I have never denied stellar aberration or light-time correction. You weren't talking about the 20 arc seconds of stellar aberration (matter of fact, you weren't talking about stellar aberration seeing as how it is unrelated to the distance to the sun) and you were not talking about the approximate 0.008 arc seconds of light-time correction for the sun. You were talking about 7452 arc seconds of lag which was related to the distance between sun and earth and the speed of light and the rotational rate of the earth. You have heretofore provided zero scientific support for your claim.
which was my whole point in the first place.
But you have maintained an untrue idea (that the sun is 2.07 degrees ahead of where it appears to be) without the honesty to admit that the statement was incorrect. If a scientist cannot admit when he finds he's wrong, there is just no way he can do good science.
Now you seem to be bickering with me over the point of reference.
I disagree. I'll address that with the diagram in a following paragraph.
For my efforts towards enlightening you, you and your buddies called me a deceitful atheist. But the truth is your and your creationist friends are the ignorant reprobates.
That's easy for you to say but just try to demonstrate it! Any fool can call names and scream "Lier" so why don't you back up your claims and show them to be true? Keep in mind that you haven't shown any of my claims to be false (except where I made a mistake for which I stated an apology and a correction) and yet you have made many claims that do not line up with observable science, for example, that the suns apparent position is lagged 2.07 degrees, and more. You also said that the 20 arc seconds is not due to stellar aberration, but all the sources say that it is. You also said that if the earth were rotating at 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes the sun's optical image would be lagged 180 degrees from its actual position. You also said "if you lower the frequency of sound down enough it becomes a discrete sound particle/wavepacket" but I never saw any sound waves I made do that. You quite clearly have lots of strange ideas that no self respecting scientist will write about.
Now back to the example, both observers see the sun directly overhead, remember the light from the sun is parallel at the earth, and the angle between them is determined by drawing a line through each observer to the center of the earth. That angle (2.07) illustrates the difference between the actual position of the sun and where one of the observers apparently sees the sun.
| Okay, look real close at the diagram below while imagining a little guy down there. Imagine he's got a perfect 1 foot square cube of wood. On the top side of this block of wood, he's got a rectantular U-shaped wire frame run in like a big staple or perhaps a croquet wicket (right) pounded squarely into the top center of the wooden block. Furthermore, he's got some precise ruler marks where the shadow is cast. With this device, he can compare the exact angle of the sun as compared to the 145 mile long flat plane he is standing on. |  |
May I remind you that we are discussing the apparent optical position of the sun. May I also remind you that we're discussing a hypothetical universe which you proposed where the sun is always in the same position in the sky, and the sun is not moving and the earth is not rotating. I believe we're also ignoring stellar aberration.
Now if this little guy starts out right below the sun, his light angle measuring device will read exactly 90 degrees even. But if he takes it to the end of the 143.5 miles, and still facing "away" from the sun does the measurement again, his angle meter will now read 90.000088 degrees. And indeed, the angle of the shadow will be the same as well, and when he looks up (with appropriate eye protection of course) he will see the sun and it will appear to be 0.000088 degrees off from straight up. Not 2.07 degrees!
It is plain to see from the diagram that the specifics of the lower right-triangle are completely irrelevant. The earth could be any shape or any size as long as the observer has that 143.5 mile stretch that starts out at 90 degrees to the sun and runs in a straight line. The bottom triangle doesn't even need to exist -- all that matters is the top right-triangle, and it clearly shows that the sun's apparent position will still be where it is (at least within light-time correction and stellar aberration if we're counting those) but in any case nowheres near your 2.1 degrees removed. Like I said before, it is simple geometry!
May I remind you that you are claiming that the sun's optical angle will be 2.07 degrees lagged behind its actual and gravitational angle at any given instant for a viewer on the earth, due to the earth's rotation of 1 turn per 24 hours and the 8.3 minutes it takes sunlight to reach the earth.
But the fact remains that we are now simply quibbling over frames of reference
I say we're not simply quibbling over frames of reference. I'm not even sure we're quibbling over frames of reference at all. But what we are quibbling over is whether the sun is displaced by the 20 arc seconds of well-known stellar aberration and the approximate 0.008 arc seconds of light-time correction, or whether the sun is displaced by your enormous 7000+ arc seconds due to some phenomenon which none of the astronomy resources on the internet explain! And we're also quibbling over the fact that you refuse to tell me how far lagged from its actual position is the apparent position of Pluto.
and yet you want me to appeal to authority before you will believe.
I've noticed a theme here. First you claim there's a 2.07 degree lag, and I say "No way, show me." And then we talk about 0.0056 degrees of Stellar Aberration and you say "Ahah so now you admit there is lag!" even though 0.0056 is way below your 2.07, and even though it is not even related to the distance to the earth from the sun, and even though your 2.07 degrees was dependent on the distance to the earth from the sun. This is some sort of all or nothing mentality. But I have news for you: The presence of 20 arc seconds of stellar aberration does not prove 7000 arc seconds of shift, nor does the absence of 7000 arc second shift disprove the presence of 20 arc seconds of stellar aberration. It's some sort of faulty logic.
You're doing the same thing with this appeal to authority line. I'm not asking you to appeal to authority, all I'm asking for is a reference to some other scientist someplace who gets the same results as you claim. The point is I can't find any such thing, and you will neither claim that it's a rare idea and only you know, nor will you show me scientific material which backs you up.
If it doesn't make mathematical sense, and if nobody else is making the claim, then how can I logically come to believe that you know what you're talking about?
That doesn't surprise me in the least. Everything you believe is based on an appeal to authority (The Bible), but that isn't how science works. Science tells its followers to find out the truth for themselves, if someone tells you something that you think is wrong, prove them wrong, that way everyone benefits.
You know, it's really kind of funny. I've proved you wrong so many times by providing reference material which showed that your claims were wrong. That's how science should work. You have not provided a single reference material that proved me wrong! Matter of fact, you've even been calling me names! That's just how you are describing a Bible Believer! It's also really quite funny that here I am trying to to carry on a scientific discussion, and you, the atheist and supposed scientist, keeps bringing up religion! How funny is that?
You don't know how glad I am that we got sidetracked and never got around to talking about fields.
Yeah, I can imagine the trouble you could get yourself with fields!
By the way, you still have not answered the question as to where will Pluto will actually be as compared to where it appears in the night sky. I mean I don't have to know exactly - just within the limits of the accuracy of the available data. Your refusal to answer this simple question is in and of itself quite a strong proof against your claim. So please, just answer that one!
Thanks,
-Jesse