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.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Time for a recap, in case someone gets amnesia:

The LeGrandeic System of Astrophysics

post 447

[LeGrande] 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?

post 469

[mrjesse] this [is] how it would be if the sun were orbiting the earth... 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!

post 488

[LeGrande] You seem unable or unwilling to try and grasp simple concepts that disagree with your world view. My example was simple, is the sun where it appears to be when you look at it? Or is it ahead of where it appears to be? You seem to think that it is where it appears to be, you are wrong.

post 489

[ECO] the sun is where mrjesse says it is.

post 496

[LeGrande] MrJesse is claiming that... the sun is in exactly the same place that we see it, when we see it. You seem to agree, according to your equation and statement "the sun is where mrjesse says it is." Both of you are wrong, we see the Sun where it was 8 minutes ago when the photons were emitted.

post 504

[mrjesse] Can you find anyone at nasa who plans space missions and who agrees with you? The more I hear of your idea the more crazy it sounds.

[LeGrande] LOL They all agree with me... May I suggest "Physics for Dummy's"...

post 542

[LeGrande] Go out at dawn and point a transit right at the edge of the Sun at the instant the first light appears at the horizon (it should be the same point). Now wait 8.3 minutes and measure the distance from the edge of the Sun to the horizon. That is the difference between the Suns apparent position and its true position.

post 525

[ECO] Is the moon's apparent position off by more than 2.1 degrees from its actual position? Or less?

post 529

[LeGrande] The lag is a little over a second.

The Collapse of the LeGrandeic System of Astrophysics

Click on the links and look at the pictures, LeGrande. There is no 2.1 degree lag. Apparent position of the Sun, actual position of the Sun, apparent position of the moon, and actual position of the moon, all in the same place. And a straight line through the real Sun, the real moon, and the observer on Earth. Dramatic, no? Like a stake pounded through an undead vampire, it rids the world of your 2.1 degree solar lag theory.

Solar Eclipse



Solar Eclipses for Beginners

[LeGrande]

Do the same thing with Saturn and wait 83 minutes. Or with Sirius and wait 8.6 years.

That is correct : )

[LeGrande]

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.

Do you really believe that the speed of light is instantaneous? The only way that the the suns apparent position and actual position could be the same is if the the speed of light was instantaneous.

[LeGrande]

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?

I take it you have never heard of a thought experiment. Did you read this quotation that fichori requested?

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath249/kmath249.htm

"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."

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I take it you have never heard of a thought experiment.

So then, it is your thoughts that propel the Sun around the Earth at 11,000 km/s.

[LeGrande]

So then, it is your thoughts that propel the Sun around the Earth at 11,000 km/s.

Sure and it would help to make the earth a black hole but you get the idea.

So have you decided on whether light is instantaneous or not? Let me know when you figure it out.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

it would help to make the earth a black hole

Alas, that would contradict this assertion of yours:

You really are clueless aren't you? In a two body system there is no difference between one body spinning in relation to the other body or one body orbiting a stationary body.

[mrjesse]

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.

Sure - but this is only measuring the degrees per 8.3 minutes of angular rotation of the earth. It does not take into account anything else whatsoever!

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?

Yup! But only if the sun was orbiting the earth. And in that case, a ring laser gyro would NOT indicate the earth to be turning at 2.1 degrees/8.3 minutes. But the earth IS turning.

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.

The observations are identical because you're only measuring apparent angular rate difference! You're not measuring the difference between actual and optical apparent position! If you were to repeat the experiment with a sundial and a gravitational sundial, it would be as follows: If the earth was turning and the sun was not orbiting, then the two would read same (or 20 arcseconds instead of 2.1 degrees) but if the earth were not turning and the sun orbited it once every 24 hours, then the gravitational sundial would read 2.1 degrees ahead of the optical sundial.

The sun, the light, and the earth are a 3 body system. Remember, you said "The Gyro, LRG and pendulum are essentially the same thing and if you add them in you are adding in a third body" and you said "Light, is the moving part in the LRG"

So if the light in the Laser Ring Gyro is a third body and if it knows that the earth is turning, then the sunlight is also a third body and it knows that the sun is not orbiting the earth. I'm not sure why you can't understand this, but if the sun put out some light and them moved (like if it orbited the earth instead of the earth spinning) then by the time that light got to the earth, its angle would be that of the sun's old position. But if the sun hasn't moved in that 8.3 minutes, the position of the light will still be coming from where the sun is - because the sun will still be where it was!

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.

The LRG knows it. The sun's light knows it. There is a difference. Your claim that "In a two body system there is no difference between one body spinning in relation to the other body or one body orbiting a stationary body." is actually very dishonest. It's not true! The only way it would be true is if you worded it like this "Without having any tools to measure which is spinning and which is orbiting, it's not possible to measure which is spinning and which is orbiting." But it's completely dishonest to say that there is "no difference" just because one is barred from using existing tools to measure the difference!

But I still need to my merry go around experiment and see who's right on that one.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Let me give you a little tutorial in observation and stellar aberration.

Thanks!

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 : )

Yes, I know about sidereal. I have a cheapo meade DS90 autostar telescope (90mm/1M refractor) which has goto function and sidereal compensation.

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.

Yes, I know well about the concept of stereo vision and 3D. I've even gone out in the yard and take photos of the area, then stepped over two feet, took another photo, then put them on my computer side by side and looked at them one picture per eye and seen the 3D functionality.

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.

I know all this..

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.

But Stellar Aberration is only 20 arcseconds (which is 0.0056 degrees) and is irrelevant to the distances of the sun or stars!

