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.

[mrjesse]

Said mrjesse: I have no doubt whatsoever that the sun is apparently 20 arcseconds displaced due to the transverse velocity (sideways) of the earth as it orbits the sun. But 20 arcseconds is 0.000277777 degrees. You're talking about 2.1 degrees, which is seven thousand five hundred times bigger!

How far off is it due to the earths angular velocity?

I'm not sure whether you're talking about the earth's angular velocity as it orbits the sun or the earth's angular velocity as it rotates at 24 hours per turn. I'm also assuming that you're talking about velocity as in km/sec rather then degrees/sec.

so to answer your question: The earth orbits the sun once about every 365.24 days, which comes out to be about 1 degree per day. Thus, 1 AU * 2 * PI / 365.25 / 24 in miles = 66,627.774 miles per hour.

Due to the earth's rotation, the surface speed at the equator is (7 926.41 * PI) / 24 = 1,037.56464 miles per hour.

The formula for the angle of stellar aberration for low transverse velocities (and falling snow and the like) is about atan(transverse_velocity/speedoflight), so we see that the earth's angle of Stellar Abberation will be:

(atan(66627.774 / 670616629) / PI) * 180 = 0.00569250757 degrees, or 20.4930272 arcseconds for orbital aberration, and

(atan(1037.56464 / 670616629) / PI) * 180 = .0000886468845 degrees or about 0.319128784 arcseconds at the equator.

So you can see that that Stellar Aberration does not cause anywheres near your alleged 2.1 degrees.

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

I'm not sure whether you're talking about the earth's angular velocity as it orbits the sun or the earth's angular velocity as it rotates at 24 hours per turn.

The earths angular velocity as it rotates 24 hours per turn, of course.

[mrjesse]

Said mrjesse: I'm not sure whether you're talking about the earth's angular velocity as it orbits the sun or the earth's angular velocity as it rotates at 24 hours per turn.

The earths angular velocity as it rotates 24 hours per turn, of course.

The angular displacement of the apparent position of the sun due to the earth's rotation of 24 hours per turn is 0.0000886468845 degrees at the equator and zero at the poles, which as you can see, is not very much. In other words, your 2.1 degrees is off by a factor of 23,689 (Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred and eighty nine)!

You gotta understand that there is a difference between spinning and being orbited. That's why Stellar Aberration of light is defined as being caused by the motion of the observer while light time correction is being caused by the motion of the light source.

If it really didn't matter whether the earth was spinning or the sun was orbiting it, then we wouldn't need stellar aberration and light-time correction. All we would need was one phenomenon and formula - but there are two different ones!

And they are two entirely different phenomenon: Stellar Aberration is only an apparent displacement of apparent angle, while light time correction actually does cause the light to be coming from an angle at which the light source no longer is. The rain is coming from below the exact spot the cloud was - but the cloud isn't there anymore.

If you were driving through the countryside on a rainy but windless day, and if you were driving at the same speed as the rain was falling, it'd look to be 45 degrees displaced. But if you were to keep your camera trained on a certain drop as it fell down by a fencepost, you would see that it was actually going straight down along side the fence post. This is Stellar Aberration, and is only an apparent, not a real, displacement of angle.

On the other hand, if a rain cloud is moving over the countryside raining, even if at the ground level it is entirely windless and the rain is falling straight down on you as you stand outside in your front yard, by the time the rain reaches you the rain cloud will have moved (Imagine a tiny rain cloud.) And when the rain stops, the cloud will have already been moved on. This is a real difference in apparent and real position. This is light time correction.

Look. If the sun is apparently lagged by 2.1 degrees, and everybody at nasa knows it, and if Saturn is ~20 degrees behind where it appears, if Jupiter is 60 degrees behind where it appears to be, then you've gotta be able to find some publication that agrees with you. There sure are plenty that disagree.
It's not like astronomy is a brand new field and these things have never been thought about before.

In the beginning you said you have never been a believer in appeals to authority. Now I know why - you can't find any authority that agrees with your far out ideas! :-)

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

At the exact instant that you see a solar eclipse the suns actual position is already 8.3 minutes beyond that point.

