The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[Coleus]

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed. “Evolution is now a datum proven beyond any reasonable doubt and no longer a theory, it’s not even worth taking the trouble to discuss it.” This is what a spokesman proclaimed at the Festival of Science held in Genoa in November 2005, thereby neglecting a very important aspect of modern science—the need to be open to new perspectives. Instead, the truth is quite the opposite. Paradoxically, evolutionists are taking an ever greater distance from empirical science and are wrapping themselves up in a dogmatism that borders on ideological fanaticism.

Unprovable Hypothesis
“What is left, then, in evolutionism, that is valid according to the scientific method? Nothing, actually nothing!” This is the conclusion of journalist Marco Respinti in his recent book Processo a Darwin (Darwin on Trial, Piemme, 2007). He continues: "Not one of his postulates can be verified or certified based on the method proper to the physical sciences. His whole claim escapes verification. Based on what, therefore, other than on strong prejudices of an ideological nature, can anyone affirm or continue to affirm that the evolutionist hypothesis is true?"  Indeed, the consistency of a scientific theory is founded on its capacity to be verified empirically, be it through observation of the phenomenon in nature or by reproducing it in the laboratory. The evolutionist hypothesis fails on both counts. “Thus,” Respinti shows, “Darwinism remains simply an hypothesis devoid of empirical or demonstrable foundation, besides being unproven. . . . The evolutionist hypothesis is completely unfounded for it does not master the very domain in which it launches its challenge.”

Respinti reaches this “verdict” after a rigorous “trial of Darwin” in which he analyzes the main arguments that debunk the notorious theory, ranging from nonexistent fossil records to the conflict of Darwinism with genetic science and the flimsiness of the “synthetic theory” of neo-Darwinism, without forgetting the countless frauds that have stained notable evolutionists in their insane quest to fabricate the “proofs” that science tenaciously denied them.  Respinti concludes by denouncing the ideological drift of the evolutionist school: “To categorically affirm the absolute validity of the theories of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution based on the claim that discussing them would be unscientific by definition, is the worst proof that human reason can give of itself.”

A Long Sunset
The sunset of the Darwinist hypothesis has picked up speed over the last two decades. For example, consider the work carried out by the Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structures, founded in 1987, in the wake of an international interdisciplinary meeting convened “to present and discuss some opinions opposed to the dominant neo-Darwinist paradigm.” Scientists from all over the world participated, including the outstanding geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, then a professor at the University of Perugia, Italy. In 1980, together with Roberto Fondi, now a professor at the University of Siena, Sermonti wrote Dopo Darwin—Critica all’evoluzionismo (After Darwin—A Critique of Evolutionism, Rusconi, 1980). “Biology,” Sermonti explains, “has no proof at all of the spontaneous origin of life, or rather biology has proved its impossibility. There is no such thing as a gradation of life from elementary to complex. From a bacterium to a butterfly to man the biochemical complexity is substantially the same.”   For his part, Fondi shows that from the first appearance of fossils to this day, the variety and riches of living beings have not increased. New groups have replaced older ones, but the intermediate forms that the evolutionists have so frantically searched for do not exist. “The theory of evolution,” Sermonti and Fondi conclude, “has been contradicted as have few other scientific theories in the past.”

In Le forme della vita (The Forms of Life, Armando, 1981), Sermonti unveils other obstacles to Darwinism. According to the renowned geneticist, the “random” origin of life and the gradual transformation of the species through “selective change” are no longer sustainable because the most elementary life is incredibly complex and because it is now proven that replacement of living groups takes place “by leaps” rather than “by degrees.”  Putting together forty years of experience, in 1999 he wrote Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione (Forgetting Darwin—Shadows on Evolution, Rusconi, 1999). With rigorous argumentation, the author demolishes the three pillars of Darwinism: natural selection, sexual mixing and genetic “change.” According to him, history will remember the theory of evolution as the “Big Joke.”

