Don’t Call it “Darwinism” [religiously defended as "science" by Godless Darwinists]

springerlink ^ | 16 January 2009 | Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch

[Coyoteman]

We will see and hear the term “Darwinism” a lot during 2009, a year during which scientists, teachers, and others who delight in the accomplishments of modern biology will commemorate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. But what does “Darwinism” mean? And how is it used? At best, the phrase is ambiguous and misleading about science. At worst, its use echoes a creationist strategy to demonize evolution.

snip...

In summary, then, “Darwinism” is an ambiguous term that impairs communication even about Darwin’s own ideas. It fails to convey the full panoply of modern evolutionary biology accurately, and it fosters the inaccurate perception that the field stagnated for 150 years after Darwin’s day. Moreover, creationists use “Darwinism” to frame evolutionary biology as an ism or ideology, and the public understanding of evolution and science suffers as a result. True, in science, we do not shape our research because of what creationists claim about our subject matter. But when we are in the classroom or otherwise dealing with the public understanding of science, it is entirely appropriate to consider whether what we say may be misunderstood. We cannot expect to change preconceptions if we are not willing to avoid exacerbating them. A first step is eschewing the careless use of “Darwinism.”

[Fichori]

Hmm, it looks like he isn’t distinguishing between the Sun orbiting the Earth, and the Earth being at or very near the center of the Universe.

[tacticalogic]

Did I overlook some formalities?

Not that I know of, but we're at 1200 posts and several days. I might well have lost track of some stuff.

[LeGrande]

If you stood on one side so the Sun was on the horizon[sunrise position], what would the lag be? (if any)

There would still be a lag with the stationary system, but the apparent and actual position would be identical.

What if you made the same observation but from the opposite side? [sunset position]

As before, the apparent position and actual position would be identical.

What if you stood on the side nearest the Sun so that the Sun was overhead [noon position], what about then?

Same as before, the only thing that changes is the direction that the observer is facing.

If that is not the case, is the lag due to angular rotation speed?

The lag is due to the time it takes for light to travel from the Sun to the Earth combined with the Earth's angular rotation.

Or is it due to the surface speed of the observer due to rotation?

Just the surface speed of the observer combined with the velocity of the Earths orbital speed gives you that tiny ~.006º difference, that is not what I am trying to explain.

[Fichori]

“The lag is due to the time it takes for light to travel from the Sun to the Earth combined with the Earth's angular rotation.” [excerpt]

Is the lag present when observed from the North or South poles?

[LeGrande]

Is the lag present when observed from the North or South poles?

It always takes apx. 8.3 minutes for the light to get to the Earth from the Sun. An observer on a pole sees the Sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago.

Let's make the question more interesting : ) Let's say that you are standing on a turntable at the North Pole. Lets also say that the turntable is tracking the Suns gravity field (its actual position). Will the pointer on the turntable be pointing at the light that you see or will it be leading or lagging that light by 2.1 degrees?

Here is another question for you. A sextant is pointed at the Sun from our spinning Earth, then the Earths rotation is stopped (we have an inertia less system). Will the Suns apparent motion immediately stop or will it stop in 8.3 minutes?

Or the question in reverse. You are looking at the Sun in the sky. The Sun is turned off. Will you see the Sun traveling across the sky for another 8.3 minutes or will the Sun appear to stop in the sky for 8.3 minutes until it goes dark?

I am also curious about your answer to my question about your lazer ring gyro?

[gondramB]

>>So where would the actual physical Sirius be, when its observed position is likewise on the horizon? That light left Sirius 8.6 years ago.

---

I’d think you’d need better measurements to determine that. If you’re looking at an object that’s exactly one light-day away, and stationary relative to the earth, it’s apparent position should be accurate, but the light you’re using to locate the object actually left there at the same time yesterday. <<

Sirius is receding from the sun about 150,000,000 miles per year so a first order answer would be about about 1.3 billion miles further away than it looks... plus or minus the 186 million miles that earths position from the sun varies.

Then you’d consider that Sirius only looks like a single star - its actually two stars orbiting each other...

At least that’s my guess... I have a physics degree but stayed the heck away from astronomy.

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:It always takes apx. 8.3 minutes for the light to get to the Earth from the Sun. An observer on a pole sees the Sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago.

