The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[Coleus]

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed. “Evolution is now a datum proven beyond any reasonable doubt and no longer a theory, it’s not even worth taking the trouble to discuss it.” This is what a spokesman proclaimed at the Festival of Science held in Genoa in November 2005, thereby neglecting a very important aspect of modern science—the need to be open to new perspectives. Instead, the truth is quite the opposite. Paradoxically, evolutionists are taking an ever greater distance from empirical science and are wrapping themselves up in a dogmatism that borders on ideological fanaticism.

Unprovable Hypothesis
“What is left, then, in evolutionism, that is valid according to the scientific method? Nothing, actually nothing!” This is the conclusion of journalist Marco Respinti in his recent book Processo a Darwin (Darwin on Trial, Piemme, 2007). He continues: "Not one of his postulates can be verified or certified based on the method proper to the physical sciences. His whole claim escapes verification. Based on what, therefore, other than on strong prejudices of an ideological nature, can anyone affirm or continue to affirm that the evolutionist hypothesis is true?"  Indeed, the consistency of a scientific theory is founded on its capacity to be verified empirically, be it through observation of the phenomenon in nature or by reproducing it in the laboratory. The evolutionist hypothesis fails on both counts. “Thus,” Respinti shows, “Darwinism remains simply an hypothesis devoid of empirical or demonstrable foundation, besides being unproven. . . . The evolutionist hypothesis is completely unfounded for it does not master the very domain in which it launches its challenge.”

Respinti reaches this “verdict” after a rigorous “trial of Darwin” in which he analyzes the main arguments that debunk the notorious theory, ranging from nonexistent fossil records to the conflict of Darwinism with genetic science and the flimsiness of the “synthetic theory” of neo-Darwinism, without forgetting the countless frauds that have stained notable evolutionists in their insane quest to fabricate the “proofs” that science tenaciously denied them.  Respinti concludes by denouncing the ideological drift of the evolutionist school: “To categorically affirm the absolute validity of the theories of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution based on the claim that discussing them would be unscientific by definition, is the worst proof that human reason can give of itself.”

A Long Sunset
The sunset of the Darwinist hypothesis has picked up speed over the last two decades. For example, consider the work carried out by the Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structures, founded in 1987, in the wake of an international interdisciplinary meeting convened “to present and discuss some opinions opposed to the dominant neo-Darwinist paradigm.” Scientists from all over the world participated, including the outstanding geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, then a professor at the University of Perugia, Italy. In 1980, together with Roberto Fondi, now a professor at the University of Siena, Sermonti wrote Dopo Darwin—Critica all’evoluzionismo (After Darwin—A Critique of Evolutionism, Rusconi, 1980). “Biology,” Sermonti explains, “has no proof at all of the spontaneous origin of life, or rather biology has proved its impossibility. There is no such thing as a gradation of life from elementary to complex. From a bacterium to a butterfly to man the biochemical complexity is substantially the same.”   For his part, Fondi shows that from the first appearance of fossils to this day, the variety and riches of living beings have not increased. New groups have replaced older ones, but the intermediate forms that the evolutionists have so frantically searched for do not exist. “The theory of evolution,” Sermonti and Fondi conclude, “has been contradicted as have few other scientific theories in the past.”

In Le forme della vita (The Forms of Life, Armando, 1981), Sermonti unveils other obstacles to Darwinism. According to the renowned geneticist, the “random” origin of life and the gradual transformation of the species through “selective change” are no longer sustainable because the most elementary life is incredibly complex and because it is now proven that replacement of living groups takes place “by leaps” rather than “by degrees.”  Putting together forty years of experience, in 1999 he wrote Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione (Forgetting Darwin—Shadows on Evolution, Rusconi, 1999). With rigorous argumentation, the author demolishes the three pillars of Darwinism: natural selection, sexual mixing and genetic “change.” According to him, history will remember the theory of evolution as the “Big Joke.”