Let us place this comment alongside your earlier comment in post 533:

The Sun is only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth, in a two body model... Adding a third body invalidates the two body model. [LeGrande, 533]

At the exact instant that you see a solar eclipse the suns actual position is already 8.3 minutes beyond that point. [LeGrande, 603]

The logical inconsistency of this is striking. On the one hand, you say that your 2.1 degree solar lag theory is only true if there is no moon, while on the other hand the Sun is off by 2.1 degrees during a solar eclipse anyway. It is evident, then, that it matters not one whit to you whether "the model" (i.e., "the excuse", "the distraction", "the waste of time") is true or false.

[LeGrande]

The logical inconsistency of this is striking. On the one hand, you say that your 2.1 degree solar lag theory is only true if there is no moon, while on the other hand the Sun is off by 2.1 degrees during a solar eclipse anyway. It is evident, then, that it matters not one whit to you whether "the model" (i.e., "the excuse", "the distraction", "the waste of time") is true or false.

Your willful ignorance is striking. I am almost stunned at your seeming inability to understand that because of the distances involved it takes light a little over 8.3 minutes to reach your eyes from the sun and it takes light a little over a second to reach your eyes from the moon.

I know that you think light is instantaneous. That is the only explanation for your thinking that the sun, moon and stars are exactly where you see them. It also explains why you believe in the creation myth and the Bible. I am sorry but I can't cure your ignorance if you are unwilling to learn.

[LeGrande]

I may have thought of a way to explain the idea better :)

Lets pretend that the earth isn't spinning as it orbits the sun or to be more precise it makes one revolution in a year. Much like our moon isn't spinning in relation to the earth.

Now when you look at the sun, its position is fixed in the sky (lets also forget seasonal changes and the barycenter changes). The suns position never changes and its apparent position is exactly the same as its actual position. Do you agree? The sun is still an AU away and it still takes 8.3 minutes for the light to reach us. The suns apparent position (where you point at it) and its actual position are identical, even though the earth is orbiting the sun.

To further cement this idea. Lets put you in a car driving towards an intersection. As you approach the intersection you see another car approaching the intersection from your right. You also notice that the other cars apparent position in relation to your car stays the same, if you were to draw a circle on you windshield the other car would stay in the circle (your head can't move either). You are on an intercept course and if both cars velocity and direction stay consistent then they will collide. This is just another example of the apparent position agreeing with the actual position even though both objects are moving in different directions. This is a trick I use all of the time as a pilot to determine where I am going to land.

Now back to our non spinning earth. We meet at a train station on the equator with the sun shining directly overhead. If we wanted too we could draw a line from the sun through us to the center of the earth and everything would be aligned, apparent position would match actual position. Today we are running an experiment, at exactly 12:00 the sun is going to turn off. So I get in the train and at 12:00 the train leaves traveling at 17.5 miles per minute (that just happens to be the earths rotation speed). at exactly 12:08.3 the world goes dark, and the train stops. I have traveled 145 miles. Lets also assume that the earth was flat for that 145 miles.

Now if we draw this up and put a protractor on the center of the earth we can see that there is about 2.1 degrees of separation between our two positions. That is the difference between where I apparently saw the sun and where you know the sun actually is. If we draw a line from the center of the earth through me we will miss the sun by 2.1 degrees.

That is the difference between the suns actual and apparent position for our little experiment.

[Fichori]

"Your willful ignorance is striking. I am almost stunned at your seeming inability to understand that because of the distances involved it takes light a little over 8.3 minutes to reach your eyes from the sun and it takes light a little over a second to reach your eyes from the moon.

I know that you think light is instantaneous. That is the only explanation for your thinking that the sun, moon and stars are exactly where you see them. It also explains why you believe in the creation myth and the Bible. I am sorry but I can't cure your ignorance if you are unwilling to learn."

This is a strawman.

Neither mrjesse, ECO or myself question the measured distance from the earth to either the sun or the moon.

Nor do we question the speed of light.

And because the moon is orbiting the earth, it will not appear exactly where it is. (i.e. there will be some light time correction.)

Pure strawman.

