The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[Coleus]

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed. “Evolution is now a datum proven beyond any reasonable doubt and no longer a theory, it’s not even worth taking the trouble to discuss it.” This is what a spokesman proclaimed at the Festival of Science held in Genoa in November 2005, thereby neglecting a very important aspect of modern science—the need to be open to new perspectives. Instead, the truth is quite the opposite. Paradoxically, evolutionists are taking an ever greater distance from empirical science and are wrapping themselves up in a dogmatism that borders on ideological fanaticism.

Unprovable Hypothesis
“What is left, then, in evolutionism, that is valid according to the scientific method? Nothing, actually nothing!” This is the conclusion of journalist Marco Respinti in his recent book Processo a Darwin (Darwin on Trial, Piemme, 2007). He continues: "Not one of his postulates can be verified or certified based on the method proper to the physical sciences. His whole claim escapes verification. Based on what, therefore, other than on strong prejudices of an ideological nature, can anyone affirm or continue to affirm that the evolutionist hypothesis is true?"  Indeed, the consistency of a scientific theory is founded on its capacity to be verified empirically, be it through observation of the phenomenon in nature or by reproducing it in the laboratory. The evolutionist hypothesis fails on both counts. “Thus,” Respinti shows, “Darwinism remains simply an hypothesis devoid of empirical or demonstrable foundation, besides being unproven. . . . The evolutionist hypothesis is completely unfounded for it does not master the very domain in which it launches its challenge.”

Respinti reaches this “verdict” after a rigorous “trial of Darwin” in which he analyzes the main arguments that debunk the notorious theory, ranging from nonexistent fossil records to the conflict of Darwinism with genetic science and the flimsiness of the “synthetic theory” of neo-Darwinism, without forgetting the countless frauds that have stained notable evolutionists in their insane quest to fabricate the “proofs” that science tenaciously denied them.  Respinti concludes by denouncing the ideological drift of the evolutionist school: “To categorically affirm the absolute validity of the theories of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution based on the claim that discussing them would be unscientific by definition, is the worst proof that human reason can give of itself.”

A Long Sunset
The sunset of the Darwinist hypothesis has picked up speed over the last two decades. For example, consider the work carried out by the Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structures, founded in 1987, in the wake of an international interdisciplinary meeting convened “to present and discuss some opinions opposed to the dominant neo-Darwinist paradigm.” Scientists from all over the world participated, including the outstanding geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, then a professor at the University of Perugia, Italy. In 1980, together with Roberto Fondi, now a professor at the University of Siena, Sermonti wrote Dopo Darwin—Critica all’evoluzionismo (After Darwin—A Critique of Evolutionism, Rusconi, 1980). “Biology,” Sermonti explains, “has no proof at all of the spontaneous origin of life, or rather biology has proved its impossibility. There is no such thing as a gradation of life from elementary to complex. From a bacterium to a butterfly to man the biochemical complexity is substantially the same.”   For his part, Fondi shows that from the first appearance of fossils to this day, the variety and riches of living beings have not increased. New groups have replaced older ones, but the intermediate forms that the evolutionists have so frantically searched for do not exist. “The theory of evolution,” Sermonti and Fondi conclude, “has been contradicted as have few other scientific theories in the past.”

In Le forme della vita (The Forms of Life, Armando, 1981), Sermonti unveils other obstacles to Darwinism. According to the renowned geneticist, the “random” origin of life and the gradual transformation of the species through “selective change” are no longer sustainable because the most elementary life is incredibly complex and because it is now proven that replacement of living groups takes place “by leaps” rather than “by degrees.”  Putting together forty years of experience, in 1999 he wrote Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione (Forgetting Darwin—Shadows on Evolution, Rusconi, 1999). With rigorous argumentation, the author demolishes the three pillars of Darwinism: natural selection, sexual mixing and genetic “change.” According to him, history will remember the theory of evolution as the “Big Joke.”

Not Just Creationists
Sermonti has been often accused of being a “creationist” or a “religious fundamentalist” even though he has always said he does not fit his scientific vision into a Christian perspective, and this yet one more aspect to note in the polemic against Darwinism, which many people other than Christians also contest it.  In this sense, it is interesting to note the recent editorial in Il Cerchio, “Seppellire Darwin? Dalla critica del darwinismo agli albori d’una scienza nuova,” ("Bury Darwin? From a Critique of Darwinism to the Dawn of a New Science") containing essays by seven specialists including Sermonti, Fondi and Giovanni Monastra, director of Italy’s National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research. The title refers to the famous phrase by Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics of the University College of Cardiff, “The probability that life was formed from inanimate matter is equal to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros . . . . It is large enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.”

From Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione’s introduction: For the first time in Italy, a critique of Darwinism is presented in all its complexity thanks to the interdisciplinary contribution of scholars of several orientations—[b]eyond the polemic between neo-Darwinian fundamentalists and religious integralists, the essay demonstrates how the critique of the now old neo-Darwinist paradigm opens the doors to a new science.

A Crisis of the Positivist Paradigm
Francis Crick, who together with Watson discovered the structure of DNA, openly declared, “An honest man, armed only with the knowledge available to us, could affirm only that, in a certain sense, the origin of life at the moment appears to be rather a miracle,” In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, “All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way.” Indeed, a lot of faith is required to believe in evolutionism, and it is precisely that faith, of a clearly positivist^[1] mold, that is now beginning to weaken.

In Darwinismo: le ragioni di una crisi (Darwinism: The Reasons of a Crisis), Gianluca Marletta sticks his finger in the wound by observing that “The crisis of Darwinism is above all a crisis of the philosophical paradigms that allowed its success.”  “One cannot understand the origin of this doctrine,” Marletta explains, “without going back to the cultural climate of ‘triumphant positivism’ straddling the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” According to Marletta, Darwinism constituted a wonderful occasion to strengthen the positivistic view of the world being affirmed at that time. Darwinism represented the perfect tool to transplant, into the biological field, the mechanic and materialist paradigms already imposed on the social sciences. This is the true motive of this theory’s success. A motive that now begins to subside with the crisis of the positivist paradigm. This explains the almost fanatical tenacity with which evolutionists are defending their convictions. “Many fear,” concludes Marletta, “that the fall of Darwinism can bring down with it the whole positivist vision of the world.”

God’s Comeback
The crumbling of positivism is bringing back to the limelight issues that a certain conventional wisdom thought to have definitively eliminated. Shaken from the sudden crumbling of old certainties, worried about the chaos that increasingly marks this postmodern age, many people are once again asking the fundamental questions: Does my life have a transcendental meaning? Is there an intelligent project in nature? In short, does God exist?   Sociologist Rosa Alberoni wrote about this in her book, Il Dio di Michelangelo e la barba di Darwin (The God of Michelangelo and Darwin’s Beard), published last November by Rizzoli with a preface by Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council Justice and Peace. The onslaught of “Darwin’s worshippers,” Alberoni explains, is carried out by the “usual destructive atheists obsessed with the goal of stamping out Christ and destroying the Judeo-Christian civilization after having sucked its blood and essence.” This sullen assault, however, in the deeply changed ambience of post-modernity, risks being counterproductive: The monkey myth is what really shook ordinary people. Like soldiers woken up by an alarm in the middle of the night, Christian believers and [O]rthodox Jews prepared for the defense. Or rather for the war, because that is what it has become . . . [o]n the symbolic level, the bone of contention is the ancestor of man: God or a monkey? Should one believe in God or in Darwin? This is the substantial nature of the ongoing clash in our civilization.

In other words, a real war of religion looms in the dawn of the Third Millennium. Precisely that which secularists have tried to avoid at all cost.

Footnote:

1. Positivism is the philosophical system created by August Comte (1798–1857), which only accepts the truths that we can reach by direct observation or by experimentation. Thus it denies classical philosophy, theology and all supernatural religion.

[LeGrande]

By this same reasoning wouldn't you also say that distance does not exist? (I seriously want to know your response to this.)

From a photons perspective, distance does not exist nor does time. Distance and time contract as you approach the speed of light, they are variables.

And I think you are in error or at least sly in stating that we don't actually measure the field. We don't measure light, either, we measure it's intensity. (Or its frequency or polarization.) But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist!

Certainly Light (photons) exist. I never said that they didn't.

So how can you say that a field cannot be measured?

Again, what are you measuring?

Please explain why the sun is about 7 minutes ahead of where it appears. (I honestly want to understand this one, too.) And this one shouldn't require QM, QED, or Relativity to understand!)

This is getting tedious, but I will make one last effort. Lets take your garden hose example, but instead of spinning you are in the back of a fire truck spraying the water off to the side as it speeds down the road. Objects that are close to the truck get sprayed almost immediately as the truck passes. Objects that are further away take longer to get sprayed. Now If I am the object that is close to the the truck and I point to the source of the water I am pointing at the truck. If I am farther away, when I get sprayed and point to the source of the water I will be pointing behind the truck.

It is exactly the same concept if the observer is spinning and you with the hose let out a single burst of water when the observer is facing you. If you are close you will hit the observer squarely between the eyes. If you are far away you will hit the observer on the back of the head. Now if you are shooting photons, the observer will 'see' you 180 degrees off from where you actually are.

Now can you try and answer the question? If you have a problem may I suggest turning to Feynman 12-4, Fundamental Forces. Fields.

[LeGrande]

Cute. But why complicate it with the mystery of particles?

All particles are waves.

Does a car have a velocity and a position at the same time? Show me! If you try to measure its velocity and its position at the same time you're going to have trouble.

I do it all the time in my GlaStar with a GPS.

The problem is that "Position" at the root level refers to a static location, while velocity refers to a non-static location. So to say that something has a position and a velocity at the same time (without mentioning a timeframe) is contradictory.

I hardly know where to begin. First off nothing is static, measurements are always in relationship to another non static entity. If the relationship doesn't change then it is considered static in regards to the two items.

As far as position and velocity being contradictory, will you do a little experiment for me? Drive down a road at a constant velocity, say 50 mph and when you pass a mile marker, note your time, location and speed. You have just determined position and velocity at the same time, they are not contradictory : ) in the macro world anyway.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I don't think that we are in any kind of disagreement at all.

We are, because you say that picking up a rock and dropping it demonstrates the theory of gravity. I would say that not even a high-school student would write something like that, if asked to think of a way to demonstrate the theory of gravity. Can you demonstrate the inverse-square law by picking up a rock and dropping it? Using the same logic, glass-blowing demonstrates the existence of the element silicon, because, well, if there is no silicon there is no glass, right? Taking a bath is a demonstration of the theory of van der Waals forces. Lighting a candle is a demonstration of Maxwell's theory of light. The existence of light is a verification of the ether theory of light. Demonstrating the existence of gravity by dropping a rock is a demonstration of superstring theory [*]. Jellyfish are a verification of the theory of evolution. After all, if there was no evolution, there would be no jellyfish, right?

But this is not an isolated gaff on your part. There seems to be very little rhyme or reason to your interpretations of experiments and observations. Here you say that Planck's black-body formula is a convincing demonstration of the wave-particle duality of light. While here, in response to a request about the experimental demonstration of photons, you make the baffling remark that the double-slit experiment "verifies that photons are waves." It seems that you do not make clear distinctions between presuppositions and conclusions.

All of this is probably part of a larger framework which includes philosphical marvels like 'you can't prove a negative', 'things cannot be proven, just falsified', 'the burden of proof is always on the other guy', Popperism, 'everything is made of nothing', 'scientists don't try to prove a theory' and so on. The ultimate purpose of these nonsensical beliefs probably have something to do with being an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

----

[*] I heard a famous superstring theorist say this.

[Fichori]

In case you hadn't seen it yet:
Atheism: An Irrational Worldview

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Proof is a higher standard than we are able to achieve.

