Replies

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!

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

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.