Replies

Said LeGrande: 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?

The same way I can look out the car window and observer that the light pole appears to move. I know I'm not seeing the light pole itself move but rather the affects of my car moving. The reason I clarified that was because you were building your case on a misquote of me, and there is a slightly different meaning between "see" and "appear" because "see" has a stronger implication that something actually did happen ("I saw it with my own eyes!") whereas "appear" implies that the thing only appears so but it is known that it well may not be so. If you can't pick apart my agruments without changing the words in them then there's a problem with your defense :-)

Previously you stated that you would only go on 'seeing' the sun moving, only if the Sun was orbiting the earth.

I still maintain that I have not contradicted myself. If you're going to convince any thinking person that I have, you're going to have to do more then some vague references and grumble about "see" vs "appear" -- Provide links to the two contradicting things I said and quote them in context -- in other words, actually demonstrate that I contradicted myself. The fact is that you have told me many times that I was a lier and never once provided a single point in case where I said anything untrue - so a claim that I contradicted myself is certainly going to require some careful and ample evidence if it is to carry any weight.

Now do you agree that both situations (Sun orbiting vs Earth spinning) are equivalent?

Not when there is a third body (light) in motion.

My work is done : )

How can your work be done when you still haven't answered some simple questions? How can your work be done with you refuse to apply your reasoning to Pluto, for example?

You have admitted that you were wrong

I have not admitted that I was wrong. If so show us where! I still maintain that the sun is actually within about 20 arc seconds of where appears for an observer on earth at any point in time.

and I am not going to argue over the definition of 'SEE' versus 'appear', they are the same.

"See" and "appear" are not the same thing! I checked the dictionary. They are different! Of course you're the one who claimed that "mating and breeding are the same thing" - but again check the dictionary and they are not the same thing.

You can pretend to be Clinton and parse the definition of what is is, but I weary of that game.

If it was that game that you weary of, then how come you refuse to answer simple scientific questions for months, and then grumble about "see" vs "appear" ? The fact is that you'd rather fuss about any little thing you might contrive rather then answer the simple questions below! (And by the way, one of them is one you asked me but it's such a good one now I want you to answer it if your claims are true!)

So, please, just answer the following questions to show us that your work is indeed done!

Thanks,

-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: if the sun were 10 light days away

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: Turntable at north pole tracking the sun

Let's say that you are standing on a turntable at the North Pole. Lets also say that the turntable (and its pointer) is tracking and pointing at 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.

The Lavender question: 17 minute merry go around tilted toward Polaris

Let us say that I tilted up my merry go around so that it's top pointed directly at the north star (Polaris to be specific) and furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?
LeGrande's Answer: Just asked, Awaiting answer....

The Purple question: 17 minute merry go around on north pole

Let us say that I had a merry go around on the North Pole furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?
LeGrande's Answer: No answer yet.

The Aqua question: 17 minute day vs 17 minute merry go around revolution.

You said that If the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, the sun's optical image would be lagged 180 degrees from its real position.

But then you say that if I was on a merry go around that was turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, and the sun appeared on the horizon, the sun's apparent position would not be 180 degrees displaced from its actual position.

So how come, by your theory, would the earth's hypothetical rotational rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, for an observer on earth at an instant in time, cause the sun's gravitational pull and light to come from opposite directions from eachother, when for an observer on a merry go around turning at the same rate, it would not?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet.