[LeGrande]

By using a Foucault pendulum or ring laser gyroscope?

Yes they can show that the earth is spinning. But if the earth is fixed and the sun is orbiting the earth in our thought experiment, how are they applicable?

The point I am trying to make is that the suns apparent position differs from its actual position whether the sun is rotating around the earth or the earth is spinning.

I am beginning to understand the gulf between creationists and scientists. I would never have guessed that such a simple concept would be so hard to explain.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Yes they can show that the earth is spinning.

Ah, good, Foucault pendulums and ring laser gyroscopes are allowed. Therefore, your next assertion in post 533 is dead and buried:

In the two body model there is essentially no difference between two stationary objects with one of the them spinning or having one of them orbit the other object.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

But if the earth is fixed and the sun is orbiting the earth

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?

[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