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?You are clearly claiming that the sun is apparently lagged behind one AU's worth or degrees. You're pretending as if the sun was moving and it took time for the new position of the sun to show up for observers on the earth. And you're not talking about a rate of movement - remember you talked about the use of a sensitive gravity meter which would point to the actual current position as compared to the apparent position. And we all know that the sun moves 2.1 degrees across the sky in the 8.3 minutes it takes for the light to reach the earth from the sun. You were clearly talking about a constant difference between actual and apparent position of the sun at any instant in time for an observer on the earth.
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?So how about it? It was easy enough for you then. Go ahead and answer it for Pluto! You didn't need me to specify any frame of reference or anything before. You don't need it now, either!
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.