The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[Coleus]

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed. “Evolution is now a datum proven beyond any reasonable doubt and no longer a theory, it’s not even worth taking the trouble to discuss it.” This is what a spokesman proclaimed at the Festival of Science held in Genoa in November 2005, thereby neglecting a very important aspect of modern science—the need to be open to new perspectives. Instead, the truth is quite the opposite. Paradoxically, evolutionists are taking an ever greater distance from empirical science and are wrapping themselves up in a dogmatism that borders on ideological fanaticism.

Unprovable Hypothesis
“What is left, then, in evolutionism, that is valid according to the scientific method? Nothing, actually nothing!” This is the conclusion of journalist Marco Respinti in his recent book Processo a Darwin (Darwin on Trial, Piemme, 2007). He continues: "Not one of his postulates can be verified or certified based on the method proper to the physical sciences. His whole claim escapes verification. Based on what, therefore, other than on strong prejudices of an ideological nature, can anyone affirm or continue to affirm that the evolutionist hypothesis is true?"  Indeed, the consistency of a scientific theory is founded on its capacity to be verified empirically, be it through observation of the phenomenon in nature or by reproducing it in the laboratory. The evolutionist hypothesis fails on both counts. “Thus,” Respinti shows, “Darwinism remains simply an hypothesis devoid of empirical or demonstrable foundation, besides being unproven. . . . The evolutionist hypothesis is completely unfounded for it does not master the very domain in which it launches its challenge.”

Respinti reaches this “verdict” after a rigorous “trial of Darwin” in which he analyzes the main arguments that debunk the notorious theory, ranging from nonexistent fossil records to the conflict of Darwinism with genetic science and the flimsiness of the “synthetic theory” of neo-Darwinism, without forgetting the countless frauds that have stained notable evolutionists in their insane quest to fabricate the “proofs” that science tenaciously denied them.  Respinti concludes by denouncing the ideological drift of the evolutionist school: “To categorically affirm the absolute validity of the theories of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution based on the claim that discussing them would be unscientific by definition, is the worst proof that human reason can give of itself.”

A Long Sunset
The sunset of the Darwinist hypothesis has picked up speed over the last two decades. For example, consider the work carried out by the Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structures, founded in 1987, in the wake of an international interdisciplinary meeting convened “to present and discuss some opinions opposed to the dominant neo-Darwinist paradigm.” Scientists from all over the world participated, including the outstanding geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, then a professor at the University of Perugia, Italy. In 1980, together with Roberto Fondi, now a professor at the University of Siena, Sermonti wrote Dopo Darwin—Critica all’evoluzionismo (After Darwin—A Critique of Evolutionism, Rusconi, 1980). “Biology,” Sermonti explains, “has no proof at all of the spontaneous origin of life, or rather biology has proved its impossibility. There is no such thing as a gradation of life from elementary to complex. From a bacterium to a butterfly to man the biochemical complexity is substantially the same.”   For his part, Fondi shows that from the first appearance of fossils to this day, the variety and riches of living beings have not increased. New groups have replaced older ones, but the intermediate forms that the evolutionists have so frantically searched for do not exist. “The theory of evolution,” Sermonti and Fondi conclude, “has been contradicted as have few other scientific theories in the past.”

In Le forme della vita (The Forms of Life, Armando, 1981), Sermonti unveils other obstacles to Darwinism. According to the renowned geneticist, the “random” origin of life and the gradual transformation of the species through “selective change” are no longer sustainable because the most elementary life is incredibly complex and because it is now proven that replacement of living groups takes place “by leaps” rather than “by degrees.”  Putting together forty years of experience, in 1999 he wrote Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione (Forgetting Darwin—Shadows on Evolution, Rusconi, 1999). With rigorous argumentation, the author demolishes the three pillars of Darwinism: natural selection, sexual mixing and genetic “change.” According to him, history will remember the theory of evolution as the “Big Joke.”

Not Just Creationists
Sermonti has been often accused of being a “creationist” or a “religious fundamentalist” even though he has always said he does not fit his scientific vision into a Christian perspective, and this yet one more aspect to note in the polemic against Darwinism, which many people other than Christians also contest it.  In this sense, it is interesting to note the recent editorial in Il Cerchio, “Seppellire Darwin? Dalla critica del darwinismo agli albori d’una scienza nuova,” ("Bury Darwin? From a Critique of Darwinism to the Dawn of a New Science") containing essays by seven specialists including Sermonti, Fondi and Giovanni Monastra, director of Italy’s National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research. The title refers to the famous phrase by Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics of the University College of Cardiff, “The probability that life was formed from inanimate matter is equal to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros . . . . It is large enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.”

From Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione’s introduction: For the first time in Italy, a critique of Darwinism is presented in all its complexity thanks to the interdisciplinary contribution of scholars of several orientations—[b]eyond the polemic between neo-Darwinian fundamentalists and religious integralists, the essay demonstrates how the critique of the now old neo-Darwinist paradigm opens the doors to a new science.

A Crisis of the Positivist Paradigm
Francis Crick, who together with Watson discovered the structure of DNA, openly declared, “An honest man, armed only with the knowledge available to us, could affirm only that, in a certain sense, the origin of life at the moment appears to be rather a miracle,” In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, “All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way.” Indeed, a lot of faith is required to believe in evolutionism, and it is precisely that faith, of a clearly positivist^[1] mold, that is now beginning to weaken.

In Darwinismo: le ragioni di una crisi (Darwinism: The Reasons of a Crisis), Gianluca Marletta sticks his finger in the wound by observing that “The crisis of Darwinism is above all a crisis of the philosophical paradigms that allowed its success.”  “One cannot understand the origin of this doctrine,” Marletta explains, “without going back to the cultural climate of ‘triumphant positivism’ straddling the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” According to Marletta, Darwinism constituted a wonderful occasion to strengthen the positivistic view of the world being affirmed at that time. Darwinism represented the perfect tool to transplant, into the biological field, the mechanic and materialist paradigms already imposed on the social sciences. This is the true motive of this theory’s success. A motive that now begins to subside with the crisis of the positivist paradigm. This explains the almost fanatical tenacity with which evolutionists are defending their convictions. “Many fear,” concludes Marletta, “that the fall of Darwinism can bring down with it the whole positivist vision of the world.”

God’s Comeback
The crumbling of positivism is bringing back to the limelight issues that a certain conventional wisdom thought to have definitively eliminated. Shaken from the sudden crumbling of old certainties, worried about the chaos that increasingly marks this postmodern age, many people are once again asking the fundamental questions: Does my life have a transcendental meaning? Is there an intelligent project in nature? In short, does God exist?   Sociologist Rosa Alberoni wrote about this in her book, Il Dio di Michelangelo e la barba di Darwin (The God of Michelangelo and Darwin’s Beard), published last November by Rizzoli with a preface by Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council Justice and Peace. The onslaught of “Darwin’s worshippers,” Alberoni explains, is carried out by the “usual destructive atheists obsessed with the goal of stamping out Christ and destroying the Judeo-Christian civilization after having sucked its blood and essence.” This sullen assault, however, in the deeply changed ambience of post-modernity, risks being counterproductive: The monkey myth is what really shook ordinary people. Like soldiers woken up by an alarm in the middle of the night, Christian believers and [O]rthodox Jews prepared for the defense. Or rather for the war, because that is what it has become . . . [o]n the symbolic level, the bone of contention is the ancestor of man: God or a monkey? Should one believe in God or in Darwin? This is the substantial nature of the ongoing clash in our civilization.

In other words, a real war of religion looms in the dawn of the Third Millennium. Precisely that which secularists have tried to avoid at all cost.

Footnote:

1. Positivism is the philosophical system created by August Comte (1798–1857), which only accepts the truths that we can reach by direct observation or by experimentation. Thus it denies classical philosophy, theology and all supernatural religion.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

If the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, how far lagged would the sun's optical image be from its real position?

LeGrande has said that the lag would be 180 degrees. Thus it would be nighttime on the face of the Earth pointing to the Sun, and daytime on the face pointing away from the Sun. Now, let's consider the moon.

Unlike LeGrande's Sun, the moon really does orbit the Earth, but its orbital velocity is very small (1 km/s) compared to the speed of light. So the real, non-LeGrandean lag is exceedingly small and can be ignored. The LeGrandean lag is not so small though. In this example the Earth rotates with a period of 17 minutes or 1020 seconds. The moon is 4/3 light-seconds away. So the moon's optical image is lagged by 4/3 seconds. How many degrees is that? It is about 0.47 degrees. This is not really negligible. The moon's apparent diameter is about half of a degree, so, if we were living in the LeGrandean universe, we would have to keep in mind that the real moon is one moon-diameter off from the moon we see.

