever remaining difference of opinion we may have on the subject, so NO.

Differences of opinion? Uhh, this is science we're talking about here. We're talking about whether there is a 2.1 degree instantanious apparent angular displacement of the sun, or whether Pluto is apparently 102 degrees displaced. Simple math and geometry.

Is that how you arrive at your scientific knowledge -- pick some feller who's opinion you like then just take his opinion as gospel?

And this takes me exactly right back to my earlier statement - the fact is that there are lots of folks like you and LeGrande who love to teaching wrong ideas that they know is wrong in order to further their agenda -- and of course none of them will counter their fellow Believers even though they know things aren't right -- and I maintain that this is indeed why science education is today in such shambles.

But a lie is a lie!

The fact that LeGrande refuses to answer the my question ("What if the sun were 12 light hours away..") and refuses (or is unable) to provide a single supporting scientific article - these facts tell me that LeGrande must know that he's wrong and is therefor intentionally knowingly lying.

-Jesse
1,221 posted on 02/05/2009 9:14:00 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1211 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse
Uhh, this is science we're talking about here.

I don't think so.

If you Believe in spite all of that, or if you believe that LeGrande sincerely believes, then the only conclusion I can come to is that you're of the same religion (Atheism, Naturalism, whatever it may be) of LeGrande and you'd take just about any absurd thing by faith if it was said by someone of your religion. I thought you might have practiced some logic at some point in your history, judging by the looks of your nickname.

This is about going after people because of their religious belifs, and I'm not going to help you do that.

1,222 posted on 02/06/2009 3:27:50 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1221 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; metmom; Fichori; tpanther
And this takes me exactly right back to my earlier statement - the fact is that there are lots of folks like you and LeGrande who love to teaching wrong ideas that they know is wrong in order to further their agenda -- and of course none of them will counter their fellow Believers even though they know things aren't right -- and I maintain that this is indeed why science education is today in such shambles.

Yes, this gets to the core of the problem. If there wasn't something fundamentally wrong with Darwinians then there would be no need for them to support Darwinism with so many specious and mendacious arguments as they constantly do. And the same applies to atheists who blather about physics; who cast their weird lobotomized ideas into scientific-sounding form and then force others to accept them, on pain of being called science-deniers if they resist. This farcical abuse of science has been going on a long time, as you can see from the following exposure:

Clodd's Primer of Evolution.
I suppose that the reason why atheists knowingly teach scientific and philosophical perversions under the aegis of scientific authority, is to wear down the brains of their victims until nothing at all makes sense: there is neither truth nor falsity; nothing can be proved; fact and fairytale are indistinguishable; everything is an illusion of bouncing atoms and waves of nothing; the Sun is 2.1 degrees away from where you see it; monkeys change into people; and so on. Nothing wearies the mind more than a steady diet of lies and fallacies. This conditioning admirably prepares the unfortunate victim's brain for its destiny as a receptacle of atheism.
1,223 posted on 02/06/2009 5:59:57 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1221 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
[Freedom is earned not given.] Well, America's Founding Fathers didn't believe this, but it's a popular phrase with Darwinists. I've never heard it before.
1,224 posted on 02/06/2009 6:47:51 AM PST by quasarsphere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; tacticalogic; Ethan Clive Osgoode; Fichori
mrjesse - So in answer to your question I'm telling you that the sun was within about 20 arc seconds of where it appeared to be when it was shut off, and the apparent position of the sun will still continue to be within about 20 arc seconds of its actual position for the remainder of the 8.3 minutes.

mrjesse - That's a silly statement - but you asked it. Of course the sun will still appear to move at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes because that's the rate the earth is rotating at. But every last lightwave will strike the earth within about 20 arcseconds of the direction of the sun.

Not because of the Earths rotation, it is because of the time lag of the light. You are seeing the Sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago. Yes the light that you are seeing came from the Sun and it is within 20 arcseconds of where the Sun was, but 'was' is the important point. The suns actual position when it was turned off was 2.1 degrees ahead of where you saw it when it was turned off. That is why the Sun appeared to continue moving 2.1 degrees in 8.3 minutes, from the time it was shut off.

It is most dishonest of you to claim that your statements are true when you refuse to apply your own math and method to a sun that was 12 light hours away or to Pluto which can be up to 6.8 light hours away.

Dishonest of me? Wow! Your cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming. Exactly the same principles are at work at whatever distance the object is away from you.

