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

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.

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.”

Said LeGrande:By your own logic, the Sun can't appear to continue moving ...

That's a lie about my own logic

... if the actual and apparent position are only 20 arcseconds apart (or at least not more than 20 arcseconds anyway, which is miniscule.) Which is it mrjesse?

The sun only appears to move at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes - it doesn't really move at that rate! It appears to move at that rate because the earth rotates at that rate.

Does the Sun appear to continue to move across the sky for 8.3 minutes or does the Sun appear to stop in the sky until the light goes out?

The light still coming from the sun will appear to come from the same place (+/- 20 arc sec) that the sun actually is regardless of whether the sun is oni at the moment. And it will continue to appear to move at 2.1d/8.3m because the earth continues to rotate. You're super confused on that one I think.

Said MrJesse: The fact that LeGrande refuses to answer the my question ("What if the sun were 12 light hours away..") and refuses (or is unable) to provide a single supporting scientific article - these facts tell me that LeGrande must know that he's wrong and is therefor intentionally knowingly lying.
Responded LeGrande: I have answered the question. You are the one that is lying mrjesse. You also have the tools to answer the question yourself.

You have many times told me that I'm lying and not once provided any evidence of what I said that wasn't true. And you have many times told me that you answered my question, but you have never pointed out just where it was that you answered my question and I don't remember you answering my question.

So why not be a man and instead of just saying that I'm lying or just saying that you answered my question -- how about point to where you did answer my question and point out where I actually did lie?

And if you really believe that you're telling the truth when you claim that for an observer on earth at a point in time the sun will appear 2.1 degrees behind it's actual and gravitational position -- then why not apply the same math to Pluto? I mean, our own Pluto! Orbits the sun just like we do! Only a maximum of 6.8 light hours away! Can be seen with the right kind of telescope!

And in case you forgot what my question was, here it is again:
At an instant in time for an observer on earth when Pluto is 6.8 light hours away and the earth rotates 102 degrees in 6.8 hours - roughly what would the difference be between apparent and actual position? Would our own Pluto really be below the horizon at the moment we could see it directly overhead?

Again, same question different planet:

At an instant in time for an observer on earth looking at a relatively stationary and bright heavenly body that was 12 light hours away and above the earth's equator - roughly how lagged would the apparent position be from the actual position? Would it's gravity really pull to the east at the moment hat it appeared in the west?

With all the stuff you've written on this topic, with all the strange examples you've given, there's really no reason to not just answer the above two questions. I've answered your questions but you're using them to buy time. If you didn't have time to answer these simple questions, then you wouldn't have written the volumes that you have.

-Jesse

Said MrJesse: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.
Replied LeGrande: Dishonest of me? Wow! Your cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming. Exactly the same principles are at work at whatever distance the object is away from you.

The reason I have avoided answering your more esoteric questions is because distance changes the effect in several ways. Notably light has been preceding the object for hours, years or Millennia. You can be seeing way, way into the past and the relationship of its direction based on an angle from a rotating earth is meaningless.

What do you mean my more "esoteric questions?" You mean like "What about Pluto?" A 12-light-hour distant sun may be hypothetical but hardly esoteric. And Pluto is neither hypothetical nor esoteric! Don't worry about years or greater time distances - just answer for Pluto if you can't imagine a planet 12 light hours away!

Look: You and I disagree about whether a there is a difference between spinning and being orbited in a two_body+light model. You say that there is no difference between being orbited and spinning, and I say there is a difference between being orbited in such a model.

And the best way for us to understand which of us is correct is for you to answer a few simple questions. If your view is correct, then your math will work with Pluto in a way that agrees with observed reality. If you are wrong, then you will come to conclusions that are simply not scientifically supported.

I already answered all your questions (although at some point I may stop because I'm pretty sure you're just buying time since you refuse to answer mine) and I've already applied my theory or understanding to the sun and pluto. I have said that the sun will appear about 20 arcseconds displaced due to the observer's transverse velocity (and not because of the distance to the sun) and this is exactly what scientific reports say - that the sun and all other stars appear to be displaced by about 20 arcseconds when the earth has full orbital transverse velocity. Just go search google for "Stellar Aberration" and you'll see lots of documents which describe 20 arcseconds of displacement.)

So I've been very happy to apply my view to different tests - but you still refuse to apply your own view to quite a few different thought experiments, including:

If I tilted my merry go around so the top pointed to the north star and I set my merry go around with me on it rotating 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, would the sun appear in the east at the point in time that its gravity pulled to the west?