Essentially the two concepts boil down to the difference between angular velocity and straight velocity,

If you're talking about "Stellar Aberration" and "Light time correction" as the "two concepts" then you're absolutely wrong. Light time correction is irrelevant to transverse velocity, while Stellar Aberration (falling rain experiment) is irrelevant to distance! Furthermore, either one works just fine whether the light source and/or the observer are moving in a straight line or a curved line.

To say that the difference is angular vs. straight velocity is also wrong: For example, it doesn't matter whether the moon is orbiting the earth or just flying by once in a straight line - it will still have light-time correction causing it to appear behind where is, as a function of its own velocity and the distance from it to the observer. On the other hand, Stellar Aberration is irrelevant to the distance or velocity of the light source, but is merely a function of the transverse (cross-ray? :-) velocity of the observer. So really, the difference is that Light-time correction is caused by the velocity of the light source while Stellar Aberration is caused by the velocity of the observer. I'm telling you, since light can continue on in space on its normal course even once its light source has moved does cause there to be a difference between whether the observer is moving or the light source is moving!

but the effects are identical. That is why I am more than willing to switch back and forth.

Only in a very general and non-scientific way are the two effects identical. I mean a plane crash and a shotgut have identical effects too - generally lethal destruction and loss of life. But better gun handling isn't going to prevent plane crashes and better piloting isn't going to prevent shotguns from shooting people. So technically, are the effects of light time correction and stellar aberration identical? No way! First of all, one causes only apparent change in angle (Stellar Abberation.) Light time correction causes the light to actually be coming from a different position of its moving light source (because that's where the light actually came from.). Furthermore, in our discussion of the sun and the earth, Stellar Aberration accounts for at most about 20 arcseconds (or about 0.0056 degrees) while the light-time correction (if the sun were orbiting the earth) would account for 2.1 degrees. Now 2.1 degrees and 0.0056 degrees are simply not the same effect! Furthermore, the two do not even operate on the same principle!

The two are simply not the same thing and we're talking about 2.1 degrees here and it is just dishonest to say you can switch back and forth!

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande: The Sun is only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth, in a two body model.

Said Ethan Clive Osgoode: How would you falsify this hypothesis?

Said LeGrande: 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 : )

Says mrjesse: Yeah but as soon as we pull out any tools to measure any of those things you'll say "Stop! That won't work because you just introduced a third body!" So ECO's point stands I say - the statement is not falsifiable. Really it's not even honest, since all you're really saying is that "Without any way to measure which is spinning and which is orbiting, you can't measure which is spinning and which is orbiting." But to say that there is no difference just because one can't measure the difference is dishonest - especially when the reason that we can't measure is because your definition bars us from using any tools which allow us to measure, when in reality such tools do exist!

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

I take it you have never heard of a thought experiment. Did you read this quotation that fichori requested?



http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath249/kmath249.htm



"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."

You're totally confused here. That article is talking about the gravitational angles between the sun and earth as the earth orbits the sun (Not as the earth turns per day!) and furthermore that article does not even mention light except as a speed when referring to the speed or a propagation of a field or disturbance. It never actually mentions light itself once!

The issue that the article is discussing is whether the gravitational pull between the sun and the earth, as the latter orbits the former, is directly between them or lagged due to the earth's path around the sun. It's not even talking about earth's rotation! And when it refers to 8 minutes of lag, it's not talking about 8 minutes of earth rotation, it's talking about 8 minutes time worth of movement in the earths path around the sun!

To try and appropriate that statement out of context and infer that it is talking about the earth's rotation is either dishonest or ignorant.

My only question to you about that is didn't you read it, didn't you understand it, or did you know it wasn't related and were you hoping I wouldn't notice?

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

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.

You have indeed claimed that the suns optical angle is 2.1 degrees lagged from its actual position due to the rotational speed of the earth and the distance to the sun. But this does not make sense to ECO or myself considering that the sun is not orbiting the earth. And you have provided ZERO evidence that your claim is true. You said NASA knows it but provided no citations of them saying so. The only document you linked to was about something completely different. The many illustrations you've given either do not apply or do not make sense or are contradictory or absurd. I have pointed out many absurdities and inaccuracies in your claims and statements. And all the articles on the web I've found so far say that Light time correction on the sun is very small because the sun isn't moving much around its baycenter (center of mass.)

Is this like a great secret truth that only you know?

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.

Amen to that, except the other way! I had no idea that "scientists" (or is it just an atheist thing?) are so unable to understand simple concepts like the motion of the earth, light, and the sun. I really cannot imagine somebody making so many absurd claims as you have and not realizing that they just don't know what they are talking about. My only logical conclusion is that it is atheism's (or is it science's) M.O. of "Survival of the fittest idea. It don't matter if its a true idea or not, if people can be convinced to believe it, then it must be the most fit and therefore best idea. No other rules. Lieing is only bad if it's harmful to the survival of the idea." And so on.

Please help me understand why you know you're wrong on so many counts but refuse to admit it? If someone makes a few inaccurate statements, it could be excused as accidents or ignorance. But you've said so many wrong statements and I or Ethan has called you on them, it is no longer possible for you to be ignorant without knowing it. So help me to understand, please! What is your view on lieing or intentionally deceiving? When did you first realize that you were wrong? Does this sort of behavour carry over into all areas of your life? Do you think lots of scientists have these same or similar ethics?

Please help me undertsand,

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Says mrjesse: Yeah but as soon as we pull out any tools to measure any of those things you'll say "Stop! That won't work because you just introduced a third body!"

It seems that LeGrande (accidentally?) allowed pendulums and ring laser gyroscopes in post 597, so his assertion

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.

is dead an buried. But he may retroactively dis-allow them in posts to come. We should inquire for an official list of what is allowed and what is not allowed.