Not Just Creationists
Sermonti has been often accused of being a “creationist” or a “religious fundamentalist” even though he has always said he does not fit his scientific vision into a Christian perspective, and this yet one more aspect to note in the polemic against Darwinism, which many people other than Christians also contest it.  In this sense, it is interesting to note the recent editorial in Il Cerchio, “Seppellire Darwin? Dalla critica del darwinismo agli albori d’una scienza nuova,” ("Bury Darwin? From a Critique of Darwinism to the Dawn of a New Science") containing essays by seven specialists including Sermonti, Fondi and Giovanni Monastra, director of Italy’s National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research. The title refers to the famous phrase by Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics of the University College of Cardiff, “The probability that life was formed from inanimate matter is equal to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros . . . . It is large enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.”

From Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione’s introduction: For the first time in Italy, a critique of Darwinism is presented in all its complexity thanks to the interdisciplinary contribution of scholars of several orientations—[b]eyond the polemic between neo-Darwinian fundamentalists and religious integralists, the essay demonstrates how the critique of the now old neo-Darwinist paradigm opens the doors to a new science.

A Crisis of the Positivist Paradigm
Francis Crick, who together with Watson discovered the structure of DNA, openly declared, “An honest man, armed only with the knowledge available to us, could affirm only that, in a certain sense, the origin of life at the moment appears to be rather a miracle,” In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, “All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way.” Indeed, a lot of faith is required to believe in evolutionism, and it is precisely that faith, of a clearly positivist^[1] mold, that is now beginning to weaken.

In Darwinismo: le ragioni di una crisi (Darwinism: The Reasons of a Crisis), Gianluca Marletta sticks his finger in the wound by observing that “The crisis of Darwinism is above all a crisis of the philosophical paradigms that allowed its success.”  “One cannot understand the origin of this doctrine,” Marletta explains, “without going back to the cultural climate of ‘triumphant positivism’ straddling the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” According to Marletta, Darwinism constituted a wonderful occasion to strengthen the positivistic view of the world being affirmed at that time. Darwinism represented the perfect tool to transplant, into the biological field, the mechanic and materialist paradigms already imposed on the social sciences. This is the true motive of this theory’s success. A motive that now begins to subside with the crisis of the positivist paradigm. This explains the almost fanatical tenacity with which evolutionists are defending their convictions. “Many fear,” concludes Marletta, “that the fall of Darwinism can bring down with it the whole positivist vision of the world.”

God’s Comeback
The crumbling of positivism is bringing back to the limelight issues that a certain conventional wisdom thought to have definitively eliminated. Shaken from the sudden crumbling of old certainties, worried about the chaos that increasingly marks this postmodern age, many people are once again asking the fundamental questions: Does my life have a transcendental meaning? Is there an intelligent project in nature? In short, does God exist?   Sociologist Rosa Alberoni wrote about this in her book, Il Dio di Michelangelo e la barba di Darwin (The God of Michelangelo and Darwin’s Beard), published last November by Rizzoli with a preface by Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council Justice and Peace. The onslaught of “Darwin’s worshippers,” Alberoni explains, is carried out by the “usual destructive atheists obsessed with the goal of stamping out Christ and destroying the Judeo-Christian civilization after having sucked its blood and essence.” This sullen assault, however, in the deeply changed ambience of post-modernity, risks being counterproductive: The monkey myth is what really shook ordinary people. Like soldiers woken up by an alarm in the middle of the night, Christian believers and [O]rthodox Jews prepared for the defense. Or rather for the war, because that is what it has become . . . [o]n the symbolic level, the bone of contention is the ancestor of man: God or a monkey? Should one believe in God or in Darwin? This is the substantial nature of the ongoing clash in our civilization.

In other words, a real war of religion looms in the dawn of the Third Millennium. Precisely that which secularists have tried to avoid at all cost.

Footnote:

1. Positivism is the philosophical system created by August Comte (1798–1857), which only accepts the truths that we can reach by direct observation or by experimentation. Thus it denies classical philosophy, theology and all supernatural religion.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Yes that is stellar aberration but that is not what mrjesse was talking about. It is talking about the aberration from a star to the earth. Apparently you and mrjesse don't know the difference between our sun and a distant star, but that doesn't surprise me in the least.