Why do you single out "negatives" as unprovable, when, in light of this, "positives" are just as unprovable, and, after all that "can't prove negatives" business, what you really meant was that nothing at all is provable?

[LeGrande]

Why do you single out "negatives" as unprovable, when, in light of this, "positives" are just as unprovable, and, after all that "can't prove negatives" business, what you really meant was that nothing at all is provable?

Nothing is provable, it can only be falsified. How hard is that to understand?

[LeGrande]

Can you demonstrate the inverse-square law by picking up a rock and dropping it?

Of course.

The existence of light is a verification of the ether theory of light.

No it isn't. Your examples may be considered evidence but not proof. Why is the concept of falsification so hard for you to understand?

you make the baffling remark that the double-slit experiment "verifies that photons are waves." It seems that you do not make clear distinctions between presuppositions and conclusions.

Photons are waves. Particles are waves too. Everything is a wave/particle. I don't see what your problem is.

All of this is probably part of a larger framework which includes philosphical marvels like 'you can't prove a negative', 'things cannot be proven, just falsified', 'the burden of proof is always on the other guy', Popperism, 'everything is made of nothing', 'scientists don't try to prove a theory' and so on. The ultimate purpose of these nonsensical beliefs probably have something to do with being an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

All of my statements are true. lets take an easy one for you. I claim that you can't prove a theory, you obviously claim that you can. Prove me wrong, prove that God exists. I will wait but I won't hold my breath.

[mrjesse]

All particles are waves.

I'd ask what constitutes a particle - an atom? any molecule? -- but I already know that you'll say that all mater is waves of nothing so I won't bother.

I do it all the time in my GlaStar with a GPS.

First of all, I never said that an object could not pass through a certain position at a certain time.

But just for fun, no matter how slow of a near-stall you're flying your GlaStar, your gps still takes time to measure velocity. And when it gives you a position and a velocity reading, they will be from slightly different times. And besides, by the time the position is displayed on your gps, you're not in that position anymore anyway.

As far as position and velocity being contradictory, will you do a little experiment for me? Drive down a road at a constant velocity, say 50 mph and when you pass a mile marker, note your time, location and speed. You have just determined position and velocity at the same time, they are not contradictory : ) in the macro world anyway.

I realize it's not polite to quote one's self but I'm going to anyway. What I said was "So to say that something has a position and a velocity at the same time (without mentioning a timeframe) is contradictory."

But just for fun, my speedometer takes time to measure velocity, and it averages the velocity over a second or so period. (Longer in the winter. or above 60MPH.) Furthermore, the reason I need a speedometer is because I have no way to control my speed accurately otherwise, so I cannot just go 50mph except by what my speedometer says. So considering that my speed varies some, but even if I keep my 1-second average right at 50 even, and I note the time I pass through a certain position, I still won't know what my exact speed was as I passed that point because all I know is that the velocity reading will be an average for the second near when I passed the marker - but I won't know exactly where I was when I was actually going at the average speed.

And besides, if something is moving in relation to a certain reference, it doesn't have "a" position - it passes through an infinite number of positions every second.

So how are particles any different? I know that light and radiowaves travel at a predictable velocity. The waves coming from the GPS satellite to your GPS receiver have a path and pass through certain positions at certain times just like a fast moving car would. Electrons moving towards the face of a cathode ray tube move at a velocity controlled by the electric field which accelerated them, and they take time to reach the phosphor screen, do they not?

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

From a photons perspective, distance does not exist nor does time.

Well, ok whatever. I need to read more whether there is any truth in that. But I do know that it takes twice as long to bounce a laser beam twice as far. So I'm not sure that distance and time never exist with relation to light.

Again, what are you measuring?

The force that the field applies to the electron. Just like we measure other invisible fields - by the force or pressure they exert on things.

This is getting tedious, but I will make one last effort. Lets take your garden hose example, but instead of spinning you are in the back of a fire truck spraying the water off to the side as it speeds down the road. Objects that are close to the truck get sprayed almost immediately as the truck passes. Objects that are further away take longer to get sprayed. Now If I am the object that is close to the the truck and I point to the source of the water I am pointing at the truck. If I am farther away, when I get sprayed and point to the source of the water I will be pointing behind the truck.

