Posted on 06/13/2008 8:50:06 PM PDT by Coleus
What does that tell you?
Where was I using this term?
To compare the two is really an insult to the slug.
We are in agreement once again : ) And yet somehow those congress critters are smart enough to keep taking our money and getting re-elected.
And if the Sun was 10 light-years away?
You are simply ignorant about the scientific method. Simply provide a falsifiable hypothesis to test. In other words show how Creationism can be falsified and then it will count as a credible theory, for which evidence can be shown for and against. A theory that can't be falsified, like string theory, is worthless, at best a pleasant diversion.But as we shall see, your notion of falsification is a special one: it only applies to the other guy you may be talking to.
The Sun is only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth, in a two body model.
How would you falsify this hypothesis?
If it were true that the actual position of the moon is 2.1 degrees away from the apparent position of the Sun during a solar eclipse, you would think that someone would have mentioned it somewhere.
In the LeGrandeic System of Astrophysics, it is indeed possible, and no black holes are necessary. post 498:
[mrjesse] If the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, how far lagged would the sun's optical image be from its real position?[LeGrande] 180 degrees off.
How this relates to the addlepated observer hypothesis, I haven't a clue.In view of this, we expect that a two-body system such as the Sun and the Earth, which produces almost no gravitational radiation (according to general relativity) should have numerator dynamic effects in the gravitational field that give nearly perfect phase-lag cancellation, and therefore the Earth's gravitational acceleration should always point directly toward the Sun's position at the present instant, rather than (say) the Sun's position eight minutes ago. Of course, if something outside this two-body system (such as a passing star) were to upset the Sun's pattern of motion, the effect of such a disturbance would propagate at the speed of light. The important point to realize is that the fact that the Earth's gravitational acceleration always points directly at the Sun's present position does not imply that the "force of gravity" is transmitted instantaneously. It merely implies that there are velocity and acceleration terms in the transfer function (i.e., numerator dynamics) that effectively cancel out the phase lag in a simple periodic pattern of motion.[excerpt]
You have given some fine lectures on "falsifiability", like this one in post 342:Great point! I wanna know that too!You are simply ignorant about the scientific method. Simply provide a falsifiable hypothesis to test. In other words show how Creationism can be falsified and then it will count as a credible theory, for which evidence can be shown for and against. A theory that can't be falsified, like string theory, is worthless, at best a pleasant diversion.But as we shall see, your notion of falsification is a special one: it only applies to the other guy you may be talking to.The Sun is only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth, in a two body model.
How would you falsify this hypothesis?
^ Annual aberration is the ratio of Earth's orbital velocity (around 30 km/s) to the speed of light (about 300,000 km/s), which shifts the Sun's apparent position relative to the celestial sphere toward the west by about 1/10,000 radian. Light-time correction for the Moon is the distance it moves during the time it takes its light to reach Earth divided by the Earth-Moon distance, yielding an angle in radians by which its apparent position lags behind its computed geometric position. Light-time correction for the Sun is negligible because it is almost motionless during 8.3 minutes relative to the barycenter (center-of-mass) of the solar system.Notice that the moon does have light-time correction and apparent angular displacement -- because it does orbit the earth. The sun, on the other hand, does not orbit the earth, and as a matter of fact doesn't move all that much in 8.3 minutes, (no where near 2.1 degrees!)
Ok lets go back to our transit at dawn experiment. Only this time the earth is fixed and the sun is orbiting the earth. Now as the first light of the sun is seen at the horizon, point the transit at it. Then 8.3 minutes later measure the difference between the apparent edged of the sun and the horizon. You will see a difference of apx 2.1 degrees on the transit. I am assuming that with the sun orbiting the earth you will agree that its apparent position differs from its actual position by 2.1 degrees, right?
Now lets repeat the experiment with the Suns position fixed and the Earth spinning in place. Now as the first light of the sun is seen at the horizon, point the transit at it. Then 8.3 minutes later measure the difference between the apparent edged of the sun and the horizon. You will see a difference of apx 2.1 degrees on the transit. This is the identical experiment and the identical result except that instead of the sun orbiting the earth the earth is spinning. As far as our observations go the results are identical.
There is no difference between the Earth spinning in place or the sun orbiting the earth, the suns apparent position vs actual position is the same.
How would you falsify this hypothesis?
It is easy, show how the earth is not one AU away from the sun or that the earths rotational speed is different. Or demonstrate that the speed of light is instantaneous or simply a different speed, etc. etc. In short, measure it : )
By using a Foucault pendulum or ring laser gyroscope?
Let me give you a little tutorial in observation and stellar aberration.
The first thing that is factored out in making observations is the rotation of the earth. Observatories are specially built so that their rotation cancels out the earths rotation. You can even buy relatively cheap automated telescopes that do the same thing. The fact that the earth is spinning is of no interest to anyone, it is a bother. It is important to understand the concept but we have bigger fish to fry : )
Now there is another problem, the astronomers would like to know the distance to the objects that they are observing. You measure distance by the difference in the angle that each eye sees an object. If you only had one eye, your depth perception would be terrible.
Astronomers start with two problems, one they typically only have one eye (telescope) and the light from these distant objects is parallel. So even if they had two telescopes it would make no difference. Even if they make an observation in June and another in December the light rays are still parallel and they can’t triangulate the position. They even have this problem observing items in our solar system. Put two observers a thousand miles apart and have them observe the sun at the same instant, their lines to the sun will be parallel.
So now we come to stellar aberration we know that the earth is traveling through space (our solar system is traveling through space) the fact that our solar system is traveling through space distorts the apparent position of the stars in much the same way that that our angular velocity does, except to a much lessor degree. And they would like to eliminate the stellar aberration too. So, some observatory’s automatically compensate for it too.
Essentially the two concepts boil down to the difference between angular velocity and straight velocity, but the effects are identical. That is why I am more than willing to switch back and forth.
Yes they can show that the earth is spinning. But if the earth is fixed and the sun is orbiting the earth in our thought experiment, how are they applicable?
The point I am trying to make is that the suns apparent position differs from its actual position whether the sun is rotating around the earth or the earth is spinning.
I am beginning to understand the gulf between creationists and scientists. I would never have guessed that such a simple concept would be so hard to explain.
Ah, good, Foucault pendulums and ring laser gyroscopes are allowed. Therefore, your next assertion in post 533 is dead and buried:
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.
Fixed by what? I thought you said there were no third bodies. And what is it that propels the Sun around the Earth in a circular orbit at 11,000 km/s? There must be some kind of supposition behind that. Is it magic?
Do the same thing with Saturn and wait 83 minutes. Or with Sirius and wait 8.6 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.