Replies

“The disagreement is that LeGrande is claiming that at any given instant, the sun's apparent position is lagged behind it's actual(and gravitational) angular position by about 2.1 degrees due to the earth's rotation rate of 2.1 degrees during the ~8.3 minutes it takes light to reach the earth from the sun. He'd be absolutely right if the sun orbited the earth - but it pretty much doesn't.” [excerpt]

There is something very fishy going on here...

LeGrande has said in 1238 that he agrees with the statement:

“The two body example is a good one. If one is completely stationary, its optical image will be aligned with is gravitation pull.

Viewing the orbiting planet from the stationary planet will cause the optical image of the orbiting planet to lag its gravitational pull.”

Why did he agree?
Was it because I did not specifically say that the orbiting planet was also rotating on its polls?
If I had said the orbiting planet is also rotating on its polls, would he have still agreed?

Concerning the difference between orbiting and being orbited, he went on to assert that:

“By definition of course there is a difference, but it is the same difference between accelerating at one G or being in the Earths gravitational field. The result is the same, it is a distinction without a difference.” [excerpt]

To which I replied:

There is a distinction.
They are the same in that they both create the appearance of angular motion.

But only one is detectable with a laser ring gyro.

And then to my statement about creating the appearance of angular motion, he replied:

“Thank you, my job is done : )”

So where do the 8.3 minutes and 2.1° fit in?

Yes, the earth rotates ~2.1° in 8.3 minutes, but it would do that even if the Sun was 39 minutes away!

Is he just saying that, when you look up at the Sun, it goes across the sky?

Well duh!

But there will be no 2.1° of separation between where it appears to be and its gravitational pull.

Less than 21 arcseconds yes, 2.1° NO!

Like Elmer Fudd says, There something scwewy awound here...

LeGrande:
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?

I read your post. It is meaningless and a total distortion of any sense of reality.

So where do the 8.3 minutes and 2.1° fit in?

I guess it is back to the basics to relieve you from your confused state. It takes about 8.3 seconds for the light to travel from the sun to earth. In that 8.3 seconds the earth rotates approximately 2.1 degrees.

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?

Please tell me the difference between what an observer on a stationary Earth with the Sun orbiting the Earth every 24 hours or if both the Earth and the Sun are stationary except that the Earth is rotating every 24 hours, sees?