Not Just Creationists
Sermonti has been often accused of being a “creationist” or a “religious fundamentalist” even though he has always said he does not fit his scientific vision into a Christian perspective, and this yet one more aspect to note in the polemic against Darwinism, which many people other than Christians also contest it.  In this sense, it is interesting to note the recent editorial in Il Cerchio, “Seppellire Darwin? Dalla critica del darwinismo agli albori d’una scienza nuova,” ("Bury Darwin? From a Critique of Darwinism to the Dawn of a New Science") containing essays by seven specialists including Sermonti, Fondi and Giovanni Monastra, director of Italy’s National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research. The title refers to the famous phrase by Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics of the University College of Cardiff, “The probability that life was formed from inanimate matter is equal to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros . . . . It is large enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.”

From Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione’s introduction: For the first time in Italy, a critique of Darwinism is presented in all its complexity thanks to the interdisciplinary contribution of scholars of several orientations—[b]eyond the polemic between neo-Darwinian fundamentalists and religious integralists, the essay demonstrates how the critique of the now old neo-Darwinist paradigm opens the doors to a new science.

A Crisis of the Positivist Paradigm
Francis Crick, who together with Watson discovered the structure of DNA, openly declared, “An honest man, armed only with the knowledge available to us, could affirm only that, in a certain sense, the origin of life at the moment appears to be rather a miracle,” In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, “All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way.” Indeed, a lot of faith is required to believe in evolutionism, and it is precisely that faith, of a clearly positivist^[1] mold, that is now beginning to weaken.

In Darwinismo: le ragioni di una crisi (Darwinism: The Reasons of a Crisis), Gianluca Marletta sticks his finger in the wound by observing that “The crisis of Darwinism is above all a crisis of the philosophical paradigms that allowed its success.”  “One cannot understand the origin of this doctrine,” Marletta explains, “without going back to the cultural climate of ‘triumphant positivism’ straddling the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” According to Marletta, Darwinism constituted a wonderful occasion to strengthen the positivistic view of the world being affirmed at that time. Darwinism represented the perfect tool to transplant, into the biological field, the mechanic and materialist paradigms already imposed on the social sciences. This is the true motive of this theory’s success. A motive that now begins to subside with the crisis of the positivist paradigm. This explains the almost fanatical tenacity with which evolutionists are defending their convictions. “Many fear,” concludes Marletta, “that the fall of Darwinism can bring down with it the whole positivist vision of the world.”

God’s Comeback
The crumbling of positivism is bringing back to the limelight issues that a certain conventional wisdom thought to have definitively eliminated. Shaken from the sudden crumbling of old certainties, worried about the chaos that increasingly marks this postmodern age, many people are once again asking the fundamental questions: Does my life have a transcendental meaning? Is there an intelligent project in nature? In short, does God exist?   Sociologist Rosa Alberoni wrote about this in her book, Il Dio di Michelangelo e la barba di Darwin (The God of Michelangelo and Darwin’s Beard), published last November by Rizzoli with a preface by Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council Justice and Peace. The onslaught of “Darwin’s worshippers,” Alberoni explains, is carried out by the “usual destructive atheists obsessed with the goal of stamping out Christ and destroying the Judeo-Christian civilization after having sucked its blood and essence.” This sullen assault, however, in the deeply changed ambience of post-modernity, risks being counterproductive: The monkey myth is what really shook ordinary people. Like soldiers woken up by an alarm in the middle of the night, Christian believers and [O]rthodox Jews prepared for the defense. Or rather for the war, because that is what it has become . . . [o]n the symbolic level, the bone of contention is the ancestor of man: God or a monkey? Should one believe in God or in Darwin? This is the substantial nature of the ongoing clash in our civilization.

In other words, a real war of religion looms in the dawn of the Third Millennium. Precisely that which secularists have tried to avoid at all cost.

