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

...one of these leftists who think that communism is all about economic theory.

Here is something for you:

Anticommunism

Oh, yes, Legrand also thinks he is made of "waves of nothing."

Far be it from me to argue with someone's opinion of themselves. They know best what they're all about.

Show me in the articles where they said that matter or information traveled faster than the speed of light.

They didn’t did they? : )

Say, LeGrande, what kind of education did you get?

Fichori, do you remember when LeGrande said that the stars you see in front of you may be actually be behind you by the time their light reaches your eyes (in other words, stars travel faster than light)?

Then answer my simple little question. When you look at the sun is it exactly where it appears to be or is its actual position 2.1 degrees more advanced than it appears?

Once you understand the basics I will be happy to get into the more complicated stuff : )

Notice in post 968 where he dismisses me because of an (unsubstantiated) accusation that I had confused him with Coyoteman; and then in 982 he admits to actually confusing Fichori with Mrjesse; but merely transfers his ad hominem to a new target.

Lazy, dishonest, incompetent, rude, childish.

I'll agree it's bad practice resulting from careless reading and knee-jerk reactions, but apparently not something that's difficult to fall into.

Hey! I like my physics textbook. Speaking of those who are sensitive about their education - I too noticed that you haven't been much^H^H^H^H at all open about yours!

Can't comment on what doesn't exist.

Anyone who thinks that mass = force is working on about a sixth grade reasoning level.

You're moving the goalposts. In the post 971

The gist of the argument was that nothing is faster than the speed of light, therefore an omnipotent God doesn't exist because the speed of light is a limit.

That's what the articles were about. Now you're restricting it to just information.

Since you're as vocabulary challenged as you are science challenged....

omnipotent: having virtually unlimited authority or influence

omnipresent: present in all places at all times

If someone is present everywhere at all times, they don't need to travel anywhere to get anywhere so the speed of light is irrelevant to God and you have not disproved God's existence.

Too bad for you.

Phil 2:9-11

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

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.

Said LeGrande: Then answer my simple little question. When you look at the sun is it exactly where it appears to be or is its actual position 2.1 degrees more advanced than it appears?

Hey, I asked first! but hey if you'll answer my question if I answer yours then I'll answer yours first.

Please go read this to learn all about it. At any instant for an observer on the earth, he sun will appear about 0.0056 degrees (20 arcseconds) ahead of its actual angular position due to the observer's transverse velocity of about 67K miles per hour (most of which is due to the earth's orbital path around the sun, although the earth's surface speed at the equator is about 1k mph as well.)

So the answer is "Not 2.1 degrees lagged and not zero degrees - but the angular position of the sun is about 20 arcseconds advanced, due to Stellar Aberration."
(And by "advanced" I mean advanced with reference to the direction of the observer's transverse velocity.)

Now - I answered your question - so please answer mine:
If a reasonably stationary and bright heavenly body were 12 light hours away and over the earth's equator, for an observer on earth at any given instant in time, when this planet appeared on the east horizon would it really be on the west horizon? Would it's gravity really pull one way while it's light appeared to come from the exact opposite direction? Do you really believe that?

Once you understand the basics I will be happy to get into the more complicated stuff : )

Yeah yeah, you can't even answer a simple question about apparent angular displacement of a heavenly body that's 12 light hours away because you know that no matter what you answer it'll be in clear contradiction to either your previous statements (making you less then honest) or it'll be in clear contradiction of reality (making you less then, hmm, I'll have to think about that one...)

You've refused to answer this question for so long now that it's almost funny. You know that if your claimed 2.1 degrees is real, then a lot of other things are real that we all know is absurd. (Like, for example, you claim that (at any given instant for an observer on earth) the sun appears about 2.1 degrees behind where it actually is due to the fact that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the time it takes the sun's light to reach the earth. You're wrong, however, because even though the light from the sun may be 8.3 minutes old when it reaches earth, but since the sun is where it was at the time, the light will be coming from the same place that the sun is because the sun is still where it was 8.3 minutes ago.)

If your claim is true, then obviously if the sun were 12 light hours away instead of 8.3 light minutes, then the sun would appear to be rising in the east while it was really setting in the west - which sounds absurd!

So how about it? I answered yours. Be a grown-up and answer mine!
Thanks!

-Jesse

Fine print: I am well aware that there are other slight sources of apparent angular displacement with the sun. One is that the sun wobbles a little bit. But this and all of the other causes of apparent angular displacement are nothing compared to the 20 arcseconds of Stellar Aberration, and 20 arcseconds is nothing compared to 2.1 degrees.

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?

He was asked many many many times to stop his nonsense and attempts to derail threads he apparently found damaging to his precious beleif in Macroeovlution

Did you happen to see who originally posted this thread? Was he trying to derail his own thread?

He asked that his thread not be overrun by those who constantly attacked him for his beliefs. Doesn't sound like an unreasonable request as he was TOLD to stay off the religion threads because the extremes couldn't handle him voicing his opinion there.

Seems to me that the people who are calling themselves Christians here are having an issue with following one of Gods basic rules "Treat others as you would like to be treated". They expect to be treated fairly...to be able to speak and be heard...and yet they work to silence that which they don't understand or agree with.

This site was started because another site where JR posted was overmoderated and would ban those that didn't tow the line.

I love FR...and hope I'm not banned because of this comment...but maybe we all need to step back and look at what we are becoming. Can we handle a lively debate of our beliefs, or do we want nothing more than an echo chamber?

[[Did you happen to see who originally posted this thread? Was he trying to derail his own thread?]]

Yes trussel- I’m talking about THIS thread- ONLY this thread- He was a saint in every OTHER thread he posted in- Cripes-

[[Can we handle a lively debate of our beliefs, or do we want nothing more than an echo chamber?]]

Yup sure we can- however what Coyoteman did was NOT lively debate- it was petty childish derailings

[[Seems to me that the people who are calling themselves Christians here are having an issue with following one of Gods basic rules “Treat others as you would like to be treated”.]]

Swell- another non Christian presuming ot tell us Christians what God’s word means

[[They expect to be treated fairly...to be able to speak and be heard...and yet they work to silence that which they don’t understand or agree with.]]

That’s a load of hogwash! The issue was NOT about someone ‘speaking’ it was about his acting INNAPROPRIATELY in threads- period!

He expected his threads to be treated like a caucus thread on the Religion forum, ironically.

And, when he didn’t get his way, he popped off at the owner of the site.

This behavior would get nearly anyone banned, on any site. So, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth is theatrics.

[[Woo-hoo ... much Beavistry and Buttheadedness over in DC Comic-land. Over 1k replies.

Does somebody get a little gold star or something?]]

Got a link? This should be amusing. Seems fitting that coyote’s thread should have a link to his and his cohort’s whining binges

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?

[[What is wrong about that?]]

Everything. Next question?