Replies

For simplicity, imagine all the planets/sun were stationary, except the earth was rotating 360 degrees per 24 hours.

You still have to have to define the "when".

Post a link.

Buy the books and study them. A little education won't hurt you : )

Annual aberration(earth's orbit around the sun) is 20.49552 arcseconds, or 0.0056932 degrees. Diurnal aberration(earth's rotation around its poles) is 0.32 arcseconds, or 8.88888889 × 10-5 degrees.

So I basically guessed correctly where you got your 21 arc seconds from : )

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?

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

Now, lets say you mount this device's base so that it can rotate freely around the earth's axis of ration.

If you were to rotate the base in the opposite direction of the earths rotation at 360° per 24 hours, so that the same side of the base always pointed at the sun, would the optical arrow still lag the gravitation arrow by 2.1°?

That's the same question. The answer is still no. You are basically taking the rotation of the Earth out of the equation, just like an observatory. Granted there are some other factors but they are unimportant for our discussion.

Actually, we are talking about the direction of incoming light from the sun versus the direction of its gravitational pull. You are incorrect.

No what you are missing is that light takes time to reach its destination, the field effects of gravity are instantaneous. The is where the whole discussion started, with field effects : ) You need to get up to speed.

We're not talking about 2 peole on oposite side of the earth.

We are talking about the direction of incoming light versus the direction of gravity.

We are talking about the apparent vs actual position of a person on the equator of the earth with a Sun that appears to rise in the East and set in the West : ) If you change the point of reference the observation changes.

I know what 2.1 degrees looks like. How does that tell you where the gravitational pull is?

All that proves is that the earth turns 2.1 degrees in 8.5 minutes.

First you have to determine the speed of light and the distance of the Sun to the Earth, but if you accept that it takes light 8.3 minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth and that the light is traveling in a straight line the geometry is indisputable. Are you disputing that the light takes apx 8.3 minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth?

It does NOT prove that the angle of incoming light is lagged 2.1 degrees behind the angle of gravitation pull of the sun.

Technically you are correct. It says nothing at all about gravity. For that we will have to get into Field Equations : )

Based on your questions, may I assume that you have conceded the point that for an observer on the Earth (Equator or areas where the rises in the East and falls in the West) That there can be a considerable difference of up to 2.1 degrees between the Suns actual position and apparent position?

“You still have to have to define the "when".” [excerpt]

When?
At any given time, thats when.

“Buy the books and study them. A little education won't hurt you : )” [excerpt]

I can't afford to go buy books. (Unemployed)

“So I basically guessed correctly where you got your 21 arc seconds from : )” [excerpt]

I'd be worried if you didn't know...

“No. They would both point towards the actual position of the Sun. Or close enough for Government work anyway : )” [excerpt]

LeGrande, do you remember this:

Updated anti-amnesia innoculation!
The LeGrandeic System of Astrophysics
post 447
[LeGrande] In other words when you look at the Sun, you are seeing it about 7 minutes behind where it actually is, but if you had a sensitive gravity sensor where would it point? At the sun you see or 7 minutes ahead of the sun you see?
post 469
[mrjesse] this [is] how it would be if the sun were orbiting the earth... if gravity "traveled" instantly (which I think was a basis for your question) then indeed, the sun's gravity would be 2.13 degrees ahead of its visual location... But the sun doesn't orbit the earth! Other way around!
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 504
[mrjesse] Can you find anyone at nasa who plans space missions and who agrees with you? The more I hear of your idea the more crazy it sounds.
[LeGrande] LOL They all agree with me... May I suggest "Physics for Dummy's"...
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 525
[ECO] Is the moon's apparent position off by more than 2.1 degrees from its actual position? Or less?
post 529
[LeGrande] The lag is a little over a second.

The Collapse of the LeGrandeic System of Astrophysics
Look at the pictures, LeGrande. There is no 2.1 degree lag. Apparent position of the Sun, actual position of the Sun, apparent position of the moon, and actual position of the moon, all in the same place. And a straight line through the real Sun, the real moon, and the observer on Earth. Dramatic, no? Like a stake pounded through an undead vampire, it rids the world of your 2.1 degree solar lag theory.

Solar Eclipse

Solar Eclipses for Beginners

Originally posted on Mon 14 Jul 2008 by Ethan Clive Osgoode on the thread The Sunset of Darwinism
Large underlinded text is not in the original.
The photo of the 'Solar Eclipse' was broken, and subsequently updated.

Whoo Hooo!
That was FUN!

“That's the same question. The answer is still no. You are basically taking the rotation of the Earth out of the equation, just like an observatory. Granted there are some other factors but they are unimportant for our discussion.” [excerpt]

Smart boy!
(Your catching on!)

“ No what you are missing is that light takes time to reach its destination, the field effects of gravity are instantaneous. The is where the whole discussion started, with field effects : ) You need to get up to speed.” [excerpt]

Back in 991 I posted to you that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters / second.

I am fully aware that light is not instantaneous.

You have asserted previously that “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.” which is simply wrong.

I think your the one who's not up to speed.

“We are talking about the apparent vs actual position of a person on the equator of the earth with a Sun that appears to rise in the East and set in the West : ) If you change the point of reference the observation changes.” [excerpt]

You are, now.

“First you have to determine the speed of light and the distance of the Sun to the Earth, but if you accept that it takes light 8.3 minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth and that the light is traveling in a straight line the geometry is indisputable. Are you disputing that the light takes apx 8.3 minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth?” [excerpt]

Where you go wrong is in assuming that there is no difference between the Earth spinning in place or the sun orbiting the earth.

“Based on your questions, may I assume that you have conceded the point that for an observer on the Earth (Equator or areas where the rises in the East and falls in the West) That there can be a considerable difference of up to 2.1 degrees between the Suns actual position and apparent position?” [excerpt]

based on your assertion that “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.”, I would conclude that you have no idea what your talking about.

I'm starting to feel like a bully beating up a cripple in a wheel chair.