Replies

The point you seem to be missing is the direction of the aberration. With the Stars it goes back and forth, with the Sun it is constant.

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! So what do call the apparent angular displacement of the sun caused by the earth's relative transverse velocity of 67KMPH? or are you saying that the earth doesn't have a transverse velocity of 67Kmph compared to the sun? Or are you saying that the sun isn't apparently ~20 arecseconds ahead of where it really is?

At least you admit that you were ignorant of a specific aberration ...

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! When I learn something new, I say "Oh, I didn't know. Thanks! I learned something today!" In what way could a man do better then that?

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?

... and you are no longer claiming that the Sun is where it appears to be ...

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!

which was my point in the beginning.

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! Your original point must have been wrong too! How about that! not only was your reasoning and statements wrong, your original point was wrong as well! And to make things even worse, your reason (being that the earth was 8.3 light minutes from the sun and that the earth rotated 2.1 degrees in 8.3 minutes) has absolutely nothing to do with the cause of the 20 arcsecond aberration!

You are the one who seems to be fixated on the 2.1 degrees without even understanding the basic concepts, but at least we have made some progress from the Merry Go Round days.

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?

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.

First off I am the one that told you about Stellar Aberration as another example of aberration, which happens to be different than the aberration caused by the Earths orbital velocity around the Sun. They are two different aberrations. And both are different than the aberration caused by the rotation of the Earth.

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?

When I try to use analogies try and not confuse them with the actual example.

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.

Then why are you arguing with me then? My initial statement was that the apparent position of the Sun and the actual position of the Sun are different.

No, your initial statement was this:

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.

Apparently you now agree with that statement. Granted it is for a different reason, but the basic truth remains.

I do not agree with any statement that the sun is lagged or displaced 2.1 degrees.

I have told you from the beginning that I am not going to make an appeal to authority.

Yeah, any authority except your own..!

Seriously, there's a difference between merely appealing to authority and showing me that at least one other scientist has came to the same conclusion that you have..

Science isn't based on proof. Science is based on falsification.

You forgot about evidence! what about evidence? there needs to be evidence, too! You make it sound as if any absurd idea is to be considered scientific and true even though it totally lacks evidence -- until it gets falsified.

You're making claims (about the 2.1 degrees and others) that there is simply no evidence for! When I ask for evidence, you say that you won't appeal to authority or whatever. But I'm not asking for an appeal to authority, I'm asking for evidence! Even if somebody else documented it.

I am simply pointing out your errors in thinking.

Problem is you haven't provided any evidence for the errors in my thinking.

If you want me to answer your Pluto question you will simply have to be much more specific as to when and which frame of reference you are using.

Now go re-read your very original statement (the one I quoted inset above) and notice that you did not need me to specify any frame of reference or anything. You came up with it all. Just do the same thing for Pluto while it's so far away that the earth rotates 102 degrees in the 6.8 hours it takes light to reach the earth from Pluto. And the same goes for the planet that is 12 light hours away.

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?

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!

I know that you feel that the Bible has all the physics that you need, but you might be surprised at some of the insights that can be gained from a college level physics text book, that you can't get from the Bible.

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!

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?

-Jesse

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.

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.