Replies

All right everybody, the time has come for the latest edition of The LeGrandeic System of Astrophysics.

It contains the [consecutive] updates 1, 2, 3 and 4 concerning stars not being where you see them.

So please, put your coffee cups down, microwave some popcorn, and read responsibly!

Enjoy!

The LeGrandeic System of Astrophysics

Fifth edition.

Excerpts from the thread Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?

post 858
[Fichori] If everyone else here went and read a few of your posts from previous debates, would you continue to post on this thread?

post 888
[LeGrande] Of course. I stand behind all of my posts : )

post 1007
[LeGrande] 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?

post 1010
[mrjesse] But wouldn't that also mean that when Pluto was at the part of its orbit which brought it the most distance from the earth, at which point the time of light travel is 6.8 hours in which time the earth rotates 102 degrees -- does that mean then that if I look up through my telescope and see pluto overhead it actually won't even be in the night sky at that time, but rather 102 degrees away from where I see it?

And what about a heavenly body that was 12 light hours away - would it appear to be exactly in the opposite side of the sky of where it really was? Would it's gravity be 180 degrees out of phase with its apparent position?

post 1024
[LeGrande] Why are you ignoring my question? "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?"

Can I safely assume that you agree that the apparent position of the sun is off by apx. 8.3 minutes?

post 1109
[LeGrande] All you have to do is go outside and pound a stake into the ground pointed at the Sun so that it doesn't have a shadow. Then 8.3 minutes later pound another stake into the ground (with the same origin point) so that it doesn't have a shadow and measure the angle between the two stakes. If you do it accurately enough the two stakes will be a little over two degrees apart. Which is the difference between the apparent position and actual position of the Sun from your perspective on the Earth.

post 1126
[Fichori] Lets say you had a device that had two arrows, one pointing in the direction of the incoming light of the sun, and the other pointing at the gravitation pull of the sun.
(It doesn't matter how you spin this device, the arrows ALWAYS point DIRECTLY at their respective targets.)

Now lets say its mounted on the north poll.
This devices base rotates at the same speed and on the same axis the earth rotates on.

Your asserting that the optical arrow will point 2.1 degrees behind the gravitation arrow. Correct?

post 1146
[LeGrande] No. They would both point towards the actual position of the Sun. Or close enough for Government work anyway : )

Excerpts from the thread The Sunset of Darwinism

post 488
[LeGrande] You seem unable or unwilling to try and grasp simple concepts that disagree with your world view. My example was simple, is the sun where it appears to be when you look at it? Or is it ahead of where it appears to be? You seem to think that it is where it appears to be, you are wrong.

post 489
[ECO] the sun is where mrjesse says it is.

post 496
[LeGrande] MrJesse is claiming that... the sun is in exactly the same place that we see it, when we see it. You seem to agree, according to your equation and statement "the sun is where mrjesse says it is." Both of you are wrong, we see the Sun where it was 8 minutes ago when the photons were emitted.

post 497
[mrjesse] Please just answer this one question: If the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, how far lagged would the sun's optical image be from its real position?

post 498
[LeGrande] 180 degrees off.

post 500
[mrjesse] 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 world?

post 504
[LeGrande] They might be. They have had billions of years to move around. They most certainly aren't where you see them.

post 542
[LeGrande] Go out at dawn and point a transit right at the edge of the Sun at the instant the first light appears at the horizon (it should be the same point). Now wait 8.3 minutes and measure the distance from the edge of the Sun to the horizon. That is the difference between the Suns apparent position and its true position.

post 593
[LeGrande] There is no difference between the Earth spinning in place or the sun orbiting the earth, the suns apparent position vs actual position is the same.

post 603
[LeGrande] At the exact instant that you see a solar eclipse the suns actual position is already 8.3 minutes beyond that point.

post 1347
[Fichori] Your argument the whole time has been that the sun appears to go across the sky every day?

post 1359
[LeGrande] Pretty much that is it : ) Apparent vs the actual position of what we see, using the Earth as our point of reference. It couldn't be much simpler.

post 1362
[Fichori] If the Sun and Earth were perfectly motionless in space, except the Earth was rotating 360° every 24 hours, would (at high noon, sans the atmosphere) the optical image of the Sun be lagged 2.1° behind its gravitational pull?

post 1415
[LeGrande] Yes, up to 2.1 degrees.

post 1896
[mrjesse] The reason I'm so interested in the 2.1 degrees is because you said it and I'm pretty sure you're outright wrong. And if you knowingly refuse to admit it when you've said something wrong even when you've been caught, how much more unlikely will you refrain from telling me a lie about something I can't disprove -- like ASBE?

post 1902
[LeGrande] Actually you are the one that computed 2.1 degrees. My statement was that the Suns apparent position was not the same as its actual position. Which you now agree is true.