Practical Astronomy and Geodesy

It will then follow, the distance from the earth from the sun and the mean daily motion of the former in its orbit being supposed to be known, that the earth must describe in the orbit an arc subtending at the sun an angle of 20".36 in advance of the place which it would occupy if no time elapsed in that passage. The effect of aberration on the place of the sun is, therefore, the same as that which takes place on a star situated in the pole of the ecliptic.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I took the time to draw your diagram up.

That's a nice graphic. It would be interesting to draw up LeGrande's theory of solar eclipses. According to his theory, the actual sun is 2.1 degrees from the moon during a total solar eclipse. So, the sun, moon, and observer on earth form a triangle during a total solar eclipse, according to him. Incidentally, this theory contradicts his earlier thought-experiment about the laser-sniper. We now know that the sniper's shots do not travel in a straight line. He failed to inform us of that detail.

[LeGrande]

Tell us more about solar eclipses. How is it that the actual Sun is 2.1 degrees away from the moon during a total solar eclipse? Do total solar eclipses happen when the Sun, moon, and observer on Earth form a triangle?

Nah, You're the creationist that thinks that at the precise moment an observer on earth sees a solar eclipse that the earth, moon and the sun are aligned precisely without regard for the fact that light isn't instantaneous and the actual alignment occurred a few minutes earlier. You don't let pesky facts get in the way of a good story. I guess that is why you believe in the bible.

[LeGrande]

The effect of aberration on the place of the sun is, therefore, the same as that which takes place on a star situated in the pole of the ecliptic.

Now you seem to be quoting the inverse angle from the sun to the earth which is fine. You two like to look at things from the back end don't you : )

[LeGrande]

The disagreement is that in your example which I depicted in the diagram the observer will only notice a 0.000088 degree movement of the sun as he takes his train ride, but you said that the sun appears 2.07 degrees behind where it is - but your very own illustration demonstrates that it will only be 0.00088 degrees!

LOL You really don't have a clue do you? You are referencing the the wrong angle. If your observer was on the sun you would be correct.

I guess reading the bible really has addled your brain hasn't it? Or maybe it was all the hours you spent flagellating yourself?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

[LeGrande to mrjesse] The 20 arc seconds you are talking about is the displacement of the suns masses orbit around the barycenter.

[LeGrande] Now you seem to be quoting the inverse angle from the sun to the earth

Investigation of Change in the Computational Technique of the Sun's Physical Ephemeris

The solid curves represent the effect of aberration in arcseconds, and are clearly neither flat nor zero. Aberration effectively shifts the ecliptic longitude of the Sun, λ, westward on the sky (decreasing the value of λ). Like the light-time correction, the aberrational shift results in a slight change of viewing angle. The dot-dash curve in Fig. 1 can be considered to show P as a function of λ (plus a constant), since the latter increases by about one degree per day. So the curve can be used to provide a good estimate of how much P will change at different times of the year, if we subtract 20.5 arcseconds from λ (20.5 arcseconds being the mean aberration; the true amount of aberration varies from 20.14 arcseconds at aphelion to 20.85 arcseconds at perihelion).

Since the Sun’s axis is tilted by 7.25◦, we expect the effect of aberration to move the latitude at most by 20.5 arcseconds ×sin 7.25◦, or about 2.6 arcseconds, and be seasonally dependent. This is exactly what is seen.

The dashed curve shows the differences using the pre-2009 rotation computation but explicitly correcting for aberration. As expected, a nearly constant offset of −20.5 arcseconds is seen, with oscillations under 1 arcsecond mostly due to varying velocity as the Earth moves through perihelion and aphelion.

[mrjesse]

Said ECO in 624The logical inconsistency of this is striking. On the one hand, you say that your 2.1 degree solar lag theory is only true if there is no moon, while on the other hand the Sun is off by 2.1 degrees during a solar eclipse anyway.

