The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[mrjesse]

Primarily the time light correction and spin. The Stellar Aberration only plays a small part at these distances and has factored out the earths spin.

So do you agree then that Stellar Aberration's effect is almost nothing compared to the 2.1 degrees and therefore we can ignore it while discussing a lag of 2.1 degrees?

By the way, you first said Stellar Aberration, and you illustrated the same, all the while talking about the time of flight from sun to earth of light, but Stellar Aberration has nothing to do with the distance from sun to earth. Had you just confused the two terms (like I did in a recent post) or was that just ignorance? I would hope that when recounting the snow-falling experiment you'd have noticed that it was the wrong principle. What was that all about? Did you think I wouldn't notice the difference?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Fichori]

"Well, I'm pretty certain that if I stand out in the yard, spraying the garden hose in a solid jet, swaying right to left that the water at any instant forms an arc shape at peak angular rate. Each drop is traveling in a straight line, but the overall swath of water isn't straight. But you're right in that the drops themselves travel in a straight line. (and that light travels in a straight line.) I would like to retract my claim that light could go through a bent tube."

If the tube had the correct curvature and was moving/rotating in the same direction and speed as the source the water droplets would travel through the curved tube.

Measured against a stationary frame of reference, the water travels in a straight line.

However, using the water source for a frame of reference, the droplets do curve.

[Fichori]

So how is it, in your conception of physics, that stars can end up behind us in the time it takes for their light to get to us? How is it that some stars you presently see are actually on the other side of the world?

Think of light as a bullet that has been shot from a star. Now when we look into very distant space we are seeing the 'bullets' that they fired a long time ago. Many of the stars that fired the bullets are now gone even though we still see them shining brightly in the sky. All of them have dramatically altered their position from where we seem to see them. Earth and the distant stars have had billions of years to move around, especially in an accelerating universe.

Oh, and the light from the Sun still takes 8.3 minutes to get to us : )

Ok, I might be getting into Fichorian physics here, but...
A star with a distance of 1 light year would have to orbit the observer at 3.14x the speed of light to get 180 degrees away from its apparent position.
(Or have gone directly through the observers position at 2x the speed of light.)

[LeGrande]

A star with a distance of 1 light year would have to orbit the observer at 3.14x the speed of light to get 180 degrees away from its apparent position.

At least you agree that a stars apparent position is not its actual position. Ethan seems to think that even the most distant star is exactly where we see it.

[LeGrande]

If the tube had the correct curvature and was moving/rotating in the same direction and speed as the source the water droplets would travel through the curved tube.

Except for the curvature caused by gravity, your curved tube wouldn't work, except to force the water into a curve. Each water droplet is traveling in a straight line. This is simple Newtonian physics, f=ma. What is your force that curves the water?

However, using the water source for a frame of reference, the droplets do curve.

No, they appear to curve.

[Fichori]

A star with a distance of 1 light year would have to orbit the observer at 3.14x the speed of light to get 180 degrees away from its apparent position.

"At least you agree that a stars apparent position is not its actual position. Ethan seems to think that even the most distant star is exactly where we see it."

Care to explain how the star is going to break warp 0.9?

[LeGrande]

By the way, you first said Stellar Aberration, and you illustrated the same, all the while talking about the time of flight from sun to earth of light, but Stellar Aberration has nothing to do with the distance from sun to earth. Had you just confused the two terms (like I did in a recent post) or was that just ignorance? I would hope that when recounting the snow-falling experiment you'd have noticed that it was the wrong principle. What was that all about? Did you think I wouldn't notice the difference?

I am pretty sure that I used the term aberration of light not stellar aberration. I might have used the term in replying to you and Ethan because both of you started using the term.

The other thing is that stellar aberration illustrates that the apparent position is not identical to the actual position and I have been trying to use every example I can think of. Trying to get this very simple concept (apparent vs actual position ) across is like pulling teeth.

[LeGrande]

Care to explain how the star is going to break warp 0.9?

No. Luckily that is not what I am claiming : ) Although I have read some serious hypothesis that make the claim that the speed of light was faster just after the big bang.

I am simply trying to explain that the apparent position (where you see them) of celestial objects is different from their actual position. I never would have guessed that this simple concept would be so hard to explain. I now have even more sympathy for Giordano Bruno.

