Said ECO in 624The logical inconsistency of this is striking. On the one hand, you say that your 2.1 degree solar lag theory is only true if there is no moon, while on the other hand the Sun is off by 2.1 degrees during a solar eclipse anyway.
You are lying. I never said that the 2.1 degree solar lag theory is only true if there is no moon.
Who are you accusing of lying? You replied to me but quoted ECO then just said "You are lying."
In any case, Ethan Clive Osgoode is not lying. In
533 you said:
The Sun is only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth, in a two body model. In the two body model there is essentially no difference between two stationary objects with one of the them spinning or having one of them orbit the other object. Adding a third body invalidates the two body model.
Then, in
603 you said:
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.
So which is it? Is the sun lagged 8.3 minutes and 2.07 degrees only in a two body system, or including in the middle of a solar eclipse, which is obviously at least a 3 body system? (I'm going to argue that since light takes time to travel and since it can continue to propagate even after its source has moved, that it too will qualify as a body for this discussion. You yourself
agree that even a Laser Ring Gyro is a third body, even if it's buried 10 feet deep.)
Seriously, I think you just make this stuff up and when someone quotes you as saying something you don't remember, you just tell them they are lying. You see, if you always tell the truth, then you don't have to remember what you said because you can always go look it up again!
The fact is that you did say "The Sun is
only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth,
in a two body model." then you said "I never said that the 2.1 degree solar lag theory is only true if there is no moon." But the moon is a third body!
Said mrjesse: We have always freely granted that the sun appears displaced by about 20 arcseconds due to stellar aberration. But when you talk about 2.1 degrees - when we say "It appears exactly where it is" we are talking about your 2.1 degrees (which is some over 7 thousand arcseconds - not 20 ). The accusations you make are most dishonest.
The 20 arc seconds you are talking about is the displacement of the suns masses orbit around the barycenter.
Wrong: See
here and
here and you will see indeed that the speed of earth flying through space on its orbit of the sun causes a ~20 arcsecond (an arcsecond is 1/3600th of a degree) apparent displacement. The sun orbits around its barycenter very slowly, only about a diameter's worth from its center at most, and only in time with the big outer planets, like Jupiter, which takes almost 12 years to orbit the sun. So the sun's motion is far too little and far too slow to cause 20 arcseconds. My rough
calculation has the sun moving under 4 miles per 8.3 minutes as it orbits its barycenter. So assuming my calculations are correct, if the sun moves 3.65 miles in the 8.3 minutes it takes its light to get here, the light-time correction due to the barycenteral
orbital velocity will be
0.008 arcseconds or so. Not 20!
It is not due to stellar aberration.
The 20 arcseconds sure is due to stellar aberration! See for example the
WP Article which says "The maximum amount of the aberrational displacement of a star is approximately 20 arcseconds in right ascension or declination." Lots of other websites say that too. It's been known since 1725 when the third Astronomer Royal, James Bradley, discovered it. It's nothing new!
You don't even seem to understand your own sources.
Funny you should say that! You haven't pointed out where I misunderstood a SINGLE source, and I have made a point of linking to lots of them. Now you completely quoted out of context and misunderstood the one source you provided, but you haven't pointed out where I'm wrong about a single source! How have I misunderstood any of my sources? How can I misunderstand a
statement like "The maximum amount of the aberrational displacement of a star is approximately 20 arcseconds in right ascension or declination."?
Said mrjesse: I'm stunned that you think that Jupiter is optically lagged about 60 degrees from where it really is.
I know that you are incapable of understanding grade school subject material but I can't help that either.
Dood, and I suppose all the authors I've been quoting and using as references are also incapable of understanding grade school subject material? I don't know how you came to say that the 20 arcseconds was not due to stellar aberration. All the good websites say it is. Math says that it is.
So lets sum you up. You are a liar.
Now that's pretty easy to say, I notice that you didn't explain where I said anything that was a lie! Now I've pointed out numerous places where you've said something contradictory or not true - this very post in fact is a case in point where you claim that the 20 arcseconds is not due to stellar aberration, when in fact all the websites I checked say that it is. So why not provide examples of where I lied rather then making yourself look like a cornered dishonest person who'll say anything true or not to try to move the attention off of your own amazingly untrue claims?
You don't know the difference between points of reference. You can't understand grade school material and you are incapable of understanding your own references.
Of course I know the difference between points of reference. But light is a third body in this context. And you keep saying that I don't understand my own references - but you're the one who didn't understand the one
reference you did provide! The document you linked to was about something else and didn't mention light ONCE (except as "the speed of light".)
I can go on but this is boring.
Boring? I'm learning very day that atheists and evolutionists can be far more stubbornly dishonest then I could ever have imagined!
Dishonest? Well, yes! There's no way that you can still think you're right by now. You have got to know that the claims you are making are not true. We have provided many thought experiments and many web references which all show your claims to be not true. At first it may have been an honest mistake. But it's no longer possible for you to not know.
I have provided many references and you have never pointed out how I was wrong with them. Either I'm providing good references or I'm not. If they are good, then you're wrong and you won't admit it. If my references are bad, then why haven't you pointed out how a single one was bad?
So how about Jupiter? If I look up and see it, is it really about 60 degrees off? Now hold your horses I know what you want to say -- "What? do you think that Jupiter is exactly where it appears?" -- Oh wait! That
is (almost) what you said! Except it was Saturn, not Jupiter. You
said "do you really believe that Saturn is exactly where you are pointing the telescope?" Now that in and of itself is a very dishonest tactic - of course Saturn isn't
exactly where it appears because it
is orbiting the sun (albeit very slowly) and besides which the earth is flying through space at 67K miles per hour on its orbit around the sun. So there is the regular stellar aberration as well as a small bit of light-time correction do to Saturn's own orbital velocity. But its nowhere near the ~20 degrees that your theory claims!
So now that we got that cleared and you know that I am well aware of small apparent angular displacements due to stellar aberration and light time correction, do you really believe that when you look up through your telescope at Jupiter, that it is actually 60 degrees elsewhere?
Answering that one question would just be so helpful. How about Jupiter?
Thanks,
-Jesse