Really it's not even honest, since all you're really saying is that "Without any way to measure which is spinning and which is orbiting, you can't measure which is spinning and which is orbiting."

He's going to have to dis-allow the Earth's atmosphere and moving objects on Earth: Coriolis Effect, Eotvos Effect. But if the atmosphere is not allowed, it would make it much easier to notice the Sun's movements against daytime stars, and the space-suit clad observer can immediately see if the Sun is zipping along at 11,000 km/s or not. LeGrande seemed reluctant to dis-allow the rest of the universe (possibly because his thought experiments are getting too ridiculous even for him to bear) so he would have to dis-allow the observer. Or at least, stipulate an extra clause that the observer who is observing the Sun is blind.

[mrjesse]

to ECO: did you look up aberration of light in Wikipedia?

For what its worth, I looked up aberration of light in Wikipedia. It says

The aberration of light (also referred to as astronomical aberration or stellar aberration)

stellar aberration is independent of the distance of a celestial object from the observer, and depends only on the observer's instantaneous transverse velocity with respect to the incoming light beam, at the moment of observation.

So that has nothing to do with the distance to the sun, and virtually nothing to do with the earth's rate of rotation.

I also looked up light time correction on Wikipedia:

It is independent of the motion of the observer.

And this has nothing to do with the rotation or velocity of the earth either, but rather the velocity of the sun!

Furthermore, I looked up a note about the new moon on Wikipedia, and it says:

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.

Ahah! See they are saying that the sun isn't moving much and therefore (regardless of the motion of the earth) light time correction isn't much.

I realize that WP is not always accurate, but I'm quoting them because they are who you suggested. If you think they are wrong, just say so and say where you think they are wrong as it relates to my quotes of them.

So there are two things that can cause apparent angular displacement: Stellar Aberration which is a result of a moving observer and is 20 arcseconds for the sun/earth, and light-time correction for a moving light source. But the earth isn't the light source and the sun isn't moving, so you're stuck with just 20 arcseconds of Stellar Aberration - or at least nowhere near your alleged 2.1 degrees!

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande: I just want to be clear, when you look up into the night sky and aim a telescope at Saturn, do you really believe that Saturn is exactly where you are pointing the telescope?

According to you, the actual position of Saturn is 10AU * 2.1 degrees/AU = 21 degrees from its observed position in the sky. People who are on some serious drugs might believe that. Do you believe it?

That's a great point. Now Saturn does orbit the sun at the rate of 29.5 years per full orbit, or .0000232021 degrees per minute. Saturn, at 9AU, would be about 75 light minutes away. So the angle changed in Saturn during the time it takes its light to reach us would be .0000232021 degrees. That's light time correction.

But as you say, in LeGrande's world, 75 light-minutes times the earth's rotation would be 18.75 whole degrees!

Or what about Jupiter, which is 30AU out? That's roughly 60 degrees lagged. Are you saying that if I were to look up at night with a super powerful telescope and see Jupiter, it would be actually 60 degrees off?

What if there were a reasonably stationary star 86.5722414651AU away (that's 12 light hours) - if we looked up and saw it at night, would it really be on the other side of the world? (Hey - it might have moved a little - but it aint gonna have moved 180 degrees in 12 hours!)

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

What if there were a reasonably stationary star 86.5722414651AU away (that's 12 light hours) - if we looked up and saw it at night, would it really be on the other side of the world? (Hey - it might have moved a little - but it aint gonna have moved 180 degrees in 12 hours!)

With LeGrande's astrophysics, it's not possible to estimate where -- not even approximately -- the "actual" positions of nearby stars are. For instance, Wikipedia says that Sirius is 8.6 +-0.04 light-years away. 1 light-year is 63,240 AU. So, +-0.04 light-years is +-2530 AU. In other words, in LeGrandeic astrophysics, the "real" Sirius could be anywhere along the diurnal circle. Inspite of this, magic leprechauns have informed LeGrande that...

Sirius is close to us so its actual position is going to be very close to its apparent position.

[mrjesse]

Said mrjesse: Can you find anyone at nasa who plans space missions and who agrees with you? The more I hear of your idea the more crazy it sounds.

LOL They all agree with me : )

You still haven't substantiated your claim. If all of NASA agrees with you, and if it's true, you've gotta find some mention of it online. Heh, even if it's not true you ought to find some references online. I mean, the internet covers everything that is and most of what isn't. If this is such a simple concept as you claimed there ought to be lots of websites or beginning astronomy books that talk about it.

So what do we have? Lots of websites that say your wrong, and zero that say you're right? Isn't it a time you took that into consideration? Is it really honest to say that it's such a simple concept and that all of nasa agrees with you when you can't find any articles that claim the same?

Here are some websites that say you are wrong:
Light-time correction, The Indological Knowledgebase

Actually, during its light-time, the Sun does move slightly around the barycenter (center of mass) of the solar system as a counter-balance to the massive jovian planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). Thus the true light-time correction of the Sun is extremely small, usually much smaller than 0.03".

That's nowheres near your 2.1 degrees.

PVAstro0702, James Bradley report

Light-time correction has absolutely no relation to the motion of the Earth with respect to the Sun.

Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications By David Anthony Vallado, Wayne D. McClain, page 299

For stars, we ignore light-time correction.