You are lying. I never said that the 2.1 degree solar lag theory is only true if there is no moon.

Who are you accusing of lying? You replied to me but quoted ECO then just said "You are lying."

In any case, Ethan Clive Osgoode is not lying. In 533 you said:

The Sun is only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth, in a two body model. In the two body model there is essentially no difference between two stationary objects with one of the them spinning or having one of them orbit the other object. Adding a third body invalidates the two body model.

Then, in 603 you said:

A solar eclipse shows apparent position not actual position. At the exact instant that you see a solar eclipse the suns actual position is already 8.3 minutes beyond that point.

So which is it? Is the sun lagged 8.3 minutes and 2.07 degrees only in a two body system, or including in the middle of a solar eclipse, which is obviously at least a 3 body system? (I'm going to argue that since light takes time to travel and since it can continue to propagate even after its source has moved, that it too will qualify as a body for this discussion. You yourself agree that even a Laser Ring Gyro is a third body, even if it's buried 10 feet deep.)

Seriously, I think you just make this stuff up and when someone quotes you as saying something you don't remember, you just tell them they are lying. You see, if you always tell the truth, then you don't have to remember what you said because you can always go look it up again!

The fact is that you did say "The Sun is only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth, in a two body model." then you said "I never said that the 2.1 degree solar lag theory is only true if there is no moon." But the moon is a third body!

Said mrjesse: We have always freely granted that the sun appears displaced by about 20 arcseconds due to stellar aberration. But when you talk about 2.1 degrees - when we say "It appears exactly where it is" we are talking about your 2.1 degrees (which is some over 7 thousand arcseconds - not 20 ). The accusations you make are most dishonest.

The 20 arc seconds you are talking about is the displacement of the suns masses orbit around the barycenter.

Wrong: See here and here and you will see indeed that the speed of earth flying through space on its orbit of the sun causes a ~20 arcsecond (an arcsecond is 1/3600th of a degree) apparent displacement. The sun orbits around its barycenter very slowly, only about a diameter's worth from its center at most, and only in time with the big outer planets, like Jupiter, which takes almost 12 years to orbit the sun. So the sun's motion is far too little and far too slow to cause 20 arcseconds. My rough calculation has the sun moving under 4 miles per 8.3 minutes as it orbits its barycenter. So assuming my calculations are correct, if the sun moves 3.65 miles in the 8.3 minutes it takes its light to get here, the light-time correction due to the barycenteral orbital velocity will be 0.008 arcseconds or so. Not 20!

It is not due to stellar aberration.

The 20 arcseconds sure is due to stellar aberration! See for example the WP Article which says "The maximum amount of the aberrational displacement of a star is approximately 20 arcseconds in right ascension or declination." Lots of other websites say that too. It's been known since 1725 when the third Astronomer Royal, James Bradley, discovered it. It's nothing new!

You don't even seem to understand your own sources.

Funny you should say that! You haven't pointed out where I misunderstood a SINGLE source, and I have made a point of linking to lots of them. Now you completely quoted out of context and misunderstood the one source you provided, but you haven't pointed out where I'm wrong about a single source! How have I misunderstood any of my sources? How can I misunderstand a statement like "The maximum amount of the aberrational displacement of a star is approximately 20 arcseconds in right ascension or declination."?

Said mrjesse: I'm stunned that you think that Jupiter is optically lagged about 60 degrees from where it really is.

I know that you are incapable of understanding grade school subject material but I can't help that either.

Dood, and I suppose all the authors I've been quoting and using as references are also incapable of understanding grade school subject material? I don't know how you came to say that the 20 arcseconds was not due to stellar aberration. All the good websites say it is. Math says that it is.

So lets sum you up. You are a liar.