Footnote:

1. Positivism is the philosophical system created by August Comte (1798–1857), which only accepts the truths that we can reach by direct observation or by experimentation. Thus it denies classical philosophy, theology and all supernatural religion.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Time for a recap, in case someone gets amnesia:

The LeGrandeic System of Astrophysics

post 447

[LeGrande] In other words 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?

post 469

[mrjesse] this [is] how it would be if the sun were orbiting the earth... if gravity "traveled" instantly (which I think was a basis for your question) then indeed, the sun's gravity would be 2.13 degrees ahead of its visual location... But the sun doesn't orbit the earth! Other way around!

post 488

[LeGrande] You seem unable or unwilling to try and grasp simple concepts that disagree with your world view. My example was simple, is the sun where it appears to be when you look at it? Or is it ahead of where it appears to be? You seem to think that it is where it appears to be, you are wrong.

post 489

[ECO] the sun is where mrjesse says it is.

post 496

[LeGrande] MrJesse is claiming that... the sun is in exactly the same place that we see it, when we see it. You seem to agree, according to your equation and statement "the sun is where mrjesse says it is." Both of you are wrong, we see the Sun where it was 8 minutes ago when the photons were emitted.

post 504

[mrjesse] Can you find anyone at nasa who plans space missions and who agrees with you? The more I hear of your idea the more crazy it sounds.

[LeGrande] LOL They all agree with me... May I suggest "Physics for Dummy's"...

post 542

[LeGrande] Go out at dawn and point a transit right at the edge of the Sun at the instant the first light appears at the horizon (it should be the same point). Now wait 8.3 minutes and measure the distance from the edge of the Sun to the horizon. That is the difference between the Suns apparent position and its true position.

post 525

[ECO] Is the moon's apparent position off by more than 2.1 degrees from its actual position? Or less?

post 529

[LeGrande] The lag is a little over a second.

The Collapse of the LeGrandeic System of Astrophysics

Click on the links and look at the pictures, LeGrande. There is no 2.1 degree lag. Apparent position of the Sun, actual position of the Sun, apparent position of the moon, and actual position of the moon, all in the same place. And a straight line through the real Sun, the real moon, and the observer on Earth. Dramatic, no? Like a stake pounded through an undead vampire, it rids the world of your 2.1 degree solar lag theory.

Solar Eclipse



Solar Eclipses for Beginners

[LeGrande]

Do the same thing with Saturn and wait 83 minutes. Or with Sirius and wait 8.6 years.

That is correct : )

[LeGrande]

A solar eclipse shows apparent position not actual position. At the exact instant that you see a solar eclipse the suns actual position is already 8.3 minutes beyond that point.

Do you really believe that the speed of light is instantaneous? The only way that the the suns apparent position and actual position could be the same is if the the speed of light was instantaneous.

[LeGrande]

Fixed by what? I thought you said there were no third bodies. And what is it that propels the Sun around the Earth in a circular orbit at 11,000 km/s? There must be some kind of supposition behind that. Is it magic?

I take it you have never heard of a thought experiment. Did you read this quotation that fichori requested?

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath249/kmath249.htm

"and therefore the Earth's gravitational acceleration should always point directly toward the Sun's position at the present instant, rather than (say) the Sun's position eight minutes ago."

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I take it you have never heard of a thought experiment.

So then, it is your thoughts that propel the Sun around the Earth at 11,000 km/s.

[LeGrande]

So then, it is your thoughts that propel the Sun around the Earth at 11,000 km/s.

Sure and it would help to make the earth a black hole but you get the idea.

So have you decided on whether light is instantaneous or not? Let me know when you figure it out.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

it would help to make the earth a black hole

Alas, that would contradict this assertion of yours:

You really are clueless aren't you? In a two body system there is no difference between one body spinning in relation to the other body or one body orbiting a stationary body.

[mrjesse]

Ok lets go back to our transit at dawn experiment. Only this time the earth is fixed and the sun is orbiting the earth. Now as the first light of the sun is seen at the horizon, point the transit at it. Then 8.3 minutes later measure the difference between the apparent edged of the sun and the horizon. You will see a difference of apx 2.1 degrees on the transit.

Sure - but this is only measuring the degrees per 8.3 minutes of angular rotation of the earth. It does not take into account anything else whatsoever!

