Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?

CreationEvolutionHeadlines ^ | September 10, 2008

[GodGunsGuts]

Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...

[LeGrande]

Your simple experiment does not measure the gravitational pull of the sun.

LOL True it doesn't directly measure the gravitational pull of the Sun, I never said it does. Do you have a nice simple experiment that does? I would be very interested in seeing it. I might even pay you money for it.

The experiment does illustrate the difference between the actual and apparent position of the Sun and that's all that that matters : )

[Fichori]

“LOL True it doesn't directly measure the gravitational pull of the Sun, I never said it does. Do you have a nice simple experiment that does? I would be very interested in seeing it. I might even pay you money for it.

The experiment does illustrate the difference between the actual and apparent position of the Sun and that's all that that matters : )”

And just how do you know where the Sun is to illustrate its actual position?

[LeGrande]

Yes, the earth may rotate 2.1 degrees but the angular displacement being talked about is relative to a straight line pointing to the sun which would not be 2.1 degrees.

I will concede that I have tried to greatly simplify the example and it is a very rough approximation.

Also, the angular displacement is relative to one’s location on earth. It would be a maximum at the equator but varies according to latitude.

That is correct. I am just trying to keep it as simple as possible for mrjesse and fichori.

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande: So to summarize both fichori and mrjesse believe that the Sun or any other object in the heavens is exactly where it appears to be (or at least within 21 arcseconds), they are wrong as my simple experiment amply demonstrates.

That's almost correct. But if an object has great sideways velocity then it may have more light-time-correction then 20 arcseconds - but I'm not aware of any such thing.

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

And just how do you know where the Sun is to illustrate its actual position?

I will confess that I am making certain basic assumptions. I am assuming the speed of light is correct, that the distance to the Sun is correct, that Light travels in a straight line, that geometric models and math actually apply to the real world, etc, etc.

All of my experience has shown me that the above assumptions are relatively accurate, at least way beyond any accuracy that I need : ) Do you have a problem with any of those assumptions?

[mrjesse]

Jesse, read special theory of relativity. Clears up your misunderstanding. Light is not instantaneous. Your arguments seem to assume so.

Thanks for the note, morkfork.

I well know that light is not instantaneous. But you see, once emitted, light will go on a certain path regardless of whether or not its source object moves. So if the sun were orbiting the earth at the rate of 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes then by the time the light reaches the earth, the direction it will be coming from will be 2.1 degrees behind where the sun currently is.

But dood, the earth more orbits the sun! Relative to the earth, the sun hardly moves from position! It does wobble some, but there is a point in space where the sun always occupies (relative to our solar system.) So the sun moves around about one diameters worth over a period of hundreds of years, mostly due to the very slow and very large orbits of the jovian planets.

So since the sun is, for all practical purposes, in the same spot, the light that reaches us, even though it is 8.3 minutes, is still coming from where the sun is -- because the sun hasn't moved! (much. Not 2.1 degrees. Not even 20 arcseconds.) The 20 arcseconds is due to the observer's transverse velocity of about 67K mph as the earth orbits the sun. It is unrelated to the distance to the sun, and is just like driving through the falling snow.

So to clarify your position, do you agree then with LeGrande that at any given point in time for an observer on earth, the sun's apparent position is about 2.1 degrees behind it's actual position, due to the fact that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes that it takes light to reach the earth from the sun?

And do you agree that if the sun were 12 light hours away the sun would then appear 180 degrees behind where it actually is for an observer on earth at any given moment? Wouldn't that be funny to have the sun appear in the east while its gravitational pull on the tides was in the west?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said TrevorSnowsrap: In any case, this angular displacement (2.1 degrees) of the earth when converted to an angular displacement relative to a line pointing toward the sun is quite small (.32") compared to the effects due to the orbit of the earth around the sun (20").

You're pretty close. The earth moves at about 67K mph as it orbits the sun, and at the equator, the surface speed (relative to the center of the earth) is about a thousand miles an hour -- so at the equator, the earth's rotational speed either adds or subtracts about a thousand miles an hour from/to the ~20.46?? arcseconds. And 21/67 is around 30. But in any case this is all due to the observer's transverse velocity.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:The experiment does illustrate the difference between the actual and apparent position of the Sun and that's all that that matters : )

You could carve an apple into 2.1 degree slices to illustrate 2.1 degrees -- but that doesn't mean that the 2.1 degrees is correct for the sun's apparent instantaneous displacement!

