Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Don't you see the confusion? I am not arguing with the way they determine the location of Mars using the speed of light. I am arguing the case that they do not use the actual mathematical position of Mars based on delayed light when they factor into their equation the actual position of their target. The speed of light and this differential between apparent locations and actual locations [based on light] are two different things.
|
A car has been traveling East on I-10 for 2 hours at 50 miles an hour. Where is the car actually located peacegirl?
Without a starting or ending location (a known variable), you can't even begin a calculation of current location. There is not enough information to lay out a formula.
So, if not the apparent location, what could they possibly use as a known variable for any formula or calculations for the actual location of a planet? |
I get that, but it's true position is based on geometry, which is accurate. There remains a conflict between Lessans' observations regarding sight, and what scientists believe. |
Correct.
Quote:
|
There has to be more investigation to know what's really going on. You can't just offer this light-time correction (which is only an approximate calculation that could be related to something else) and use it to throw his entire claim in the dumpster.
|
Incorrect. Firing spacecraft at Mars is a decisive and clear refutation of his real-time seeing. We land spacecraft on
specific locations on Mars; to do this we need to know EXACTLY where Mars is, in the sky, when we launch our probes. We launch our probes on the theory that Mars, as seen in the sky, is not its ACTUAL location in the sky, because we are seeing Mars as it was in the past, precisely according to the predicted time delay of light speed. Therefore there is no wriggle room. If Lessans were right, we would never hit the Mars target. We do hit the Mars target. Lessans is wrong.
Case closed.