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