[LeGrande]

Am I just immeasurably stupid? Sometimes it feels like it. If I was just ignorant, you could just show me the scientific reports which support your claim and then I wouldn't be ignorant about that anymore. But as it is no matter how hard I try, things you say still don't make sense or seem honest.

I don't think you are stupid. You simply don't have a good grasp of basic concepts. You are correct that many basic concepts don't initially make sense. Anyone dropping a bowling ball and a feather can clearly see that the bowling ball drops faster than the feather, and except for exceptional circumstances, that observation is correct. You seem to be stuck at that point.

It is hard to explain why everything falls at the same rate. We know the answer, but if I tell you the answer, you will think that I am lying : ) because the answer won't make intuitive sense to you.

If you really want to understand reality, it requires that you take a viewpoint different from yourself and your preconceptions. Everyone's preconceptions are wrong, it is impossible to completely understand reality, but the journey is fun : )

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande: I don't think you are stupid. You simply don't have a good grasp of basic concepts.

The problem with your statement above is that I've been able to support my understanding of things with scientific documents, and you haven't provided a single scientific document that supports your instantanious 2.1 degrees of displacement between the suns apparent and gravitational/actual direction. You have made numerous claims (like those about gyros and others) that were simply scientifically not true, and I have pointed them out. And did you come back each time and say "Oh, you're right?" Or did you come back with any scientific evidence that I was wrong? Nope. And then you refuse to answer my color coded questions even though they are simple easy questions. I mean, regardless of what I know or don't know, that doesn't prevent you from answering them - unless you know that your answers would be absurd. And furthermore, you have accused me of all sorts of things like lying, and being wrong and such, without ever providing a single evidence or example of where I did lie or made a false claim! (except perhaps the one case where I confused two terms but issued a correction and apology)

For example:
You said to me "Your ignorance is virtually limitless."

And you said to me "That should be no problem for a reprobate like yourself : )"

And you said to me "You already broke that word a long time ago. You are a reprobate and reprobates have no honor."

And you said to me "It does make you a reprobate and a serial liar though."

And you said to me "So lets sum you up. You are a liar."

And you said to me "You know that I am correct and that you are a liar."

And not once have you pointed out and provided links to where I actually lied - not once! Why would anyone believe that you're being honest about your 2.1 degrees or believe you when you say that I'm wrong, especially considering you have heretofore produced zero supporting evidence?

Well, maybe you like to call names and accuse people of lying, but let's look at your scientific understanding:

You claimed that there are places where a good laser ring gyro could not measure the earth's rotation. That was not a true claim and you provided no evidence for it.

You say that one cannot use light to measure absolute angular velocity. But a good laser ring gyro can measure the earth's rate of rotation - compared not to the sun, but even more absolute then that! See this or this or this or here and I could go on. These big laser ring gyros are so sensitive and accurate, that not only can they register the rotation of the earth each day, they can measure the length of each day and tell how many milliseconds any one day is longer then the other due to tides and such.(And you refuse to answer the question of "If the Foucault pendulum on the north pole isn't tracking absolute zero angular rate, what is it tracking?" question.)

And you claim that a laser ring gyro tells you nothing on the equator. But that's just wrong - all you gotta do is tip it up on its side to the correct orientation to measure the earth's rate of rotation.

You imply that Michelson didn't succeed in measuring absolute angular velocity with light -- again, you were wrong - He (and others) did succeed in measuring absolute angular velocity of the earth with light!

You said "Light is not a third body,..", but before that you said "Light, is the moving part in the LRG", and you say "the laser ring gyro is a third body" -- but may I say to you that not only is the light in the LRG the third body, the sun's light is a third body too!

And here are a bunch more of your absurd and contradictory claims. You claim both that the sun's apparent and gravitational positions are the same (at least close enough for government work) and you also claim that the sun is not where it appears to be.

And there are lots of more equally scientifically absurd things that you've claimed, but the night is running late and this is ample evidence anyway.

And you said "When someone shows me an error that I have been making, I thank them. I don't call them a liar." -- Well how about that. Look at the errors of yours I and others have pointed out. Look at how many times you've not thanked them or me. Look how many times you've called us a liars.

So, considering that you have such a poor grasp of science, and are so ready to accuse somebody of being a liar without providing evidence for your accusation, and considering your continued refusal to personally answer the below color coded questions, don't you think that I have reason to doubt not only your understanding of the matter at hand but also your honesty?

Please explain to me how I can logically come to any other conclusion then I have! -- Especially when you have not provided a single scientific document or evidence which supports your claim!

Thanks,

-Jesse



The Red question - 12 light hour away planet:

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.

The Green question: Pluto

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.

The Blue question: if the sun were 10 light days away

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.

The Yellow question: Turntable at north pole tracking the sun

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.

The Lavender question: 17 minute merry go around tilted toward Polaris

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.

The Purple question: 17 minute merry go around on north pole

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.

The Aqua question: 17 minute day vs 17 minute merry go around revolution.

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.