Replies

"Thus, we "see" the Sun where it was located 8.3 minutes ago [snip] And this conclusion is verifiable by direct scientific observation." - Southack

"Horse manure. Document actual observations/measurements which have "verified" this by "direct scientific observation" (that should keep you busy for a while), or retract it. And stop trolling." - Dan Day [Tangential babbling (addressed below)] - Southack

Your reply was non-responsive, Mr. Troll. You say that your "conclusion" (not your premises, your *conclusion*) is "verifiable by direct scientific observation". So verify it by citing some of that "direct scientific observation". Point us to a paper or something where an astronomer allegedly acknowledges actually having measured the Sun being "8.3 minutes south" of where it "actually" is.

Or retract your trollish claim.

1. It takes Light 8.3 minutes to travel from the Sun to the Earth, yes or no?

Yup.

2. The Sun (as well as the rest of our Solar System) is traveling through space, yes or no?

Relative to which inertial reference frame, please?

Unless you've been asleep since 1905, you should realize that there's no such thing as absolute motion.

Using the Solar System as our inertial reference frame, the Sun is not moving at all (but the rest of the Universe is drifting hither and yon around us).

Using Alpha Centauri as the center of our inertial reference frame, the Sun is drifting slowly.

Using the center of the Milky Way as the center of our inertial reference frame, the Sun (and Earth) are traveling in a rough circle at 220 km/s.

Using a distant quasar as our inertial reference frame, the Sun is traveling at a good fraction of the speed of light in a different direction entirely.

So by your "reasoning", where should we "see" the Sun's "actual" position as it was 8.3 minutes ago? Unchanged? Slightly changed? 8.3 minutes * 220km/s changed in a *different* direction? 8.3 minutes * 0.8c in *another* direction? Which will it be, Mr. Troll?

Something's wrong with your conclusion, obviously, because it gives four different answers simultaneously.

(Hint: In 1905 Einstein discovered that the universe doesn't make sense unless you abandon notions of absolute velocity. You still haven't gotten the message.)

Now, if you disagree with EITHER point #1 or point #2 above, then you are welcome to show how the entire scientific community is in error (I'll be waiting with baited breath).

That's "bated" breath, you goof, unless you've been eating worms.

Actually, I disagree with point #2, at least as it relates to the notion of absolute velocity, and so does the "entire scientific community".

You, on the other hand, are invited to explain how Einstein allegedly got it wrong, since your calculation method is in violation of Special Relativity.

On the other hand, if you accept those two above points, then all you need to know is how far the Sun travels in 8.3 minutes in order to understand that by the time Light reaches Earth that the Sun is in a different, scientifically observable actual location than what you see (which is the Sun 8.3 minutes ago, of course).

No, that's not "all you need to know" -- you're missing a key notion in your analysis, which is the aberration of light.

I didn't want to reveal the punchline until you had presented your own calculations and made a fool of yourself, but you're obviously avoiding every attempt to try to get you to actually *show* your calculations (presumably because you're not able to even *make* any), so I might as well spill the beans now.

Clue for the clueless: Your analysis would only be correct if the Sun were zipping along (in a particular inertial reference frame) and the Earth were *motionless* (relative to that frame). But that's not the case, the Earth is cruising through the galaxy (or whatever) along with the Sun itself. You *can't* ignore the motion of the Earth and get the right answer.

Even in an inertial reference frame where the whole Solar System is zooming along at X miles per hour relative to some other reference object, it's true that the light reaching the Earth from the Sun comes from where the Sun "was" 8.3 minutes ago, HOWEVER, the matching velocity of the Earth causes the apparent position of the Sun to be shifted forward (via aberration) in a way that *EXACTLY* cancels the "lagged" view of the Sun, and from the Earth you'll see the Sun RIGHT WHERE IT IS AT THE PRESENT MOMENT.

Interestingly, this gives exactly the same "answer" as you get using the Solar System itself as an inertial reference frame, wherein the Sun isn't moving at *all* and the analysis is more straightforward and obvious. ...or any *other* inertial reference frame. They all give the same answer.

I'm writing this for the benefit of lurkers, because I know you'll just try a trolling response instead of a) retracting your nonsense or b) learning something.