You seem hung up on this 2.1 degrees that you calculated, it isn't a constant.
Well, according to your claim the 2.1 degrees is due to the fact that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes light to travel the 1AU from sun to earth. And so if the 2.1 degrees isn't cosntant, then either the earth has to move in or out, or the speed of light needs to change, or the rotational rate of the earth needs to change -- none of which are happening at a fast enough rate to change the 2.1 degrees significantly in either of our lifetimes!
What do you mean it's not constant?
I don't think that you are capable of learning anything new that contradicts your mental map.
Well, I might believe you on that, except you've said so many things that just don't make sense and you've said some outright fallacies. For example, you
claimed that the 20 arcseconds was not due to stellar aberration. But look around:
WP and
MP and
C.S, PoA and
Wolfram - and there are many more reference clearly explaining that Stellar Aberration is the name describing the 20 arcseconds of apparent angular displacement of the sun and other objects due to the earth's transverse velocity of 67K miles an hour as it orbits the sun. Stellar Aberration is unrelated to the distance of the object.
My point is that you were wrong on a simple thing like that and who knows what else you're wrong on. So I'm not so sure it's me who's incapable of learning things.
My point was that you did the calculations before you found out that the Sun was moving at over 500,000 mph. Do you also know that the galaxy that the Earth is orbiting is itself orbiting the center of the Universe at a great speed?
Now here's where it gets rich. You almost pulled the wool over my eyes. If you will recall, when you brought up the half a million miles an hour issue, I said "And I'm not certain it's a valid argument anyway - some writers seem to say that it only applies to relative velocity (which doesn't make sense to me)" -- but now it does make sense to me why all the resources I found on the net seemed to indicate that the velocity of our universe did not cause an apparent angular displacement of the sun's position.
It doesn't! Because the sun and the earth are moving through space together at half a million miles an hour -- in other words, their speed relative to eachother is only 67KMPH -- not half a million MPH -- we don't even have to worry about the higher speed.
Well how can this be? First of all, as you know, Stellar Aberration, which is caused by the observer's transverse velocity, causes the apparent position of the object being observed to be ahead (in relation to the observer's direction) of where the object actually us. Remember, driving in the falling snow - the snowflakes appear to come from in front of you.
On the other hand, Light-time correction is the result of the distance to and angular velocity of the object. But when two objects are moving in the same direction at the same speed, there is no angular velocity of the object being observed, therefore there is no Light-Time Correction.
Or let me put it another way: The apparent lag of light time correction is exactly canceled out by the apparent advance caused by Stellar Aberration when the observer is moving at the same speed and in the same direction as the object!
So I don't know whether you knew that and thought you'd pull the wool over my eyes or whether you just didn't know that. (If you doubt it to be true - let me know and I'll do an animation to demonstrate it.)
Come to think of it, I don't recall you ever admitting that you had been wrong or that you didn't know something. And I know you've been wrong about some stuff - so I rather suspect that if you knew you were wrong you wouldn't admit it to me. Which explains a lot of stuff - like why you won't answer my questions about Pluto and why you can't provide any reference from real scientists who agree with you (even though you
claim that everyone at Nasa agrees with you.
And this also explains why you won't give your 2.1 degrees a name -- is it Stellar Aberration? Light-time Correction? Secular Aberration? LeGrandean Aberration? -- because if you claimed any of those (Except the last) I'd be able to point out how your claim was wrong.
So what is the deal? Did you think I wouldn't ever figure it out? (You almost pulled that one over on me!) Or did you just not know any better yourself?
In any case, the half a million miles an hour causes what is called Secular Aberration, it amounts to about 0.04 degrees but it only applies to things not moving at half a million miles an hour with us - and it doesn't apply to the Sun.
Thus, I maintain that the biggest source of apparent angular displacement of the sun for an observer on the earth is Stellar Aberration, and is about 20 arcseconds, and is due to the earth's transverse velocity of 67K mph as it orbits the sun.
Furthermore, you've said so many wrong things and as far as I can remember not once admitted that you were wrong, and you refuse to provide any scientific research that backs up your claim, the only logical conclusion that I can come to is that you made the whole thing up and don't have the integrity to admit it when you've been wrong.
