Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?

CreationEvolutionHeadlines ^ | September 10, 2008

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Galileo had made an agreement with the Church that he would refrain from making any more controversial arguments so the Church could focus on the threats from the Hapsburgs and the Protestant movement.

Galileo lied to the Church and published his theories about tides anyway. He claimed that the tides are caused by the earth spinning about its axis.

Observations that tides seemed to follow the moon didn’t impress Galileo because he didn’t believe in gravity. Ironically Newton was born the year Galileo died.

You can follow a lot of this from Galileo’s daughter’s letters from the convent. Unfortunately his daughter burned her father’s letters so they couldn’t be used as evidence against him.

[LeGrande]

What has the direction got to do with it? The reason the Stellar Aberration for stars outside our orbit reverses direction is because we reverse direction relative to them.The fact that we're not reversing direction related to all stars doesn't mean that Stellar Aberration does not apply to the sun!

You are partially right but mostly wrong. A component of stellar aberration does apply to the sun, but the two biggest components, the direction of the Earths velocity and diameter of the Earths orbit around the Sun (the center of the coordinate system in this example) are the essential components of Stellar aberration. Do you even read the sources you posted?

Jumpin' Whale Gills yes! I'm a scientist, (unpaid forwhich as I may be) -- that means I don't know everything (Nobody knows everything!) but that I'm eager to learn!

Then why won't you go to the library and read The Feynman Lectures on Physics? You could have studied them in the time frame of our discussion here.

How about you? Theoretically speaking, if it was demonstrated to you that you were wrong on a point that you had argued, would you admit it? Can you cite a single instance of that happening here on FR?

I have been wrong many times and so stated. I was wrong on my definition of the M3 money supply (mine was way too broad). I was wrong on the Kaluza-Klein theory, I didn't understand the extra dimensions : ( I was wrong to politically support the Republicans and have apologized for that too. I can go on and on, but generally I make an effort to be factual and honest when I post, sometimes I get lazy and just regurgitate what I have read and that tends to get me in trouble.

You were claiming that the sun was apparently LAGGED 2.1 degrees. But Stellar Aberration has it apparently ADVANCED 20 arcseconds! So not only am I claiming that your claim was wrong, it is vastly the wrong size and it is even in the wrong direction!

Go read up on what Stellar aberration is. If you are trying to be technical about the terms you use at least use them properly.

The reason I'm so interested in the 2.1 degrees is because you said it and I'm pretty sure you're outright wrong. And if you knowingly refuse to admit it when you've said something wrong even when you've been caught, how much more unlikely will you refrain from telling me a lie about something I can't disprove -- like ASBE?

Actually you are the one that computed 2.1 degrees. My statement was that the Suns apparent position was not the same as its actual position. Which you now agree is true.

As to the merry go around, I think you were wrong on those too -- but haven't got around to performing the experiment. Maybe I will yet. But I guess I figured that since you won't apply the same math to Pluto or a 12-light-hour-planet that you did to the sun, I had even better things to argue with.

LOL Go do the Merry Go Round experiment and while you are at it get someone on the other side to toss a ball to : )

Wasn't your point something about fields taking time to equalize or settle or something, thereby causing the sun to appear behind where it actually is? but that's just the opposite of reality!

You really are confused aren't you. My original point was that the effects of an established field are instantaneous whereas the speed of light isn't. Light is simply waves or packets traveling through the EM field.

Well what do you call the name of your alleged 2.1 degree aberration? And what do you call the apparent angular displacement of 20 arcseconds of the sun due to the earth's transverse velocity of 67kmph, if it's not stellar aberration?

Oh I don't know. Just call them Radial Velocity and Light-Time Corrections.

Try to not use analogies to describe orbital mechanics. They don't prove a thing and only give you the false sense of feeling that you know what you're talking about.

Sorry but you are projecting again. Analogies properly applied are very helpful. Simplifying and breaking down complex problems into their constituent parts is how I solve many problems.