With the above I agree - you are correct - and this well models how it would be if the sun were orbiting the earth! The sun's rays would indeed reach the earth from a different angle (about 2.13 degrees or 8.5 minutes lagged) then reality. Then, 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!

It is exactly the same concept if the observer is spinning and you with the hose let out a single burst of water when the observer is facing you. If you are close you will hit the observer squarely between the eyes. If you are far away you will hit the observer on the back of the head.

Let me remind you what you said: "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?"

You were unquestionably talking about angular lag - not just an observer turning their head after the flash. The observer turning their head after the flash does not change the direction from which the flash comes, nor does the earth turning cause an angular lag in the optical image of the sun! (And it most certainly doesn't cause the sun's apparent direction of gravity to lead by 2.13 degrees its apparent direction of light!)

As I mentioned, you said: "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?"

How again would the earth's rotation cause an angular lag in the apparent position of the sun (compared to its gravitational field -- or otherwise) ?

If you doubt this, just do this experiment (even as a thought experiment.)

First, take a turntable like people put spices on in their cupboard. Set it up with a cup in the center, and two cups on opposite sides. Punch a small hole in the outer cups half way down and also mount a laser pointer on one of them. You will see that as the water shoots out of the outer cup onto the center cup, it will go straight in just like the laser beam and they will hit the same spot. Now spin the whole works, and behold, the water will lag the laser beam. THat demonstrates if the sun orbited the earth. Now stop the turn table, and hang the center cup on a string, and just spin it! Lo and behold, the water and laser will continue to hit the same spot even though the cup is spinning!

Actually that sounds kind of fun. If you think I'm wrong let me know I'll try that experiment too!

-Jesse

[Fichori]

"I don't see what your problem is." [excerpt]

Remember, this is the Religion Forum. ;)

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

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?

Perhaps you meant to say that the sun is 7 minutes ahead of the angular position it was at 7 minutes ago, when it emitted the light that you now see. Either that, or you are a geocentrist.

And why is it 7 minutes, by the way?

[mrjesse]

Let me give you something else to think about : ) When you create a field it propagates at the speed of light to infinity. Once the field has been stabilized how fast are the changes in the field? 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?

Let me give you something else to think about, too :)

Lets say that I'm on a mountaintop park, where there is a merry go around. It's a beautiful bright sunny warm morning, and as I sit on the merry go around, I look out and notice that the sun is exactly horizontal. Now let us further pretend that I get the merry go around rotating at 17 minutes per turn. This way, it'll have turned 180 degrees in the time it takes the light to reach the earth from the sun. So now let's say I have a very sensitive gravity meter which can measure the sun's gravitational pull.

Now let me ask you - which way will the sun's gravity appear related to it's light? Will the gravity of the sun be in the east while its gravitational pull will be toward the west? I don't think so :-)

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

Perhaps you meant to say that the sun is 7 minutes ahead of the angular position it was at 7 minutes ago, when it emitted the light that you now see. Either that, or you are a geocentrist.

Yes, your question is better put : )

And why is it 7 minutes, by the way?

It isn't, it is 8.3 minutes if I recall correctly. I just used 7 as a number. The actual time and distance is not important to the question.

[LeGrande]

Now let me ask you - which way will the sun's gravity appear related to it's light? Will the gravity of the sun be in the east while its gravitational pull will be toward the west? I don't think so :-)

You are correct. The effect of the field is instantaneous : ) That is why the rocket scientist boys use Newtons equations when they are aiming to put a rover on Mars.

[LeGrande]

"I don't see what your problem is." [excerpt]

Remember, this is the Religion Forum. ;)

These religious forums will be the death of me :( I didn't mean the statement in a pejorative manner.

