Replies

For another, and more importantly, if the sun orbited the earth at the rate of one orbit per 24 hours, then the sun would suffer from 2.1 degrees of light-time correction.

What does that mean to you? And can you explain that in a comprehensible manner? That should be easy with your superior education : )

But if instead the earth was just turning at the rate of one turn per 24 hours then the suns apparent position will only be lagged less then an arcsecond due to Stellar Aberration as a result of the earth's surface speed at the equator of about a thousand miles an hour.

Really? What does Stellar Aberration have to do with it? You don't really know what Stellar Aberration is do you?

What does that mean to you? And can you explain that in a comprehensible manner? That should be easy with your superior education : )

If you don't know what light-time correction is by now then it's high time you learned. Basically it's the apparent angular displacement of an object due to it's transverse velocity. Read more at WP or another nice article I saw on it was here.

Really? What does Stellar Aberration have to do with it? You don't really know what Stellar Aberration is do you?

Again, if you don't know what Stellar Aberration is it's high time you learn. And again, WP has a reasonably nice article on it - anyway it'll get you started.

The earth's rotational rate has to do with Stellar Aberration because the earth's rotational rate influences its transverse velocity for observers not on the poles and therefore causes some (but a very small amount) of apparent angular displacement, because Stellar Aberration is cause by the transverse velocity of the observer.

I know exactly what Stellar Aberration is.

By the way you asking Fichori whether the sun appears exactly where it is and when we say "No there is a documented 20 arcseconds angular displacement due to Stellar Aberration" you then say "My job is done. That was my point." But that's not true - your claim is 2.1 degrees.

Look at it this way: If somebody called you up and said "Hey Legrande, your driveway is flooded!" and you looked out and saw that a few raindrops had fallen on your otherwise dry driveway you would reply "No it isn't! I'm looking right at it and it's not flooded!" then the caller says "Well is it dry?" when you say "Well, not it's not exactly dry." if the caller then says "I rest my point. It's flooded." you would then see that their claim and their line of argument was quite fallacious.

Your argument is just like that. You're saying that it's flooded at 2.1 degrees, and we say "No it's just damp" then you argue from the extreme and say "It's not dry is it? therefore it is flooded!"

But "not dry" does not always mean "flooded." ("flooded" may always mean "not dry" but you gotta not get your logic backwards!)

So now what other questions do I still need to answer before you will answer mine?

-Jesse