Answer those just like you did for the earth! In other words, let me ask your own question but for pluto. If it was good enough for me it's good enough for you:

"Let me give you something else to think about : ) When you create a field it propagates at the speed of light to infinity. Once the field has been stabilized how fast are the changes in the field? In other words when you look at the Pluto, you are seeing it about 6.8 hours behind where it actually is, but if you had a sensitive gravity sensor where would it point? At the Pluto you see or 6.8 hours ahead of the Pluto you see?"

Yes It takes light 6.8 hours to get from Pluto to your telescope so you are seeing Pluto where it was 6.8 hours ago, not where it is now. Do you disagree with that?

So seriously, how come I didn't need to specify any frame of reference when you made your original statement about the sun and yet all the sudden it's different for Pluto or an imaginary planet 12 light hours away?

Because you were asking for a yes or no answer to a specific degree question without providing all of the parameters. The correct answer is that it is a range and there is even an instant when the apparent position and actual position is precisely the same, that is generally not the case though.

This is hilarious! I'm the Christian, I'm trying to talk simple physics, and you're the Atheist, and which one of us do you think keeps bringing up religion and the Bible?! The atheist of us?! Amazing!

I brought the Bible up because you keep trying to trash the educational system that you disagree with. My point is that the Bible is inferior to the public school system and I am not praising the Public school system.

So seriously, how come I didn't need to specify any frame of reference when you made your original statement about the sun and yet all the sudden it's different for Pluto or an imaginary planet 12 light hours away?

You seem to persist in missing the point. Is it intentional or stupidity on your part? I thought it was intentional but now I am not so sure. The salient point is when. The quick and dirty answer is that it takes light 6.8 hours to get from Pluto to here, but a more precise answer requires knowing when.

So mrjesse you have acknowledged that you were wrong and that the apparent position and actual position are different. If you want to learn more I would suggest that you spend time at your local library or take a course at your detested public college. I really don't have the time or inclination to try and teach you basic physics.

[LeGrande]

http://www.hao.ucar.edu/Public/education/bios/galileo.html

Following the 1616 decree suspending for revision Copernicus' De Revolutionibus and an injunction by Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino not to hold or defend the Copernican doctrine, Galileo turned to the problem of the tides, hoping in doing to to provide a proof of the motion of the Earth. Galileo's pro-Copernican campaign culminated with the publication of his 1632 Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems. The Roman ecclesiastic authorities considered the book to violate the 1616 decree. In September 1632 Galileo was summoned to Rome by the Inquisition and was put on trial.

On June 22 1633 Galileo was forced to kneel in front of the Roman Inquisition and recant his beliefs in the Copernican doctrine and the motion of the Earth. He was then sentenced to life imprisonment, which was almost immediately commuted to perpetual house arrest without visitors, ostensibly for having disobeyed a 1616 injunction by Cardinal Bellarmine "...not to defend or teach the Copernican doctrine...". Galileo's Dialogue was put on the Index of Prohibited Books, as well as Copernicus' De Revolutionibus and the books of Kepler dealing with planetary theory.

Galileo's sentence was upheld rather rigidly despites numerous appeals to the Inquisition and the Pope by Galileo himself, as well as numerous prominent scientists and statesmen in Italy and Europe. After Galileo became blind in 1637, the enforcement of his sentence was relaxed somewhat, and he was allowed to receive visitors for extended periods of time. In 1638 he completed yet another landmark work, Discourses on Two New Sciences provided the foundations for the modern science of mechanics. The manuscript was smuggled out of Italy and the book published in Holland.

Galileo died on the evening of January 8, 1642. The Roman ecclesiastic authorities vetoed the public funeral and honor planned by the Florentine state. His books, together with those of Copernicus and Kepler, were removed from the Index in 1835, and only in 1992 did the Roman catholic Church formally admitted to having erred in dealing with Galileo.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

As I said.

Living at home is not the same as jailed.

[LeGrande]

Living at home is not the same as jailed.

Oh please, being confined to your home and not allowed visitors is simply a nicer prison cell than normal. It is a distinction without a difference.

[GourmetDan]

"It is in no way a false dilemma."

Of course it is.

"Did these differences between humans chimps and gorillas arise by mutation or were they designed differently from the beginning?"

