Posted on 01/28/2009 11:36:17 AM PST by Coyoteman
With regards to the Universe, what is the absolute angular acceleration of the Earth?
| For an observer on earth who is looking at a bright and stationary planet that is 12 light hours away and is above the earth's equator, at the instant that said planet appears in the east will it really be in the west? Will its gravity be pulling in the opposite direction of where the light appears to come from at that instant? LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far. |
| For an observer on earth who looks up and sees Pluto when it is overhead and when it is 6.8 light hours away, at that instant in time, will Pluto really be about 102 degrees away from where it appears? Will it really appear directly overhead at the moment it is really below the horizon? LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far. |
| If the sun were 10 light days away, and the earth was suddenly stopped, do you believe that the sun would continue to appear to rise and set for another 10 days? LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far. |
| Let's say that you are standing on a turntable at the North Pole. Lets also say that the turntable (and its pointer) is tracking and pointing at 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? (*Note: by "at" I mean "within about 20 arcseconds") LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far. |
| Let us say that I tilted up my merry go around so that it's top pointed directly at the north star (Polaris to be specific) and furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time? LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far. |
| Let us say that I had a merry go around on the North Pole furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time? LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far. |
| You said that If the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, the sun's optical image would be lagged 180 degrees from its real position. But then you say that if I was on a merry go around that was turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, and the sun appeared on the horizon, the sun's apparent position would not be 180 degrees displaced from its actual position. So how come, by your theory, would the earth's hypothetical rotational rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, for an observer on earth at an instant in time, cause the sun's gravitational pull and light to come from opposite directions from eachother, when for an observer on a merry go around turning at the same rate, it would not? LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far. |
Thanks for playing : )
It is impossible for you to have been doing the second since we had no past history. You were doing the first unless you are going to claim that your perspective is the only one that matters. But that is what you have been doing all along.
"I wanted you to look, but NOT for the reasons you attributed to me."
What you said was, "If you had done as I suggested, and searched some of his posts, you'd have seen what I meant."
Followed by, "It was not a posting of "what I consider graphic", still less did I post it in the hopes that you would go running off to see it."
So again we see that you are completely focused on yourself to the exclusion of all others. I'm beginning to detect a common theme for your posts.
" In order for projection to occur, two conditions must apply. First, the accuser must harbor the emotions; second, (probably) the accused must be free from the emotions. I am not cantankerous, irascible, taking issue, etc."
Well of course you would make that claim, but the evidence suggests otherwise. You are the one who constantly brings up these attributes and projects them onto me, after all.
"If I were, I would not have been asking you for more details about your quotes, I would have dismissed the quotes out of hand."
And again we see this focus on yourself and what you would do such that the definition only fits you if you decide it does. Again with the extreme focus on yourself.
"Well, yes, I had asked for that. Such a request is not inherently unreasonable. But, since you did bring it up, what do you mean "found them on google books" and then a sentence or two later say "you just want me to find *online* references for you"?? I thought google was online; could you explain a bit more clearly -- that way I'd be able to find the quotes in context, which remains my intent."
Sorry, I'm not going to do your research for you. If you can't find them online, that's your problem, not mine.
"No, no projection, nor yet dishonesty."
Yes, yes projection and the point was more intellectual honesty is needed from you. The very thing you tried to project onto me. It also appears that 'dishonesty' from you is just not *yet* (as defined in your own mind, of course) but is coming.
"Thats just my point, Dan. I'd love to see the original quote, and with it the original article in context. Because when I first tried to find the quote and article, all I found were duplications of the same few sentences you posted; but the discussion around those sentences made it sound like that Ellis was talking about Earth as the center of an expanding Universe, and not just the center of a solar system. Since those two topics ARE very different, I wanted to see the original article to see if the other people were taking his remarks out of context or not."
Here again, a little more intellectual honesty from you would be nice. Geocentrism is not that the earth is the center of the solar system and you are either ignorant or disingenuous to imply it. It is that the earth is the center of the universe. This is the point of Ellis' quote and why Ellis' quote is appropriate. Whether it is 'expanding' or not is based on a whole set of assumptions around the interpretation of redshift. Is this the beginning of the 'dishonesty' you spoke of just above?
"Difficulty over words here -- yes it is clear in the sense that I can form the mental construct alleged in your last paragraph. Unclear, because of my prior paragraph, I wanted to make sure the the quotes you gave really were in context and not "cherry picked" or misunderstood: not necessarily by you, or out of bad faith."
The only bad faith I have seen is coming from you. But then we understand how you project onto others that which you first assume yourself.
