Replies

Said mrjesse: May I say that you sidestepped the question. It ought to be clear from the context of our conversation that I meant "Are you saying that when I look up at the night sky half the stars I see are actually on the other side of the word because of and to a degree as a function of the earth's rate of rotation?"
You seem to be implying that the earths rotation moved the stars from their locations. Are you really that confused?

No, I'm not confused at all. I suspect you are. All I'm saying is that by your claim that if the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes that the sun's apparent position would be 180 degrees off, and according to your claim that the sun's apparent position is 2.13 degrees behind where it actually is due to the speed of light and the distance from sun to earth, -- based on these claims I'm concluding that you believe that the stars which are multiple light-days away from the earth would appear to be in different places then they really are. For example, a star that is half a light day would (by your claim) appear on the other side of the world as compared to its real position. A star that was 1 full light-day away would appear in its normal position, but any star that is a non-integer number of light-days away will (by your claim) show up somewhere other then it is. Thus, since half the stars will be roughly xxxx.5+/-0.25 light days away, then it stands to reason that half the stars we see at night are actually on the other side of the world when we see them on our side - not because the earth's rotation moved then but because (by your idea) the earth's rotation caused them to appear in a different location.

Said mrjesse: Great to hear! Now can you find a single official NASA statement that says "The sun when viewed from earth appears ~2.13 degrees behind its actual position due to the rotation of the earth ~2.13 degrees per ~8.5 minutes and the light-distance of ~8.5 minutes from the sun to the earth?"

Why don't I put you out of your misery. Look up aberration of light. Google is your friend : )

Again, you're sidestepping the question and refusing to provide evidence of your claim.

But thanks for the tip about aberration of light - I did look it up, and I learned some more things, not the least of which was that you are wrong :-)

There are several types of aberration of light - but I'm assuming you're talking about stellar aberration of light since you did not mention - let me know if you were talking about another and we'll address that one.

WP says

"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."

In case you don't know, transverse velocity just means the speed with which the observer is moving sideways across the direction of the light.

But see how this is exactly the opposite of what you're saying. You're saying that the distance of the sun to the earth has something to do with it, and that the degrees per lightminute of earth's rotation have something to do with it. But in reality, neither has anything to do with it! The factors that count are the transverse velocity - in other words the surface speed of the earth as it orbits the sun and spins. But these aren't what you were talking about!

But maybe you were talking about light-time correction. WP says

Aberration should also be distinguished from light-time correction, which is due to the motion of the observed object, like a planet, through space during the time taken by its light to reach an observer on Earth. Light-time correction depends upon the velocity and distance of the emitting object during the time it takes for its light to travel to Earth. Light-time correction does not depend on the motion of the Earth—it only depends on Earth's position at the instant when the light is observed.

Furthermore, WP says:

Light-time correction is a displacement in the apparent position of a celestial object from its true position (or geometric position) caused by the object's motion during the time it takes its light to reach an observer.

Thus, if you are talking about light-time correction causing a 2.13 degrees lag in the apparent position of the sun, you must believe that the sun must be orbiting the earth!

So I don't know what you're talking about - it doesn't make sense with what WP says to be sure.

But do please answer yes or no to each of my merry g around experiments in my last post to you - that will help me so much.

thanks,

-Jesse

PS: I see that you just posted the rain falling example for "Stellar aberration." So I'm assuming you think that the reason the sun appears "about 7 minutes behind its actual position" is due to stellar aberration. But stellar aberration is independent of the distance from the sun and the earth, just like rain-aberration is independent of how far it's fallen! But that not what you've been talking about! You've been talking about an apparent lag which is a function of the distance from sun to earth and the rotational speed of the earth - not just a function of the transverse surface velocity!