Please show how we would distinguish between created differences and differences that arose later through mutation. Can you show that all of the differences can either be only the cause of created differences or only the cause of mutation with no combination of the two? All one way or all the other. If you cannot, then you have used the fallacy of the false dilemma.

"Are those differences due to mutation?"

Just how would you tell the difference between a created difference and a mutation after-the-fact with no original DNA to compare? Having original DNA to compare would be science. Assumed logical fallacies like 'false dilemma' and 'affirming the consequent' are not a substitute for science.

This is why fallacies cause so much trouble in evolutionary-thinking. Unfortunately, most adherents cannot recognize how completely fallacies are ingrained in evolution.

[allmendream]

Are the differences between human DNA and chimp DNA due to mutation?

Why are you so afraid of answering the question?

[allmendream]

And Middle Eastern terrorists learn Creationism in school, not evolution.

[allmendream]

wrong thread. sorry.

[mrjesse]

You can find 50 people to disagree with anything. Using that fact to dismiss the opinion of the vast majority of experts is...stubborn.

So it is an opinion poll then?! that doesn't sound like science! Besides, the vast majority has been wrong in the past. When we're talking about science I don't see why I gotta have faith in thousands of people I will never meet. I just happen to have noticed that people will say as true what they want to be true. You think it only happens to religious folk? they are the same species as everyone else! Athiests do it too! and I've personally talked to people who believe ASBE and AFN (All From Nothing) for whom such a belief is a faith and no more -- so it stands to reason that if a majority of people are like them, then yes, a majority of people could have ASBE and AFN as a faith -- sort of an unintentional conspiracy. And speaking of conspiring, it's been my observation that the US government readily funds research aimed at proving evolution. So one has to ask them selves -- how much government money can be thrown behind a theory before it's impossible to tell whether the theory lives off of the evidence or both the theory and the "evidence" lives off of the government money?

Oh, I don't know. I bet you believe in neutron stars and quarks, and that the earth's core is made of iron, ...

To me, these are all theoretical -- I don't know whether they are true or not, or just how true they are, and whether there is significant details missing.

... and that viruses cause disease by taking over cells. Have you seen any of those things for yourself? Or are you just taking the word of people you've never met?

I've never seen a virus but I do have at least a meager practical understanding of how life works, and have spent many pleasure filled hours watching a few different bacteria with the simple 700x video microscope I made. I've seen paramecium dividing, of course rotofers eating, one amoeba, and a number of things I was never able to identify. Furthermore, I understand how an electron microscope works and have seen photos of viruses taken with electron microscopes. Of course they could be fakes, but it all makes sense so while it is an area of belief I have a high level of certainty. And besides, if I were motivated enough I could build an electron microscope and study viruses and "see" them for myself.

For your graph example to apply, you'd have to accept a vast conspiracy among thousands of scientists in different fields to only talk about the dots that fall along the line.

Like I said - I've seen that people tend to do things. And people tend to believe in ASBE and AFN and argue that it is true even though they don't know for a fact that it is. Remember -- the question is "How can I, an ordinary person, know these things to a better level then the Christians know that God created the universe -- by faith." And I know enough about how people behave to know that the fact that 99% of professors argue for ASBE and AFN that such a thing still is not evidence -- unless I wish to just go out on a limb of faith.

All those scientists who found the dots at the top and bottom would have to be silenced,

Yup. and does it happen? every now and then a well known proponent will reject ASBE and AFN (all species by evolution, and all from nothing) and the "scientific community" is outraged. There have been news articles of tenured professors being fired over the creation/evolution issue then under court order re-hired and other incidences. Of course the universities or bodies who eject the professor say he's crazy or whatever -- but the professor says it's because he was being critical of evolution. Like I said - I've seen how people behave, and it would not at all surprise me to find out as a fact that scientists who discover dots that don't fit the evolutionary line are suppressed, fired, told to shut up, etc, or that research that doesn't find evidence for evolution loses its grant money. This is all possible and it looks to me like it is happening. Does that mean that it is happening? nope - but neither does that mean that it isn't happening. How am I, as an individual, supposed to know whether ASBE and AFN are true without taking it purely on faith? I have to choose to believe one set of people and disbelieve another set of people.

even though their discoveries might make them famous for overturning the accepted line. Do you really believe that's what's going on?