When, for an observer on earth, at an instant in time, Pluto was 6.8 light hours away, when we look up and see it, will it really be about 102 degrees off from where it appears? (that's 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes)

Why not just answer these questions? So easy. Even if you won't answer them, can you explain why you won't answer them?

Or can you explain why I should believe your claim when you refuse to apply it to simple tests, and when you cannot provide any supporting scientific sources? Can you explain why I should believe that you believe yourself when you don't have enough confidence in your own ideas to put them to the test?

Thanks,

-Jesse

Said MrJesse: Uhh, this is science we're talking about here.
Replied tacticalogic: I don't think so.

Huh? Whether the sun appears at any point in time 2.1 degrees behind its actual position is not science? Whether Pluto is below the horizon when it appears overhead is not science?

This is about going after people because of their religious belifs, and I'm not going to help you do that.

I'm not asking anyone to go after anyone because of their religious beliefs! I'm not even asking anyone to go after someone's religious beliefs! I'm asking you, as a logical thinking person, to go after somebody's false scientific claims!

The only reason I brought up religious beliefs is because for some strange and magical reason you won't call to task LeGrande on his false scientific claims -- and I can't figure out any reason that you won't take a stand against LeGrande's obvious lie -- except that maybe it's because you and he belong to the same religion and therefore won't call to task a "Brother in the faith" or whatever you want to call it. But if I'm wrong, by all means tell me why you won't take a stand against a lie!

And for the record I don't care one bit what somebody's religion is when it comes to their scientific claims when they say that the sun's apparent position is lagged by 2.1 degrees from its actual position for an observer on earth at an instant in time - I will then have all the same questions as I do to LeGrande.

So, please explain, in your own words, how come you won't take a stand against LeGrande's false claim? Why?

-Jesse

Said grey_whiskers:The issue at hand is that nobody remembered to specify which frame of reference to use when considering the problem: the Sun, the Earth, or an observer outside them both.

I haven't had any formal training in relativity, but I seem to remember from reading on General relativity (accelerated bodies) that there is NO SUCH THING as a universal, preferred reference frame, only approximations to such.

Cheers!

LeGrande may keep trying to change the subject to that of time references, but if you'll notice I have remembered to solve the problem of frame of reference: I have explicitly and clearly stated "For an observer on earth at an instant in time." This answers the question of where the observer is (on earth) and it answers over what time span the measurement was taken (zero time) and I have also explicitly specified what is being measured and what it is being referenced against - "The apparent position of the sun compared to the actual position." In other words, the difference between where the sun appears to be and where it really is - at the same instant in time - for an observer on earth.

So once I've specified all that, nothing else matters - all of the other unknowns have been settled. And that's why LeGrande refuses to answer - because all the holes that he's thought of have been plugged, and the only answer he can give that agrees with his other claims will be absurd.

Also, this is simple geometry, trig, and understanding of time and motion but does not require any understanding of relativity for our experiment. Neither the earth nor the sun, nor Pluto are moving (relative to eachother) anywheres near the speed of light and so affects due to relativity can be safely ignored because they are dwarfed by the figures that our actual question involve.

Hope that helps!

-Jesse

The issue at hand is that nobody remembered to specify which frame of reference to use when considering the problem: the Sun, the Earth, or an observer outside them both.

I think the start of the issue at hand is that LeGrande believes that there is no difference between being orbited and spinning in a two_body+light model. I say that there is a difference - in a two_body+light model, if the sun moves after emitting light, it's obvious because the light's path will maintain a record for 8.3 minutes of where the sun was even though it's moved. But if the sun doesn't move and instead the earth rotates 2.1 degrees, the sun's light will still be on a path originating from the sun's position.

The problem is that LeGrande's view just doesn't line up with science or reality and when applied to things that are a little farther away then the sun, his view is obviously wrong - which is why he keeps refusing to answer simple questions like this:

For an observer on earth at an instant in time who looks east and sees a stationary and bright planet above the equator, a planet that is 12 light hours away, how far displaced from it's actual position will be the apparent position? Will the planet really appear in the east when it is really in the west?