Control Software for the Bochum Radio Telescope by James Miller G3RUH

It is able to calculate objects' coordinates properly, accounting for the whole litany of small corrections without regarding each as a special case and with various degrees of approximation. These are:
* Light-time correction (excepting stars)
* Gravitational deflection of light by the Sun
* Aberration due to velocity of Earth around Sun

Notice how they correct for the 20 arcseconds of Stellar Aberration but not for light-time correction of stars (the Sun is a star!) Why is this? I'm telling you that it is because like the sun, the stars are relatively motionless!

http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/doppler.htm#Aber

There is another reason why observed positions differ from actual ones, which is simply movement that takes place while the light is on its way. This is called the light-time correction, and is of interest for satellites and other nearby, rapidly moving, objects. For stars, it is usually neglected.

It does matter what is spinning and what is orbiting.

It's time to face the choir. This idea of yours isn't working. And it's gone past the point of innocent or honest ignorance.

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

If you want to believe that everything is where it appears to be then go ahead : ) I can't change your mind and I really have very little interest in changing your mind.

Good luck : )

[mrjesse]

If you want to believe that everything is where it appears to be then go ahead : ) I can't change your mind and I really have very little interest in changing your mind.

First of all, it is most dishonest of you to suggest that I want to believe everything is where it appears. You know that I make no such claim.

We have been discussing in specific terms the apparent lag of the sun from its real position due to the time of flight of light and the rotational speed of the earth - to the tune of 2.1 degrees. I have clearly stated that:

I have no doubt whatsoever that the sun is apparently 20 arcseconds displaced due to the transverse velocity (sideways) of the earth as it orbits the sun. But 20 arcseconds is 0.000277777 degrees. You're talking about 2.1 degrees, which is seven thousand five hundred times bigger!

The fact is that you made an absurd and untrue claim for which you can present NO evidence, and against which I found many evidences. Furthermore, you don't have enough honesty to consider thought experiments which would demonstrate your idea as invalid (such as where really is Saturn? is it really almost 20 degrees displaced? What about Jupiter? Is it really 60 degrees off? What about a star 87AU(12 light hours) away? would it really be 180 degrees lagged? You know full well that if you applied the same logic to some stars other then the sun, your logic would be unquestionably wrong.)

Thus it is completely dishonest of you to skirt around your own idea then accuse me of believing something absurd. I found support for my understanding of the issue. You didn't find support for yours. Mine works fine with stars other then the sun. Yours is obviously wrong with regards to stars other then the sun.

My only conclusion is that due to your atheism you believe that there is no such thing as wrong and lying is no big deal. But this helps me understand why atheistic evolutionists or scientists will make far out claims and argue for them as if they are true - when they full well know that they aren't true. This is why evolutionary science is in such dishonest shambles - everybody in the field wants to believe it is true, and they will say just about anything, true or not, to try to convince people. Then when they come up short on actual evidence, they just hurl unfounded insults like "Oh you believe that nothing is where it is."

Do you think I'm not being fair or honest? And this is not rhetorical, I would appreciate an answer. It has been my goal to be true and honest and learn the truth. How would I have been more fair or more honest when a person makes a claim to how physics work with the sun and the earth, but then refuses to apply it to other stars? And who also refuses to provide any supporting evidence? And when there is ample evidence against his claim? Furthermore, when the person making the claim supports it by accusing me of believing absurd things which I never claimed (and do not) believe? (Especially when I already clearly stated that I did not believe them?)

How can I honestly and fairly come to any conclusion other then I have, which is that you just have too few scruples and are trying to deceive people?

Is it really that much to ask -- that people presenting themselves as honest scientifically learned people would be at least honest? You have not been honest. There is no way for you to not know that you're statement was just wrong, and yet you refuse to face the facts.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

I have no doubt whatsoever that the sun is apparently 20 arcseconds displaced due to the transverse velocity (sideways) of the earth as it orbits the sun. But 20 arcseconds is 0.000277777 degrees. You're talking about 2.1 degrees, which is seven thousand five hundred times bigger!

How far off is it due to the earths angular velocity?

[mrjesse]

Said mrjesse: I have no doubt whatsoever that the sun is apparently 20 arcseconds displaced due to the transverse velocity (sideways) of the earth as it orbits the sun. But 20 arcseconds is 0.000277777 degrees. You're talking about 2.1 degrees, which is seven thousand five hundred times bigger!

How far off is it due to the earths angular velocity?

I'm not sure whether you're talking about the earth's angular velocity as it orbits the sun or the earth's angular velocity as it rotates at 24 hours per turn. I'm also assuming that you're talking about velocity as in km/sec rather then degrees/sec.

so to answer your question: The earth orbits the sun once about every 365.24 days, which comes out to be about 1 degree per day. Thus, 1 AU * 2 * PI / 365.25 / 24 in miles = 66,627.774 miles per hour.

Due to the earth's rotation, the surface speed at the equator is (7 926.41 * PI) / 24 = 1,037.56464 miles per hour.

The formula for the angle of stellar aberration for low transverse velocities (and falling snow and the like) is about atan(transverse_velocity/speedoflight), so we see that the earth's angle of Stellar Abberation will be:

(atan(66627.774 / 670616629) / PI) * 180 = 0.00569250757 degrees, or 20.4930272 arcseconds for orbital aberration, and

(atan(1037.56464 / 670616629) / PI) * 180 = .0000886468845 degrees or about 0.319128784 arcseconds at the equator.

So you can see that that Stellar Aberration does not cause anywheres near your alleged 2.1 degrees.

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

I'm not sure whether you're talking about the earth's angular velocity as it orbits the sun or the earth's angular velocity as it rotates at 24 hours per turn.

The earths angular velocity as it rotates 24 hours per turn, of course.

[mrjesse]

Said mrjesse: I'm not sure whether you're talking about the earth's angular velocity as it orbits the sun or the earth's angular velocity as it rotates at 24 hours per turn.

The earths angular velocity as it rotates 24 hours per turn, of course.