The observer sure will see the sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago -- but the problem with your reasoning is that since the sun still is (relative to the earth) where it was 8.3 minutes ago, where it is is where it was, and so the light will still appear to come from where the sun is (not considering, of course, the 20 arcseconds from the observer's transverse velocity.)

Let's make the question more interesting : ) Let's say that you are standing on a turntable at the North Pole. Lets also say that the turntable is tracking the Suns gravity field (its actual position). Will the pointer on the turntable be pointing at the light that you see or will it be leading or lagging that light by 2.1 degrees?

If the sun were orbiting the earth, then the pointer would point 2.1 degrees ahead of the apparent position of the sun because the sun would have actually moved 2.1 degrees since the light left it. But since the sun is still where it was 8.3 minutes ago, the light will still be coming from the same place that the sun is - so the arrow will really point at the sun as far as Light-time correction goes (but will appear 20 arcseconds displaced due to the observer's transverse velocity - but 20 arcseconds is nothing compared to 2.1 degrees!)

Is it not true that you believe that the answer to your above question would be "The arrow will point 2.1 degrees ahead of the apparent position of the sun?"

Here is another question for you. A sextant is pointed at the Sun from our spinning Earth, then the Earths rotation is stopped (we have an inertia less system). Will the Suns apparent motion immediately stop or will it stop in 8.3 minutes?

Since the sun neither knows nor cares that the earth is turning, and since it's light radiates in an approximately straight line from sun to earth, and since the sun's apparent position is within 20 arc seconds of its actual position, the moment the earth stopped rotating the sun's apparent motion would also stop.

Is it not true that you believe that the answer to your question would be "The sun would continue to move across the sky for another 8.3 minutes?"

Furthermore, to make the question more interesting, let me slightly modify your above question: what if the sun were 10 light days away, and the earth was suddenly stopped? Is it not true that you believe that the sun would continue to appear to rise and set for another 10 days? What do you think? Does the sun's light wind up around the earth like a tape measure spring just because the earth is rotating in place? Do you believe that at any instant, the path that the sun's light takes to reach the earth spirals around? I mean, if the sun was orbiting the earth, yeah! but the earth pretty much orbits the sun.

Or the question in reverse. You are looking at the Sun in the sky. The Sun is turned off. Will you see the Sun traveling across the sky for another 8.3 minutes or will the Sun appear to stop in the sky for 8.3 minutes until it goes dark?

That's a silly statement - but you asked it. Of course the sun will still appear to move at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes because that's the rate the earth is rotating at. But every last lightwave will strike the earth within about 20 arcseconds of the direction of the sun.

I am also curious about your answer to my question about your lazer ring gyro?


What you're saying basically is "If you operate that laser ring gyro in a way which cannot measure the rotation it will not be able to measure the rotation." But it's not a particularly sound method of making a point to say that a certain tool can never work just because if used incorrectly it won't work.

So - how about answering your own above (and my) questions, just for fun?

Thanks

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

What does a Laser Ring Gyro, aligned north to south at the equator, tell you? Inquiring minds want to know : )

In other words, if set up at the wrong angle to measure the rotation in question? Who in their right mind would do that?

The spinning earth or orbiting Sun are equivalent from the view point of the observer on the Earth. In other words it makes no difference to the observation.

But this is a 3 body system we're talking about - the sun's light is the third body and it is not true to say that for a 3 body system there is no difference between rotating and being orbited. (I'm not even sure its true in a two body system if one takes into account mass.)

So when the light takes on its own path after leaving the sun, now it does matter whether the sun moves from its place after emitting the light.

What has mrjesse been saying then?

Easy. I've been saying that for an observer on earth, at any instant in time, the sun's apparent position will be different then its actual position by only about 20 arc seconds, and almost entirely due to the observer's transverse velocity as the earth flies through space on the path of its yearly journey around the sun.

Furthermore, I have been asking you, this:

For an observer on earth at an instant in time, for a stationary (relative to earth) planet that was bright and 12 light hours away and above earth's equator, where would it appear to be as compared to where it really was? Would its gravity pull to the east while its light came from the west?

Such a simple question and you have heretofore refused to answer it! I mean, it's so simple!

As a matter of fact, you keep trying to shift this over to a simple rate issue and try to prove your point by demonstrating that the sun appears to move across the sky at the rate of 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes - but I have been explicitly clear that I'm talking about an instantanious angular displacement between actual and apparent position for an observer on earth.

So how about it? Why not answer the question and get it over with? What could be so hard about it?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:I am back. I had to make a quick flight down to LA while the weather window was open.