[mrjesse]

Now back to our non spinning earth. We meet at a train station on the equator with the sun shining directly overhead. If we wanted too we could draw a line from the sun through us to the center of the earth and everything would be aligned, apparent position would match actual position. Today we are running an experiment, at exactly 12:00 the sun is going to turn off. So I get in the train and at 12:00 the train leaves traveling at 17.5 miles per minute (that just happens to be the earths rotation speed). at exactly 12:08.3 the world goes dark, and the train stops. I have traveled 145 miles. Lets also assume that the earth was flat for that 145 miles.

Now if we draw this up and put a protractor on the center of the earth we can see that there is about 2.1 degrees of separation between our two positions. That is the difference between where I apparently saw the sun and where you know the sun actually is. If we draw a line from the center of the earth through me we will miss the sun by 2.1 degrees.

I think your wrong here - your position may be 2.1 degrees around the world, but the sun won't be moved 2.1 degrees in its apparent position. Simple trig. Anyway, I gotta run, but I thought I'd give you a chance to draw it out and say "Oh, oops" before I do so myself.

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

I think your wrong here - your position may be 2.1 degrees around the world, but the sun won't be moved 2.1 degrees in its apparent position.

Sorry but the angle from the center of the earth to the observers is pretty darn close to 2.1 degrees. The sun didn't move, just its apparent position according to the observer, that is the whole point to this exercise.

Simple trig. Anyway, I gotta run, but I thought I'd give you a chance to draw it out and say "Oh, oops" before I do so myself.

Well I just did the math in my head, from memory, but aside from rounding errors it should be close enough for government work.

[mrjesse]

Okay this is getting good. I never seen anyone dig them selves in so far. I took the time to draw your diagram up. I tried to make it exactly as you described, except of course I did not draw it to scale because of the astronomical differences in size of the sun, earth, 144 miles, and the earth-sun distance. (In other words, if it were to scale, the sun and the earth would be single dots, and the two points that are 144 miles apart would be on the same dot.) But all the numbers should be correct to real life.

Lets pretend that the earth isn't spinning as it orbits the sun or to be more precise it makes one revolution in a year. Much like our moon isn't spinning in relation to the earth.

Now when you look at the sun, its position is fixed in the sky (lets also forget seasonal changes and the barycenter changes). The suns position never changes and its apparent position is exactly the same as its actual position. Do you agree? The sun is still an AU away and it still takes 8.3 minutes for the light to reach us. The suns apparent position (where you point at it) and its actual position are identical, even though the earth is orbiting the sun.

So far so good. Yes, I agree with the above as far as the 2.07 degrees goes. Of course if the earth is still orbiting the sun at 67K MPH, there will still be 20 arcseconds of stellar aberration, not due to the distance from sun to earth but due to the transverse velocity of the earth.

Remember, Stellar Aberration is due to the observer's motion and Light Time Correction is due to the light source's motion.

... As you approach the intersection you see another car approaching the intersection from your right. You also notice that the other cars apparent position in relation to your car stays the same, ...
This is a trick I use all of the time as a pilot to determine where I am going to land.

I know. Ship captains use this method too.

Now back to our non spinning earth. We meet at a train station on the equator with the sun shining directly overhead. If we wanted too we could draw a line from the sun through us to the center of the earth and everything would be aligned, apparent position would match actual position. Today we are running an experiment, at exactly 12:00 the sun is going to turn off. So I get in the train and at 12:00 the train leaves traveling at 17.5 miles per minute (that just happens to be the earths rotation speed). at exactly 12:08.3 the world goes dark, and the train stops. I have traveled 145 miles. Lets also assume that the earth was flat for that 145 miles.

Now if we draw this up and put a protractor on the center of the earth we can see that there is about 2.1 degrees of separation between our two positions.

Yeah but we're not talking about the angular displacement of the center of the earth, we're talking about the angular displacement of the optical position of the sun. Put your protractor in the center of the SUN and you will see that the angular difference is only 0.000088 Degrees! Not your 2.07!

That is the difference between where I apparently saw the sun and where you know the sun actually is. If we draw a line from the center of the earth through me we will miss the sun by 2.1 degrees.