Now that's pretty easy to say, I notice that you didn't explain where I said anything that was a lie! Now I've pointed out numerous places where you've said something contradictory or not true - this very post in fact is a case in point where you claim that the 20 arcseconds is not due to stellar aberration, when in fact all the websites I checked say that it is. So why not provide examples of where I lied rather then making yourself look like a cornered dishonest person who'll say anything true or not to try to move the attention off of your own amazingly untrue claims?

You don't know the difference between points of reference. You can't understand grade school material and you are incapable of understanding your own references.

Of course I know the difference between points of reference. But light is a third body in this context. And you keep saying that I don't understand my own references - but you're the one who didn't understand the one reference you did provide! The document you linked to was about something else and didn't mention light ONCE (except as "the speed of light".)

I can go on but this is boring.

Boring? I'm learning very day that atheists and evolutionists can be far more stubbornly dishonest then I could ever have imagined!

Dishonest? Well, yes! There's no way that you can still think you're right by now. You have got to know that the claims you are making are not true. We have provided many thought experiments and many web references which all show your claims to be not true. At first it may have been an honest mistake. But it's no longer possible for you to not know.

I have provided many references and you have never pointed out how I was wrong with them. Either I'm providing good references or I'm not. If they are good, then you're wrong and you won't admit it. If my references are bad, then why haven't you pointed out how a single one was bad?

So how about Jupiter? If I look up and see it, is it really about 60 degrees off? Now hold your horses I know what you want to say -- "What? do you think that Jupiter is exactly where it appears?" -- Oh wait! That is (almost) what you said! Except it was Saturn, not Jupiter. You said "do you really believe that Saturn is exactly where you are pointing the telescope?" Now that in and of itself is a very dishonest tactic - of course Saturn isn't exactly where it appears because it is orbiting the sun (albeit very slowly) and besides which the earth is flying through space at 67K miles per hour on its orbit around the sun. So there is the regular stellar aberration as well as a small bit of light-time correction do to Saturn's own orbital velocity. But its nowhere near the ~20 degrees that your theory claims!

So now that we got that cleared and you know that I am well aware of small apparent angular displacements due to stellar aberration and light time correction, do you really believe that when you look up through your telescope at Jupiter, that it is actually 60 degrees elsewhere?

Answering that one question would just be so helpful. How about Jupiter?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

LOL You really don't have a clue do you? You are referencing the the wrong angle. If your observer was on the sun you would be correct.



Look at the diagram again: (And remember he's on a flat plane, thank you very much) When the observer starts in the center, the sun is directly overhead, that is to say, 90 degrees. But when he travels his 143.5 miles, the sun will now be 90.000088 degrees above the plane (Assuming he is still facing the direction he traveled in.) And I've got news for you - the difference between 90.000000 and 90.000088 is 0.000088, not 2.100000 ! It doesn't matter how big the earth is or whether it is square or shaped like you described with a 143.5 mile flat spot on it -- if the distance between the sun and the observer is 1AU and he travels initially at right angles to the sun in a straight line for 143.5 miles, the sun's position will change by 0.000088 degrees -- not 2.1! This is simple geometry.

And even thought I have found and linked for you lots of websites supporting my view, you have not showed me a single such website. Doesn't that cause you to stop and think? Maybe you're wrong on some stuff?

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I guess reading the bible really has addled your brain hasn't it? Or maybe it was all the hours you spent flagellating yourself?

Do you really think that these remarks -- and others like them which your atheist mind is eagerly formulating -- are going to put the actual position of the Sun 2.1 degrees away from the actual position of the moon during a total solar eclipse?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

[mrjesse to LeGrande] So which is it? Is the sun lagged 8.3 minutes and 2.07 degrees only in a two body system, or including in the middle of a solar eclipse, which is obviously at least a 3 body system?

This contradiction extends much further throughout LeGrande's "scientific" thinking. In post 542 LeGrande recommends an experiment:

Here is another experiment you can try at home, with the proper eye protection of course : ) 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.