The angular displacement of the apparent position of the sun due to the earth's rotation of 24 hours per turn is 0.0000886468845 degrees at the equator and zero at the poles, which as you can see, is not very much. In other words, your 2.1 degrees is off by a factor of 23,689 (Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred and eighty nine)!

You gotta understand that there is a difference between spinning and being orbited. That's why Stellar Aberration of light is defined as being caused by the motion of the observer while light time correction is being caused by the motion of the light source.

If it really didn't matter whether the earth was spinning or the sun was orbiting it, then we wouldn't need stellar aberration and light-time correction. All we would need was one phenomenon and formula - but there are two different ones!

And they are two entirely different phenomenon: Stellar Aberration is only an apparent displacement of apparent angle, while light time correction actually does cause the light to be coming from an angle at which the light source no longer is. The rain is coming from below the exact spot the cloud was - but the cloud isn't there anymore.

If you were driving through the countryside on a rainy but windless day, and if you were driving at the same speed as the rain was falling, it'd look to be 45 degrees displaced. But if you were to keep your camera trained on a certain drop as it fell down by a fencepost, you would see that it was actually going straight down along side the fence post. This is Stellar Aberration, and is only an apparent, not a real, displacement of angle.

On the other hand, if a rain cloud is moving over the countryside raining, even if at the ground level it is entirely windless and the rain is falling straight down on you as you stand outside in your front yard, by the time the rain reaches you the rain cloud will have moved (Imagine a tiny rain cloud.) And when the rain stops, the cloud will have already been moved on. This is a real difference in apparent and real position. This is light time correction.

Look. If the sun is apparently lagged by 2.1 degrees, and everybody at nasa knows it, and if Saturn is ~20 degrees behind where it appears, if Jupiter is 60 degrees behind where it appears to be, then you've gotta be able to find some publication that agrees with you. There sure are plenty that disagree.
It's not like astronomy is a brand new field and these things have never been thought about before.

In the beginning you said you have never been a believer in appeals to authority. Now I know why - you can't find any authority that agrees with your far out ideas! :-)

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

At the exact instant that you see a solar eclipse the suns actual position is already 8.3 minutes beyond that point.

Let us place this comment alongside your earlier comment in post 533:

The Sun is only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth, in a two body model... Adding a third body invalidates the two body model. [LeGrande, 533]

At the exact instant that you see a solar eclipse the suns actual position is already 8.3 minutes beyond that point. [LeGrande, 603]

The 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. It is evident, then, that it matters not one whit to you whether "the model" (i.e., "the excuse", "the distraction", "the waste of time") is true or false.

[LeGrande]

The 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. It is evident, then, that it matters not one whit to you whether "the model" (i.e., "the excuse", "the distraction", "the waste of time") is true or false.

Your willful ignorance is striking. I am almost stunned at your seeming inability to understand that because of the distances involved it takes light a little over 8.3 minutes to reach your eyes from the sun and it takes light a little over a second to reach your eyes from the moon.

I know that you think light is instantaneous. That is the only explanation for your thinking that the sun, moon and stars are exactly where you see them. It also explains why you believe in the creation myth and the Bible. I am sorry but I can't cure your ignorance if you are unwilling to learn.

[LeGrande]

I may have thought of a way to explain the idea better :)

Lets pretend that the earth isn't spinning as it orbits the sun or to be more precise it makes one revolution in a year. Much like our moon isn't spinning in relation to the earth.

Now when you look at the sun, its position is fixed in the sky (lets also forget seasonal changes and the barycenter changes). The suns position never changes and its apparent position is exactly the same as its actual position. Do you agree? The sun is still an AU away and it still takes 8.3 minutes for the light to reach us. The suns apparent position (where you point at it) and its actual position are identical, even though the earth is orbiting the sun.

To further cement this idea. Lets put you in a car driving towards an intersection. As you approach the intersection you see another car approaching the intersection from your right. You also notice that the other cars apparent position in relation to your car stays the same, if you were to draw a circle on you windshield the other car would stay in the circle (your head can't move either). You are on an intercept course and if both cars velocity and direction stay consistent then they will collide. This is just another example of the apparent position agreeing with the actual position even though both objects are moving in different directions. This is a trick I use all of the time as a pilot to determine where I am going to land.

Now back to our non spinning earth. We meet at a train station on the equator with the sun shining directly overhead. If we wanted too we could draw a line from the sun through us to the center of the earth and everything would be aligned, apparent position would match actual position. Today we are running an experiment, at exactly 12:00 the sun is going to turn off. So I get in the train and at 12:00 the train leaves traveling at 17.5 miles per minute (that just happens to be the earths rotation speed). at exactly 12:08.3 the world goes dark, and the train stops. I have traveled 145 miles. Lets also assume that the earth was flat for that 145 miles.

Now if we draw this up and put a protractor on the center of the earth we can see that there is about 2.1 degrees of separation between our two positions. That is the difference between where I apparently saw the sun and where you know the sun actually is. If we draw a line from the center of the earth through me we will miss the sun by 2.1 degrees.

That is the difference between the suns actual and apparent position for our little experiment.

[Fichori]

"Your willful ignorance is striking. I am almost stunned at your seeming inability to understand that because of the distances involved it takes light a little over 8.3 minutes to reach your eyes from the sun and it takes light a little over a second to reach your eyes from the moon.

I know that you think light is instantaneous. That is the only explanation for your thinking that the sun, moon and stars are exactly where you see them. It also explains why you believe in the creation myth and the Bible. I am sorry but I can't cure your ignorance if you are unwilling to learn."

This is a strawman.

Neither mrjesse, ECO or myself question the measured distance from the earth to either the sun or the moon.

Nor do we question the speed of light.