Welcome back! how was the flight?

This is the crux of the whole matter. Mrjesse claims that the suns actual position is where it appears to be from the perspective of a person on the earth. He agrees that if the Sun orbited a stationary Earth, its actual vs apparent position would be off by 2.1 degrees, but he objects to the idea that a spinning earth vs a stationary Sun is equivalent. They are : )

The reason a spinning earth and orbiting sun aren't equivalent is because the light emitted from the sun, once set on its course, stays on course even if the sun moves. So if the earth is rotating, the sunlight which hits the earth will be between the sun and the earth on its 8.3 minute journey. But if the sun is orbiting the earth once every 24 hours instead of the earth rotating, then by the time the sunlight reaches the earth, the sun will have moved 2.1 degrees and the light won't be coming from the direction of the sun anymore - and will no longer be exactly between the sun and the earth at all times of its travel. (This would be easier to see if the earth were 12 light hours away from the sun.)

Now back to our observer on the earths equator. As far as the observer is concerned, whether the earth is spinning or the Sun is orbiting the earth (or some combination) is equivalent. The observations for the observer will be identical.

Yeah, unless there's a third body in the works that marks where the sun used to be (like the light that it emitted) -- then all of the sudden it makes a difference whether the sun moved or not :-)

The fact is that it takes light apx. 8.3 minutes to get from itself to the observer. If the observer pounds a stake into the ground pointing at the sun, then waits 8.3 minutes and points another stake into the ground pointing directly at the sun, the measured angular difference will be apx. 2 degrees.

This indicates only the rate - and has nothing whatsoever to do with the instantanious angular displacement between actual and apparent position. This same experiment would give the exact same results regardless of how much lagged the sun was or how many light minutes it was away -- as long as the rate was 2.1deg/8.3minutes.

What does this little experiment show the observer? A lot of things actually, but for our purposes the second stake is pointing at the suns actual position when the first stake was pounded in the ground pointing at the sun.

Again, this only demonstrates rate - not instantanious angular displacement.

MrJesse apparently believes that both stakes are pointing at the suns actual instantaneous position.

I believe no such thing! I have always "admitted" (more like freely and cheerfully stated) that the earth rotates at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes.

The only way that could be true is if the speed of light is instantaneous, which of course it isn't.

The ball is in your court mrjesse.

If the ball is in my court then how come you won't answer my question? specifically this one?:

For an observer on earth at an instant in time who was looking at a relatively (to earth) stationary and bright planet which was above the equator (of earth) and was 12 light hours away -- where would it appear as compared to where it was? Would it's gravity really pull east while it's light came from the west? Simple question.

The ball is not in my court. I answer your questions and you just ask more, often not even answering your own (but I do hope you will answer your own in that other post in which I asked you to answer your own!)

Given that we know that it takes light 8.3 minutes to get to our observer on the equator from the Sun, how do you explain that the Sun is exactly where it appears to be if the earth is spinning, but 2.1 degrees off if the Sun is rotating the earth.

Like I already said - if the sun is not moving, then the light will appear to come (within 20 arc seconds) from where the sun is because the sun is still where it was 8.3 minutes ago. But if sun has moved 2.1 degrees since emitting said light, then it won't be where it was by the time its light hits the earth, so the light will come from where the sun was (but no longer is) because that's where the sun was when it emitted it.

You've got to understand that the path of light from the sun does not contort itself just because the earth is rotating!

And by the way, if you think I'm making this up just search google (or your favorite library) for the term "Stellar Aberration" and "Light-time Correction" and you will see that it most certainly does matter whether the motion is on the part of the observer or the emitter. Light-time-correction is the apparent angular displacement caused by a distant and moving light emitter (and is a function of distance and emitter transverse velocity), and Stellar Aberration is the apparent angular displacement due to the transverse velocity of the observer - and is not affected by distance to the light source.

So how about answering my question? Thanks!

-Jesse

(Repeated here for clarity - my question:)

For an observer on earth at an instant in time who was looking at a relatively (to earth) stationary and bright planet which was above the equator (of earth) and was 12 light hours away -- where would it appear as compared to where it was? Would it's gravity really pull east while it's light came from the west? Simple question.

[mrjesse]

Said tacticalogic:Okay, I’m convinced. Now what?

I guess that depends on what you're convinced of..!

