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.
“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.
First I must say that Fichori's
response (regarding whether the sun is apparently displaced by 20 arcseconds and whether it is due to Stellar Aberration) -- it is an outstanding response! Great Job, 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.
I do know the difference. Go see for yourself!
Stellar Aberration: Due to transverse velocity of observer.
"Radial Motion?!" Last time you
said "Radial Velocity"!
Radial velocity: is the velocity of an object in the direction of the line of sight (i.e. its speed straight towards you, or away from you). The light of an object with a substantial radial velocity will be subject to Doppler effect.
radial motion: Motion in which a body moves along a line connecting it with an observer or reference point; for example, the motion of stars which move toward or away from the earth without a change in apparent position.
Same thing -- motion towards or away from the observer!
Angular velocity: is the angular velocity is a vector quantity (more precisely, a pseudovector) which specifies the angular speed, and axis about which an object is rotating.
See? I do know the difference. But what radial motion or velocity has to do with anything I do not know - I suspect you don't know the difference between some of these. But now I've provided enough information you can learn the difference between them.
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?
Now wait a second. I've admitted that I had not previously known about the 20 arcseconds or stellar aberration. But my original claim was that your claimed 2.1 degrees was wrong, and that your reason for the 2.1 degrees was wrong. And you have still not proved that your 2.1 degrees was wrong. And what words am I putting in your mouth? if I'm misunderstanding you, then by all means say so! But the fact is that when you first stated the question, you indicated an angular displacement at an instant in time. I assumed you meant the most logical thing and cited back the 2.1 degrees with you both agreed to and repeated back to me and others later. And now you refuse to put this same math onto Pluto or a 12 light hour planet.
The fact that I didn't know about the 20 arcseconds doesn't change the fact that you're wrong on the 2.1 degrees in both cause, direction, AND in quantity! I'm glad I learned about the 20 arcseconds but that has nothing to do with the fact that you claimed a concept and agreed to and stated back 2.1 degrees -- all the while with both the concept and the 2.1 degrees being wrong!
When you have the Lectures in your hands or any College level Physics textbook in your hands get back to me.
Right here I have "Bueche, Principles of Physics, Fourth Edition." It's got a "To the instructor" forward in it. Does that qualify? My father got it (and a chemistry book of equal size) at a yard sale and gave it to me when I was 16 or so. I spent many wonderful hours with those books! (when I wasn't feeding the hogs, milking the cow, or other barnyard chores). I just pulled it from my old-book shelf and found it has 8 scraps of paper marking different favorite sections.
Does that qualify for having a "College level Physics textbook in my hands" so can I get back to you now?
-Jesse