Now, where would we put the moon to cause a solar eclipse? We can't put the moon between the Earth and the Sun, because it's nighttime on the side of the Earth facing the Sun, and how can a solar eclipse happen at night? We must put the moon somewhere on the other side of the Earth, the daytime side, which is facing away from the Sun. But, it makes not much sense to say we have to put the moon between the apparent Sun and the Earth, because the apparent's Sun doesn't exist. So, perhaps we must place the moon in such a way so that it's lagged optical image coincides with the lagged optical image of the Sun. That is to say, we must put the actual moon on the other side of the Earth, about 0.47 degrees from the apparent Sun.

So you see, in the Legrandean universe, you put the Earth in between the Sun and the moon to cause a solar eclipse.

[LeGrande]

I have a question for you. If you are on a planet that is revolving at 16.6 minutes per revolution and a sniper with a laser is one Au from you how many degrees of revolution (from your perspective) would he have to lead you to shoot you? In other words if the sniper is on the sun at dawn and you are facing the sun at dawn and don’t move will the laser pulse hit you in the face or the back of the head?

[ChessExpert]

Evolution is a scientific hypothesis. It should be evaluated as such. In my estimation, its status is one of circumstantial evidence and belief. It can neither be demonstrated in the laboratory, nor observed in field studies. There is a great deal of circumstantial support as befits the considerable resources devoted to proving and indoctrinating it. It may or may not be true.

Christians can take or leave evolution. They don’t care. God could have created life and evolutionary principles, or he could have created every species as a separate creation. Christians can afford to be objective on the topic of evolution.

Atheists need to believe in evolution. Otherwise, they will doubt their atheism. They are not objective on the topic of evolution.

Positivists claim that all knowledge comes from the five senses. Anything that we think we believe, that does not originate from the five senses, should be rejected. Sensory data is central, and all that there is.

Idealists, some at least, believe that our ideas are central, and all that there is.

I think my mind is central and is the quarterback, or headquarters, for receiving and processing sensory data. I said mind, instead of brain. I know my mind from the inside out. We all do. A brain can be examined on the laboratory bench. The person doing examination uses his mind and his senses.

I believe in many invisible things that cannot be apprehended by the senses: my mind, self-consciousness, free will, truth, reason, logic, mathematical relations, beauty, right and wrong, the effect music has upon me, etc. I believe that I exist, independent of what others can see of me on an examination table. I believe others exist too. Believing in all these invisible entities, it is not hard to believe in God.

At least some atheist positivists would like to define God away. They believe that if you can’t examine it in the laboratory, observe it easily in nature, and it’s not evolution, then it does not exist. They would like to claim the mantle of science. Historically, science did not originate in a world of positive atheism. Science originated in the Christian world. I don’t see how science could have originated without a belief in many invisible entities such as truth (singular as in God’s truth), reason, logic, mathematics, etc. Modern atheistic Marxist thinking has birthed a lot of junk science. This includes the idea of multiple truths. Marx came up with bourgeois logic and a separate proletarian logic.

I understand the argument that sensory data is all there is. I understand the argument that our thoughts are all that there is. I reject both views as being overly austere. As I stated before, I believe in many invisible things. I was given a mind, or soul. That is me. I was also given sensory apparatus. I don’t believe that I see because I can examine eyes in the laboratory. I believe I see, because I see. I don’t think that I think because I can examine brains on a table. I think I think, because these are my thoughts.

I’ll be on vacation the next four days and unable to contribute further.

Have fun!

[mrjesse]

I have a question for you. If you are on a planet that is revolving at 16.6 minutes per revolution and a sniper with a laser is one Au from you how many degrees of revolution (from your perspective) would he have to lead you to shoot you? In other words if the sniper is on the sun at dawn and you are facing the sun at dawn and don’t move will the laser pulse hit you in the face or the back of the head?

Please just answer the merry go around questions! They will so clearly demonstrate to all of us how it works. Why bother with a complicated scenario which neither of us can replicate when we can so clearly illustrate it with a merry go around? Sitting on a spinning merry go around (especially if it was on one of the poles) would completely perfectly simulate the earth's rotation speeding up. If the earth's rotation of 2.13 degrees per 8.5 minutes lags the suns apparent position by 2.13 degrees then a merry go around's rotation of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes will also lag the apparent position of the sun by 180 degrees. But you know that it doesn't!