Yeah but if you draw the line from the center of the sun through you, it will miss the center of the earth by only 0.000088 degrees - and remember, the sun is the source of the light!

That is the difference between the suns actual and apparent position for our little experiment.

It's simple geometry, and you failed. The observer moving 143.5 miles along in the straight and flat line will witness 0.000088 degrees of angular displacement of the sun. But it's not really displacement, the sun actually is at that angle now, because the observer moved.

The angle of the earth's center will have moved 2.07 degrees, but the sun simply won't have, no matter how you wrap it!

Furthermore, if, on your train ride along the 144 miles, just moments before the suns light stopped shining on you, you had pulled out your trusty gravity sundial you would have found that the gravity sundial still pointed to the same place the sun appeared to be! (or at least within the 0.000088 degrees of stellar aberration due to the train's speed. But nowheres near your alleged 2.07 degrees!)

Remember, you said that the sun's optical angle would be 2.07 degrees behind the actual angle pointed to by a gravitational sundial!

Please look at the facts and comment on them. Here are some facts:

Lots of websites falsify your claim of 2.07 degrees of difference between actual/gravitational angle and apparent/optical angle.
You haven't presented a single website of anyone else who agrees with you, and certainly none from NASA or any astronomy college website.

ECO, Fichori, and I have called you on numerous technically inaccurate statements which weren't just honest mistakes on your part.

You have heretofore refused to answer the questions "How far lagged is the optical apparent position of Jupiter, Pluto, and what about a star if it were 12 light-hours away" because you know that your theory would break down and look silly.

According to your claim, the suns apparent position is 2.07 degrees behind its actual and gravitational position, and logically Saturn is ~20 degrees lagged and Jupiter is ~60 degrees lagged, and a motionless star 12 light hours away would be 180 degrees lagged, with its gravity pulling the exact opposite of its apparent optical position -- in other words, it would be on the opposite side of the earth when we looked up and saw it in the night sky!

There is tons and tons of free information about astronomy on the internet nowadays and you cannot find one reputable source that agrees that "yes, the sun is 2.07 degrees lagged, Jupiter is ~60, etc." even though you'd think that this was common knowledge.

So looking at all these facts, how can I or any honest logically thinking person come to any conclusion other then that you have no idea what you are talking about and aren't honest enough to say so?

Is this lagging phenomenon a great secret that only you know? Why am I not seeing any claim for it other then what you say?

Please help me to understand why others aren't making the same claim and why so much of what you said just doesn't make sense.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

The logical inconsistency of this is striking. On the one hand, you say that your 2.1 degree solar lag theory is only true if there is no moon, while on the other hand the Sun is off by 2.1 degrees during a solar eclipse anyway. It is evident, then, that it matters not one whit to you whether Your willful ignorance is striking. I am almost stunned at your seeming inability to understand that because of the distances involved it takes light a little over 8.3 minutes to reach your eyes from the sun and it takes light a little over a second to reach your eyes from the moon.

I know that you think light is instantaneous. That is the only explanation for your thinking that the sun, moon and stars are exactly where you see them. It also explains why you believe in the creation myth and the Bible. I am sorry but I can't cure your ignorance if you are unwilling to learn.

We have always freely granted that the sun appears displaced by about 20 arcseconds due to stellar aberration. But when you talk about 2.1 degrees - when we say "It appears exactly where it is" we are talking about your 2.1 degrees (which is some over 7 thousand arcseconds - not 20 ). The accusations you make are most dishonest.

I'm stunned that you think that Jupiter is optically lagged about 60 degrees from where it really is. I know you believe that if a stationary star were 12 light-hours away, it would appear in the night sky when it was on the other side of the world. But I guess this helps me understand why you believe that "All from nothing" myth.

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

The angle of the earth's center will have moved 2.07 degrees, but the sun simply won't have, no matter how you wrap it!

Since it is the angle from the earth that we are talking about I fail to see the disagreement. You are correct that for an observer on the sun the earth's angular displacement would be negligible. It all depends on the observers point of reference.

I am glad we finally got that settled.

