LOL and this from someone who thinks that for a telescope to take a time lapse photograph it needs to compensate for sidereal motion : )
I perceive that you don't know too much about astronomy or photography either. First of all, I never said anything about time lapse. I only talked about the exposure time of single photos. I think you're confused. For your information,
time laps is a technique of making
movie sequences by running many separate photos together one after the other to form a movie that plays many times faster then real time of the recorded images. I never said anything about that nor did I use the words 'time lapse' - so either you're confused or lying - I don't know which.
Second, In the manual for my telescope it says:
ALIGNMENT
As the Earth rotates beneath the night sky, the stars appear to move from East to West. The speed at which the stars move is called the sidereal rate.
If the telescope is aligned, the motor drive is designed to move the telescope at the sidereal rate so that it automatically tracks the stars. Tracking keeps an object centered in the telescope's eyepiece and makes it easier to locate other objects. (Instruction Manual for Autostar #494 Computer Controller, Page 14, Meade Instruments Corporation.)
You can also read lots more about
sidereal time on the web, but basically it's based on what I guess you could call a stellar day - the time it takes a star other then the Sun to go from over head to overhead - and it's not exactly the same as the time it takes the Sun to go from overhead to overhead, due to the earth's orbiting the sun.
For me to refer to "sidereal tracking in telescopes" seems to me to be the correct way to describe it - What's your point?
Have you done the simple experiment I asked you to? It neatly demonstrates the time difference in apparent position.
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 (at least within light time correction and stellar aberration - NOT 2.1 degrees)! Remember, you're claiming that the sun's gravitational pull and optical apparent position are 2.1 degrees apart at any given moment due to the fact that it takes ~8.3 minutes for the sun's light to reach the earth and that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in that time.
So please explain your hybrid crippled idea : ) This should be fun.
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!
Correct, but there is a field. What is the field made of? I claim that the field is made of nothing, hence waves of nothing.
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.
But this may not make sense to someone who believes in a theory which states that Pluto's gravitational and actual position will be about 60 degrees ahead of its optical apparent position due to the time of flight from Pluto to earth of light and the rotational speed of the earth.
Good! Skepticism is the beginning of wisdom : ) You might learn something, even if I have to drag you screaming and crying : )
No, The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom! (
Pro 9:10) And that is your problem! With no fear of the Lord, you have no reason whatsoever to stick to the truth and no reason to admit it when you've been wrong. Otherwise you wouldn't be holding onto this theory that says Pluto's gravitational and actual position is ~60 degrees ahead of its apparent optical position.
I need you to do a little research on the electromagnetic spectrum, because I know that you won't believe anything that I tell you.
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.
And you
said that the sun's optical angle will be about 2.1 degrees off from its actual and gravitational angle, due to the time of flight from sun to earth of light of 8.3, and the earth's rotation of 2.1 degrees therein. But that only works if the sun is orbiting the earth much much more then it is.
And you have continued for some time now to refuse to answer the simple question "How far will Pluto's gravitational direction be displaced from its optical position."
Anyway, you've said a number of strange things none of which you seem willing or able to back up. It looks like you're making them up. I mean it's possible that you're the single smartest scientist in the universe and you're the only one who knows about these things - but if that was the case you ought to say so in order that I won't be trying to find support for your unique arguments among other scientific material.
In the upper frequency ranges 10 to the 18th oscillations per second and above, does the chart describe waves or particles?
Why don't we get to the bottom of this gravitational/optical displacement issue first. At least one of two things is true: I don't understand simple geometry, or you don't. Either way, if we can't figure that out, we're almost certain to go awry trying to tackle more complicated topics. I have provided many references supporting my viewpoint and debunking yours and you haven't provided a single reference which debunks mine OR which supports yours, so I tend toward saying that you're the one that doesn't understand simple geometry - but I'm always willing to learn, and also willing to admit that I've been wrong when I can see that I indeed have been.
In a little while (or maybe longer in your case) you are going to be thanking me for opening your eyes. But I can't take the credit, I have just decided to walk you through "The Feynman Lectures on Physics." Some people seem to require public humiliation to learn.
And some people drink up public humiliation and still don't learn :-)
But before we get into Feynman's Lectures on Physics, we really ought to solve this one simple geometry question:
How far lagged is the optical position of Pluto as measured against its actual and gravitational position at a single point in time to an observer on the earth? What about a heavenly body that was 12 light hours away?
Thanks,
-Jesse
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.