"The Ellis quote above, out of its context, does not tell me *which* observations he is talking about."
I suppose you would first have to assume that Ellis is talking about a subset of observations rather than the entire set. But that would make his point meaningless as anyone can construct a model to fit some limited set of observations that only they select. I think you are projecting again.
" And the websites I found which *did* have this quote were not talking exclusively about the Solar System, which is how this back-and-forth between us got started. So it is not in fact a matter of my beliefs either way -- it is a matter that the quote from Ellis looked a bit off-topic."
No, it's a matter of you assuming that Ellis is selecting a limited set of observations to make a meaningless statement and that someone is disingenuously making that statement appear technically true while being practically false. I sense more projection on your part.
" I did and was not able to find his original article. I did find a few flamewars reminiscent of this thread, however :-)"
That is impressive.
"Cheers!"
Cheers!
It is impossible for you to have been doing the second since we had no past history. You were doing the first unless you are going to claim that your perspective is the only one that matters. But that is what you have been doing all along.
Miscommunication there...when I spoke of past experience, I meant "experience *in general* on FR", not "my past experience with you" as I do not specifically recall having corresponded with you before.
"I wanted you to look, but NOT for the reasons you attributed to me."
What you said was, "If you had done as I suggested, and searched some of his posts, you'd have seen what I meant."
Followed by, "It was not a posting of "what I consider graphic", still less did I post it in the hopes that you would go running off to see it."
So again we see that you are completely focused on yourself to the exclusion of all others. I'm beginning to detect a common theme for your posts.
That's because those lines were in response to a response you posted *about* me, and an inaccurate impugning of my motives. Of course my responses in such a situation are going to involve myself.
" In order for projection to occur, two conditions must apply. First, the accuser must harbor the emotions; second, (probably) the accused must be free from the emotions. I am not cantankerous, irascible, taking issue, etc."
Well of course you would make that claim, but the evidence suggests otherwise. You are the one who constantly brings up these attributes and projects them onto me, after all.
Repeating this charge does not substantiate it.
If you hadn't been rude about my wife's birthday, the subject of cantankerousness would not have *been* broached. Unless you think mentioning a wife's birthday makes someone irascible etc...?
"If I were, I would not have been asking you for more details about your quotes, I would have dismissed the quotes out of hand." And again we see this focus on yourself and what you would do such that the definition only fits you if you decide it does. Again with the extreme focus on yourself.
That quote was again, a response to an accusation from you -- and mentioning your quotes in the first place, and then asking for more details on them, again, is not a focus on my self.
Here again, a little more intellectual honesty from you would be nice. Geocentrism is not that the earth is the center of the solar system and you are either ignorant or disingenuous to imply it. It is that the earth is the center of the universe. This is the point of Ellis' quote and why Ellis' quote is appropriate. Whether it is 'expanding' or not is based on a whole set of assumptions around the interpretation of redshift. Is this the beginning of the 'dishonesty' you spoke of just above?
Not in the slightest, except on your part. The original food fight on this thread dealt with whether the Sun or the Earth was at the center of the Solar System...which is related to, but not identical, to the geocentrism of which you speak. And if you are considering whether the Earth is the center of the Universe then redshift does matter, which it does not for the original food fight.
The only bad faith I have seen is coming from you. But then we understand how you project onto others that which you first assume yourself.
I have engaged in no bad faith -- unless of course, you consider asking YOU for more details, when I could not verify your quotes, and expressly allowing for the possibility that the sources *I* found might have been wrong, while continuing to ask you, is bad faith.
And what's up with "we"? Nobody else on this thread has ever accused me of bad faith.
I suppose you would first have to assume that Ellis is talking about a subset of observations rather than the entire set. But that would make his point meaningless as anyone can construct a model to fit some limited set of observations that only they select. I think you are projecting again.
No projection here. The question is not (as you impute to me incorrectly) whether Ellis constructed a model to fit a limited set of observations that only he selected. The question is whether he was talking about the same topic ass the earlier posters on this thread. You quoted Ellis, and I couldn't find the original quote in context. All the sources I found seemed to relate Ellis's quote to "Earth as the center of the Universe" and I attempted to clarify the difference or get access to Ellis's quote from you.
For some reason this seems to strike you as bad faith.
No, it's a matter of you assuming that Ellis is selecting a limited set of observations to make a meaningless statement and that someone is disingenuously making that statement appear technically true while being practically false. I sense more projection on your part.
I said nothing of the sort. I wondered whether the Ellis quote was relevant to the dispute earlier in this thread -- which is a far cry from being over a limited set of observations, or meaningless, or practically false.
