Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Sunset of Darwinism
tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

Posted on 06/13/2008 8:50:06 PM PDT by Coleus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650651-664 last
To: LeGrande
Updated anti-amnesia innoculation!

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 593
[LeGrande] 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.
post 603
[LeGrande] At the exact instant that you see a solar eclipse the suns actual position is already 8.3 minutes beyond that point.
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
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


651 posted on 07/14/2008 1:25:54 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Do you really think that these remarks -- and others like them which your atheist mind is eagerly formulating -- are going to put the actual position of the Sun 2.1 degrees away from the actual position of the moon during a total solar eclipse?

No but maybe they will get your attention. You are the one claiming that when you see an eclipse that the moon and the sun are exactly where you see them. That is only possible if light is instantaneous which it is not. In the real world it takes time for light to reach your eyes and when you see the moon and the sun lined up they have already moved.

The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge the fact that light isn't instantaneous proves that you are an idiot. Nothing more needs to be said.

652 posted on 07/14/2008 5:30:58 AM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse
Jesse, Jesse, Jesse. Lets do a little recap. First off you are now acknowledging that the suns apparent position and actual position are different, which was my whole point in the first place. Now you seem to be bickering with me over the point of reference.

For my efforts towards enlightening you, you and your buddies called me a deceitful atheist. But the truth is your and your creationist friends are the ignorant reprobates.

Now back to the example, both observers see the sun directly overhead, remember the light from the sun is parallel at the earth, and the angle between them is determined by drawing a line through each observer to the center of the earth. That angle (2.07) illustrates the difference between the actual position of the sun and where one of the observers apparently sees the sun.

Now if we put the observers on the surface of the sun and did the same experiment there then yes the angle would be .00008 degrees off (adjusting our distances of course).

But the fact remains that we are now simply quibbling over frames of reference and yet you want me to appeal to authority before you will believe. That doesn't surprise me in the least. Everything you believe is based on an appeal to authority (The Bible), but that isn't how science works. Science tells its followers to find out the truth for themselves, if someone tells you something that you think is wrong, prove them wrong, that way everyone benefits.

You don't know how glad I am that we got sidetracked and never got around to talking about fields.

653 posted on 07/14/2008 6:37:50 AM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; Ethan Clive Osgoode; LeGrande
Correction:

Where I claim that Jupiter is 30AU away, I was incorrect. It's only about 5.2AU away from the sun. But Pluto is roughly 38 AU from the Sun and my point still stands that if the sun's gravity direction is 2.1 degrees ahead of its optical position due to the distance of sun-earth and the light flight time thereof (Which is LeGrande's claim), then Pluto will appear over 60 degrees displaced from its actual position.

Second correction:

When I stated "20 arcseconds is 0.000277777 degrees. You're talking about 2.1 degrees, which is seven thousand five hundred times bigger!" I was wrong on two counts. First, 20 arcseconds is 0.00555555556 degrees, not whatever I said before. Secondly, 2.1 degree IS 7560 arcseconds, whereas I had incorrectly stated 7500 as the ratio between 2.1Deg and 20ArcSec. The ratio between 2.1Deg and 20ArcSec is really 378 - so the displacement of 2.1 degrees is three hundred and seventy eight times larger then the observed and calculated displacement for the sun! That's absurd!

Please accept my most sincere apologies for the inaccurate statements. It is my goal and practice to be honest and accurate and I freely admit when I find I've been wrong.

But my general point, that 2.1 degrees is absurdly beyond anything that's been measured or calculated still stands.

Thanks,

-Jesse

PS: I'll answer the other post later, gotta run now.
654 posted on 07/14/2008 8:49:36 AM PDT by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Try a silver plated stake.


655 posted on 07/14/2008 10:10:31 AM PDT by Fichori (Primitive goat herder, Among those who kneel before a man; Standing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse
PS: I'll answer the other post later, gotta run now.

That's okay. I am getting ready to fly up to Alaska.

656 posted on 07/14/2008 10:26:28 AM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
That's okay. I am getting ready to fly up to Alaska.