He neglects to mention, though, that you must do this in an alternate universe where the moon and other "third bodies" do not exist. So its not really "an experiment you can try at home." Along with the proper eye-protection, a space-suit might be necessary in case the atmosphere is not allowed.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

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

[LeGrande]

Do you really think that these remarks -- and others like them which your atheist mind is eagerly formulating -- are going to put the actual position of the Sun 2.1 degrees away from the actual position of the moon during a total solar eclipse?

No but maybe they will get your attention. You are the one claiming that when you see an eclipse that the moon and the sun are exactly where you see them. That is only possible if light is instantaneous which it is not. In the real world it takes time for light to reach your eyes and when you see the moon and the sun lined up they have already moved.

The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge the fact that light isn't instantaneous proves that you are an idiot. Nothing more needs to be said.

[LeGrande]

Jesse, Jesse, Jesse. Lets do a little recap. First off you are now acknowledging that the suns apparent position and actual position are different, which was my whole point in the first place. Now you seem to be bickering with me over the point of reference.

For my efforts towards enlightening you, you and your buddies called me a deceitful atheist. But the truth is your and your creationist friends are the ignorant reprobates.

Now back to the example, both observers see the sun directly overhead, remember the light from the sun is parallel at the earth, and the angle between them is determined by drawing a line through each observer to the center of the earth. That angle (2.07) illustrates the difference between the actual position of the sun and where one of the observers apparently sees the sun.

Now if we put the observers on the surface of the sun and did the same experiment there then yes the angle would be .00008 degrees off (adjusting our distances of course).

But the fact remains that we are now simply quibbling over frames of reference and yet you want me to appeal to authority before you will believe. That doesn't surprise me in the least. Everything you believe is based on an appeal to authority (The Bible), but that isn't how science works. Science tells its followers to find out the truth for themselves, if someone tells you something that you think is wrong, prove them wrong, that way everyone benefits.

You don't know how glad I am that we got sidetracked and never got around to talking about fields.

[mrjesse]

Correction:

Where I claim that Jupiter is 30AU away, I was incorrect. It's only about 5.2AU away from the sun. But Pluto is roughly 38 AU from the Sun and my point still stands that if the sun's gravity direction is 2.1 degrees ahead of its optical position due to the distance of sun-earth and the light flight time thereof (Which is LeGrande's claim), then Pluto will appear over 60 degrees displaced from its actual position.

Second correction:

When I stated "20 arcseconds is 0.000277777 degrees. You're talking about 2.1 degrees, which is seven thousand five hundred times bigger!" I was wrong on two counts. First, 20 arcseconds is 0.00555555556 degrees, not whatever I said before. Secondly, 2.1 degree IS 7560 arcseconds, whereas I had incorrectly stated 7500 as the ratio between 2.1Deg and 20ArcSec. The ratio between 2.1Deg and 20ArcSec is really 378 - so the displacement of 2.1 degrees is three hundred and seventy eight times larger then the observed and calculated displacement for the sun! That's absurd!

Please accept my most sincere apologies for the inaccurate statements. It is my goal and practice to be honest and accurate and I freely admit when I find I've been wrong.

But my general point, that 2.1 degrees is absurdly beyond anything that's been measured or calculated still stands.

Thanks,

-Jesse

PS: I'll answer the other post later, gotta run now.

[Fichori]

Try a silver plated stake.

[LeGrande]

PS: I'll answer the other post later, gotta run now.

That's okay. I am getting ready to fly up to Alaska.

[mrjesse]

That's okay. I am getting ready to fly up to Alaska.

Have a great flight!

Oh, and when you're up there perhaps you could do me a favor. Do you have a video camera? Anyway, if you can go stand in the sun, about a thousand feet from a tall tree or tower or something, or maybe a 150 foot tall ice tower(if it were winter.) Anyway, with proper eye protection of course, perhaps you could stand exactly in the shadow of a tall pole and turn your head right to left, and see if the sun does indeed appear to deflect from its actual position in agreement with your theory for the deflection of the sun due to the earth's rotation and the speed of light.