The reason I have avoided answering your more esoteric questions is because distance changes the effect in several ways. Notably light has been preceding the object for hours, years or Millennia. You can be seeing way, way into the past and the relationship of its direction based on an angle from a rotating earth is meaningless.

If I can't explain the 'simple' stuff to you I would be an idiot trying to explain the more complex stuff. In fact I think I am an idiot for trying to explain the simple stuff, but I don't mind being laughed at, or called dishonest, when I am right : )

1,225 posted on 02/06/2009 7:05:25 AM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1219 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; tacticalogic; Fichori; Ethan Clive Osgoode
mrjesse - But what about the point in question - as to whether, for an observer on earth, at an instant in time, the sun's apparent position will be 2.1 degrees behind its actual position? Do you agree with LeGrande on that one? Even though his same math and method would put Pluto out of the night sky when seen in the night sky? And even though there are no supporting scientific reports? And even though there are plenty of scientific reports which describe the sun having an apparent instantanious displacement of about 20 arcseconds -- not 2.1 degrees?

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.

By your own logic, the Sun can't appear to continue moving if the actual and apparent position are only 20 arcseconds apart (or at least not more than 20 arcseconds anyway, which is miniscule.) Which is it mrjesse? Does the Sun appear to continue to move across the sky for 8.3 minutes or does the Sun appear to stop in the sky until the light goes out?

But a lie is a lie!

I think that you actually believe that you know the truth, that is scary. When someone shows me an error that I have been making, I thank them. I don't call them a liar. When someone points out an error to you creationists you attack them. I suppose you attack out of fear and rage, trust me, the fear and rage can be replaced by awe and amazement when you truly start seeing the Universe for how it is, but that involves letting go of false beliefs.

The fact that LeGrande refuses to answer the my question ("What if the sun were 12 light hours away..") and refuses (or is unable) to provide a single supporting scientific article - these facts tell me that LeGrande must know that he's wrong and is therefor intentionally knowingly lying.

I have answered the question. You are the one that is lying mrjesse. You also have the tools to answer the question yourself. If you look at an object 12 light hours away as it comes up over the Eastern horizon (at which time its light is shut off) which direction will you be facing 12 hours later when you see the light go out? East? Straight up? West? I know you know the answer so I will save you some time, you will be looking West, 180 degrees from when you first saw the object and the light was shut off. Thus, from the observers frame of reference, the actual and apparent position are 180˚ off, not your measly little 20 arcseconds or so.

Now mrjesse, do you know why Astonomers don't use the Earth as our frame of reference? In fact there is no absolute frame of reference. I know that you have stated that you don't want to get into that but sometimes background knowledge is important : )

1,226 posted on 02/06/2009 8:00:17 AM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1221 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
When someone shows me an error that I have been making, I thank them.

No you don't.

I don't call them a liar.

Yes you do.

You are the one that is lying mrjesse.

See?

1,227 posted on 02/06/2009 8:09:22 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1226 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Where am I in error?


1,228 posted on 02/06/2009 8:28:01 AM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1227 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; mrjesse; Ethan Clive Osgoode
“This is about going after people because of their religious belifs, and I'm not going to help you do that.”
Yes, LeGrande's belief about 2.1°, Al Gore's belief about Glowbull Worming, Darwin's belief about the Origin of Species...

All religious beliefs.
1,229 posted on 02/06/2009 11:46:04 AM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1222 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; mrjesse; Ethan Clive Osgoode
“The reason I have avoided answering your more esoteric questions is because” ... [excerpt: 1225]
“I have answered the question. You are the one that is lying mrjesse.” [excerpt: 1226]
Either you did or you didn't. (Make up your mind already!)

Lets see a link to where you answered mrjesse's question of "What if the sun were 12 light hours away.."

“In fact there is no absolute frame of reference.” [excerpt: 1226]
Thats like saying there is no Cartesian coordinate system.

frame of reference : a set or system (as of facts or ideas) serving to orient or give particular meaning [Britannica-Webster 1981]

“If I can't explain the 'simple' stuff to you I would be an idiot trying to explain the more complex stuff. In fact I think I am an idiot for trying to explain the simple stuff, but I don't mind being laughed at, or called dishonest, when I am right : )” [excerpt: 1225]
Well, if your right, then you have no reason to not explain the more complex stuff.


1,230 posted on 02/06/2009 12:21:00 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1226 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
Yes, LeGrande's belief about 2.1°, Al Gore's belief about Glowbull Worming, Darwin's belief about the Origin of Species...

All religious beliefs.

Interesting.