You see, since he's said that the sun will (per the above scenario) appear 2.1 degrees behind its actual position since the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes sunlight to reach the earth, and since he's said that if it was farther the angle would be greater, the only answer he can say to my question is that "Yes, the 12-light hour away planet would appear in the east at the moment it was really in the west." But you see if such was the case, astronomers all over would have to know about it and there would be some scientific documents describing it. But neither him nor I have been able to find any such documents. And he keeps refusing to apply his own reasoning to simple thought experiments that I or others have provided - and there seems no logical reason that he would refuse such - unless he knows that he's wrong and refuses to admit it.

Thanks,

-Jesse

PS: Regarding your suggestion that I could consider LeGrande a troll: He generally doesn't behave like a troll. He presents himself as smart and as knowing things that most other people don't know. Some of them aren't true and yet he tells them as if they are true, and refuses to admit it when he finds out he's wrong.

Sorry, dudes, I've had insomnia and not slept all night. Let me take a brain-fog stab at it. The problem is not that the light diverges from its path, it is that the rotation of the earth means that the observer is no longer seeing each ray of light from the same angle as he would have, absent the earth's rotation. And so I think LeGrande is suggesting that, just like a mirror, you get an optical illusion (so to speak). the human eye traces light back to its *apparent* source.

Two possibly complicating factors here: one is the problem at sunrise and and sunset, when the motion of the earth is parallel or antiparallel to the direction of the light, this divergence is minimized. Also, the earth is not a sphere, it is an oblate ellipsoid (i.e. a beachball with an elephant sitting on it, not a football).

Also, you have the issue of what the ancients called "lack of stellar parallax" -- the distance between the stars and the earth is so great, one can travel anywhere one likes on Earth without affecting the apparent relative positions of the stars. I'm just a little too tired to decide if something analagous would kick in here.

Cheers!

And so I think LeGrande is suggesting that, just like a mirror, you get an optical illusion (so to speak). the human eye traces light back to its *apparent* source.

True. Add in the fact that you are seeing back in time (8.3 minutes in the case of the Sun) and you have got it.

Correct again.

Correct again. The distances are so far that Triangulation doesn't work. Remember that we are also looking into the past and that in some instances (Hubble) we are looking billions and billions of years into the past, at objects that no longer exist.

[mrjesse to tacticalogic] So, please explain, in your own words, how come you won't take a stand against LeGrande's false claim? Why?

Probably because he doesn't understand the science behind it. In any case, it is clear that many of the evolution-loudmouths couldn't give a damn about science unless it's the sort of "science" that gives them the opportunity for some jolly good anti-God and anti-Bible ravings. They couldn't be arsed with an issue like this one. So don't expect anything from them.

Here's some tripe monist science, a melange of physics and biology, by a very famous evolutionist:

Tetrakinetic Theory
The Origin of Life

Now, you'd imagine that evolutionists, having as they do very acute consciences regarding scientific verity and rigor, would not encourage such rubbish. But they do, and it should not come as a surprise. That stuff by Osborn made it into Newman's Evolution textbook. And it appears, a decade later, as recommended reading in Creation by Evolution, which is a remarkable book by the way, endorsed and written by the highest exponents of evolution "science" of the era. Top-knotch guys with top-knotch credentials writing top-knotch rubber science.

Look: You and I disagree about whether a there is a difference between spinning and being orbited in a two_body+light model. You say that there is no difference between being orbited and spinning, and I say there is a difference between being orbited in such a model.

There is no difference. Are you familiar with the equivalence principle? I explained it to you. Did you understand my explanation? Also did you look at this Merry go round example Merry go Round

The only difference between the two examples is which perspective it is viewed at.

If I tilted my merry go around so the top pointed to the north star and I set my merry go around with me on it rotating 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, would the sun appear in the east at the point in time that its gravity pulled to the west?

Which frame of reference are you using when you say East and West? If the Earth is your frame of reference the answer is no, it will still be the old 2.1 degrees.

When, for an observer on earth, at an instant in time, Pluto was 6.8 light hours away, when we look up and see it, will it really be about 102 degrees off from where it appears? (that's 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes)

Again lets stop the light from Pluto at the same instant that you initially observe it. You will then observe Pluto traveling across the sky for 102 degrees at which point it will disappear. That point where it disappeared 6.8 hours later was the actual position of Pluto when you initially looked at it 6.8 hours previously. From your perspective, the apparent and actual position is off up to 102 degrees. (This is the simplified version)

The light you see from Pluto left it 6.8 hours ago. You are literally seeing into the past, 6.8 hours into the past to be reasonably imprecise. The observation is exactly the same from the point of view of the observer on the earth if the earth is rotating and Pluto is Stationary, or if the Earth is stationary and Pluto is orbiting the earth.