And because the moon is orbiting the earth, it will not appear exactly where it is. (i.e. there will be some light time correction.)

Pure strawman.

[mrjesse]

Now back to our non spinning earth. We meet at a train station on the equator with the sun shining directly overhead. If we wanted too we could draw a line from the sun through us to the center of the earth and everything would be aligned, apparent position would match actual position. Today we are running an experiment, at exactly 12:00 the sun is going to turn off. So I get in the train and at 12:00 the train leaves traveling at 17.5 miles per minute (that just happens to be the earths rotation speed). at exactly 12:08.3 the world goes dark, and the train stops. I have traveled 145 miles. Lets also assume that the earth was flat for that 145 miles.

Now if we draw this up and put a protractor on the center of the earth we can see that there is about 2.1 degrees of separation between our two positions. That is the difference between where I apparently saw the sun and where you know the sun actually is. If we draw a line from the center of the earth through me we will miss the sun by 2.1 degrees.

I think your wrong here - your position may be 2.1 degrees around the world, but the sun won't be moved 2.1 degrees in its apparent position. Simple trig. Anyway, I gotta run, but I thought I'd give you a chance to draw it out and say "Oh, oops" before I do so myself.

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

I think your wrong here - your position may be 2.1 degrees around the world, but the sun won't be moved 2.1 degrees in its apparent position.

Sorry but the angle from the center of the earth to the observers is pretty darn close to 2.1 degrees. The sun didn't move, just its apparent position according to the observer, that is the whole point to this exercise.

Simple trig. Anyway, I gotta run, but I thought I'd give you a chance to draw it out and say "Oh, oops" before I do so myself.

Well I just did the math in my head, from memory, but aside from rounding errors it should be close enough for government work.

[mrjesse]

Okay this is getting good. I never seen anyone dig them selves in so far. I took the time to draw your diagram up. I tried to make it exactly as you described, except of course I did not draw it to scale because of the astronomical differences in size of the sun, earth, 144 miles, and the earth-sun distance. (In other words, if it were to scale, the sun and the earth would be single dots, and the two points that are 144 miles apart would be on the same dot.) But all the numbers should be correct to real life.

Lets pretend that the earth isn't spinning as it orbits the sun or to be more precise it makes one revolution in a year. Much like our moon isn't spinning in relation to the earth.

Now when you look at the sun, its position is fixed in the sky (lets also forget seasonal changes and the barycenter changes). The suns position never changes and its apparent position is exactly the same as its actual position. Do you agree? The sun is still an AU away and it still takes 8.3 minutes for the light to reach us. The suns apparent position (where you point at it) and its actual position are identical, even though the earth is orbiting the sun.

So far so good. Yes, I agree with the above as far as the 2.07 degrees goes. Of course if the earth is still orbiting the sun at 67K MPH, there will still be 20 arcseconds of stellar aberration, not due to the distance from sun to earth but due to the transverse velocity of the earth.

Remember, Stellar Aberration is due to the observer's motion and Light Time Correction is due to the light source's motion.

... As you approach the intersection you see another car approaching the intersection from your right. You also notice that the other cars apparent position in relation to your car stays the same, ...
This is a trick I use all of the time as a pilot to determine where I am going to land.

I know. Ship captains use this method too.

Now back to our non spinning earth. We meet at a train station on the equator with the sun shining directly overhead. If we wanted too we could draw a line from the sun through us to the center of the earth and everything would be aligned, apparent position would match actual position. Today we are running an experiment, at exactly 12:00 the sun is going to turn off. So I get in the train and at 12:00 the train leaves traveling at 17.5 miles per minute (that just happens to be the earths rotation speed). at exactly 12:08.3 the world goes dark, and the train stops. I have traveled 145 miles. Lets also assume that the earth was flat for that 145 miles.

Now if we draw this up and put a protractor on the center of the earth we can see that there is about 2.1 degrees of separation between our two positions.

Yeah but we're not talking about the angular displacement of the center of the earth, we're talking about the angular displacement of the optical position of the sun. Put your protractor in the center of the SUN and you will see that the angular difference is only 0.000088 Degrees! Not your 2.07!

That is the difference between where I apparently saw the sun and where you know the sun actually is. If we draw a line from the center of the earth through me we will miss the sun by 2.1 degrees.

Yeah but if you draw the line from the center of the sun through you, it will miss the center of the earth by only 0.000088 degrees - and remember, the sun is the source of the light!

That is the difference between the suns actual and apparent position for our little experiment.

It's simple geometry, and you failed. The observer moving 143.5 miles along in the straight and flat line will witness 0.000088 degrees of angular displacement of the sun. But it's not really displacement, the sun actually is at that angle now, because the observer moved.

The angle of the earth's center will have moved 2.07 degrees, but the sun simply won't have, no matter how you wrap it!

Furthermore, if, on your train ride along the 144 miles, just moments before the suns light stopped shining on you, you had pulled out your trusty gravity sundial you would have found that the gravity sundial still pointed to the same place the sun appeared to be! (or at least within the 0.000088 degrees of stellar aberration due to the train's speed. But nowheres near your alleged 2.07 degrees!)

Remember, you said that the sun's optical angle would be 2.07 degrees behind the actual angle pointed to by a gravitational sundial!

Please look at the facts and comment on them. Here are some facts:

Lots of websites falsify your claim of 2.07 degrees of difference between actual/gravitational angle and apparent/optical angle.
You haven't presented a single website of anyone else who agrees with you, and certainly none from NASA or any astronomy college website.

ECO, Fichori, and I have called you on numerous technically inaccurate statements which weren't just honest mistakes on your part.