I believe that just because you can get away with labeling anything you want "religion" and then using that as an excuse to attack people, it doesn't mean you ought to. Is that a religion too?

1,231 posted on 02/06/2009 4:21:33 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1229 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
... “labeling anything you want "religion" and then using that as an excuse to attack people,” [excerpt]
On the contrary.

It is a reason [excuse] to not attack or challenge a position or belief, because religious beliefs are not subject to scientific scrutiny.
1,232 posted on 02/06/2009 4:32:00 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1231 | View Replies]

To: Fichori; mrjesse; LeGrande
It is a reason [excuse] to not attack or challenge a position or belief, because religious beliefs are not subject to scientific scrutiny.

Then why are you trying to get me to help you go after Legrande, over what you say is his religion?

1,233 posted on 02/06/2009 5:10:39 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1232 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; LeGrande; mrjesse
“Then why are you trying to get me to help you go after Legrande, over what you say is his religion?”
Is LeGrande saying its religion?

Or is he saying its science.


Its like that Hanson guy at NASA saying that we are causing Glowbull Worming.

He says its scientific fact.

He is also full of hot air.


So, tacticalogic, would to call out James Hansen and say 'look, what you're telling everyone is not supported by science, so cut it out!' ?


1,234 posted on 02/06/2009 5:27:47 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1233 | View Replies]

To: Fichori; LeGrande
Is LeGrande saying its religion?

No, you're doing that, and then telling me we shouldn't be criticizing him for it, while you're badgering me to join you in criticizing him for it.

1,235 posted on 02/06/2009 5:42:07 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1234 | View Replies]

To: Fichori; mrjesse; Ethan Clive Osgoode
Well, if your right, then you have no reason to not explain the more complex stuff.

I suppose you are correct but I get bored easily. Here goes nothing : )

LG - In fact there is no absolute frame of reference.

Fichori - Thats like saying there is no Cartesian coordinate system.

The question is whose Cartesian system do we use? Which one is valid? Look at this animation Merry go round the question is which frame of reference is valid? The person sitting on the merry go round or the person sitting on the ground. Or this reference from the same site here. Picking the frame of reference is important to understanding the problem and the variables involved. The frame of reference is arbitrary.

Now do you understand why there is no absolute frame of reference?

Normally I don't like to use references, but I liked the merry go round example. It also could be used to show the Sun and Earth just as easily : )

1,236 posted on 02/06/2009 6:37:27 PM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1230 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode; allmendream; GourmetDan; Fichori; mrjesse
Knock it off, all of you. /Coyoteman mode>

The *REAL* problem is that some of the people disputing about the apparent solar position are EGOcentric ;-)

"An you'all KNOW what I'm talkin' about !"

Cheers!

1,237 posted on 02/06/2009 7:08:24 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1213 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Please define EGOcentric.


1,238 posted on 02/06/2009 7:12:11 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1237 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Well it certainly isn't Gravity. Nice of you to admit that ONLY the power of God applied directly every moment of every day could explain such a preposterous model that has a massive object in orbit to a much less massive object.

Try reading C.S. Lewis The Discarded Image; c.f. the quote by his character in Perelandra saying that an angel that has kept a planet in its orbit for hundreds of millions of years should be able to manage a packing case...

Cheers!

1,239 posted on 02/06/2009 7:16:23 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1216 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
They think the world -- Sun, moon, stars, everything -- revolves around *them*. :-P

Cheers!

1,240 posted on 02/06/2009 7:36:58 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1238 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
“They think the world -- Sun, moon, stars, everything -- revolves around *them*. :-P”
Interestingly, there is data that suggests that the Universe is rotating.

And, the way I understand it, we appear to be in the middle. (Aren't we special?)


Come to think of it, there are people who think that the *Earth* revolves around them...

but thats another subject.
1,241 posted on 02/06/2009 8:21:05 PM PST by Fichori (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate <= Donate and show Obama how much you love him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1240 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; tacticalogic; Fichori; Ethan Clive Osgoode
Said LeGrande:By your own logic, the Sun can't appear to continue moving ...

That's a lie about my own logic

... if the actual and apparent position are only 20 arcseconds apart (or at least not more than 20 arcseconds anyway, which is miniscule.) Which is it mrjesse?

The sun only appears to move at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes - it doesn't really move at that rate! It appears to move at that rate because the earth rotates at that rate.

Does the Sun appear to continue to move across the sky for 8.3 minutes or does the Sun appear to stop in the sky until the light goes out?