I am assuming that with the sun orbiting the earth you will agree that its apparent position differs from its actual position by 2.1 degrees, right?

Yup! But only if the sun was orbiting the earth. And in that case, a ring laser gyro would NOT indicate the earth to be turning at 2.1 degrees/8.3 minutes. But the earth IS turning.

Now lets repeat the experiment with the Suns position fixed and the Earth spinning in place. Now as the first light of the sun is seen at the horizon, point the transit at it. Then 8.3 minutes later measure the difference between the apparent edged of the sun and the horizon. You will see a difference of apx 2.1 degrees on the transit. This is the identical experiment and the identical result except that instead of the sun orbiting the earth the earth is spinning. As far as our observations go the results are identical.

The observations are identical because you're only measuring apparent angular rate difference! You're not measuring the difference between actual and optical apparent position! If you were to repeat the experiment with a sundial and a gravitational sundial, it would be as follows: If the earth was turning and the sun was not orbiting, then the two would read same (or 20 arcseconds instead of 2.1 degrees) but if the earth were not turning and the sun orbited it once every 24 hours, then the gravitational sundial would read 2.1 degrees ahead of the optical sundial.

The sun, the light, and the earth are a 3 body system. Remember, 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 you said "Light, is the moving part in the LRG"

So if the light in the Laser Ring Gyro is a third body and if it knows that the earth is turning, then the sunlight is also a third body and it knows that the sun is not orbiting the earth. I'm not sure why you can't understand this, but if the sun put out some light and them moved (like if it orbited the earth instead of the earth spinning) then by the time that light got to the earth, its angle would be that of the sun's old position. But if the sun hasn't moved in that 8.3 minutes, the position of the light will still be coming from where the sun is - because the sun will still be where it was!

There is no difference between the Earth spinning in place or the sun orbiting the earth, the suns apparent position vs actual position is the same.

The LRG knows it. The sun's light knows it. There is a difference. Your claim that "In a two body system there is no difference between one body spinning in relation to the other body or one body orbiting a stationary body." is actually very dishonest. It's not true! The only way it would be true is if you worded it like this "Without having any tools to measure which is spinning and which is orbiting, it's not possible to measure which is spinning and which is orbiting." But it's completely dishonest to say that there is "no difference" just because one is barred from using existing tools to measure the difference!

But I still need to my merry go around experiment and see who's right on that one.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Let me give you a little tutorial in observation and stellar aberration.

Thanks!

The first thing that is factored out in making observations is the rotation of the earth. Observatories are specially built so that their rotation cancels out the earths rotation. You can even buy relatively cheap automated telescopes that do the same thing. The fact that the earth is spinning is of no interest to anyone, it is a bother. It is important to understand the concept but we have bigger fish to fry : )

Yes, I know about sidereal. I have a cheapo meade DS90 autostar telescope (90mm/1M refractor) which has goto function and sidereal compensation.

Now there is another problem, the astronomers would like to know the distance to the objects that they are observing. You measure distance by the difference in the angle that each eye sees an object. If you only had one eye, your depth perception would be terrible.

Yes, I know well about the concept of stereo vision and 3D. I've even gone out in the yard and take photos of the area, then stepped over two feet, took another photo, then put them on my computer side by side and looked at them one picture per eye and seen the 3D functionality.

Astronomers start with two problems, one they typically only have one eye (telescope) and the light from these distant objects is parallel. So even if they had two telescopes it would make no difference. Even if they make an observation in June and another in December the light rays are still parallel and they can’t triangulate the position. They even have this problem observing items in our solar system. Put two observers a thousand miles apart and have them observe the sun at the same instant, their lines to the sun will be parallel.

I know all this..

So now we come to stellar aberration we know that the earth is traveling through space (our solar system is traveling through space) the fact that our solar system is traveling through space distorts the apparent position of the stars in much the same way that that our angular velocity does, except to a much lessor degree. And they would like to eliminate the stellar aberration too. So, some observatory’s automatically compensate for it too.