Much better then illustrating (since even an artist can illustrate something that's not true) would be to demonstrate! And your experiment demonstrates that the earth rotates at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes -- it does not demonstrate whether there is any or how much displacement there is between the sun's current and currently apparent position.

And that is our point of disagreement - not whether the earth rotates at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes, but whether the actual and apparent position of the sun, for an observer on earth, at an instant in time, are different by 2.1 degrees.

-Jesse

[Fichori]

“I will confess that I am making certain basic assumptions. I am assuming the speed of light is correct, that the distance to the Sun is correct, that Light travels in a straight line, that geometric models and math actually apply to the real world, etc, etc.

All of my experience has shown me that the above assumptions are relatively accurate, at least way beyond any accuracy that I need : ) Do you have a problem with any of those assumptions?”

I have also assumed that light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second, that the distance to the Sun is 149,597,870,691 ± 30 metres, that light travels in a straight line unless effected by gravity or atmospheric refraction and that the Earth orbits the sun.

I've also done the math out to ten(10) digits and have found that, mathematically speaking, when Light-time correction and the Aberation of Light are applied, the actual and observed position of the Sun are within ~21 arcseconds of each other.

However, you have asserted that the actual and apparent positions are 2.1° apart, except when observed from the north poll.

This assertion is coherent with a Geocentric model, however, you are claiming that it also applies to a Heliocentric model.

You have also claimed that there is no difference between the Earth spinning on its axis and the Sun orbiting the Earth.

A claim that, scientifically speaking, is verifiably false.

You still have not answered my question about what causes the alleged 2.1° of difference.

Is it the surface speed of the Earth on which the observer standing, or the transverse motion of the observer relative to the Sun?

[mrjesse]

Jesse, read special theory of relativity. Clears up your misunderstanding. Light is not instantaneous. Your arguments seem to assume so.

Thanks for the note, morkfork.

PS: If you do believe that at any given instant for an observer on the earth that the sun appears 2.1 degrees behind it's actual position due to the fact that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes that it takes the sun's light to reach the earth -- can you find a single scientific report that backs that up?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Fichori]

“(since even an artist can illustrate something that's not true)” [excerpt]

Oh really!

Well I've got news for ya!

Here's proof that Dogs and Sharks are descendants of each other!

[mrjesse]

Nice illustration, Fichori! I see he came out of the water head-first — his front legs started developing sooner!

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

I've also done the math out to ten(10) digits and have found that, mathematically speaking, when Light-time correction and the Aberation of Light are applied, the actual and observed position of the Sun are within ~21 arcseconds of each other.

However, you have asserted that the actual and apparent positions are 2.1° apart..

Will you please point out the error in my little demonstration?

Are you denying that it takes light 8.3 minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth? Or that Light travels in a straight line? (at least enough for our purposes) If you aren't, then you have to agree with me, as much as I know it pains you : )

[LeGrande]

And that is our point of disagreement - not whether the earth rotates at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes, but whether the actual and apparent position of the sun, for an observer on earth, at an instant in time, are different by 2.1 degrees.

Just go out and pound the two stakes into the ground with each pointing directly at the sun 8.3 minutes apart (the time it takes light to get fro the Sun to the Earth) and measure the difference. If the angle isn't close to 2.1 degrees I will admit that I am wrong.

If it is close to 2.1 degrees will you admit that you are wrong or at least explain why the experiment doesn't accurately show the difference between the apparent and actual position?

When I installed my solar troughs, I did this experiment (they do the experiment every day). I can show it to you if you want to come by and visit : )

[LeGrande]

mrjesse - can you find a single scientific report that backs that up?

Mrjesse is a creationist. He doesn't believe anything unless the Bible says it : ) He doesn't even believe his eyes if it disagrees with the Bible.