You have heretofore refused to answer the questions "How far lagged is the optical apparent position of Jupiter, Pluto, and what about a star if it were 12 light-hours away" because you know that your theory would break down and look silly.

According to your claim, the suns apparent position is 2.07 degrees behind its actual and gravitational position, and logically Saturn is ~20 degrees lagged and Jupiter is ~60 degrees lagged, and a motionless star 12 light hours away would be 180 degrees lagged, with its gravity pulling the exact opposite of its apparent optical position -- in other words, it would be on the opposite side of the earth when we looked up and saw it in the night sky!

There is tons and tons of free information about astronomy on the internet nowadays and you cannot find one reputable source that agrees that "yes, the sun is 2.07 degrees lagged, Jupiter is ~60, etc." even though you'd think that this was common knowledge.

So looking at all these facts, how can I or any honest logically thinking person come to any conclusion other then that you have no idea what you are talking about and aren't honest enough to say so?

Is this lagging phenomenon a great secret that only you know? Why am I not seeing any claim for it other then what you say?

Please help me to understand why others aren't making the same claim and why so much of what you said just doesn't make sense.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

The 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. It is evident, then, that it matters not one whit to you whether Your willful ignorance is striking. I am almost stunned at your seeming inability to understand that because of the distances involved it takes light a little over 8.3 minutes to reach your eyes from the sun and it takes light a little over a second to reach your eyes from the moon.

I know that you think light is instantaneous. That is the only explanation for your thinking that the sun, moon and stars are exactly where you see them. It also explains why you believe in the creation myth and the Bible. I am sorry but I can't cure your ignorance if you are unwilling to learn.

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.

I'm stunned that you think that Jupiter is optically lagged about 60 degrees from where it really is. I know you believe that if a stationary star were 12 light-hours away, it would appear in the night sky when it was on the other side of the world. But I guess this helps me understand why you believe that "All from nothing" myth.

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

The angle of the earth's center will have moved 2.07 degrees, but the sun simply won't have, no matter how you wrap it!

Since it is the angle from the earth that we are talking about I fail to see the disagreement. You are correct that for an observer on the sun the earth's angular displacement would be negligible. It all depends on the observers point of reference.

I am glad we finally got that settled.

[LeGrande]

The 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.

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. It is not due to stellar aberration. You don't even seem to understand your own sources.

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.

So lets sum you up. You are a liar. 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. I can go on but this is boring.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

You are lying. I never said that the 2.1 degree solar lag theory is only true if there is no moon.

"The Sun is only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth, in a two body model... Adding a third body invalidates the two body model." [LeGrande, 533]

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The 20 arc seconds you are talking about is the displacement of the suns masses orbit around the barycenter. It is not due to stellar aberration. You don't even seem to understand your own sources.

Stellar Aberration

As the Earth revolves around the Sun, it is moving at a velocity of approximately 30 km/s. The speed of light is approximately 300,000 km/s. In the special case where the Earth is moving perpendicularly to the direction of the star (i.e. if SEE’ in the diagram is 90 degrees), the angle of displacement, SES’, would therefore be (in radians) the ratio of the two velocities, i.e. 1/10000 or about 20.5 arcseconds.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Now if we draw this up and put a protractor on the center of the earth we can see that there is about 2.1 degrees of separation between our two positions.

However, this has only 1 observer in 1 position.

[LeGrande 542] Go out at dawn and point a transit right at the edge of the Sun at the instant the first light appears at the horizon (it should be the same point). Now wait 8.3 minutes and measure the distance from the edge of the Sun to the horizon. That is the difference between the Suns apparent position and its true position.

So if we "draw this up and put a protractor on the center of the earth" we learn that the Sun has moved 5.5 million kilometers in 8.3 minutes in its orbit around the Earth, according to you.

[LeGrande]

As the Earth revolves around the Sun, it is moving at a velocity of approximately 30 km/s. The speed of light is approximately 300,000 km/s. In the special case where the Earth is moving perpendicularly to the direction of the star (i.e. if SEE’ in the diagram is 90 degrees), the angle of displacement, SES’, would therefore be (in radians) the ratio of the two velocities, i.e. 1/10000 or about 20.5 arcseconds.

Yes that is stellar aberration but that is not what mrjesse was talking about .

It is talking about the aberration from a star to the earth. Apparently you and mrjesse don't know the difference between our sun and a distant star, but that doesn't surprise me in the least.

[LeGrande]

So if we "draw this up and put a protractor on the center of the earth" we learn that the Sun has moved 5.5 million kilometers in 8.3 minutes in its orbit around the Earth, according to you.

No you simply don't understand the difference between apparent position and actual position. I would tell you to try and look it up but I don't know if you could pour water out of a boot if the instructions were on the heel.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I can go on

Oh, you will, you will.

Tell us more about solar eclipses. How is it that the actual Sun is 2.1 degrees away from the moon during a total solar eclipse? Do total solar eclipses happen when the Sun, moon, and observer on Earth form a triangle?

[mrjesse]

Since it is the angle from the earth that we are talking about I fail to see the disagreement. You are correct that for an observer on the sun the earth's angular displacement would be negligible. It all depends on the observers point of reference.

The disagreement is that in your example which I depicted in the diagram the observer will only notice a 0.000088 degree movement of the sun as he takes his train ride, but you said that the sun appears 2.07 degrees behind where it is - but your very own illustration demonstrates that it will only be 0.00088 degrees! You still have not provided a single reference or coherent evidence for your original claim of 2.07 degrees lag due to the time of flight from sun to earth of light and distance between same two bodies.

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Yes that is stellar aberration but that is not what mrjesse was talking about. It is talking about the aberration from a star to the earth. Apparently you and mrjesse don't know the difference between our sun and a distant star, but that doesn't surprise me in the least.