The light still coming from the sun will appear to come from the same place (+/- 20 arc sec) that the sun actually is regardless of whether the sun is oni at the moment. And it will continue to appear to move at 2.1d/8.3m because the earth continues to rotate. You're super confused on that one I think.

Said MrJesse: The fact that LeGrande refuses to answer the my question ("What if the sun were 12 light hours away..") and refuses (or is unable) to provide a single supporting scientific article - these facts tell me that LeGrande must know that he's wrong and is therefor intentionally knowingly lying.
Responded LeGrande: I have answered the question. You are the one that is lying mrjesse. You also have the tools to answer the question yourself.


You have many times told me that I'm lying and not once provided any evidence of what I said that wasn't true. And you have many times told me that you answered my question, but you have never pointed out just where it was that you answered my question and I don't remember you answering my question.

So why not be a man and instead of just saying that I'm lying or just saying that you answered my question -- how about point to where you did answer my question and point out where I actually did lie?

And if you really believe that you're telling the truth when you claim that for an observer on earth at a point in time the sun will appear 2.1 degrees behind it's actual and gravitational position -- then why not apply the same math to Pluto? I mean, our own Pluto! Orbits the sun just like we do! Only a maximum of 6.8 light hours away! Can be seen with the right kind of telescope!

And in case you forgot what my question was, here it is again:
At an instant in time for an observer on earth when Pluto is 6.8 light hours away and the earth rotates 102 degrees in 6.8 hours - roughly what would the difference be between apparent and actual position? Would our own Pluto really be below the horizon at the moment we could see it directly overhead?

Again, same question different planet:

At an instant in time for an observer on earth looking at a relatively stationary and bright heavenly body that was 12 light hours away and above the earth's equator - roughly how lagged would the apparent position be from the actual position? Would it's gravity really pull to the east at the moment hat it appeared in the west?

With all the stuff you've written on this topic, with all the strange examples you've given, there's really no reason to not just answer the above two questions. I've answered your questions but you're using them to buy time. If you didn't have time to answer these simple questions, then you wouldn't have written the volumes that you have.

-Jesse
1,242 posted on 02/07/2009 12:43:34 AM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1226 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; tacticalogic; Ethan Clive Osgoode; Fichori
Said MrJesse:It is most dishonest of you to claim that your statements are true when you refuse to apply your own math and method to a sun that was 12 light hours away or to Pluto which can be up to 6.8 light hours away.
Replied LeGrande: Dishonest of me? Wow! Your cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming. Exactly the same principles are at work at whatever distance the object is away from you.


The reason I have avoided answering your more esoteric questions is because distance changes the effect in several ways. Notably light has been preceding the object for hours, years or Millennia. You can be seeing way, way into the past and the relationship of its direction based on an angle from a rotating earth is meaningless.

What do you mean my more "esoteric questions?" You mean like "What about Pluto?" A 12-light-hour distant sun may be hypothetical but hardly esoteric. And Pluto is neither hypothetical nor esoteric! Don't worry about years or greater time distances - just answer for Pluto if you can't imagine a planet 12 light hours away!

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.

And the best way for us to understand which of us is correct is for you to answer a few simple questions. If your view is correct, then your math will work with Pluto in a way that agrees with observed reality. If you are wrong, then you will come to conclusions that are simply not scientifically supported.

I already answered all your questions (although at some point I may stop because I'm pretty sure you're just buying time since you refuse to answer mine) and I've already applied my theory or understanding to the sun and pluto. I have said that the sun will appear about 20 arcseconds displaced due to the observer's transverse velocity (and not because of the distance to the sun) and this is exactly what scientific reports say - that the sun and all other stars appear to be displaced by about 20 arcseconds when the earth has full orbital transverse velocity. Just go search google for "Stellar Aberration" and you'll see lots of documents which describe 20 arcseconds of displacement.)

So I've been very happy to apply my view to different tests - but you still refuse to apply your own view to quite a few different thought experiments, including:

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?

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)

Why not just answer these questions? So easy. Even if you won't answer them, can you explain why you won't answer them?

Or can you explain why I should believe your claim when you refuse to apply it to simple tests, and when you cannot provide any supporting scientific sources? Can you explain why I should believe that you believe yourself when you don't have enough confidence in your own ideas to put them to the test?

Thanks,

-Jesse
1,243 posted on 02/07/2009 1:08:52 AM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1225 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers; Ethan Clive Osgoode; allmendream; GourmetDan; Fichori
Said greywhiskers:Knock it off, all of you. /Coyoteman mode>

The *REAL* problem is that some of the people disputing about the apparent solar position are EGOcentric ;-)

"An you'all KNOW what I'm talkin' about !"