I realize now that you are a troll.
Plonk.
Talk of a omnipotent god doesn't bother me, because there is absolutely no evidence that it exists.
>>That is another thing that doesn’t exist
>>in a buddhist’s universe.
The concept of rebirth is Buddhist.
And it’s not your universe.
I knew what you meant when I responded. I had hoped that you would recognize your error but, since you didn't, I am forced to explain it to you.
The point is that your experience *in general* on FR is irrelevant to your communication w/ me. It is extremely self-centered of you to think that your experience w/ everyone else on FR would be applicable to your communication w/ me.
"That's because those lines were in response to a response you posted *about* me, and an inaccurate impugning of my motives. Of course my responses in such a situation are going to involve myself."
Oh I think I understood your motives very well. There appears to be an extremely self-centered personality there that expects everyone else to understand everything you post in conformity with your personal views and experiences. This can also be seen as an inability to understand the world from anyone's perspective but your own and to insist that your perspective must rule the conversation. Again we see the extreme self-focus.
"Repeating this charge does not substantiate it."
And neither does repeating the denial.
"If you hadn't been rude about my wife's birthday, the subject of cantankerousness would not have *been* broached. Unless you think mentioning a wife's birthday makes someone irascible etc...?"
Of course, we now understand that you define me as being 'rude' simply because I wasn't interested in what you and your wife do or how much you enjoy it. Again, the extreme self-focus.
"That quote was again, a response to an accusation from you -- and mentioning your quotes in the first place, and then asking for more details on them, again, is not a focus on my self."
Again, you are seriously projecting. There was no 'accusation', merely pointing out the obvious self-focus that permeates your writing. I suppose you must do this to protect the mental paradigm that you have built for yourself, but it's not anything close to reality.
"Not in the slightest, except on your part. The original food fight on this thread dealt with whether the Sun or the Earth was at the center of the Solar System...which is related to, but not identical, to the geocentrism of which you speak. And if you are considering whether the Earth is the center of the Universe then redshift does matter, which it does not for the original food fight."
Again, you are responding to your perception of what others have said rather than what I actually said. I am not them. I did not write what they did and it is disingenuous on your part to imply that I did.
And redshift does not matter in a geocentric universe. If that were the case, Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis would have noted it as the distinguishing factor preventing the equivalence of the 2 models under GR.
"I have engaged in no bad faith -- unless of course, you consider asking YOU for more details, when I could not verify your quotes, and expressly allowing for the possibility that the sources *I* found might have been wrong, while continuing to ask you, is bad faith."
You claimed not to be able to find anything in an online word search of the documents related to the quotes I posted. I then directed you to google books which was able to find the very words contained in those quotes on the pages the quotes claimed they were made. You focused on the availability of *online* resources as a red herring. You are either engaging in bad faith statements or you simply don't know what you are doing.
"And what's up with "we"? Nobody else on this thread has ever accused me of bad faith."
I didn't use "we" in connection w/ bad faith posting, now did I? It was used in connection with your continued practice of projecting your personality onto others. And just because no one besides me has made written note of your habit of projecting doesn't mean that no one besides me has noticed it. Is this more 'bad faith' posting on your part or are you just confused?
"No projection here. The question is not (as you impute to me incorrectly) whether Ellis constructed a model to fit a limited set of observations that only he selected. The question is whether he was talking about the same topic ass the earlier posters on this thread. You quoted Ellis, and I couldn't find the original quote in context. All the sources I found seemed to relate Ellis's quote to "Earth as the center of the Universe" and I attempted to clarify the difference or get access to Ellis's quote from you."
You wrote, "The Ellis quote above, out of its context, does not tell me *which* observations he is talking about." Now the only way that impacts what Ellis said was if Ellis was talking about a subset of all observations. It is irrelevant whether Ellis was talking about the same topic as previous posters. I am not arguing any previous poster's comments. Earth as the center of the universe is geocentrism, is the context of Ellis' quote and is something I have clarified for you. You appear badly confused.
"I said nothing of the sort. I wondered whether the Ellis quote was relevant to the dispute earlier in this thread -- which is a far cry from being over a limited set of observations, or meaningless, or practically false."
Your comments don't make any sense in any other context. And again, we see your insistence that we debate the subject from your perspective based on your past experience w/ other posters. This continues to be irrelevant and a symptom of extreme self-focus.
"I realize now that you are a troll."
I realize now that you are just a confused, self-centered person.
"Plonk."
Plonk.
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.