And if you think that sitting on a rotating merry go around @180Deg/8.5min(Relative to the sun). on the north pole won't have the same effect on the apparent lag of the sun as would speeding up the earth to that speed, imagine sitting on the merry go around on the pole turning at 180 deg/8.5minutes (relative to the sun) and all the sudden *poof* the world vanishes - there you will be with your merry go around, turning at 180Deg/8.5Min, in space, the same distance from the earth, on the same orbit that earth had been on, and now you agree that the merry go around WOULD cause a lag of 180 degrees in the apparent position of the sun.

So enlighten us and show that your statements are true! (or whatever they may be.)

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

[LeGrande] Sirius is close to us so its actual position is going to be very close to its apparent position.

[ECO] The Sun is even closer, but you say the Sun's apparent position is off by 2.1 degrees from its actual position.

[LeGrande] ...look up aberration of light...

The moon is much closer than the Sun. Is the moon's apparent position off by more than 2.1 degrees from its actual position? Or less?

[LeGrande]

The moon is much closer than the Sun. Is the moon's apparent position off by more than 2.1 degrees from its actual position? Or less?

Why don't you look it up? Or figure it out yourself?

Until you answer my question why should I answer your question? If you answer my question it will also answer your question : ) It isn't that hard.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Why don't you look it up?

Go look up this, go look up that. Go look up Stern-Gerlach, go look up the double slit experiment, go look up Lorentz transformations, go look up Feynman, go look up aberration. I know the routine. It does not instill the impression that you know what you are talking about.

why should I answer your question?

Indeed this is a very good question. You were able to informally estimate that the apparent position of Sirius is very close to its actual position. And you were able to easily assert that the apparent position of the Sun lags behind its actual position by 8.3 minutes or 2.1 degrees. It should be no trouble at all for you to whip out your calculator, merrily grind away, and give an estimate of the lag between the moon's apparent position and its actual position. There's no thought-experiment to mull over. It's merely a question about the moon. If your idea about solar lag is correct, there should be nothing alarming about this lunar lag question. It shouldn't trouble you at all.

Unless, of course, you have noticed some inconsistencies in your notions of physics and astronomy. Or doubts have set in, perhaps as a result of what has been said in other posts. If so, it is understandable that you have very much to fear from a simple and obvious question concerning the moon, and that you would at all costs avoid answering it, rather than face the collapse of the LeGrandeic System of musical spheres.

[LeGrande]

I have been answering your merry go round question.

a merry go around's rotation of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes will also lag the apparent position of the sun by 180 degrees. But you know that it doesn't!

OK, lets have you sit on the edge of the MGR, facing the center, as it slowly spins and the sun is just rising over the horizon so that every 17 minutes you are directly facing the sun looking directly over the center of the MGR.

Lets have you start facing directly at the sun over the center of the MGR with the suns light off. Now we turn the Sun on for a brief instant as you slowly turn on your MGR facing the sun. As you slowly turn your world is dark. When you are facing 180 degrees away from the sun (8.3 minutes later) now you will see the flash of light from the sun. The suns apparent position is 180 degrees off, remember you don't actually see anything all you 'see' is photons hitting your retina.

I understand that this isn't intuitive at all. Snow flakes are a little more intuitive. Lets say that you are sitting on a MRG with snow falling straight down on you. Now we gradually start the MGR spinning do you still perceive the snow falling straight down? No, and as you spin the MGR faster and faster at some point the snow will appear to be coming horizontally. An observer standing by the side will still see the snow coming straight down and an observer on another MGR going the opposite direction will see the snow coming horizontally in the opposite direction that you saw it.

[LeGrande]

And you were able to easily assert that the apparent position of the Sun lags behind its actual position by 8.3 minutes or 2.1 degrees. It should be no trouble at all for you to whip out your calculator, merrily grind away, and give an estimate of the lag between the moon's apparent position and its actual position.

The lag is a little over a second. Do you feel better now?

Now can you answer my question?

[mrjesse]

I have been answering your merry go round question.

But you haven't! In my question I ask not how long the time of light from sun to earth is for light, but whether the direction of the light will be coming from the same direction as the gravitational pull of the sun (which we have agreed for the sake of this argument is a true indicator of the actual position of the sun. It was part of your original statement, too.)

a merry go around's rotation of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes will also lag the apparent position of the sun by 180 degrees. But you know that it doesn't!

The way you quote me takes what I actually said and almost reverses the meaning! I really said IF {thus and such is true} THEN "a merry go around's rotation..." I hope that was an accident. You're making it look like I outright said something that I didn't outright say and which in fact I believe to be false! For your information, by cutting sentences in half at certain spots, you can actually completely reverse their meaning.