But Stellar Aberration is only 20 arcseconds (which is 0.0056 degrees) and is irrelevant to the distances of the sun or stars!

Essentially the two concepts boil down to the difference between angular velocity and straight velocity,

If you're talking about "Stellar Aberration" and "Light time correction" as the "two concepts" then you're absolutely wrong. Light time correction is irrelevant to transverse velocity, while Stellar Aberration (falling rain experiment) is irrelevant to distance! Furthermore, either one works just fine whether the light source and/or the observer are moving in a straight line or a curved line.

To say that the difference is angular vs. straight velocity is also wrong: For example, it doesn't matter whether the moon is orbiting the earth or just flying by once in a straight line - it will still have light-time correction causing it to appear behind where is, as a function of its own velocity and the distance from it to the observer. On the other hand, Stellar Aberration is irrelevant to the distance or velocity of the light source, but is merely a function of the transverse (cross-ray? :-) velocity of the observer. So really, the difference is that Light-time correction is caused by the velocity of the light source while Stellar Aberration is caused by the velocity of the observer. I'm telling you, since light can continue on in space on its normal course even once its light source has moved does cause there to be a difference between whether the observer is moving or the light source is moving!

but the effects are identical. That is why I am more than willing to switch back and forth.

Only in a very general and non-scientific way are the two effects identical. I mean a plane crash and a shotgut have identical effects too - generally lethal destruction and loss of life. But better gun handling isn't going to prevent plane crashes and better piloting isn't going to prevent shotguns from shooting people. So technically, are the effects of light time correction and stellar aberration identical? No way! First of all, one causes only apparent change in angle (Stellar Abberation.) Light time correction causes the light to actually be coming from a different position of its moving light source (because that's where the light actually came from.). Furthermore, in our discussion of the sun and the earth, Stellar Aberration accounts for at most about 20 arcseconds (or about 0.0056 degrees) while the light-time correction (if the sun were orbiting the earth) would account for 2.1 degrees. Now 2.1 degrees and 0.0056 degrees are simply not the same effect! Furthermore, the two do not even operate on the same principle!

The two are simply not the same thing and we're talking about 2.1 degrees here and it is just dishonest to say you can switch back and forth!

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande: The Sun is only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth, in a two body model.

Said Ethan Clive Osgoode: How would you falsify this hypothesis?

Said LeGrande: It is easy, show how the earth is not one AU away from the sun or that the earths rotational speed is different. Or demonstrate that the speed of light is instantaneous or simply a different speed, etc. etc. In short, measure it : )

Says mrjesse: Yeah but as soon as we pull out any tools to measure any of those things you'll say "Stop! That won't work because you just introduced a third body!" So ECO's point stands I say - the statement is not falsifiable. Really it's not even honest, since all you're really saying is that "Without any way to measure which is spinning and which is orbiting, you can't measure which is spinning and which is orbiting." But to say that there is no difference just because one can't measure the difference is dishonest - especially when the reason that we can't measure is because your definition bars us from using any tools which allow us to measure, when in reality such tools do exist!

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

I take it you have never heard of a thought experiment. Did you read this quotation that fichori requested?



http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath249/kmath249.htm



"and therefore the Earth's gravitational acceleration should always point directly toward the Sun's position at the present instant, rather than (say) the Sun's position eight minutes ago."

You're totally confused here. That article is talking about the gravitational angles between the sun and earth as the earth orbits the sun (Not as the earth turns per day!) and furthermore that article does not even mention light except as a speed when referring to the speed or a propagation of a field or disturbance. It never actually mentions light itself once!

The issue that the article is discussing is whether the gravitational pull between the sun and the earth, as the latter orbits the former, is directly between them or lagged due to the earth's path around the sun. It's not even talking about earth's rotation! And when it refers to 8 minutes of lag, it's not talking about 8 minutes of earth rotation, it's talking about 8 minutes time worth of movement in the earths path around the sun!

To try and appropriate that statement out of context and infer that it is talking about the earth's rotation is either dishonest or ignorant.