[LeGrande]

The logical inconsistency of this is striking. On the one hand, you say that your 2.1 degree solar lag theory is only true if there is no moon, while on the other hand the Sun is off by 2.1 degrees during a solar eclipse anyway.

You are lying. I never said that the 2.1 degree solar lag theory is only true if there is no moon.

We have always freely granted that the sun appears displaced by about 20 arcseconds due to stellar aberration. But when you talk about 2.1 degrees - when we say "It appears exactly where it is" we are talking about your 2.1 degrees (which is some over 7 thousand arcseconds - not 20 ). The accusations you make are most dishonest.

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. You don't even seem to understand your own sources.

I'm stunned that you think that Jupiter is optically lagged about 60 degrees from where it really is.

I know that you are incapable of understanding grade school subject material but I can't help that either.

So lets sum you up. You are a liar. You don't know the difference between points of reference. You can't understand grade school material and you are incapable of understanding your own references. I can go on but this is boring.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

You are lying. I never said that the 2.1 degree solar lag theory is only true if there is no moon.

"The Sun is only 2.1 degrees behind strictly in relationship to an observer on the earth, in a two body model... Adding a third body invalidates the two body model." [LeGrande, 533]

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

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. You don't even seem to understand your own sources.

Stellar Aberration

As the Earth revolves around the Sun, it is moving at a velocity of approximately 30 km/s. The speed of light is approximately 300,000 km/s. In the special case where the Earth is moving perpendicularly to the direction of the star (i.e. if SEE’ in the diagram is 90 degrees), the angle of displacement, SES’, would therefore be (in radians) the ratio of the two velocities, i.e. 1/10000 or about 20.5 arcseconds.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Now if we draw this up and put a protractor on the center of the earth we can see that there is about 2.1 degrees of separation between our two positions.

However, this has only 1 observer in 1 position.

[LeGrande 542] Go out at dawn and point a transit right at the edge of the Sun at the instant the first light appears at the horizon (it should be the same point). Now wait 8.3 minutes and measure the distance from the edge of the Sun to the horizon. That is the difference between the Suns apparent position and its true position.

So if we "draw this up and put a protractor on the center of the earth" we learn that the Sun has moved 5.5 million kilometers in 8.3 minutes in its orbit around the Earth, according to you.

[LeGrande]

As the Earth revolves around the Sun, it is moving at a velocity of approximately 30 km/s. The speed of light is approximately 300,000 km/s. In the special case where the Earth is moving perpendicularly to the direction of the star (i.e. if SEE’ in the diagram is 90 degrees), the angle of displacement, SES’, would therefore be (in radians) the ratio of the two velocities, i.e. 1/10000 or about 20.5 arcseconds.

Yes that is stellar aberration but that is not what mrjesse was talking about .

It is talking about the aberration from a star to the earth. Apparently you and mrjesse don't know the difference between our sun and a distant star, but that doesn't surprise me in the least.

[LeGrande]

So if we "draw this up and put a protractor on the center of the earth" we learn that the Sun has moved 5.5 million kilometers in 8.3 minutes in its orbit around the Earth, according to you.

No you simply don't understand the difference between apparent position and actual position. I would tell you to try and look it up but I don't know if you could pour water out of a boot if the instructions were on the heel.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I can go on

Oh, you will, you will.

Tell us more about solar eclipses. How is it that the actual Sun is 2.1 degrees away from the moon during a total solar eclipse? Do total solar eclipses happen when the Sun, moon, and observer on Earth form a triangle?

[mrjesse]

Since it is the angle from the earth that we are talking about I fail to see the disagreement. You are correct that for an observer on the sun the earth's angular displacement would be negligible. It all depends on the observers point of reference.

The disagreement is that in your example which I depicted in the diagram the observer will only notice a 0.000088 degree movement of the sun as he takes his train ride, but you said that the sun appears 2.07 degrees behind where it is - but your very own illustration demonstrates that it will only be 0.00088 degrees! You still have not provided a single reference or coherent evidence for your original claim of 2.07 degrees lag due to the time of flight from sun to earth of light and distance between same two bodies.

-Jesse