OK, lets have you sit on the edge of the MGR, facing the center, as it slowly spins and the sun is just rising over the horizon so that every 17 minutes you are directly facing the sun looking directly over the center of the MGR.

Lets have you start facing directly at the sun over the center of the MGR with the suns light off. Now we turn the Sun on for a brief instant as you slowly turn on your MGR facing the sun. As you slowly turn your world is dark. When you are facing 180 degrees away from the sun (8.3 minutes later) now you will see the flash of light from the sun. The suns apparent position is 180 degrees off,

But you keep neglecting to mention the sensitive gravity meter which indicates the true current position of the sun. You said that the the gravity meter would indicate a different position of the sun as a function of the speed of light and rotational speed of the earth!

So why not answer the rest of my question - what if I was on the merry go around with the sensitive gravity meter (which we agreed for the sake of this argument indicates the actual current position of the sun) and I had this solar gravity direction indicator running -- are you saying that when the sun hit my behind if I looked down at the gravity meter I would see that it would be pointing just the exact opposite direction from where the sun really was?

remember you don't actually see anything all you 'see' is photons hitting your retina.

I understand that this isn't intuitive at all. Snow flakes are a little more intuitive. Lets say that you are sitting on a MRG with snow falling straight down on you. Now we gradually start the MGR spinning do you still perceive the snow falling straight down? No, and as you spin the MGR faster and faster at some point the snow will appear to be coming horizontally. An observer standing by the side will still see the snow coming straight down and an observer on another MGR going the opposite direction will see the snow coming horizontally in the opposite direction that you saw it.

Now you've switched to a completely different phenomenon! First you're talking about a phenomenon which lags the apparent position as a function of the distance from sun to earth, and now you're talking about a phenomenon in which the distance of the sun is irrelevant!

WP says

"stellar aberration is independent of the distance of a celestial object from the observer, and depends only on the observer's instantaneous transverse velocity with respect to the incoming light beam, at the moment of observation."

And may I say to you that the apparent angle of falling snow due to my speed on the merry go around is completely irrelevant of whether the snow has fallen 10 feet or 10 light years.

Contrary to your claim, you have still have not answered my two merry go around questions!

They are both clear and simple and can easily be answered with a simple "yes" or "no." Why do you insist on rewording them (so that they are then your questions and not mine) before answering them? Please, Sir, just answer with a simple yes or no my questions as I asked them! Or admit that your original statement/idea (about the sun's apparent position lagging its gravitational and actual position) is incorrect.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The lag is a little over a second.

So then, for the purposes of naked-eye astronomy, the moon is where it appears to be, or nearly so -- according to you. But the difference between the Sun's observed position and its actual position is an enormous 2.1 degrees -- again, according to you.

If you are on a planet that is revolving at 16.6 minutes per revolution and a sniper with a laser is one Au from you...

Let us stop the sniper's shot by interposing the moon. We have now learned where the moon must be -- in the LeGrandeic System -- to cause a total solar eclipse. The moon must occlude the actual sun. But while the moon is where it appears to be in the sky or nearly so, the observed sun -- the corona and photosphere -- is off by 180 degrees. Therefore during a solar eclipse on this planet, the eclipse is observed to be 180 degrees away from the observed moon -- according to you.

Let us return to the Earth. The moon is where it appears to be, but the observed Sun is 2.1 degrees away from its actual position, according to you. Therefore during a total solar eclipse, the moon must be 2.1 degrees away from the observed eclipse. But the painful astronomical fact (which I feel you will probably not face gracefully) is that this is false, as any grade-schooler knows.

There's not much use in more rambling about water-trucks, driving in the rain, skeet-shooting, or laser-sniping. As if any such arguments, no matter how convoluted or contrived, are going to make someone who isn't a lunatic believe that the moon is 2.1 degrees away from the observed Sun during a solar eclipse.

[LeGrande]

So which is it, on these two experiments? They are careful and simple, and a simple "yes" or "no" would be perfectly reasonable and would solve a lot of confusion.

No and No : ) Does that help?

[LeGrande]

Let us return to the Earth. The moon is where it appears to be, but the observed Sun is 2.1 degrees away from its actual position, according to you. Therefore during a total solar eclipse, the moon must be 2.1 degrees away from the observed eclipse. But the painful astronomical fact (which I feel you will probably not face gracefully) is that this is false, as any grade-schooler knows.