It's entirely within the realm of possibility, it is consistent with my observation of human nature, and it appears to be going on. How am I to know for sure whether it's going on?

Besides, drawing a line through a bunch of dots is not necessarily misleading:

well yeah if all the data forms a line then by all means draw a line through it! But my point is that as average individual, I don't have access to all the data. All I have access to is what has been selected and displayed by people who do believe ASBE and AFN. And I know human tendencies well enough to know that some people who believe in ASBE will stretch the truth to further their cause! Remember my example of the writer on WP -- claiming basically that the change in ratio between dark and light moths could lead to new species? Changing a ratio back and forth doesn't create a new species.

So it really is a matter of faith; very theoretical, and yet unlike obscure information about neutron stars and so on, evolution is hammered into innocent students at tax payer expense from the earliest possible age -- with a religious fervor!

No, there is something special about ASBE and AFN: they have moral implications and that is why people (on both sides!!) fight them with a religious fervor.

-Jesse

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

So it is an opinion poll then?! that doesn't sound like science!

I can find you books written by people who claim the Holocaust never happened. Does that mean history is an opinion poll? If you're in the hospital and three doctors tell you you have a broken leg and a nurse tells you to walk it off, does that make medicine an opinion poll? You either accept the existence and testimony of experts or you don't. If you single out this one field to ignore the vast majority of expert opinion in, you're the one making it special--it's not special on its own.

To me, these are all theoretical

The theory of evolution is theoretical, too.

it is consistent with my observation of human nature

My condolences on your experience of human nature, such that you can believe in a conspiracy of thousands of scientists to promote a theory they know is wrong. I really don't know what else to say to that.

[mrjesse]

Actually you are the one that computed 2.1 degrees.

Your original statement may not have specified 2.1 degrees, but it implied some apparent angular lag for an observer on earth at an instant in time, so I calculated what made the most sense, and told you what I calculated and you agreed:

LOL The 2.1 degrees is is exactly related to the light-time correction and the distance of the earth from the the sun. If the Sun was closer the angle would be smaller, and if the sun was further away the angle would be larger.

Even if you had never agreed to my calculation, you would have implicitly agreed because I did the calculation and came back and said "What you're saying is xyz.." and you never said "No that's not what I meant." But as it is, you clearly have been claiming that at any given instant, for an observer on the earth, the sun's apparent angle will be 2.1 degrees behind where the sun actually is, due to the fact that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes light to reach the earth from the sun.

That has been your claim! There is no two ways about it. Now if you've changed your mind, then by all means say so!

As a matter of fact, you even said it yourself, later:

The suns actual position and gravitational position do line up. The apparent position doesn't though, it is off by 2.1 degrees like you indicated.

Are you trying to disown the 2.1 degrees now? Did you change your mind? you have only to say so!

My statement was that the Suns apparent position was not the same as its actual position. Which you now agree is true.

No, your statement was:

Let me give you something else to think about : ) When you create a field it propagates at the speed of light to infinity. Once the field has been stabilized how fast are the changes in the field? 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? The answer will help you understand what a field is, it is not a simple concept.

and as I showed above, you were clearly claiming the 2.1 degrees later. The fact that you indicated measuring the actual and apparent position of the sun at the same time without specifying a time period clearly indicates that you were talking about the difference at any point in time -- not over a timespan. If you had meant to say "How far has the sun appeared to move in 8.3 minutes.." you wouldn't have needed two separate angle measuring devices.

Sorry man, you unquestionably clearly claimed that the displacement was 2.1 degrees in any given instant and so on and so forth as I have been describing.

Now do the same thing for Pluto! If I see it in my telescope straight overhead will it even be in the night sky really? Like you said (noted above) "and if the sun was further away the angle would be larger" -- what if the sun was 12 light hours away -- or what if some other planet were 12 light hours away? Would the gravity meter really point one way while the optical sundial pointed 180 degrees away, at a given instant?

Oh I don't know. Just call them Radial Velocity and Light-Time Corrections.

