Replies

Thats why you use an absolute reference point to measure angular velocity against ;-)

What absolute reference point do you use? Either way you get a angular velocity of 0.00416°/second between you and the sun.

“What absolute reference point do you use? Either way you get a angular velocity of 0.00416°/second between you and the sun.”

If the angular velocity between you and the sun is 0.00416°/second and your absolute angular velocity as measured with an accurate LRG is zero, then you are being orbited by the sun.

However, if your LRG also shows an angular velocity of 0.00416°/second, then you are rotating.

Said tacticalogicWhat absolute reference point do you use? Either way you get a angular velocity of 0.00416°/second between you and the sun.

The important thing to remember is that once the light waves leave the sun, they travel on their path (pretty much a straight line) regardless of whether the sun stays where it is or whether it moves. So if the sun did move across the sky 2.1 degrees in 8.3 minutes, then yes, by the time the sun's light reached the earth, the sun would be 2.1 degrees ahead of where it appeared to be. But as it is, the 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes is the rotational rate of the earth - not the orbital rate of the sun. Thus the light will still be traveling in a ~straight line from the sun to the earth, and as a result, the direction from which the light hits the earth will be that of the direction of the sun - in other words, it will appear to be where it is as far as Light-Time correction is concerned. (It will appear about 20 arcseconds advanced due to the transverse velocity of the observer on earth due to the earth's orbital velocity in meters per second around the sun -- but this has nothing to do with the distance to the sun.)

Does that help? If not, here's something that would explain it even better:

According to LeGrande's statements of how things work, if there was a stationary planet 12 light hours away and above the equator of the earth, for an observer on the earth at any instant in time, the said planet would appear in the east when it was really in the west, because of the fact that the earth rotated 180 degrees in the 12 hours it took the light to reach it. Now have you ever heard of anybody claiming such a thing?

While no planet comes to mind which is exactly 12 light hours away, Pluto is at the farthest parts of its orbit about 6.8 light hours away - enough time for the earth to rotate 102 degrees! So according to LeGrande's theory, Pluto, when we look up with a powerful telescope and see it, will actually really be below the horizon -- and not even in the night sky!

Have you ever heard of any such claims? So far LeGrande has not presented to me (or anywhere that I know of) a single scientific source making the same claim as him. And yet he stands behind it. (That is to say that he stands behind his claim of 2.1 degrees. But so far he's refused to answer me my question about if Pluto is really not even in the night sky when we look up and see it because he knows that his claim would then be obviously wrong.)

So this leaves me in the awkward position of realizing that if LeGrande will unwaveringly hold to a wrong idea and refuse to admit he's wrong even when it's obvious, then how much more will he hold onto a wrong idea and pretend it's true when noone's got evidence against it? So I know that I cannot put much weight on what LeGrande says - unless he can find valid sources to support it (in which case the weight is on them, not him.)

But this brings up yet another question in my mind - is this an Atheist thing? Are lots of Atheists like this - knowingly holding onto and stating as true, ideas that they know are wrong? Well, the proof is in the pudding - all I have to do is look around and see how other Atheists respond to LeGrande's claims. Do they say out right "LeGrande, that's absurd. you're outright wrong?" I haven't seen it yet. Show me if you find it. As far as I can tell, any Atheist who's nibbled into the discussion of LeGrandean Physics realize that LeGrande's not being honest, but rather then saying "Wait a second, LeGrande, this isn't right you should stop" they just sort of politely wonder off maybe with a small indication of concession, not wanting to counter a fellow Atheist. And why is this important? This point is important because now I know that if there was Atheists who were knowingly telling lies, all the other Atheists would just let them do it. And so this is why Science Education is in such shambles today.

Does that help?

So will you join ECO, Fichori, and me in publicly stating that LeGrande's 2.1 degrees is false and that he is being dishonest for maintaining his claim and yet refusing to answer whether the same theory also goes for Pluto and an imaginary planet that is 12 light hours away? Any other takers? See, that's what happens: An Atheist or Evolutionist (or more specifically an All Species By Evolution-ist) makes an untrue claim, all the other Atheists or ASBE'ers just sit quiet, so the only people which complain are non-Atheist or non-ASBE'ers -- then the Atheists & ASBE'ers say "See? we all agree. It's just them complaining!".

Thanks,

-Jesse