You keep trying to turn this back into a three body model. The Sun is only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth, in a two body model. In the two body model there is essentially no difference between two stationary objects with one of the them spinning or having one of them orbit the other object. Adding a third body invalidates the two body model.

Remember this is all based on mrjesses merry go round model. I would like you to explain to me how to determine in a two body model how you can definitively determine which body is orbiting or which body is spinning? I think this is where you are confused.

[mrjesse]

So which is it, on these two experiments? They are careful and simple, and a simple "yes" or "no" would be perfectly reasonable and would solve a lot of confusion.

No and No : ) Does that help?

Yes that helps! Thanks! Now I know you're wrong! :-)

And here are the questions again from the post to which you replied above, and then I will comment.

Lets say that I'm on a mountaintop park, where there is a merry go around. It's a beautiful bright sunny warm morning, and as I sit on the merry go around, I look out and notice that the sun is exactly horizontal. Now let us further pretend that I get the merry go around rotating at 17 minutes per turn. This way, it'll have turned 180 degrees in the time it takes the light to reach the earth from the sun. So now let's say I have a very sensitive gravity meter which can measure the sun's gravitational pull.

Now let me ask you - which way will the sun's gravity appear related to it's light? Will the gravity of the sun be in the east while its gravitational pull will be toward the west?

You said "No," the sun's gravity will not appear in the east while the gravity pulls to the east.
But that is contradictory with what other things you've said. For example, you tell me that the gravitational and actual position of the sun is about 7 minutes ahead of the sun's apparent position due to the speed of light and the distance to the sun. Then you tell me that if the earth were rotating at 180degrees/8.5 minutes, the sun's optical image would be a full 180 degrees lagged behind its actual position. And now you say that if I was on a merry go around, turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, the sun wouldn't be lagged the 180 degrees! What's the difference between the earth turning at 180D/8.5M and a merry go around turning the exact same rate?! I know what the difference is - you know that I could go try the merry go around and prove my point, but I can't speed the earth up. As best as I can tell, you've made two completely contradictory claims.

If I am on a merry go around, and it's turning, and there is a pulsing water jet and laser (which pulse in unison) both pointing at the center of the merry go around. The pulse rate and turn rate of the merry go around are such that no water pulse overlaps the life of the previous, and the merry go around turns 1/4 of a turn in the time it takes the leading edge of a water pulse to reach the center of the merry go around. Now it's a warm day and I'm sitting in the middle of the merry go around, with a good water proof compass. The water jet and laser are exactly north, 20 feet, of the center of the merry go around.

Will I not find that every time either light or water hits me that it will be coming exactly from the north?

And your answer: "No," the light and water will not both be coming from exactly north.

I cannot believe that you answered this way but it proves my point - you're wrong again here. As the question said, the water is shooting from a point 20 feet north of the merry go around's center to the merry go around's center. And I have news for you, the correct answer is "Yes," both the water AND the light will be coming from exactly north, and they will hit right on the center of the merry go around. And my compass will also be pointing exactly north and will also be pointing directly into the laser light and the water! If you really doubt this, I'll do the experiment and video it for you. If the weather's nice maybe I'll even sit on the merry go around as it turns, if I can hold on at such a high speed. Do you really think I'll find the experiments results to agree with you, here? I mean I want to be a good scientist and all.

By the way I'm well familiar with the concept of time of flight, phase shift, and that the earth rotates 2.13 degrees (arpox) in the time it takes for the sun's light to reach us, but the fact that we rotate in place does not mean that the sun's position changes nor does it mean that somehow the light is bent to travel in a curve or something.

What's with these contradictions? Have I missed something? Just tell me what's different between the sun rotating at 180D/8.5M and a merry go around doing the same. What if the merry go around was in space, orbing the sun all by itself, turning at that rate?

Oh, and let me know if you want me to do the second merry go around experiment (water jet, laser pulser, etc) and I'll see what I can do, and unlike some others here, honestly tell you what I find even if it isn't what I had previously thought (that is to say what I now think.)

By the way, are you on any meds for depression which might impair your thinking, perchance without you knowing it? Any that say to not drive while taking? Seldom have I seen such strange incoherence without the involvement of a narcotic. Except maybe when I stay up till 4 AM doing some exciting scientific experiment with the wavelength of light or some other fascinating demonstration of classical physics. but I digress.