My only question to you about that is didn't you read it, didn't you understand it, or did you know it wasn't related and were you hoping I wouldn't notice?

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

The point I am trying to make is that the suns apparent position differs from its actual position whether the sun is rotating around the earth or the earth is spinning.

You have indeed claimed that the suns optical angle is 2.1 degrees lagged from its actual position due to the rotational speed of the earth and the distance to the sun. But this does not make sense to ECO or myself considering that the sun is not orbiting the earth. And you have provided ZERO evidence that your claim is true. You said NASA knows it but provided no citations of them saying so. The only document you linked to was about something completely different. The many illustrations you've given either do not apply or do not make sense or are contradictory or absurd. I have pointed out many absurdities and inaccuracies in your claims and statements. And all the articles on the web I've found so far say that Light time correction on the sun is very small because the sun isn't moving much around its baycenter (center of mass.)

Is this like a great secret truth that only you know?

I am beginning to understand the gulf between creationists and scientists. I would never have guessed that such a simple concept would be so hard to explain.

Amen to that, except the other way! I had no idea that "scientists" (or is it just an atheist thing?) are so unable to understand simple concepts like the motion of the earth, light, and the sun. I really cannot imagine somebody making so many absurd claims as you have and not realizing that they just don't know what they are talking about. My only logical conclusion is that it is atheism's (or is it science's) M.O. of "Survival of the fittest idea. It don't matter if its a true idea or not, if people can be convinced to believe it, then it must be the most fit and therefore best idea. No other rules. Lieing is only bad if it's harmful to the survival of the idea." And so on.

Please help me understand why you know you're wrong on so many counts but refuse to admit it? If someone makes a few inaccurate statements, it could be excused as accidents or ignorance. But you've said so many wrong statements and I or Ethan has called you on them, it is no longer possible for you to be ignorant without knowing it. So help me to understand, please! What is your view on lieing or intentionally deceiving? When did you first realize that you were wrong? Does this sort of behavour carry over into all areas of your life? Do you think lots of scientists have these same or similar ethics?

Please help me undertsand,

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Says mrjesse: Yeah but as soon as we pull out any tools to measure any of those things you'll say "Stop! That won't work because you just introduced a third body!"

It seems that LeGrande (accidentally?) allowed pendulums and ring laser gyroscopes in post 597, so his assertion

There is no difference between the Earth spinning in place or the sun orbiting the earth, the suns apparent position vs actual position is the same.

is dead an buried. But he may retroactively dis-allow them in posts to come. We should inquire for an official list of what is allowed and what is not allowed.

Really it's not even honest, since all you're really saying is that "Without any way to measure which is spinning and which is orbiting, you can't measure which is spinning and which is orbiting."

He's going to have to dis-allow the Earth's atmosphere and moving objects on Earth: Coriolis Effect, Eotvos Effect. But if the atmosphere is not allowed, it would make it much easier to notice the Sun's movements against daytime stars, and the space-suit clad observer can immediately see if the Sun is zipping along at 11,000 km/s or not. LeGrande seemed reluctant to dis-allow the rest of the universe (possibly because his thought experiments are getting too ridiculous even for him to bear) so he would have to dis-allow the observer. Or at least, stipulate an extra clause that the observer who is observing the Sun is blind.

[mrjesse]

to ECO: did you look up aberration of light in Wikipedia?

For what its worth, I looked up aberration of light in Wikipedia. It says

The aberration of light (also referred to as astronomical aberration or stellar aberration)

stellar aberration is independent of the distance of a celestial object from the observer, and depends only on the observer's instantaneous transverse velocity with respect to the incoming light beam, at the moment of observation.

So that has nothing to do with the distance to the sun, and virtually nothing to do with the earth's rate of rotation.

I also looked up light time correction on Wikipedia:

It is independent of the motion of the observer.

And this has nothing to do with the rotation or velocity of the earth either, but rather the velocity of the sun!

Furthermore, I looked up a note about the new moon on Wikipedia, and it says:

Light-time correction for the Sun is negligible because it is almost motionless during 8.3 minutes relative to the barycenter (center-of-mass) of the solar system.