[Fichori]

If the tube had the correct curvature and was moving/rotating in the same direction and speed as the source the water droplets would travel through the curved tube.

Except for the curvature caused by gravity, your curved tube wouldn't work, except to force the water into a curve. Each water droplet is traveling in a straight line. This is simple Newtonian physics, f=ma. What is your force that curves the water?

First you say "Except for the curvature caused by gravity," and then in the very next breath you say "Each water droplet is traveling in a straight line."
Make up your mind already!
My original statement did not cover gravity for simplicity.
I rather think that your interjecting gravity into the equation is simply a strawman.

However, using the water source for a frame of reference, the droplets do curve.

No, they appear to curve.

Somebody doesn't seem to know what a frame of reference is!

[Fichori]

"I am simply trying to explain that the apparent position (where you see them) of celestial objects is different from their actual position. I never would have guessed that this simple concept would be so hard to explain. I now have even more sympathy for Giordano Bruno." [excerpt]

What is the maximum separation between the apparent position and the actually position?

Is it possible for a stars actual position to be 180 degrees from its apparent position?

[LeGrande]

First you say "Except for the curvature caused by gravity," and then in the very next breath you say "Each water droplet is traveling in a straight line." Make up your mind already!My original statement did not cover gravity for simplicity. I rather think that your interjecting gravity into the equation is simply a strawman.

I fail to see the problem. We are both factoring out gravity. Without the force of gravity the water travels in a straight line.

Somebody doesn't seem to know what a frame of reference is!

I agreed with you that according to the revolving sources frame of reference the water appears to curve. You already agreed that measured against a stationary reference the water travels in a straight line. I am not disagreeing with you.

[Fichori]

"I fail to see the problem. We are both factoring out gravity. Without the force of gravity the water travels in a straight line." [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]

Then why did you say "Except for the curvature caused by gravity, your curved tube wouldn't work, except to force the water into a curve."?

I think its time you took an online IQ test and disclosed the results.

[LeGrande]

What is the maximum separation between the apparent position and the actually position?

I really have no idea. Throw in space-time curvature and stars 10 billion years old and I am clueless.

Is it possible for a stars actual position to be 180 degrees from its apparent position?

Sure, just position a black hole or two appropriately. And no I am not a racist.

[Fichori]

LeGrande:

I just had a thought.

You’ve been trying to tell us about how the apparent position of the sun is not its actual position.

If you could give us a link to some peer-reviewed scientific journal that is available online that describes this phenomenon there is a chance that we would understand it better.

Sometimes having different people conveying the same idea but with different words and phrases makes it more understandable.

Thanks.

[LeGrande]

I think its time you took an online IQ test and disclosed the results.

LOL I actually like taking those tests : ) Do you have a favorite in mind or do you want to administer the test? Not all tests are created equal.

I almost didn't make it into Densa because I used my real name. That was a tough one.

Seriously though, have I ever bragged about my IQ? I don't think so, in fact after these series of discussions I bet I would be lucky to break 70, hardly mensa material.

[Fichori]

The ones that show 5 different patterns and say ‘pick the next in the sequence’ are so confusing!
(And the results are usually very unflattering.)

So I just pick one at random. ;)

The reason I asked was because I was worried that you had an IQ around 180 and were talking way over all of our heads. ;)

[LeGrande]

If you could give us a link to some peer-reviewed scientific journal that is available online that describes this phenomenon there is a chance that we would understand it better.

I doubt there is a peer reviewed scientific journal that exclusively discusses this. I think ever since it was discovered that light wasn't instantaneous the principle has been accepted.

I do have a quote that pertains to the original point that I brought up and describes the phenomena, and makes my point : )

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."

[LeGrande]

The reason I asked was because I was worried that you had an IQ around 180 and were talking way over all of our heads. ;)

Nah, I am sure it is closer to half of that and declining : ( And when it comes to politics and economics, I am convinced by what I am seeing, that I would be hard pressed to match a slugs IQ.

[Fichori]

Politics and economics?

A single academically challenged slug has more intelligence than the sum of the intelligence of the entire congress.

To compare the two is really an insult to the slug.

But I digress. ;)

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The point of a two body model is to simplify everything as much as possible, and reduce the number of variables.

Well then, let's take the simplest solution. Merely observe how the Sun moves against the stars and that's the end of it.