Replies

For me to refer to "sidereal tracking in telescopes" seems to me to be the correct way to describe it - What's your point?

My point is that you have to continually adjust the direction of the telescope to compensate for the movement of the earth.

I found it was much quicker to sit in a rocking chair and measure the Sun's angle then rock it back 2.1 degrees and measure it again - and sure enough the sun was moved about 2.1 degrees. What do you know about that. Duuuuuuh. But the sun's gravitational and actual direction still lined up

The suns actual position and gravitational position do line up. The apparent position doesn't though, it is off by 2.1 degrees like you indicated. What were you actually measuring in your rocking chair?

Sorry, I wasn't too clear. I'm saying that your idea is the hybrid crippled idea - trying to somehow combine some of the ideas relating to mechanokinetic waves and EM waves. But I agree - this should indeed be fun!

Except that I never mentioned mechanokinetic or sound waves. I assure you I am not confused, at least on this topic : (

This is the crippled hybrid idea I'm talking about "Waves of nothing" almost as if you think that EM waves are actual mechanokinetic motions in the substance of nothing just like sound is mechanokinetic motions of a massy medium such as a liquid, gas, or solid. But sound waves don't carry magnetic or electric properties, EM waves do. sound waves require a massy medium, EM waves do not. Sound waves are induced by mechanical movement and not(directly) by electrical movement, while EM wave are just the opposite.

So you are claiming that EM waves do the opposite of sound waves? That they create mechanical movement? I think you would be better off not trying to combine sound waves and light waves together in your explanations. They just sound nonsensical. You do seem to understand that light waves don't require a medium. Since that medium doesn't exist what is your problem with my statement of Waves of Nothing?

It's sort of hard to believe some of the stuff you say. For example, you said that if the earth rotated 180 degrees in 8.5 minutes, the sun's apparent optical position would be 180 degrees off from its real (and gravitational) direction.

Hmm, I thought we were finally in agreement by your admission at the top : ( Let me put it another way. Let's put you on this hypothetical planet with a sun that turns on for 8.3 minutes and turns off for 8.3 minutes. Now at your dawn (when you are facing the sun) the sun turns on, will you ever see the light of the Sun? No? Why not? Because you are 180 degrees out of sync with the light from the sun.

I am truly mystified as to why this is so hard to understand. I must not be explaining myself very well : (

Let me give you another thought experiment, at dawn on this planet the sun turns on. The suns true position is due east, but you can't see it. 8.3 minutes later when you see the sun, the sun appears to be due West. It is off by exactly 180 degrees in your frame of reference.

If the speed of light was instantaneous you would have seen the suns position due east at dawn, a 180 degrees difference from your observed direction with the real speed of light.

I just had a thought, do you understand what a frame of reference means? Because that is critical to our discussion and to much of science. I have a suspicion that your frame of reference seems to be the sun and not the earth.

Yes, I understand what a frame of reference is. I also know that if I change my angle by 2.1 degrees, everything around me will also appear to change angle by 2.1 degrees as a result. But I also know that changing my angle doesn't actually move anything around me even though everything appears to move - and I'm smart enough to know that its apparent motion was due to my own motion, and that be sitting in a rocking chair won't cause a lag between the suns gravitational and optical position.

The suns actual position and gravitational position do line up. The apparent position doesn't though, it is off by 2.1 degrees like you indicated.

Let's just get to the bottom of this one thing for now:

How much angular separation is between Pluto's actual (and gravitational) position and its apparent optical position, for an observer on earth?

To save you time, here is the info you need to calculate it:

>Pluto's eccentric orbit takes it from 30AU to 49AU from the sun. For fun, let's use the 49AU this time. Furthermore, let's make it 6 o-clock with Pluto overheard, and the sun at 90 degrees from overhead (i.e. just coming up or going down.)

>49AU takes 6.8 hours.

>The earth rotates 102 degrees in 6.8 hours.

> pluto's orbital period is 248.09 years. That is 0.0009 degrees in 5.4 hours. I don't mind if you ignore this factor for this calculation.

So I ask you: How many degrees difference will be between Pluto's actual (and gravitational) position and its apparent position?

What about a heavenly body which is 12 light hours away from the earth?

There's no use in trying to figure out anything more complicated if we can't make sense of this simple geometry. Please answer these two questions!

Thanks,

-Jesse

The suns actual position and gravitational position do line up. The apparent position doesn't though, it is off by 2.1 degrees like you indicated.

You didn't qualify that with any fluff about frames of reference - you simply state that the gravitational/actual position is 2.1 degrees ahead of its optical apparent position - I'm assuming at the same time without having to wait 8.3 minutes to measure.

So please tell tell me whether Pluto (as I described before) will have about 102 degrees of angular displacement between its actual+gravitational direction and its apparent optical position - at the same time - just like you did for the Sun! Please try to avoid this side-stepping of the question about Pluto which you so easily answered for the Sun!

You should write what you mean. If you didn't mean what you wrote that is OK we all make mistakes. Some of us are big enough to admit it though.

Are you big enough? (I hope so! You said it first.)

Thanks,

Some people seem to require public humiliation to learn.

Do You? (Again, you said it first. Last sentence on linked post)

-Jesse