Ahah! See they are saying that the sun isn't moving much and therefore (regardless of the motion of the earth) light time correction isn't much.

I realize that WP is not always accurate, but I'm quoting them because they are who you suggested. If you think they are wrong, just say so and say where you think they are wrong as it relates to my quotes of them.

So there are two things that can cause apparent angular displacement: Stellar Aberration which is a result of a moving observer and is 20 arcseconds for the sun/earth, and light-time correction for a moving light source. But the earth isn't the light source and the sun isn't moving, so you're stuck with just 20 arcseconds of Stellar Aberration - or at least nowhere near your alleged 2.1 degrees!

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande: I just want to be clear, when you look up into the night sky and aim a telescope at Saturn, do you really believe that Saturn is exactly where you are pointing the telescope?

According to you, the actual position of Saturn is 10AU * 2.1 degrees/AU = 21 degrees from its observed position in the sky. People who are on some serious drugs might believe that. Do you believe it?

That's a great point. Now Saturn does orbit the sun at the rate of 29.5 years per full orbit, or .0000232021 degrees per minute. Saturn, at 9AU, would be about 75 light minutes away. So the angle changed in Saturn during the time it takes its light to reach us would be .0000232021 degrees. That's light time correction.

But as you say, in LeGrande's world, 75 light-minutes times the earth's rotation would be 18.75 whole degrees!

Or what about Jupiter, which is 30AU out? That's roughly 60 degrees lagged. Are you saying that if I were to look up at night with a super powerful telescope and see Jupiter, it would be actually 60 degrees off?

What if there were a reasonably stationary star 86.5722414651AU away (that's 12 light hours) - if we looked up and saw it at night, would it really be on the other side of the world? (Hey - it might have moved a little - but it aint gonna have moved 180 degrees in 12 hours!)

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

What if there were a reasonably stationary star 86.5722414651AU away (that's 12 light hours) - if we looked up and saw it at night, would it really be on the other side of the world? (Hey - it might have moved a little - but it aint gonna have moved 180 degrees in 12 hours!)

With LeGrande's astrophysics, it's not possible to estimate where -- not even approximately -- the "actual" positions of nearby stars are. For instance, Wikipedia says that Sirius is 8.6 +-0.04 light-years away. 1 light-year is 63,240 AU. So, +-0.04 light-years is +-2530 AU. In other words, in LeGrandeic astrophysics, the "real" Sirius could be anywhere along the diurnal circle. Inspite of this, magic leprechauns have informed LeGrande that...

Sirius is close to us so its actual position is going to be very close to its apparent position.

[mrjesse]

Said mrjesse: Can you find anyone at nasa who plans space missions and who agrees with you? The more I hear of your idea the more crazy it sounds.

LOL They all agree with me : )

You still haven't substantiated your claim. If all of NASA agrees with you, and if it's true, you've gotta find some mention of it online. Heh, even if it's not true you ought to find some references online. I mean, the internet covers everything that is and most of what isn't. If this is such a simple concept as you claimed there ought to be lots of websites or beginning astronomy books that talk about it.

So what do we have? Lots of websites that say your wrong, and zero that say you're right? Isn't it a time you took that into consideration? Is it really honest to say that it's such a simple concept and that all of nasa agrees with you when you can't find any articles that claim the same?

Here are some websites that say you are wrong:
Light-time correction, The Indological Knowledgebase

Actually, during its light-time, the Sun does move slightly around the barycenter (center of mass) of the solar system as a counter-balance to the massive jovian planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). Thus the true light-time correction of the Sun is extremely small, usually much smaller than 0.03".

That's nowheres near your 2.1 degrees.

PVAstro0702, James Bradley report

Light-time correction has absolutely no relation to the motion of the Earth with respect to the Sun.

Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications By David Anthony Vallado, Wayne D. McClain, page 299

For stars, we ignore light-time correction.