[Fichori]

“Will you please point out the error in my little demonstration?” [excerpt]

Your 2 stakes pointing at the apparent position of the Sun 8.3 minutes apart has no errors as long as you are using to demonstrate the rate of rotation of the Earth.

“Are you denying that it takes light 8.3 minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth? Or that Light travels in a straight line? (at least enough for our purposes) If you aren't, then you have to agree with me, as much as I know it pains you : )” [excerpt]

Here's an excerpt from my post 2009, to you:

“I have also assumed that light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second, that the distance to the Sun is 149,597,870,691 ± 30 metres, that light travels in a straight line unless effected by gravity or atmospheric refraction and that the Earth orbits the sun.” [excerpt]

if you put (149597870691/299792458) seconds in minutes into google you get:

		(149 597 870 691 / 299 792 458) * seconds = 8.3167464 minutes
		More about calculator.

Where your error comes in, is in asserting that your demonstration shows the difference between the apparent and actual positions of the sun.

You are demonstrating rate of rotation and claiming it proves optical lag.

You have yet to back up your claim with testable science.

[Fichori]

“Mrjesse is a creationist. He doesn't believe anything unless the Bible says it : ) He doesn't even believe his eyes if it disagrees with the Bible.”

LeGrande is an Atheist. He has no moral reason to tell the truth or admit when he is wrong. He lies habitually.

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande: mrjesse - can you find a single scientific report that backs that up?

Mrjesse is a creationist.

That's true -- I'm a creationist. But that's my faith; my belief. I do not claim that it's empirical science or that I can demonstrate to you that God created the universe..

He doesn't believe anything unless the Bible says it : ) He doesn't even believe his eyes if it disagrees with the Bible.

That's a lie. I am also a scientist (unpaid for which as I may be) and I seek the truth.

It's funny how I'm trying to get to the bottom of this 2.1 degrees, and LeGrande keeps bring up religion! And he's the atheist among the two of us!

LeGrande: Why not just deal with the facts? How come you won't do your same math for the sun as if it were 12 light hours away?

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Just go out and pound the two stakes into the ground with each pointing directly at the sun 8.3 minutes apart (the time it takes light to get fro the Sun to the Earth) and measure the difference. If the angle isn't close to 2.1 degrees I will admit that I am wrong.

I already know that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in 8.3 minutes. No need to admit that your wrong about the earth rotating 2.1 degrees in 8.3 minutes. But the fact that it moves 2.1 degrees in 8.3 minutes does not prove or demonstrate that there is an apparent angular displacement of 2.1 degrees.

If it is close to 2.1 degrees will you admit that you are wrong or at least explain why the experiment doesn't accurately show the difference between the apparent and actual position?

I never ever claimed that the earth does not rotate at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes. Since I never made the claim, I cannot admit that I was wrong when I made it!

What I have and do claim is that at an instant for an observer on earth, the sun's apparent position is only different by about 20 arcseconds from its actual position. Now 8.3 minutes later both the actual and apparent positions will have appeared to moved because the earth rotated -- but the two positions will still at that new instant, be within about 20 arcseconds of eachother.

If two cars are 20 feet apart both moving at a mile a minute - it is true that if you measure their position then wait a minute and measure it again that they will have moved a mile - but they will both have moved a mile and they will still be 20 feet apart! That's how I'm saying the sun and it's apparent position work - they move together, but are about 20 arcseconds apart.

When I installed my solar troughs, I did this experiment (they do the experiment every day). I can show it to you if you want to come by and visit : )

Thanks for the invitation! If I'm ever over in your area I'll try and look you up. Incidentally, I know people in my area who have tracking solar batteries rigged up with grid tie units who do net metering -- so I'm familiar with how solar trackers work.

So are you really saying that since the apparent angular rate of the sun is 2.1 degrees/8.3 minutes that the displacement between actual and apparent positions at any instant in time are also 2.1 degrees?

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

Do you agree that light travels in a straight path to the earth and that it takes 8.3 minutes to get here?

Would you also agree that if you have a stake pointed towards the Sun without any shadow, that it is pointed at the Suns apparent position and where the suns actual position was 8.3 minutes ago? If you don’t agree, why not?