First of all, Light Time Correction is for a moving light source, not a moving observer. Second, you didn't even look up the definition of "Radial Velocity." That refers to an object that is moving towards or away from the observer - usually fast enough to cause red or blue shift...!

Yes It takes light 6.8 hours to get from Pluto to your telescope so you are seeing Pluto where it was 6.8 hours ago, not where it is now. Do you disagree with that?

Well, that depends on whether it has moved in 6.8 hours. If it's still in the same spot after 6.8 hours, then I will still be seeing it where it is.

But let's do some quick math(based on numbers from WP: Pluto, who takes 248.09 years to orbit the sun once, moves 4.666 km/s, and is about 2200km in diameter. So to move one diameter's worth, it takes 7.86 minutes. That's about 52 diameters in 6.8 hours, or, and most importantly, (1 / ((248.09 * 365.25 * 24) / 360)) * 6.8 = 0.00112564303 degrees in 6.8 hours! That's only 4 arcseconds! But that is due to pluto's movement -- not the earth's rotation. And that 4 arcseconds is due to light-time correction.

so I'll see Pluto about 4 arcseconds behind where it actually is at any moment -- because it is moving sideways for the observer on the earth. But the sun isn't orbiting the sun like Pluto is! So you've said that the sun appears 2.1 degrees behind where it is but that if it was further the angle would be greater -- so using the same math on Pluto, for an instant in time for an observer on earth, what about Pluto?

Because you were asking for a yes or no answer to a specific degree question without providing all of the parameters. The correct answer is that it is a range and there is even an instant when the apparent position and actual position is precisely the same, that is generally not the case though.

I didn't need to provide any parameters when you claimed your 2.1 degrees (and you did claim it later on!) for the sun! so just do it again! and besides, there were also times when I asked you to answer "yes, or no, or specify the number of degrees."

The point is you already did it for the sun - what is different then the case of the sun and that of Pluto or the imaginary 12-light-hour planet?

You seem to persist in missing the point. Is it intentional or stupidity on your part? I thought it was intentional but now I am not so sure. The salient point is when. The quick and dirty answer is that it takes light 6.8 hours to get from Pluto to here, but a more precise answer requires knowing when.

Sorry, you didn't talk about "when" when you made your original statement. You clearly described the sun dial pointing 2.1 degrees behind the gravity meter pointer, at an instant in time. You clearly stated that if the distance was greater, the instantaneous difference in angle between optical and gravitational directions would be greater. But now you refuse to apply that same logic to a sun that was 12 light hours away because you know it'd be absurd to have the gravity pointing one way and the light pointing the other way for an object that wasn't even moving much at all!

So mrjesse you have acknowledged that you were wrong and that the apparent position and actual position are different.

You bet! All good scientists learn new things and acknowledge when they are wrong.

If you want to learn more I would suggest that you spend time at your local library or take a course at your detested public college. I really don't have the time or inclination to try and teach you basic physics.

I don't need to learn anything more to know that your statements are wrong. It is already clear to me that you refuse to admit that your ideas are whacky. You clearly said that if the sun were farther, the instantanious angle between optical and gravitational pull would be greater, and that it's 2.1 degrees and that it's due in part to the rotational speed of the earth. That very math applied to Pluto or a 12-light-hour-away planet clearly looks absurd.

but generally I make an effort to be factual and honest when I post,

Generally? I should hope you always make an effort to be factual and honest! but anyway, glad to hear you generally make an effort. So how about this: You said "The 20 arc seconds you are talking about is the displacement of the suns masses orbit around the barycenter. It is not due to stellar aberration."

Now all the scientific resources I found including WP, and several articles about James Bradley, all say that the 20 arcseconds IS due to the earth's transverse velocity, and has nothing to do with the sun's wobbling about its barycenter.

Were you wrong there or is all the other sites I read wrong?

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

I can find you books written by people who claim the Holocaust never happened. Does that mean history is an opinion poll? If you're in the hospital and three doctors tell you you have a broken leg and a nurse tells you to walk it off, does that make medicine an opinion poll? You either accept the existence and testimony of experts or you don't. If you single out this one field to ignore the vast majority of expert opinion in, you're the one making it special--it's not special on its own.