Have a great flight!

Oh, and when you're up there perhaps you could do me a favor. Do you have a video camera? Anyway, if you can go stand in the sun, about a thousand feet from a tall tree or tower or something, or maybe a 150 foot tall ice tower(if it were winter.) Anyway, with proper eye protection of course, perhaps you could stand exactly in the shadow of a tall pole and turn your head right to left, and see if the sun does indeed appear to deflect from its actual position in agreement with your theory for the deflection of the sun due to the earth's rotation and the speed of light.

The earth may only be able to turn 2.07 degrees in 8.3 light minutes, but you should be able to turn your head much faster then that and get any degree of apparent displacement of the sun (compared to the pole which is near) by turning your head different speeds. I mean I don't think you will, but your theory says so.

Anyway, have a great time, take lots of pictures, and if you like, give a report when you get back! It'd be fun.

-Jesse
657 posted on 07/14/2008 8:26:18 PM PDT by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
Jesse, Jesse, Jesse. Lets do a little recap. First off you are now acknowledging that the suns apparent position and actual position are different,

I have never denied stellar aberration or light-time correction. You weren't talking about the 20 arc seconds of stellar aberration (matter of fact, you weren't talking about stellar aberration seeing as how it is unrelated to the distance to the sun) and you were not talking about the approximate 0.008 arc seconds of light-time correction for the sun. You were talking about 7452 arc seconds of lag which was related to the distance between sun and earth and the speed of light and the rotational rate of the earth. You have heretofore provided zero scientific support for your claim.

which was my whole point in the first place.

But you have maintained an untrue idea (that the sun is 2.07 degrees ahead of where it appears to be) without the honesty to admit that the statement was incorrect. If a scientist cannot admit when he finds he's wrong, there is just no way he can do good science.

Now you seem to be bickering with me over the point of reference.

I disagree. I'll address that with the diagram in a following paragraph.

For my efforts towards enlightening you, you and your buddies called me a deceitful atheist. But the truth is your and your creationist friends are the ignorant reprobates.

That's easy for you to say but just try to demonstrate it! Any fool can call names and scream "Lier" so why don't you back up your claims and show them to be true? Keep in mind that you haven't shown any of my claims to be false (except where I made a mistake for which I stated an apology and a correction) and yet you have made many claims that do not line up with observable science, for example, that the suns apparent position is lagged 2.07 degrees, and more. You also said that the 20 arc seconds is not due to stellar aberration, but all the sources say that it is. You also said that if the earth were rotating at 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes the sun's optical image would be lagged 180 degrees from its actual position. You also said "if you lower the frequency of sound down enough it becomes a discrete sound particle/wavepacket" but I never saw any sound waves I made do that. You quite clearly have lots of strange ideas that no self respecting scientist will write about.

Now back to the example, both observers see the sun directly overhead, remember the light from the sun is parallel at the earth, and the angle between them is determined by drawing a line through each observer to the center of the earth. That angle (2.07) illustrates the difference between the actual position of the sun and where one of the observers apparently sees the sun.

Okay, look real close at the diagram below while imagining a little guy down there. Imagine he's got a perfect 1 foot square cube of wood. On the top side of this block of wood, he's got a rectantular U-shaped wire frame run in like a big staple or perhaps a croquet wicket (right) pounded squarely into the top center of the wooden block. Furthermore, he's got some precise ruler marks where the shadow is cast. With this device, he can compare the exact angle of the sun as compared to the 145 mile long flat plane he is standing on.




May I remind you that we are discussing the apparent optical position of the sun. May I also remind you that we're discussing a hypothetical universe which you proposed where the sun is always in the same position in the sky, and the sun is not moving and the earth is not rotating. I believe we're also ignoring stellar aberration.

Now if this little guy starts out right below the sun, his light angle measuring device will read exactly 90 degrees even. But if he takes it to the end of the 143.5 miles, and still facing "away" from the sun does the measurement again, his angle meter will now read 90.000088 degrees. And indeed, the angle of the shadow will be the same as well, and when he looks up (with appropriate eye protection of course) he will see the sun and it will appear to be 0.000088 degrees off from straight up. Not 2.07 degrees!