Control Software for the Bochum Radio Telescope by James Miller G3RUH

It is able to calculate objects' coordinates properly, accounting for the whole litany of small corrections without regarding each as a special case and with various degrees of approximation. These are:
* Light-time correction (excepting stars)
* Gravitational deflection of light by the Sun
* Aberration due to velocity of Earth around Sun

Notice how they correct for the 20 arcseconds of Stellar Aberration but not for light-time correction of stars (the Sun is a star!) Why is this? I'm telling you that it is because like the sun, the stars are relatively motionless!

http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/doppler.htm#Aber

There is another reason why observed positions differ from actual ones, which is simply movement that takes place while the light is on its way. This is called the light-time correction, and is of interest for satellites and other nearby, rapidly moving, objects. For stars, it is usually neglected.

It does matter what is spinning and what is orbiting.

It's time to face the choir. This idea of yours isn't working. And it's gone past the point of innocent or honest ignorance.

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

If you want to believe that everything is where it appears to be then go ahead : ) I can't change your mind and I really have very little interest in changing your mind.

Good luck : )

[mrjesse]

If you want to believe that everything is where it appears to be then go ahead : ) I can't change your mind and I really have very little interest in changing your mind.

First of all, it is most dishonest of you to suggest that I want to believe everything is where it appears. You know that I make no such claim.

We have been discussing in specific terms the apparent lag of the sun from its real position due to the time of flight of light and the rotational speed of the earth - to the tune of 2.1 degrees. I have clearly stated that:

I have no doubt whatsoever that the sun is apparently 20 arcseconds displaced due to the transverse velocity (sideways) of the earth as it orbits the sun. But 20 arcseconds is 0.000277777 degrees. You're talking about 2.1 degrees, which is seven thousand five hundred times bigger!

The fact is that you made an absurd and untrue claim for which you can present NO evidence, and against which I found many evidences. Furthermore, you don't have enough honesty to consider thought experiments which would demonstrate your idea as invalid (such as where really is Saturn? is it really almost 20 degrees displaced? What about Jupiter? Is it really 60 degrees off? What about a star 87AU(12 light hours) away? would it really be 180 degrees lagged? You know full well that if you applied the same logic to some stars other then the sun, your logic would be unquestionably wrong.)

Thus it is completely dishonest of you to skirt around your own idea then accuse me of believing something absurd. I found support for my understanding of the issue. You didn't find support for yours. Mine works fine with stars other then the sun. Yours is obviously wrong with regards to stars other then the sun.

My only conclusion is that due to your atheism you believe that there is no such thing as wrong and lying is no big deal. But this helps me understand why atheistic evolutionists or scientists will make far out claims and argue for them as if they are true - when they full well know that they aren't true. This is why evolutionary science is in such dishonest shambles - everybody in the field wants to believe it is true, and they will say just about anything, true or not, to try to convince people. Then when they come up short on actual evidence, they just hurl unfounded insults like "Oh you believe that nothing is where it is."

Do you think I'm not being fair or honest? And this is not rhetorical, I would appreciate an answer. It has been my goal to be true and honest and learn the truth. How would I have been more fair or more honest when a person makes a claim to how physics work with the sun and the earth, but then refuses to apply it to other stars? And who also refuses to provide any supporting evidence? And when there is ample evidence against his claim? Furthermore, when the person making the claim supports it by accusing me of believing absurd things which I never claimed (and do not) believe? (Especially when I already clearly stated that I did not believe them?)

How can I honestly and fairly come to any conclusion other then I have, which is that you just have too few scruples and are trying to deceive people?

Is it really that much to ask -- that people presenting themselves as honest scientifically learned people would be at least honest? You have not been honest. There is no way for you to not know that you're statement was just wrong, and yet you refuse to face the facts.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

I have no doubt whatsoever that the sun is apparently 20 arcseconds displaced due to the transverse velocity (sideways) of the earth as it orbits the sun. But 20 arcseconds is 0.000277777 degrees. You're talking about 2.1 degrees, which is seven thousand five hundred times bigger!

How far off is it due to the earths angular velocity?