Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: LeGrande
Said LeGrande: You are contradicting yourself mrjesse. You have already said that if the light from the sun stops, that you will continue to see the sun move across the sky for 8.3 minutes and 2.1 degrees (in an Earth spinning model). mrjesse - Of course the sun will still appear to move at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes after it is shut off. (LG I added the last part 'after it is shut off' for clarification.

No, I'm not contradicting myself I'm contradiction your misquote of me - I did NOT say that you will continue to SEE the sun move - but that the sun will appear to move (And I went on to explain that it was simply because the earth was rotating.)

I am confused. I have answered the question many times. You even refer to my answer in your next paragraph.

You have answered many questions that I did not ask, but you have not actually answered the question as I asked:

For an observer on earth who is looking at a bright and stationary planet that is 12 light hours away and is above the earth's equator, at the instant that said planet appears in the east will it really be in the west? Will its gravity be pulling in the opposite direction of where the light appears to come from at that instant?


You haven't answered that question that I have asked even though you answer tons of others that I never asked.

It's actually pretty funny, you say that you have answered my question and that I refer to your answer in the next paragraph, which reads: (and this is a quote of me writing)

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."
Continues LeGrande:First, as you clearly state, I put it in bold, I have answered your 12 light hours away planet question and yet you insist that I haven't.

That part you put in bold was me talking! You didn't say it! It wasn't even you talking! You never actually said that! I was just applying your own (faulty) reasoning to a 12-light hour planet.

You never actually said "Yes, the 12-light hour away planet would appear in the east at the moment it was really in the west." ! That was me explaining that if you were to honestly apply your logic to a 12-light hour planet, that you'd have to respond as by saying "Yes, the 12-light hour away planet would appear in the east at the moment it was really in the west." - but you never actually said that! (But if you'd like to say it then please be my guest! I've been asking for you to say that if you believe it is true -- for months now!)

As for your astronomy question, the simple answer is that Astronomers don't generally use the Earth as a frame of reference, they use the Stars.

Again, all besides the point. The fact is that there is scientific reason for the sun to appear 20 arcseconds displaced from its actual position due to Stellar Aberration - and regardless of what frame of reference anyone uses, the internet is full of articles about stellar aberration which describe the 20 arcseconds of apparent displacement for observers on earth. But such is not the case for your alleged 2.1 degrees! Do you really think there would be so much todo about 20 arcseconds when it was also displaced by 2.1 degrees at any point in time for an observer on earth?

I have now started a file on my computer and even color coded some of my outstanding (as in unanswered) questions. When you actually answer them as I asked them (rather then giving an answer to a similar sounding but different question that I didn't ask) then I will also write in my file what your answer was and a link to where you answered it. That way you can be assured that if you actually do answer the question that I ask as I asked it, then I won't forget. And if you think I'll forget too, you can do the same - just run notepad and record the URLs of where you answered my questions, and then if I ever forget you can just refer me to your previous answer!

Below are my newly color coded questions which you still have not answered.

-Jesse

The Red question - 12 light hour away planet:

For an observer on earth who is looking at a bright and stationary planet that is 12 light hours away and is above the earth's equator, at the instant that said planet appears in the east will it really be in the west? Will its gravity be pulling in the opposite direction of where the light appears to come from at that instant?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.


The Green question: Pluto

For an observer on earth who looks up and sees Pluto when it is overhead and when it is 6.8 light hours away, at that instant in time, will Pluto really be about 102 degrees away from where it appears? Will it really appear directly overhead at the moment it is really below the horizon?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.


The Blue question: What if the sun were 10 light days away and the earth was stopped

If the sun were 10 light days away, and the earth was suddenly stopped, do you believe that the sun would continue to appear to rise and set for another 10 days?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.


The Yellow question: What if there was a turntable on the north pole that was tracking the suns actual position:

Let's say that you are standing on a turntable at the North Pole. Lets also say that the turntable is tracking the Suns gravity field (its actual position). Will the pointer on the turntable be pointing at* the light that you see or will it be leading or lagging that light by 2.1 degrees? (*Note: by "at" I mean "within about 20 arcseconds")
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

1,272 posted on 02/08/2009 12:12:25 AM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1256 | View Replies ]


To: mrjesse; grey_whiskers; Fichori; Ethan Clive Osgoode; tacticalogic
mrjesse - No, I'm not contradicting myself I'm contradiction your misquote of me - I did NOT say that you will continue to SEE the sun move - but that the sun will APPEAR to move (And I went on to explain that it was simply because the earth was rotating.)

I think I 'SEE' the problem. How can the sun 'appear' to be moving without you 'seeing' it move? You do know that apparent position is where you 'see' it don't you?

Previously you stated that you would only go on 'seeing' the sun moving, only if the Sun was orbiting the earth. Now do you agree that both situations (Sun orbiting vs Earth spinning) are equivalent?

My work is done : ) You have admitted that you were wrong and I am not going to argue over the definition of 'SEE' versus 'appear', they are the same. You can pretend to be Clinton and parse the definition of what is is, but I weary of that game.

1,274 posted on 02/08/2009 7:16:16 AM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1272 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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