Said MrJesse: If LeGrande thinks he can demonstrate his claim, then by all means I wish he would.
Replied LeGrande:I have tried many times : ( mrjesse simply doesn't seem to understand frames of reference, two body problems, or that there is not a universal 'now' in relativistic physics.
And now says MrJesse:
I do understand two body problems, but that is besides the point.
Some questions do not need to involve the discussion of frames of reference because they are implicitly defined.
For example, if two cars are driving along and I take a snapshot photo I can absolutely say that "These two cars were x number of degrees apart at the time and place I took the photo." You see, there is no need to talk about frames of references because the frame of reference is obviously based off of the other car.
Another example: Let's say I had a camera which simultaneously took a snapshot of the apparent optical position of a jet plane at 10,000 feet altitude, and a snapshot of the apparent sound position. (I actually read years ago in a magazine about a camera that imaged sound instead of light. It was designed to be able to show sources of vibrations and noise on a flying helicopter to check for loose screws and cracked panels.)
But back to my thought-experiment. Let's say I take this light+audio snapshot photo of the jet plane that's 10k feet above me. Because the light from the jet plane travels faster then the sound from it, the optical position will appear so many degrees ahead of the audio position.
Thus it is perfectly correct of me to then say "For an observer on the earth, at an instant in time, the plane appeared x number of degrees ahead of where the sound was coming from." The statement is true, and we don't have to go off on any distractions of "what frame of reference."
Now for those who don't know, Pluto is kind of way out there. It orbits the sun extremely slowly, at least compared to the earth. It's orbit takes it closer and further from the sun, but at its furthest it's about 6.8 light hours away. This means that at 6.8 light hours, the earth has turned about 102 degrees by the time Pluto's reflected light reaches us.
LeGrande has kindly
mentioned(next to last paragraph) and then later
expounded(Para 4) that the sun appears about 2.1 degrees behind where it actually is, due to the fact that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes the sun's light to reach earth.
He has also
explained of the 2.1 degrees that
If the Sun was closer the angle would be smaller, and if the sun was further away the angle would be larger.
He has also
explained to me that
if the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, the sun's optical image would be lagged from its real position by 180 degrees
Now, mind you, if it was the sun orbiting the earth every 24 hours - then I'd agree with him! If the sun were actually moving around the earth at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes, then yes, by the time light arrived at the earth, it would be coming from where the sun was 8.3 minutes ago, which would not be where the sun is anymore. But alas, the sun is not orbiting the earth very much. The 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes is majorly due to the earth's own rotation, which means that while the sun's light may be 8.3 minutes old, it's still coming from where the sun is because the sun is in the same place that it was 8.3 minutes ago.
So you can see that if one believes that the sun is apparently 2.1 degrees displaced, and that it would be more apparently displaced if it were farther, then the natural question arises about Pluto, which is at times up to 6.8 hours away.
So, LeGrande, please apply your own claims to this simple question:
For an observer on earth at a point in time when Pluto is 6.8 light hours away and the earth rotates 102 degrees in 6.8 hours, when Pluto appears directly overhead, will it really be 102 degrees off - and not even really in the night sky?
That is a very simple question - just like the flying jet or the two moving cars. No fancy explanations are needed regarding frame of reference or universal "now" or anything else. But you see, most folks are going to raise an eyebrow or two if they are told that Pluto isn't even in the night sky when we look up and see it (with a powerful telescope, of course.) But that is, as best I can tell, exactly what LeGrande's claims seem to indicate. How can I logically come to any other conclusion?
So if I'm the one that's so hopelessly ignorant, that's besides the point. LeGrande can still answer my question, and show us all how wrong I am! But if a fellow doesn't even believe his own view well enough to apply it to a simple question, then may I ever so humbly say that perhaps they shouldn't be trying to convince other people of their views without expecting a little bit of questioning from honest folk.
Said LeGrande:
Reality is not always what you may think it is.
True - but just because I might think something is reality when it's not does not mean that I should accept as reality something that doesn't even look like it! Trying to know what is reality among the things that look like reality is challenge enough. But accept things as reality that make no sense and don't even look like reality will move one into the realm of believing unlimited absurdities - of which there are ample vendors!
When you look at a star you are actually seeing photons that left it a long time ago. In effect you are looking back in time, to what things were like in the past and in some cases the very distant past (billions of years).
And that's why I specified so clearly "For an observer on earth, at a point in time..."!
I know that this view [billions of years] of reality doesn't agree with your idea that all creation occured 12,000 years ago and I have no hope or desire to change your mind.
It certainly is true that I believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days about 7k years ago.
Indeed, I have not found that science has demonstrated that the earth is billions of years old. Those who believe they know it's that old are merely having faith in people they've never met about things they've never seen. And that, my dear friends, is not science! The only way that "science" has "proven" that the earth is billions of years old is by accepting the dogma that there's no other possible way that it could have come to exist. But nobody knows for sure that there is no other way, so that's not scientific either!
You see, to me, science is real and solid. For example, I scientifically determined that if you put too much current through or voltage across an LED, it will emit a bad smell, turn black inside, and stop working. I've found that the experiment works repeatably, and if anyone doubts I can show them, or I can send them a dozen yellow LEDs with instructions on how to do the demonstration themselves. See, that is real science. If someone can't demonstrate something to me, and especially if their claim violates the laws of physics (like, for example, the big bang which says something came from nothing) I'm really not going to want to classify it as science.
I love science and have personally performed many many common scientific experiments and to me science is a real thing. It is something you can do and see and try and test. My latest experiment was shining a laser through a chunk of Selenite, and seeing interesting patterns of the light coming out the other side. (Photo-Documented here:
Jesse's laser & Calcite/Selenite experiment)
But all that is completely besides my "Pluto" question! I'm just following a logical scientific thought process here, and for the oddest reason ever, those purporting to be with science keep bringing up religion!
So why not just answer my Pluto question, as I asked it?
~~~~~~~~~~~
It is my conclusion indeed that The Atheist Perversion of Reality is why science education today is in such shambles. The Atheist teachers and professors pervert reality and saturate their students in it. I think many of them either know that they are wrong to some degree, or at least refuse to apply their belief to some questions or to reality because in doing so they fear that reality would debunk their belief - which they call science.
Thanks,
-Jesse