I'm telling you, the water and light will hit the center of the merry go around in the same place (the center) and come from the exact same place - exactly north. And you are right that the rotating merry go around won't cause the sun to appear in a different place, but neither does the rotating earth - whether it be 24 hours/turn or 17 minutes per turn. (Except for the "Driving through the rain" phenomenon, but that's a minuscule displacement compared to your claim and has NOTHING to do with the distance from the earth to the sun.)

And I'm not saying that you're unintelligent - I'm certain that if you were willing to learn, rather then just stick to preconceived notions, you could actually do very well with science. But of course such an attitude of willingness to look at the issues and think about them may well make unsteady with other ideas you hold to as well.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

You keep trying to turn this back into a three body model. The Sun is only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth, in a two body model. In the two body model there is essentially no difference between two stationary objects with one of the them spinning or having one of them orbit the other object. Adding a third body invalidates the two body model.

Let me see if I get this straight. If we set up your original light-angle and gravity angle detectors on the earth, you're saying they'll read 2.1 degrees apart. But then what - as soon as we add a gyro, wallah, suddenly the gravity angle meter and light angle meter snap into harmony, both pointing the same place?

>> LeGrande to mrjesse: 488 "In a two body system there is no difference between one body spinning in relation to the other body or one body orbiting a stationary body"

>> Ethan Clive Osgoode to LeGrande: 489 "Oh dear, what a horrible error on your part. Foucault's Pendulum."



By the way, a gyro is a great way to see whether the sun is orbiting the earth at 2.1 deg/8.5min or the earth is spinning at that rate. Now you know this being a pilot I'm sure, but in any case I've a good friend who's an FAA certified aircraft instrument repairman. He's in his 70s now and still working, and he's really good at it. Anyway, he repairs and adjusts gyro heading compasses and he tells me that a perfectly adjusted compass will drift due to the earth's rotation (Except on the equator, if I recall correctly.) And this is exactly what makes sense.

Now here's one for you! Just thought of this one. The Ring Laser Gyro is a gyro that uses the speed and interference of light to measure its rotation without any moving parts.
In other words, even in a 2-body situation, with laser ring gyros on each of them, one could tell which body was orbiting which!

How's that one!?

Remember this is all based on mrjesses merry go round model. I would like you to explain to me how to determine in a two body model how you can definitively determine which body is orbiting or which body is spinning?

Here's how you can definitively determine which body is orbiting and which body is spinning: Bury a Laser Ring Gyro 10 feet deep in each body, protecting of course from environmental harshness. If a body is spinning, the ring gyro will tell just how many degrees per second. Simple as that! Can't hardly say that adding a Laser Ring Gyro is adding a third body either, since it has no moving parts!

I think this is where you are confused.

ECO's not the one confused here, by the way. I'm feeling fine too, in that regards.
In the end, are you going to tell me something along the lines of "Oh, yeah, I know I was wrong. I was lying to you the whole time as a favor to you. I knew you wouldn't go look stuff up unless I challenged you and so I figured lying to you was the best way to do that. Now you're smarter." ???
I just can't figure out how somebody could be so wrong, with so much free information available, and not realize that they were wrong. But I digress.

By the way - how about the Laser Ring Gyro? Wouldn't that definitely determine who was spinning and as a result who was orbiting?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

I'm telling you, the water and light will hit the center of the merry go around in the same place (the center) and come from the exact same place - exactly north.

The water won't hit the center and if you spin the MGR fast enough neither will the light.

By the way I'm well familiar with the concept of time of flight, phase shift, and that the earth rotates 2.13 degrees (arpox) in the time it takes for the sun's light to reach us, but the fact that we rotate in place does not mean that the sun's position changes nor does it mean that somehow the light is bent to travel in a curve or something.

Lets say that you have a sundial and for illustration lets say that the sun is a little over 7 AU away so that it takes the light an hour to get here. When the Sun dial indicates that it is noon with regular light, where would the Sun dial indicate the direction of the Sun if light was instantaneous? One o'clock right? So where is the sun in actuality, at the noon position as you claim or at the one o'clock position that I claim?

By the way, are you on any meds for depression which might impair your thinking, perchance without you knowing it? Any that say to not drive while taking? Seldom have I seen such strange incoherence without the involvement of a narcotic.

Yes that must be it. Projection is an interesting phenomena.

[LeGrande]

ECO's not the one confused here, by the way. I'm feeling fine too, in that regards. In the end, are you going to tell me something along the lines of "Oh, yeah, I know I was wrong. I was lying to you the whole time as a favor to you. I knew you wouldn't go look stuff up unless I challenged you and so I figured lying to you was the best way to do that. Now you're smarter." ??? I just can't figure out how somebody could be so wrong, with so much free information available, and not realize that they were wrong. But I digress.