The earth may only be able to turn 2.07 degrees in 8.3 light minutes, but you should be able to turn your head much faster then that and get any degree of apparent displacement of the sun (compared to the pole which is near) by turning your head different speeds. I mean I don't think you will, but your theory says so.

Anyway, have a great time, take lots of pictures, and if you like, give a report when you get back! It'd be fun.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Jesse, Jesse, Jesse. Lets do a little recap. First off you are now acknowledging that the suns apparent position and actual position are different,

I have never denied stellar aberration or light-time correction. You weren't talking about the 20 arc seconds of stellar aberration (matter of fact, you weren't talking about stellar aberration seeing as how it is unrelated to the distance to the sun) and you were not talking about the approximate 0.008 arc seconds of light-time correction for the sun. You were talking about 7452 arc seconds of lag which was related to the distance between sun and earth and the speed of light and the rotational rate of the earth. You have heretofore provided zero scientific support for your claim.

which was my whole point in the first place.

But you have maintained an untrue idea (that the sun is 2.07 degrees ahead of where it appears to be) without the honesty to admit that the statement was incorrect. If a scientist cannot admit when he finds he's wrong, there is just no way he can do good science.

Now you seem to be bickering with me over the point of reference.

I disagree. I'll address that with the diagram in a following paragraph.

For my efforts towards enlightening you, you and your buddies called me a deceitful atheist. But the truth is your and your creationist friends are the ignorant reprobates.

That's easy for you to say but just try to demonstrate it! Any fool can call names and scream "Lier" so why don't you back up your claims and show them to be true? Keep in mind that you haven't shown any of my claims to be false (except where I made a mistake for which I stated an apology and a correction) and yet you have made many claims that do not line up with observable science, for example, that the suns apparent position is lagged 2.07 degrees, and more. You also said that the 20 arc seconds is not due to stellar aberration, but all the sources say that it is. You also said that if the earth were rotating at 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes the sun's optical image would be lagged 180 degrees from its actual position. You also said "if you lower the frequency of sound down enough it becomes a discrete sound particle/wavepacket" but I never saw any sound waves I made do that. You quite clearly have lots of strange ideas that no self respecting scientist will write about.

Now back to the example, both observers see the sun directly overhead, remember the light from the sun is parallel at the earth, and the angle between them is determined by drawing a line through each observer to the center of the earth. That angle (2.07) illustrates the difference between the actual position of the sun and where one of the observers apparently sees the sun.

Okay, look real close at the diagram below while imagining a little guy down there. Imagine he's got a perfect 1 foot square cube of wood. On the top side of this block of wood, he's got a rectantular U-shaped wire frame run in like a big staple or perhaps a croquet wicket (right) pounded squarely into the top center of the wooden block. Furthermore, he's got some precise ruler marks where the shadow is cast. With this device, he can compare the exact angle of the sun as compared to the 145 mile long flat plane he is standing on.

May I remind you that we are discussing the apparent optical position of the sun. May I also remind you that we're discussing a hypothetical universe which you proposed where the sun is always in the same position in the sky, and the sun is not moving and the earth is not rotating. I believe we're also ignoring stellar aberration.

Now if this little guy starts out right below the sun, his light angle measuring device will read exactly 90 degrees even. But if he takes it to the end of the 143.5 miles, and still facing "away" from the sun does the measurement again, his angle meter will now read 90.000088 degrees. And indeed, the angle of the shadow will be the same as well, and when he looks up (with appropriate eye protection of course) he will see the sun and it will appear to be 0.000088 degrees off from straight up. Not 2.07 degrees!

It is plain to see from the diagram that the specifics of the lower right-triangle are completely irrelevant. The earth could be any shape or any size as long as the observer has that 143.5 mile stretch that starts out at 90 degrees to the sun and runs in a straight line. The bottom triangle doesn't even need to exist -- all that matters is the top right-triangle, and it clearly shows that the sun's apparent position will still be where it is (at least within light-time correction and stellar aberration if we're counting those) but in any case nowheres near your 2.1 degrees removed. Like I said before, it is simple geometry!

