[mrjesse]

Primarily the time light correction and spin. The Stellar Aberration only plays a small part at these distances and has factored out the earths spin.

So do you agree then that Stellar Aberration's effect is almost nothing compared to the 2.1 degrees and therefore we can ignore it while discussing a lag of 2.1 degrees?

By the way, you first said Stellar Aberration, and you illustrated the same, all the while talking about the time of flight from sun to earth of light, but Stellar Aberration has nothing to do with the distance from sun to earth. Had you just confused the two terms (like I did in a recent post) or was that just ignorance? I would hope that when recounting the snow-falling experiment you'd have noticed that it was the wrong principle. What was that all about? Did you think I wouldn't notice the difference?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

By the way, you first said Stellar Aberration, and you illustrated the same, all the while talking about the time of flight from sun to earth of light, but Stellar Aberration has nothing to do with the distance from sun to earth. Had you just confused the two terms (like I did in a recent post) or was that just ignorance? I would hope that when recounting the snow-falling experiment you'd have noticed that it was the wrong principle. What was that all about? Did you think I wouldn't notice the difference?

I am pretty sure that I used the term aberration of light not stellar aberration. I might have used the term in replying to you and Ethan because both of you started using the term.

The other thing is that stellar aberration illustrates that the apparent position is not identical to the actual position and I have been trying to use every example I can think of. Trying to get this very simple concept (apparent vs actual position ) across is like pulling teeth.