I just want to be clear, when you look up into the night sky and aim a telescope at Saturn, do you really believe that Saturn is exactly where you are pointing the telescope?

By the way - how about the Laser Ring Gyro? Wouldn't that definitely determine who was spinning and as a result who was orbiting?

The Gyro, LRG and pendulum are essentially the same thing and if you add them in you are adding in a third body and unnecessarily complicating the model. Generally, the best way to understand something is to keep it as simple as possible.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The LeGrandeic System of Astrophysics

post 447

[LeGrande] 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?

post 469

[mrjesse] this [is] how it would be if the sun were orbiting the earth... if gravity "traveled" instantly (which I think was a basis for your question) then indeed, the sun's gravity would be 2.13 degrees ahead of its visual location... But the sun doesn't orbit the earth! Other way around!

post 488

[LeGrande] You seem unable or unwilling to try and grasp simple concepts that disagree with your world view. My example was simple, is the sun where it appears to be when you look at it? Or is it ahead of where it appears to be? You seem to think that it is where it appears to be, you are wrong.

post 489

[ECO] the sun is where mrjesse says it is.

post 496

[LeGrande] MrJesse is claiming that... the sun is in exactly the same place that we see it, when we see it. You seem to agree, according to your equation and statement "the sun is where mrjesse says it is." Both of you are wrong, we see the Sun where it was 8 minutes ago when the photons were emitted.

post 504

[mrjesse] Can you find anyone at nasa who plans space missions and who agrees with you? The more I hear of your idea the more crazy it sounds.

[LeGrande] LOL They all agree with me... May I suggest "Physics for Dummy's"...

post 525

[ECO] Is the moon's apparent position off by more than 2.1 degrees from its actual position? Or less?

post 529

[LeGrande] The lag is a little over a second.

The Collapse of the LeGrandeic System of Astrophysics

Look LeGrande, no lag! The Sun, the moon, and the observer on Earth... all lined up.

Solar Eclipse



Solar Eclipses for Beginners

[LeGrande]

What does a solar eclipse have to do with the apparent vs the actual position of the sun?

Why won't you answer the sniper question? Or the Sun dial question that I gave to MrJesse?

[mrjesse]

I just want to be clear, when you look up into the night sky and aim a telescope at Saturn, do you really believe that Saturn is exactly where you are pointing the telescope?

That's an ambiguous question because you don't describe whether you're talking about time-light-correction or which type off aberration. But all along I've said that if the sun were orbiting the earth at 2.13 degrees per 8.5 minutes, that there would be a 2.13 degree lag in the optical appearance of the sun. So since Saturn is moving, due to orbiting the sun, then light from Saturn will have the light-time-correction apparent angular displacement. But we're talking about the SUN here which is NOT orbiting the earth! And we're talking about 2.1 degrees of displacement, which is NOT light-time-correction. (light-time correction is very small and nowheres near 2.1 degrees and is unrelated to the distance from sun to earth.) You're just trying to change the topic here!

The Gyro, LRG and pendulum are essentially the same thing

Okay I had to laugh about that one. Have you ever seen either a pendulum or a LRG? Essentially the same thing? Well, yeah, I guess if you take a 747 jet plane and a bicycle to be the same thing. They move you from one place to the other. While you're moving you're not standing on the ground, and when you're standing on the ground, you're not moving. Essentially the same thing. I always knew it.

But seriously, a pendulum and a LRG are so different, even though they may be able to detect the same thing. A pendulum uses a moving mass, and measures physical deflection from its ordinary path, and the speed of the swing is irrelevant. A LRG on the other hand, has no moving parts, does not use the mass of anything but rather the speed of light and the interference thereof. I don't know how you can call a LRG with no moving parts a third body when its buried 10 feet deep. I think what you really wanted to say is "Without any instrument or means by which one can measure the rate of rotation, they are unable to measure the rate of rotation." But just because you deprive us from using any instruments which can measure rotation doesn't mean it isn't there!

and if you add them in you are adding in a third body and unnecessarily complicating the model. Generally, the best way to understand something is to keep it as simple as possible.

Yeah right, then why do you keep talking about all these other planets which are more complicated because they are orbiting the sun! I say lets keep it simple, and discuss the sun and your alledged 2.1 degrees of lag between the angle of light as it hits the earth and angle of the gravity from the sun.

Thanks,

-Jesse