May I remind you that you are claiming that the sun's optical angle will be 2.07 degrees lagged behind its actual and gravitational angle at any given instant for a viewer on the earth, due to the earth's rotation of 1 turn per 24 hours and the 8.3 minutes it takes sunlight to reach the earth.

But the fact remains that we are now simply quibbling over frames of reference

I say we're not simply quibbling over frames of reference. I'm not even sure we're quibbling over frames of reference at all. But what we are quibbling over is whether the sun is displaced by the 20 arc seconds of well-known stellar aberration and the approximate 0.008 arc seconds of light-time correction, or whether the sun is displaced by your enormous 7000+ arc seconds due to some phenomenon which none of the astronomy resources on the internet explain! And we're also quibbling over the fact that you refuse to tell me how far lagged from its actual position is the apparent position of Pluto.

and yet you want me to appeal to authority before you will believe.

I've noticed a theme here. First you claim there's a 2.07 degree lag, and I say "No way, show me." And then we talk about 0.0056 degrees of Stellar Aberration and you say "Ahah so now you admit there is lag!" even though 0.0056 is way below your 2.07, and even though it is not even related to the distance to the earth from the sun, and even though your 2.07 degrees was dependent on the distance to the earth from the sun. This is some sort of all or nothing mentality. But I have news for you: The presence of 20 arc seconds of stellar aberration does not prove 7000 arc seconds of shift, nor does the absence of 7000 arc second shift disprove the presence of 20 arc seconds of stellar aberration. It's some sort of faulty logic.

You're doing the same thing with this appeal to authority line. I'm not asking you to appeal to authority, all I'm asking for is a reference to some other scientist someplace who gets the same results as you claim. The point is I can't find any such thing, and you will neither claim that it's a rare idea and only you know, nor will you show me scientific material which backs you up.

If it doesn't make mathematical sense, and if nobody else is making the claim, then how can I logically come to believe that you know what you're talking about?

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Everything you believe is based on an appeal to authority (The Bible), but that isn't how science works. Science tells its followers to find out the truth for themselves, if someone tells you something that you think is wrong, prove them wrong, that way everyone benefits.

You know, it's really kind of funny. I've proved you wrong so many times by providing reference material which showed that your claims were wrong. That's how science should work. You have not provided a single reference material that proved me wrong! Matter of fact, you've even been calling me names! That's just how you are describing a Bible Believer! It's also really quite funny that here I am trying to to carry on a scientific discussion, and you, the atheist and supposed scientist, keeps bringing up religion! How funny is that?

You don't know how glad I am that we got sidetracked and never got around to talking about fields.

Yeah, I can imagine the trouble you could get yourself with fields!

By the way, you still have not answered the question as to where will Pluto will actually be as compared to where it appears in the night sky. I mean I don't have to know exactly - just within the limits of the accuracy of the available data. Your refusal to answer this simple question is in and of itself quite a strong proof against your claim. So please, just answer that one!

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Fichori]

“That's okay. I am getting ready to fly up to Alaska.”

Welcome back LeGrande.
(Hopefully your trip went well.)

Anyway, I just though I would ping everyone so we could resume our discussion...

[LeGrande]

I actually thought about our discussion while I was navigating : ) I am going to take you on as a project. I tutor some of my neighbors kids so why not you?

Will you do this for me? Go outside and pound a stake into the ground pointing the stake at the sun in such a way that it doesn’t leave a shadow. Then 8.3 minutes later can you pound another stake into the ground at the same point as the previous stake, this stake too needs to not leave a shadow.

Then I want you to measure and calculate the angle between the stakes : ) Longer stakes will make the measurements easier and more accurate.

Another thing I would like you to think about is what are the effects of frequency on the Electromagnetic Spectrum. You already understand that the only difference between radio, tv, radar and visible light is the frequency. Do you also understand that that particles like X-rays, y-rays nuclear, y-rays artificial and y-rays, in cosmic rays, are all particles? And that the only difference is the frequency?