Considering that LeGrande's original statement was:

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?

(For the sake of our discussion, we were assuming that the gravitational pull of the sun pointed towards its actual current position, and his claim was that because the earth rotates in the 8.3 minutes, that the light would arrive at a different angle then the gravity.)

And later he said:

The suns actual position and gravitational position do line up. The apparent position doesn't though, it is off by 2.1 degrees like you indicated.

And he also said:

LOL The 2.1 degrees is is exactly related to the light-time correction and the distance of the earth from the the sun. If the Sun was closer the angle would be smaller, and if the sun was further away the angle would be larger.

See? he says that if the sun was farther, the angle would be greater. So why won't he answer the question "What if the sun were 12 light hours away?"

And he said:

When you see the light from the Sun, is the Sun exactly where you see the light coming from it or is the Suns position off by the amount of time it took for the light to get to the Earth from the Sun (8.3 minutes) and the angular rotation of the earth, 2.1 degrees (your frame of reference) that occurs in 8.3 minutes?

Now maybe he's just a little confused and really doesn't understand it but is trying to be honest. So far with the information I've provided above, such could be the case. But now I ask (and have been asking for months) for him to apply his exact reasoning to an imaginary sun that was 12 light hours away - and all the sudden he refuses and refuses and refuses to answer that one..!

Now he's not being honest. If he really believed that he was correct in his understanding, he would be willing to apply his same math and method to a hypothetical sun that was 12 light hours away. But he knows that we'll all know he's wrong if he were to claim that the sun would show up in the east while its gravitational (and actual position) were in the west, or that Pluto (at up to 6.8 light hours away (which equates to 102 degrees) wouldn't even really be in the night sky when we looked up and saw it at night. He has got to know he's wrong, and yet he continues to proclaim it as truth.

So in answer to your question "Now what?" I will ask you - will you join Fichori, Ethan Clive Osgoode, and me in saying that LeGrande must know he's wrong and yet refuses to admit it and continues to argue for what he has got to know is a lie?

Does that help any? I'm hoping your the honest type to not go along with a lie.

-Jesse

[tacticalogic]

So in answer to your question "Now what?" I will ask you - will you join Fichori, Ethan Clive Osgoode, and me in saying that LeGrande must know he's wrong and yet refuses to admit it and continues to argue for what he has got to know is a lie?

Does that help any? I'm hoping your the honest type to not go along with a lie.

LeGrande and I have already discussed this. We seem to be in general agreement on some points, and we may still disagree on others.

I have no inclination see no good reason to join what appears to be a personal vendetta over whatever remaining difference of opinion we may have on the subject, so NO.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Got it. If it’s stationary to you, time-light isn’t a factor.

Otherwise incredibly bizarre things happen. Consider it. Pluto, though apparently in Sagittarius, would "actually" be far off in a different constellation altogether. Any star that is near an integer multiple of 1 light day distant would actually be near its apparent position. Any star near (n + 1/2) light day away would be 180 degrees away on the diurnal circle. So if you are looking at a galaxy near the celestial equator, half those stars would be "actually" in front of you, and the other half behind you somewhere, if this notion were true.

If you’re rotating relative to it, aberration is but I’m still not convinced that’s a fixed value.

Diurnal aberration (aberration due to the rotation of the earth) is an incredibly small effect (0.3 arcsec) that varies with latitude. The only way for the sun's real position to be 2.1 degrees in advance of its apparent position is if the sun is orbiting the earth at 11,000 km/s.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

WHAT FORCE COULD MOVE THE SUN AROUND THE EARTH WHILE LEAVING THE EARTH MOTIONLESS?

Your all-caps spectacle is all very amusing of course, because while you revile the other poster, you yourself have said that science cannot prove that the earth goes around the sun. And, on top of that, according to you it cannot even be said that 'the earth goes around the sun' is true:

[allmendream] nothing in science is ever “proven”.

[ECO] Indeed, every astronomy book is, as you say, careful to point out that 'the earth goes around the sun' can never be proven.

[allmendream] it is still called the Heliocentric Theory, not the Heliocentric Truth

[LeGrande]

Or the question in reverse. You are looking at the Sun in the sky. The Sun is turned off. Will you see the Sun traveling across the sky for another 8.3 minutes or will the Sun appear to stop in the sky for 8.3 minutes until it goes dark?