Your examples are absurd and dishonest. I have friends who just barely escaped alive from the holocaust. I've seen ample video footage and the ruins are still there. If I had a broken leg I would quite likely know it -- it's a current event. With ASBE and AFN (All Species by evolution/All From Nothing) nobody was there to report it; I can't see it. The vast majority of science I can see or hold or experiment. I know what happens if you put too much power into a transistor. I've done it!

My condolences on your experience of human nature, such that you can believe in a conspiracy of thousands of scientists to promote a theory they know is wrong. I really don't know what else to say to that.

Scientists are just people too. Have you checked the news lately? there are business men scamming people (but not all business men), there are politicians scamming people (but not all politicians) -- there are preachers scamming people (but not all preachers) there are cops scamming people (but not all cops) -- and look around in world history -- communism was done for many years in some countries -- it is possible for the majority of people in a group to all agree to do something dishonest.

Like I said, ASBE and AFN gives people the feeling of freedom from the limits of morality. They like that. It's not some coincidence that they all got together and agreed to teach something that they thought was false just for the sake thereof; no, they want to believe it. they try to convince themselves that it's true. They pretend it is true. It becomes a lifestyle, a very core ethic. And it's not strange that so many people becayse do it because they all do it for the same reason - a reason that tends to be common for all people - a desire to be free from the limits of morality.

And that is why it's such a hot topic and why I can't find out what the great evidence actually is, without just having to put blind faith in thousands of people I've never met and which nobody I've ever met has ever met.

Haven't you seen how religious folk tend to hang on to their belief as if they believe it and how they argue for it as true even though they don't have any evidence they can show for it? Do you really think that Atheists don't do that too? Do you think that such a thing only done by religious folk? The answer is it is done by all kinds of people.

In your earlier post you mentioned that "ToE enables all of them to hang together consistently." But I see things around me in the world which do not appear to hang together consistently. Dem ballz are in just such a bad place, I cannot imagine evolution putting them there. The jugulars are in a bad place. The big bang claims that nothing formed something. Show me that! It violates the laws of physics. In my mind, there are tons of stuff that doesn't make sense with ASBE or AFN. But I have no doubt that you disregard them because they don't fit along your evolutionary line.

My condolences on your experience of human nature, such that you can believe in a conspiracy of thousands of scientists to promote a theory they know is wrong. I really don't know what else to say to that.

Besides, it's not that hard to imagine. Everywhere I look, some evolutionist is making absurd claims. Right here on FR we've got Solitan telling me it's okay to lie if they are little lies. We've got Soliton saying "Just as material lies harm our society, little lies make it work." We've got LeGrande saying that the sun's apparent position is 2.1 degrees behind its actual position. (which aint true.) And for some time now WP has been claiming basically that the changing of the ratio between dark and light moths to mostly dark then back to mostly white could lead to new species. And it cites the peppered moth as an evidence for evolution -- but both variates existed before and both variates existed after! That's no new variety!

So I realize that you're not too critically thinking towards these people because they are on your side - but when I go searching for truth and get stuff like this, how am I supposed to believe what I'm hearing?

My conclusion is that at best, ASBE and AFN are just beliefs - and faith. As a common person (and most people do) just take it by faith, just like most people within a church walls take their doctrine by faith.

Regardless of whether God did create the universe or if ASBE and AFN are true, if the populace cannot know it but must merely believe it, then it is just a religion to them - regardless of whether it has merit.

Or am I just too dumb to understand evolution?

-Jesse

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Your examples are absurd and dishonest. I have friends who just barely escaped alive from the holocaust. I've seen ample video footage and the ruins are still there.

Okay, so in a hundred years when your friends are dead, will my example be less absurd? Look up Anatoly Fomenko, a Russian scientist who believes that all of ancient history actually happened in the Middle Ages--does that make you question the existence of ancient Rome? You're just avoiding the point of the question by focusing on irrelevant details. The question remains, do you accept the opinion of experts in other areas or not?