How many times do you want me to try and explain this answer to you? You keep claiming that I haven't answered this question but by my recollection this is about the 6th or seventh time.

mrjesse - I think the start of the issue at hand is that LeGrande believes that there is no difference between being orbited and spinning in a two_body+light model.

That is correct. They are equivalent.

mrjesse - I say that there is a difference - in a two_body+light model, if the sun moves after emitting light, it's obvious because the light's path will maintain a record for 8.3 minutes of where the sun was even though it's moved. But if the sun doesn't move and instead the earth rotates 2.1 degrees, the sun's light will still be on a path originating from the sun's position.

You are contradicting yourself mrjesse. You have already said that if the light from the sun stops, that you will continue to see the sun move across the sky for 8.3 minutes and 2.1 degrees (in an Earth spinning model). mrjesse - Of course the sun will still appear to move at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes after it is shut off. (LG I added the last part 'after it is shut off' for clarification.

The problem is that LeGrande's view just doesn't line up with science or reality and when applied to things that are a little farther away then the sun, his view is obviously wrong - which is why he keeps refusing to answer simple questions like this:

For an observer on earth at an instant in time who looks east and sees a stationary and bright planet above the equator, a planet that is 12 light hours away, how far displaced from it's actual position will be the apparent position? Will the planet really appear in the east when it is really in the west?

I am confused. I have answered the question many times. You even refer to my answer in your next paragraph.

You see, since he's said that the sun will (per the above scenario) appear 2.1 degrees behind its actual position since the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes sunlight to reach the earth, and since he's said that if it was farther the angle would be greater, the only answer he can say to my question is that "Yes, the 12-light hour away planet would appear in the east at the moment it was really in the west." But you see if such was the case, astronomers all over would have to know about it and there would be some scientific documents describing it. But neither him nor I have been able to find any such documents. And he keeps refusing to apply his own reasoning to simple thought experiments that I or others have provided - and there seems no logical reason that he would refuse such - unless he knows that he's wrong and refuses to admit it.

First, as you clearly state, I put it in bold, I have answered your 12 light hours away planet question and yet you insist that I haven't. I don't believe that you are intentionally lying, what are you thinking mrjesse?

As for your astronomy question, the simple answer is that Astronomers don't generally use the Earth as a frame of reference, they use the Stars. Have you ever used a Star Chart? Can you guess why they use the Stars (especially after our discussion)?

Correct again. The distances are so far that Triangulation doesn't work.

Define this term, please, or provide a link.

For the record, I seem to recall that we have the earth orbiting the Sun (close enough for govt. work, anyway, given the ratio of the two masses; and we can consider the effects of the moon and other planets as mere perturbations), in addtion to rotation of the earth about its own axis -- which is not perpendicular to the plane of its orbit about the sun.

To say that "the sun is also orbiting the earth" is misleading: this is not a two-body system of equivalent masses, the error introduced by treating the Sun as the center of mass is very small.

I think LG is confusion the aberration of light issue with the (approximate) two-body problem.

Cheers!

The only reason I brought up religious beliefs is because for some strange and magical reason you won't call to task LeGrande on his false scientific claims -- and I can't figure out any reason that you won't take a stand against LeGrande's obvious lie -- except that maybe it's because you and he belong to the same religion and therefore won't call to task a "Brother in the faith" or whatever you want to call it. But if I'm wrong, by all means tell me why you won't take a stand against a lie!

I won't join you because I simply don't think it's worth the animosity.

Why is it the only reason you think two people can simply agree to disagree, and part company amicably on an issue can only mean there is some tacit religiously motivated conspiracy against you involved?

"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?"

Why did you remove the statements by astronomers showing that there is no physical or observable difference between a geokinetic and geocentric model?

Don't you understand that this goes way beyond coordinate mathematical systems and that they are making statements about physical reality?

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."

Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

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

No it doesn't.

": Retrograde motion, epicycles, and all that."

Don't you have to assume that Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis didn't know about retrograde motion in order to make that statement? Is that a reasonable assumption?

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

So, you are saying that we should take our definition of reality from ease of calculation? But that would mean that we should define reality as geocentric within the earth-moon system and geokinetic within the solar-system. You then end up with two versions of reality depending on your choice for ease of calculation. Does that make sense to you?

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

Actually, we are talking about models within GR. Please try to be informed before you post.

"Cheers!"

Have a wonderful day!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.