That's a silly statement - but you asked it. Of course the sun will still appear to move at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes because that's the rate the earth is rotating at. But every last lightwave will strike the earth within about 20 arcseconds of the direction of the sun.

Where exactly was the Sun when it was shut off? Where you where looking when it was shut off or where it was 8.3 minutes and 2.1 degrees later when it went dark?

[allmendream]

Prove? Of course not. But the model of Heliocentricity explains observations more elegantly and by a known mechanism...gravity. That is a scientific model, not “TRUTH”, nor “proven”.

And of course nowhere in your post did you supply any hypothetical force that could move the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless.

Do you think the Sun circles the Earth? Or do you suppose that anybody who takes such a position just displays their intransigence in the face of overwhelming data?

[allmendream]

Well it certainly isn't Gravity. Nice of you to admit that ONLY the power of God applied directly every moment of every day could explain such a preposterous model that has a massive object in orbit to a much less massive object.

Do you suppose that the Sun really does circles the Earth?

[GourmetDan]

"I understand your quotes quite fine. They explain that either is equally valid as a COORDINATE SYSTEM."

Um, under GR coordinate systems are physically indistinguishable.

That's why Hoyle said:

“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”

Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

"WHAT FORCE COULD MOVE THE SUN AROUND THE EARTH WHILE LEAVING THE EARTH MOTIONLESS? Your inability to answer amuses me to no end."

You insistence on asking a question that is not relevant to the issue amuses me to no end.

[allmendream]

Once again you cannot understand that while either is equally valid as a coordinate system, heliocentricity is a superior model because it is easily explained by a known and measurable FORCE, known as gravity.

Do you understand that a coordinate system explains only motion, and doesn't explain the forces involved in the motion?

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:Where exactly was the Sun when it was shut off? Where you were looking when it was shut off or where it was 8.3 minutes and 2.1 degrees later when it went dark? (corrected)

I know this is a hard thing for you to grasp, but if the sun was shut off, the light that it had already emitted would continue on its path just as it otherwise would have. And since the sun is still where it was 8.3 minutes ago, where it is is still where it was - so the light that reaches the earth will still be coming from the exact direction of the sun's current position. Maybe this will help you:


So in answer to your question I'm telling you that the sun was within about 20 arc seconds of where it appeared to be when it was shut off, and the apparent position of the sun will still continue to be within about 20 arc seconds of its actual position for the remainder of the 8.3 minutes.

Let's not forget that you are still refusing to answer my questions and even your own questions. See the theme? I ask a question, and you counter with a question which I answer and I ask a question, and you counter with a question... and you will not answer mine even though you keep asking more and I keep answering more! Why? Give me one good reason why you won't answer my questions! (or even your own questions which I asked you to answer!)

It is most dishonest of you to claim that your statements are true when you refuse to apply your own math and method to a sun that was 12 light hours away or to Pluto which can be up to 6.8 light hours away.

How about this: You said that if the earth rotated 180 degrees in 8.3 minutes, the optical image of the sun would be lagged 180 degrees from the real position.

So I ask this - if I prop up my merry go around so that it's top points right towards the north star, and then I get it rotating (relative to the sun) at 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes and climb up on it, now tell me this - will the sun's light appear in the east at the point in time when the sun's gravity appears in the west?

I mean if you believe you're telling the truth then all you have to do to demonstrate it is apply your claims to a few other simple scenarios. What have you got to lose, really? Several honest people have already come to the conclusion that you are wrong. And even though folks who's religion is Atheism or Naturalism or AllFromNothing won't have the decency to tell you that you're wrong, they know it too. So there's only one thing worse then being wrong and that is being wrong and knowing it and everyone else knowing it and yet you refuse to admit it.

So why not answer my questions? Or even your own questions as I pointed out in my previous post to you?

Thanks,

-Jesse

If the sun were 12 light hours away, for an observer on earth at a point in time, how far displaced would the apparent position be from the actual position of the sun? Would the sun really appear in the east at the moment it was actually in the west?

And if your claims are true then how come you can't find a single scientific source that also says so? Are you like a great scientist and you're the first one that realized that Pluto would appear to be displaced from it's actual position by 102 degrees?

[grey_whiskers]

Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”

Depends a little on what we're trying to predict, eh?

: Retrograde motion, epicycles, and all that.

Some coordinate systems are chosen to simply the calculations *greatly*.

And, if we are talking the orbit of Mercury, classical mechanics won't cut it to more than an approximation.

Cheers!