[Fichori]

I wasn’t sure what or how you meant it, so I thought I’d give you a friendly reminder. ;)

[LeGrande]

But just for fun, no matter how slow of a near-stall you're flying your GlaStar, your gps still takes time to measure velocity. And when it gives you a position and a velocity reading, they will be from slightly different times. And besides, by the time the position is displayed on your gps, you're not in that position anymore anyway.

I think you are confused by Zeno's paradox : ) Let me give you a quote that you might find interesting.

"… Zeno was born in the Greek colony of Elea in Southern Italy in the fifth century BC. He travelled widely for many years and then returned to his birthplace only to be tortured to death after being implicated in a plot to assassinate the city’s tyrant Nearchus. He appears to have been a resilient character: he is said to have bitten off his tongue and spat it at the tyrant during torture. However, it is for his activities during happier days that he is chiefly remembered; particularly a series of paradoxes set in the form of short fables. The most famous concerns a race between Achilles (fleetest of foot of all mortals) and a tortoise. Being far slower than Achilles the tortoise is given a head start of say ten metres. But once the race is off Achilles easily reaches the tortoise’s starting position with a few lengthy bounds. But by now the tortoise has moved on. Achilles leaps after the tortoise but on reaching its last position the tortoise has again advanced by some tiny amount. Achilles again advances but each time Achilles moves to close the gap, the gap is widened. Achilles appears to be unable to ever reach the tortoise (or even to move at all) because to do so he must advance through an infinity of ever decreasing distances.

Zeno knew of course that motion was possible and Achilles would catch up with the tortoise. His paradoxes were to illustrate that something must be wrong about our simplistic notion of time and motion. It took two millennia of mathematical head scratching to solve Zeno’s paradox by demonstrating that an infinite sum can add up to a finite number. However, the paradox lives on in the quantum Zeno effect and the inverse quantum Zeno effect, which describe how a quantum system can be manipulated by measurement. "

Does that help?

So how are particles any different? I know that light and radiowaves travel at a predictable velocity. The waves coming from the GPS satellite to your GPS receiver have a path and pass through certain positions at certain times just like a fast moving car would. Electrons moving towards the face of a cathode ray tube move at a velocity controlled by the electric field which accelerated them, and they take time to reach the phosphor screen, do they not?

Yes, that is what is nice about the speed of light. For all practical purposes it is a constant. Everything else is a variable.

[LeGrande]

First, take a turntable like people put spices on in their cupboard. Set it up with a cup in the center, and two cups on opposite sides. Punch a small hole in the outer cups half way down and also mount a laser pointer on one of them. You will see that as the water shoots out of the outer cup onto the center cup, it will go straight in just like the laser beam and they will hit the same spot. Now spin the whole works, and behold, the water will lag the laser beam. THat demonstrates if the sun orbited the earth. Now stop the turn table, and hang the center cup on a string, and just spin it! Lo and behold, the water and laser will continue to hit the same spot even though the cup is spinning!

Your experiment needs to add one additional bit of information. Instead of a steady stream of water or photons you need to send individual particles. For example simply repeat the experiment but use a precisely timed simultaneous opening of the water hole and a burst from the laser. Will anything change with the spinning cup example? The won't hit at the same point will they? That is essentially what my original question was, except that I used light and a field, instead of water and light. : )

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Yes, your question is better put : )

I wasn't asking you a question, I was telling you something. Either you face the fact that you are completely wrong, or face the fact that you are a geocentrist.

It isn't, it is 8.3 minutes if I recall correctly. I just used 7 as a number.

Why didn't you use 8 as a number?

[mrjesse]

Your experiment needs to add one additional bit of information. Instead of a steady stream of water or photons you need to send individual particles. For example simply repeat the experiment but use a precisely timed simultaneous opening of the water hole and a burst from the laser. Will anything change with the spinning cup example? The won't hit at the same point will they? That is essentially what my original question was, except that I used light and a field, instead of water and light. : )

The pulse of light may reach the center cup sooner then the pulse of water, but they will still both come from exactly the same place!

You were clearly describing angular lag between the sun's gravitational pull and optical apparent position.

-Jesse