But why would you do this? Because
last time you said "I give. You win." my response was "At which point did you realize that your statement was foundationally incorrect?" -- of course which you would not answer, so then you
came back that I was clueless and all the sudden you didn't "give" anymore. So what does this mean? Does it mean that there's one thing worse for you then to give up and that is to admit that you knew you were wrong but wouldn't admit it?
It's all clear to me now. The more we talk, the more absurd things you say. You must be making it up and for some odd reason think everyone will believe it.
Thanks,
-Jesse
Well, according to your claim the 2.1 degrees is due to the fact that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes light to travel the 1AU from sun to earth. And so if the 2.1 degrees isn't cosntant, then either the earth has to move in or out, or the speed of light needs to change, or the rotational rate of the earth needs to change -- none of which are happening at a fast enough rate to change the 2.1 degrees significantly in either of our lifetimes! What do you mean it's not constant? I tried to explain this before, but you didn't want to get into it. At dawn the light from the Sun is preceding the Sun. At some point the light that we see from the Sun is aligned with its position, then the light that we see starts to lag the Suns position.
and there are many more reference clearly explaining that Stellar Aberration is the name describing the 20 arcseconds of apparent angular displacement of the sun and other objects due to the earth's transverse velocity of 67K miles an hour as it orbits the sun. Stellar Aberration is unrelated to the distance of the object.
You don't seem to understand what Stellar Aberration is at all. It has almost nothing to do with the Earths velocity. It is measuring the displacement depending on which side of the Sun the Earth is at, using the Sun as the center of the coordinate system. You should really try to read and understand your own references : )
"Stellar aberration is an apparent shift in the position of stars due to the motion of the Earth Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy as it orbits the Sun, Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy especially for stars away from the ecliptic (i.e., the orbital plane of the Earth). It was first measured by Bradley Eric Weisstein's World of Biography around 1728, who found aberrations of at most 20.5 arcseconds (Duffett-Smith 1992, p. 62) that occurred at the celestial poles."
Because the sun and the earth are moving through space together at half a million miles an hour -- in other words, their speed relative to eachother is only 67KMPH -- not half a million MPH -- we don't even have to worry about the higher speed.
You are getting closer. Drop the 30 kilometers/second and you will almost have it : )
Well how can this be? First of all, as you know, Stellar Aberration, which is caused by the observer's transverse velocity, causes the apparent position of the object being observed to be ahead (in relation to the observer's direction) of where the object actually us. Remember, driving in the falling snow - the snowflakes appear to come from in front of you.
That is an argument I gave you but you rejected it. I am glad to see you now trying to incorporate it, it gives me hope that you aren't entirely a lost cause : )
In any case, the half a million miles an hour causes what is called Secular Aberration, it amounts to about 0.04 degrees but it only applies to things not moving at half a million miles an hour with us - and it doesn't apply to the Sun.
Heh, you might possibly have taught me something : ) I was not familiar with that term. Are you beginning to understand that there are a lot of factors to consider when it comes to figuring out where things are in the Universe? Especially when they may no longer even be there, but we will still see them for millions and maybe billions of years?
Thus, I maintain that the biggest source of apparent angular displacement of the sun for an observer on the earth is Stellar Aberration, and is about 20 arcseconds, and is due to the earth's transverse velocity of 67K mph as it orbits the sun.
Ahh, I have failed. >Legrande hangs his head in shame< Stellar Aberration has almost nothing to do with the Suns apparent position due to the Earths rotation. My dog Midnight is a pretty quick learner, maybe I should try and teach her some orbital mechanics : )
But why would you do this? Because last time you said "I give. You win." my response was "At which point did you realize that your statement was foundationally incorrect?" -- of course which you would not answer, so then you came back that I was clueless and all the sudden you didn't "give" anymore. So what does this mean? Does it mean that there's one thing worse for you then to give up and that is to admit that you knew you were wrong but wouldn't admit it?
I have given up on trying to convince you of anything. I will admit to a morbid curiosity and a sadistic streak though. I like to see what happens after I drown flies and then cover them in salt, or watching you squirm as your preconceived notions come tumbling down.
If I am a little slow in answering you for a while don't despair, I am a little busy making money while the financials are imploding :)