Practical Astronomy and Geodesy

It will then follow, the distance from the earth from the sun and the mean daily motion of the former in its orbit being supposed to be known, that the earth must describe in the orbit an arc subtending at the sun an angle of 20".36 in advance of the place which it would occupy if no time elapsed in that passage. The effect of aberration on the place of the sun is, therefore, the same as that which takes place on a star situated in the pole of the ecliptic.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I took the time to draw your diagram up.

That's a nice graphic. It would be interesting to draw up LeGrande's theory of solar eclipses. According to his theory, the actual sun is 2.1 degrees from the moon during a total solar eclipse. So, the sun, moon, and observer on earth form a triangle during a total solar eclipse, according to him. Incidentally, this theory contradicts his earlier thought-experiment about the laser-sniper. We now know that the sniper's shots do not travel in a straight line. He failed to inform us of that detail.

[LeGrande]

Tell us more about solar eclipses. How is it that the actual Sun is 2.1 degrees away from the moon during a total solar eclipse? Do total solar eclipses happen when the Sun, moon, and observer on Earth form a triangle?

Nah, You're the creationist that thinks that at the precise moment an observer on earth sees a solar eclipse that the earth, moon and the sun are aligned precisely without regard for the fact that light isn't instantaneous and the actual alignment occurred a few minutes earlier. You don't let pesky facts get in the way of a good story. I guess that is why you believe in the bible.

[LeGrande]

The effect of aberration on the place of the sun is, therefore, the same as that which takes place on a star situated in the pole of the ecliptic.

Now you seem to be quoting the inverse angle from the sun to the earth which is fine. You two like to look at things from the back end don't you : )

[LeGrande]

The disagreement is that in your example which I depicted in the diagram the observer will only notice a 0.000088 degree movement of the sun as he takes his train ride, but you said that the sun appears 2.07 degrees behind where it is - but your very own illustration demonstrates that it will only be 0.00088 degrees!

LOL You really don't have a clue do you? You are referencing the the wrong angle. If your observer was on the sun you would be correct.

I guess reading the bible really has addled your brain hasn't it? Or maybe it was all the hours you spent flagellating yourself?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

[LeGrande to mrjesse] The 20 arc seconds you are talking about is the displacement of the suns masses orbit around the barycenter.

[LeGrande] Now you seem to be quoting the inverse angle from the sun to the earth

Investigation of Change in the Computational Technique of the Sun's Physical Ephemeris

The solid curves represent the effect of aberration in arcseconds, and are clearly neither flat nor zero. Aberration effectively shifts the ecliptic longitude of the Sun, λ, westward on the sky (decreasing the value of λ). Like the light-time correction, the aberrational shift results in a slight change of viewing angle. The dot-dash curve in Fig. 1 can be considered to show P as a function of λ (plus a constant), since the latter increases by about one degree per day. So the curve can be used to provide a good estimate of how much P will change at different times of the year, if we subtract 20.5 arcseconds from λ (20.5 arcseconds being the mean aberration; the true amount of aberration varies from 20.14 arcseconds at aphelion to 20.85 arcseconds at perihelion).

Since the Sun’s axis is tilted by 7.25◦, we expect the effect of aberration to move the latitude at most by 20.5 arcseconds ×sin 7.25◦, or about 2.6 arcseconds, and be seasonally dependent. This is exactly what is seen.

The dashed curve shows the differences using the pre-2009 rotation computation but explicitly correcting for aberration. As expected, a nearly constant offset of −20.5 arcseconds is seen, with oscillations under 1 arcsecond mostly due to varying velocity as the Earth moves through perihelion and aphelion.

[mrjesse]

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

[mrjesse]

LOL You really don't have a clue do you? You are referencing the the wrong angle. If your observer was on the sun you would be correct.



Look at the diagram again: (And remember he's on a flat plane, thank you very much) When the observer starts in the center, the sun is directly overhead, that is to say, 90 degrees. But when he travels his 143.5 miles, the sun will now be 90.000088 degrees above the plane (Assuming he is still facing the direction he traveled in.) And I've got news for you - the difference between 90.000000 and 90.000088 is 0.000088, not 2.100000 ! It doesn't matter how big the earth is or whether it is square or shaped like you described with a 143.5 mile flat spot on it -- if the distance between the sun and the observer is 1AU and he travels initially at right angles to the sun in a straight line for 143.5 miles, the sun's position will change by 0.000088 degrees -- not 2.1! This is simple geometry.

And even thought I have found and linked for you lots of websites supporting my view, you have not showed me a single such website. Doesn't that cause you to stop and think? Maybe you're wrong on some stuff?

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I guess reading the bible really has addled your brain hasn't it? Or maybe it was all the hours you spent flagellating yourself?

Do you really think that these remarks -- and others like them which your atheist mind is eagerly formulating -- are going to put the actual position of the Sun 2.1 degrees away from the actual position of the moon during a total solar eclipse?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

[mrjesse to LeGrande] 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?

This contradiction extends much further throughout LeGrande's "scientific" thinking. In post 542 LeGrande recommends an experiment:

Here is another experiment you can try at home, with the proper eye protection of course : ) Go out at dawn and point a transit right at the edge of the Sun at the instant the first light appears at the horizon (it should be the same point). Now wait 8.3 minutes and measure the distance from the edge of the Sun to the horizon. That is the difference between the Suns apparent position and its true position.

He neglects to mention, though, that you must do this in an alternate universe where the moon and other "third bodies" do not exist. So its not really "an experiment you can try at home." Along with the proper eye-protection, a space-suit might be necessary in case the atmosphere is not allowed.