Cheers!


[grin] yeah, yeah...cute...

But seriously, does it not bother you when somebody makes untrue claims, denounces as a lier anyone who asks him to demonstrate, and yet refuses to apply his claims to some simple tests because he knows they'd look absurd?

Thanks,

-Jesse
1,244 posted on 02/07/2009 1:14:07 AM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1237 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse
The issue at hand is that nobody remembered to specify which frame of reference to use when considering the problem: the Sun, the Earth, or an observer outside them both.

I haven't had any formal training in relativity, but I seem to remember from reading on General relativity (accelerated bodies) that there is NO SUCH THING as a universal, preferred reference frame, only approximations to such.

Cheers!

1,245 posted on 02/07/2009 1:22:31 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1244 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse
If someone wants to troll, play along for a bit.

If it seems they are being stubborn, or just trying to rile people up, warn them politely that they look like they are trolling.

If they ease up, thank them, and continue.

If they keep going, ignore or ridicule them, but don't address them on their level. You know, "Please don't feed the trolls."

Cheers!

1,246 posted on 02/07/2009 1:25:59 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1244 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Said MrJesse: Uhh, this is science we're talking about here.
Replied tacticalogic: I don't think so.


Huh? Whether the sun appears at any point in time 2.1 degrees behind its actual position is not science? Whether Pluto is below the horizon when it appears overhead is not science?

This is about going after people because of their religious belifs, and I'm not going to help you do that.

I'm not asking anyone to go after anyone because of their religious beliefs! I'm not even asking anyone to go after someone's religious beliefs! I'm asking you, as a logical thinking person, to go after somebody's false scientific claims!

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!

And for the record I don't care one bit what somebody's religion is when it comes to their scientific claims when they say that the sun's apparent position is lagged by 2.1 degrees from its actual position for an observer on earth at an instant in time - I will then have all the same questions as I do to LeGrande.

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

-Jesse
1,247 posted on 02/07/2009 1:37:10 AM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1222 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Said grey_whiskers:The issue at hand is that nobody remembered to specify which frame of reference to use when considering the problem: the Sun, the Earth, or an observer outside them both.

I haven't had any formal training in relativity, but I seem to remember from reading on General relativity (accelerated bodies) that there is NO SUCH THING as a universal, preferred reference frame, only approximations to such.

Cheers!


LeGrande may keep trying to change the subject to that of time references, but if you'll notice I have remembered to solve the problem of frame of reference: I have explicitly and clearly stated "For an observer on earth at an instant in time." This answers the question of where the observer is (on earth) and it answers over what time span the measurement was taken (zero time) and I have also explicitly specified what is being measured and what it is being referenced against - "The apparent position of the sun compared to the actual position." In other words, the difference between where the sun appears to be and where it really is - at the same instant in time - for an observer on earth.

So once I've specified all that, nothing else matters - all of the other unknowns have been settled. And that's why LeGrande refuses to answer - because all the holes that he's thought of have been plugged, and the only answer he can give that agrees with his other claims will be absurd.

Also, this is simple geometry, trig, and understanding of time and motion but does not require any understanding of relativity for our experiment. Neither the earth nor the sun, nor Pluto are moving (relative to eachother) anywheres near the speed of light and so affects due to relativity can be safely ignored because they are dwarfed by the figures that our actual question involve.

Hope that helps!

-Jesse
1,248 posted on 02/07/2009 1:50:35 AM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1245 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers; LeGrande
The issue at hand is that nobody remembered to specify which frame of reference to use when considering the problem: the Sun, the Earth, or an observer outside them both.

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. 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.

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?

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.

Thanks,

-Jesse

PS: Regarding your suggestion that I could consider LeGrande a troll: He generally doesn't behave like a troll. He presents himself as smart and as knowing things that most other people don't know. Some of them aren't true and yet he tells them as if they are true, and refuses to admit it when he finds out he's wrong.
1,249 posted on 02/07/2009 2:17:09 AM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1245 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; LeGrande
Sorry, dudes, I've had insomnia and not slept all night. Let me take a brain-fog stab at it. The problem is not that the light diverges from its path, it is that the rotation of the earth means that the observer is no longer seeing each ray of light from the same angle as he would have, absent the earth's rotation. 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.

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).

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.

Cheers!

1,250 posted on 02/07/2009 3:37:21 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1249 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,151-1,2001,201-1,2501,251-1,3001,301-1,329 next last

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

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

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