It contains the [consecutive] updates 1, 2, 3 and 4 concerning stars not being where you see them.

Ahh, many performances. I had the misfortune of attending the first act, in the "Sunset" thread. The implications of LeGrandeic physics are quite interesting. Aside from predicting triangular eclipses, with earth-moon-sun in a triangle, we have... Post 499:

Indeed, LeGrande's theory of diurnal lag has very interesting astronomical implications. Let us consider some.
Pluto's present "apparent" position is in Sagittarius. But it takes light about 5.5 hours to get here from Pluto. Thus, according to the diurnal lag theory, Pluto's "actual" position is not in Sagittarius at all.
Astronomers tend to consider Rigel as being in Orion. But that's merely Rigel's apparent position. Rigel is 800 light-years from the Earth, hence according to LeGrandean astronomy, Rigel's "actual" diurnal position leads by 800 years. In other words, when you look at Rigel, you must keep in mind that this is merely the apparent image -- the real Rigel has rotated around the Earth 292,000 times already.
Suppose the sun was 173.5 AU from the earth. At this distance, it would take 24 hours for light to travel from the sun to the earth. According to LeGrande's theory of diurnal lag, this would cause the sun's "actual" position to lead its apparent position by 24 hours. So, the "actual" position would be the same as the apparent position. The sun would actually be where it apparently is. Furthermore this would be the case if the sun's distance were any multiple of 173.5 AU.

And (501)

Let's apply LeGrande's diurnal lag theory to astronomical systems held together by gravity (binary stars, globular clusters, galaxies). Gamma Persei is an eclipsing binary. The two stars are separated by about 10 AU and their "apparent" images are hard to separate with a telescope. When the primary and secondary stars are side by side, their distances to the earth are roughly the same, so the LeGrandean diurnal lag theory says that their actual diurnal positions in the sky are ahead by some 225 years (wherever that may end up to be). But when the secondary eclipses the primary, it is 10 AU closer to the earth. So now the actual position of the secondary lags behind the actual position of the primary by 83 minutes or about 21 degrees or so. Since the period of this system is about 14.6 years, LeGrandean astronomy says that the these two stars wander away from each other by some 21 degrees in the sky every 7.3 years.

And (515)

We need not look far for illustrations of this. Neptune is 30 AU from the sun. Neptune's period of rotation is 16 hours. For an observer on Neptune, the LeGrandean optical lag of the sun would be 30*8.3 = 249 minutes (4.15 hours) or 360*4.15/16 = 93.3 degrees. Thus, Neptune casts a shadow which is nearly perpendicular to the line joining Neptune and the Sun.

And (616)

With LeGrande's astrophysics, it's not possible to estimate where -- not even approximately -- the "actual" positions of nearby stars are. For instance, Wikipedia says that Sirius is 8.6 +-0.04 light-years away. 1 light-year is 63,240 AU. So, +-0.04 light-years is +-2530 AU. In other words, in LeGrandeic astrophysics, the "real" Sirius could be anywhere along the diurnal circle.

concerning stars not being where you see them.

Ok, I found what I was looking for concerning LeGrande's theory of stars moving faster than light, in the "Sunset" thread. Post 551, post 566, etc...

[mrjesse] 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 world?
[LeGrande] They might be. They have had billions of years to move around.
[ECO] So how is it, in your conception of physics, that stars can end up behind us in the time it takes for their light to get to us? How is it that some stars you presently see are actually on the other side of the world?
[Fichori to LeGrande] A star with a distance of 1 light year would have to orbit the observer at 3.14x the speed of light to get 180 degrees away from its apparent position... Care to explain how the star is going to break warp 0.9?

I disagree with Legrande’s religion, but what is wrong with the simple concept that when you look at the sun it is not, at that time, where it appears to be? It takes 8.5 minutes for the light to get here, by the time it gets here, it has moved a little. What is wrong about that?