You posit a conspiracy of thousands of people who are acting in concert to deceive the public for a reason you've made up and imputed to them. It's obviously very important to you not to believe in evolution. Personally, I think your alternative is ridiculously unlikely, and I don't have the energy to keep offering evidence to someone who's going to work this hard to avoid looking at it.

[LeGrande]

I have no interest in arguing with someone who doesn’t know the difference between Stellar Aberration, radial motion and angular velocity and who has no desire to learn.

You have admitted that you were wrong and yet you still persist in trying to change the subject and put words in my mouth when you should be apologizing?

Grow up. Get an education. Read The Feynman Lectures on Physics. If you don’t believe something, prove it wrong, that is what a scientist does. You have claimed to be a scientist so be one.

When you have the Lectures in your hands or any College level Physics textbook in your hands get back to me.

[Fichori]

“As it was, he was directly challenging the authority of the Catholic Church, not just presenting his new model.” [excerpt]

That never goes well.

[Fichori]

“Then why won't you go to the library and read The Feynman Lectures on Physics? You could have studied them in the time frame of our discussion here.” [excerpt]

Hey, LeGrande, isn't that an appeal to authority?

“Actually you are the one that computed 2.1 degrees. My statement was that the Suns apparent position was not the same as its actual position. Which you now agree is true.” [excerpt]

I think we're getting ready for another refresher!

“You seem to persist in missing the point. Is it intentional or stupidity on your part? I thought it was intentional but now I am not so sure. The salient point is when. The quick and dirty answer is that it takes light 6.8 hours to get from Pluto to here, but a more precise answer requires knowing when.” [excerpt]

I thought you admitted that the question of when was an irrelevant trick question...

[Fichori]

“I have no interest in arguing with someone who doesn’t know the difference between Stellar Aberration, radial motion and angular velocity and who has no desire to learn.” [excerpt]

LeGrande, you're the one who is wrong.

“You have admitted that you were wrong and yet you still persist in trying to change the subject and put words in my mouth when you should be apologizing?” [excerpt]

mrjesse has done the math and has external sources to back up his claims.

You, LeGrande, are the one who has been putting words in other peoples mouths.

“Grow up. Get an education. Read The Feynman Lectures on Physics. If you don’t believe something, prove it wrong, that is what a scientist does. You have claimed to be a scientist so be one.” [excerpt]

More appeals to authority...

“When you have the Lectures in your hands or any College level Physics textbook in your hands get back to me.” [excerpt]

How do you know that mrjesse has not been referencing college level physics material that is available on the net?

Many colleges put that kind of stuff up for all to read.

I'm afraid your religiously held sudo-scientific beliefs cannot withstand scientific scrutiny.

After all, Atheism is a religion.

[LeGrande]

LeGrande, you're the one who is wrong.

Are you seriously trying to defend mrjesse's belief that stellar aberration applies to the Sun? LOL

You, LeGrande, are the one who has been putting words in other peoples mouths.

Where?

More appeals to authority...

Telling someone to get an education and try and falsify what doesn't make sense to them, is not an appeal to authority.

How do you know that mrjesse has not been referencing college level physics material that is available on the net?

Cutting and pasting does not imply understanding.

After all, Atheism is a religion.

Only if you think that disbelief is equivalent to belief.

[Fichori]

“Are you seriously trying to defend mrjesse's belief that stellar aberration applies to the Sun? LOL” [excerpt]

From wikipoodle:

At the instant of any observation of an object, the apparent position of the object is displaced from its true position by an amount which depends upon the transverse component of the velocity of the observer, with respect to the vector of the incoming beam of light (i.e., the line actually taken by the light on its path to the observer).

Stellar Aberration applies to a moving observer.

If the Earth has transverse velocity relative to the Sun, then Stellar Aberration applies.

“Telling someone to get an education and try and falsify what doesn't make sense to them, is not an appeal to authority.” [excerpt]

Uh, your the one who needs to get an education.

“Only if you think that disbelief is equivalent to belief.” [excerpt]

Atheism is not a disbelief, it is a belief in the non-existence of something.

You cannot scientifically prove the non-existence of something.

Atheism is therefor, nothing more than a religious Faith.