It is plain to see from the diagram that the specifics of the lower right-triangle are completely irrelevant. The earth could be any shape or any size as long as the observer has that 143.5 mile stretch that starts out at 90 degrees to the sun and runs in a straight line. The bottom triangle doesn't even need to exist -- all that matters is the top right-triangle, and it clearly shows that the sun's apparent position will still be where it is (at least within light-time correction and stellar aberration if we're counting those) but in any case nowheres near your 2.1 degrees removed. Like I said before, it is simple geometry!

May I remind you that you are claiming that the sun's optical angle will be 2.07 degrees lagged behind its actual and gravitational angle at any given instant for a viewer on the earth, due to the earth's rotation of 1 turn per 24 hours and the 8.3 minutes it takes sunlight to reach the earth.

But the fact remains that we are now simply quibbling over frames of reference

I say we're not simply quibbling over frames of reference. I'm not even sure we're quibbling over frames of reference at all. But what we are quibbling over is whether the sun is displaced by the 20 arc seconds of well-known stellar aberration and the approximate 0.008 arc seconds of light-time correction, or whether the sun is displaced by your enormous 7000+ arc seconds due to some phenomenon which none of the astronomy resources on the internet explain! And we're also quibbling over the fact that you refuse to tell me how far lagged from its actual position is the apparent position of Pluto.

and yet you want me to appeal to authority before you will believe.

I've noticed a theme here. First you claim there's a 2.07 degree lag, and I say "No way, show me." And then we talk about 0.0056 degrees of Stellar Aberration and you say "Ahah so now you admit there is lag!" even though 0.0056 is way below your 2.07, and even though it is not even related to the distance to the earth from the sun, and even though your 2.07 degrees was dependent on the distance to the earth from the sun. This is some sort of all or nothing mentality. But I have news for you: The presence of 20 arc seconds of stellar aberration does not prove 7000 arc seconds of shift, nor does the absence of 7000 arc second shift disprove the presence of 20 arc seconds of stellar aberration. It's some sort of faulty logic.

You're doing the same thing with this appeal to authority line. I'm not asking you to appeal to authority, all I'm asking for is a reference to some other scientist someplace who gets the same results as you claim. The point is I can't find any such thing, and you will neither claim that it's a rare idea and only you know, nor will you show me scientific material which backs you up.

If it doesn't make mathematical sense, and if nobody else is making the claim, then how can I logically come to believe that you know what you're talking about?

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Everything you believe is based on an appeal to authority (The Bible), but that isn't how science works. Science tells its followers to find out the truth for themselves, if someone tells you something that you think is wrong, prove them wrong, that way everyone benefits.

You know, it's really kind of funny. I've proved you wrong so many times by providing reference material which showed that your claims were wrong. That's how science should work. You have not provided a single reference material that proved me wrong! Matter of fact, you've even been calling me names! That's just how you are describing a Bible Believer! It's also really quite funny that here I am trying to to carry on a scientific discussion, and you, the atheist and supposed scientist, keeps bringing up religion! How funny is that?

You don't know how glad I am that we got sidetracked and never got around to talking about fields.

Yeah, I can imagine the trouble you could get yourself with fields!

By the way, you still have not answered the question as to where will Pluto will actually be as compared to where it appears in the night sky. I mean I don't have to know exactly - just within the limits of the accuracy of the available data. Your refusal to answer this simple question is in and of itself quite a strong proof against your claim. So please, just answer that one!

Thanks,

-Jesse
658 posted on 07/14/2008 10:48:34 PM PDT by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; mrjesse; Ethan Clive Osgoode
“That's okay. I am getting ready to fly up to Alaska.”

Welcome back LeGrande.
(Hopefully your trip went well.)

Anyway, I just though I would ping everyone so we could resume our discussion...
659 posted on 08/01/2008 2:00:17 AM PDT by Fichori (Obama's "Change we can believe in" means changing everything you love about America. For the worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

I actually thought about our discussion while I was navigating : ) I am going to take you on as a project. I tutor some of my neighbors kids so why not you?

Will you do this for me? Go outside and pound a stake into the ground pointing the stake at the sun in such a way that it doesn’t leave a shadow. Then 8.3 minutes later can you pound another stake into the ground at the same point as the previous stake, this stake too needs to not leave a shadow.

Then I want you to measure and calculate the angle between the stakes : ) Longer stakes will make the measurements easier and more accurate.

Another thing I would like you to think about is what are the effects of frequency on the Electromagnetic Spectrum. You already understand that the only difference between radio, tv, radar and visible light is the frequency. Do you also understand that that particles like X-rays, y-rays nuclear, y-rays artificial and y-rays, in cosmic rays, are all particles? And that the only difference is the frequency?


660 posted on 08/01/2008 10:05:50 AM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; Ethan Clive Osgoode; Fichori
Welcome back, LeGrande! How was your flight?

Will you do this for me? Go outside and pound a stake into the ground pointing the stake at the sun in such a way that it doesn’t leave a shadow. Then 8.3 minutes later can you pound another stake into the ground at the same point as the previous stake, this stake too needs to not leave a shadow.

Then I want you to measure and calculate the angle between the stakes : ) Longer stakes will make the measurements easier and more accurate.


But this is just measuring one's own change in angle - just like sitting on a rocking chair and observing the whole world around you appearing to change position in relation to the chair. But remember you're arguing that the sun's actual and gravitational direction will be displaced about 2.1 degrees from its apparent position. But if I pound in the one stake as you describe above then 8.3 minutes later pound in the second, at each pounding, the sun's gravitational angle will still be about the same (and nowheres near 2.1 degrees displaced) as its optical position.

I would be most grateful if you would read my earlier post as I think it might help.

By the way, I'm pretty sure that X-rays are the same as light - just shorter wavelength. I take the difference between particles and electromagnetic waves to be that e.m. waves travel at about the speed of light only while particles can travel at any sub-C velocity or hover in space at zero velocity.

By the way, Please tell me where Pluto really is compared to where it appears in the night sky! I don't need to know exactly - just within the available accuracy of the data.

Thanks,

-Jesse
661 posted on 08/01/2008 10:49:37 AM PDT by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: Fichori; LeGrande; Ethan Clive Osgoode
Check out my photos of Jupiter and its moons! Yeah yeah, so I used a kid's toy telescope and a lens from an old 8mm home movie projector. (The telescope is a Meade DS-90 refracting unit with about a 90mm aperture and 1m focal length.)



I ran the second two photos through several stages of blurring and unsharpmask to try to bring out the stripes. Also note that my camera was quite probably not very level.

-Jesse
662 posted on 08/01/2008 5:33:12 PM PDT by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse

The Moons came out nicely : )

I can remember the first time I took my wife to a star party and how blown away she was after seeing the rings of Saturn and Moons of Jupiter.

You do understand that to get good pictures, your telescope should be moving to keep the apparent position of the planets in the same place : ) At least for time delayed photographs.


663 posted on 08/01/2008 5:46:22 PM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
The Moons came out nicely : )

I can remember the first time I took my wife to a star party and how blown away she was after seeing the rings of Saturn and Moons of Jupiter.

You do understand that to get good pictures, your telescope should be moving to keep the apparent position of the planets in the same place : ) At least for time delayed photographs.


Oh yeah I know about sidereal tracking in telescopes - but as I said, this is just a kids toy that was given to me by some good friends. It does have Meade's cheapest autostar star finder/tracking feature, but the construction is so cheap that it really doesn't track very well. So I just set my ISO to 1600 and gave it the best I could without sidereal tracking. One day I hope to build myself a better mount.

Thanks,

-Jesse
664 posted on 08/01/2008 6:26:48 PM PDT by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650651-664 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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